Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Economic Development Administration
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Employment and Training Administration
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Workers Compensation Programs Office
Institute of Museum and Library Services
National Endowment for the Humanities
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Transportation Statistics Bureau
Comptroller of the Currency
Foreign Assets Control Office
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.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Final rule; confirmation and response to comments.
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBCS or the Agency), an agency of the Rural Development (RD) mission area within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), published a final rule with comment in the
The final rule published September 16, 2024, at 89 FR 75762, and is confirmed and effective November 15, 2024.
Melinda Martin, Program Management Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-3201; telephone (202) 720-1400; email:
RD is a mission area within USDA comprised of RBCS, the Rural Utilities Service and the Rural Housing Service. RD's mission is to increase economic opportunity and improve the quality of life for all rural Americans. RD meets its mission by providing loans, grants, loan guarantees, and technical assistance through a multitude of programs aimed at creating and improving businesses, housing and infrastructure throughout rural America.
The final rule that published September 16, 2024 (89 FR 75762), included a 30-day comment period that ended October 16, 2024. The changes implemented the mandatory provisions outlined in sections 7608 and 10102 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-334) and updated and reorganized subparts F, J and K. In addition, language in subpart J was updated to incorporate a new application intake system that was developed and will streamline the application process for VAPG. With the changes, each subpart is a standalone set of definitions and requirements for each individual grant program.
The Agency received detailed comments from 19 respondents consisting of nonprofit cooperative development centers, individuals, and current and past awardees of RBCS grant programs. The majority of the respondents felt the changes were positive and would provide clarity for the applicants, but several did identify areas where additional changes may be needed. The Agency reviewed the comments, categorized them as general or by section of the final rule, and provided an Agency response below. The Agency has decided to proceed with implementation of the final rule without further amendments.
The respondent goes on to state that expenses related to food safety certification, such as GAP certification or pre-harvest food safety certification, should be considered allowable as long as they are a part of a larger project scope that is integral to their marketing of a value-added product. They believe the following certifications should be allowable:
No change to the rulemaking is necessary at this time. The Agency appreciates the comments received. The Agency confirms the final rule without change.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Interior.
Final rule.
The Department of the Interior (Interior) is amending regulations administered by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) regarding the bonding requirements for entities filing an appeal from a BSEE decision that assesses a civil penalty. The regulations will clarify that entities appealing a BSEE civil penalty decision to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) must have a bond covering the civil penalty assessment amount for the IBLA to have jurisdiction over the appeal.
This final rule is effective on January 13, 2025.
For technical questions, contact Janine Marie Tobias at
Pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) (43 U.S.C. 1350), BSEE has the delegated authority to assess civil penalties to certain entities engaged in energy exploration, development, and production operations on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) following certain violations by those entities of a statutory provision, regulation, order, or lease, license, or permit term. Interior's implementing regulations for this authority are located at 30 CFR part 250, “Subpart N-Outer Continental Shelf Civil Penalties” (§§ 250.1400-250.1409). Additional relevant regulations regarding the procedures for appealing civil penalty assessments are found at 30 CFR part 290, “Subpart A-Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement Appeal Procedures” (§§ 290.1-290.8).
BSEE recently commenced a review of its regulations for civil penalty
Accordingly, Interior is revising 30 CFR 250.1409, “What are my appeal rights?,” and 30 CFR 290.4, “How do I file an appeal?”, to effectuate the original intent of the bonding requirement by ensuring that bonding is a jurisdictional precondition for appealing a BSEE civil penalty assessment to the IBLA.
BSEE published a proposed rule in late 2023 with revisions to 30 CFR 250.1409 and 30 CFR 290.4. 88 FR 86285 (Dec. 13, 2023). BSEE received one comment on the proposed rule related to Interior's determination under E.O. 13175 that this rule will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal Nations or Alaska Natives, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Tribal Nations or Alaska Natives, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Tribal Nations or Alaska Natives. The commenter stated that “there is no indication you have consulted with Tribal Nations or Alaska Natives in order to come to this conclusion.” Here, BSEE determined that this is an administrative update to current policy with no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (“ANCSA”) Corporations, or the Native Hawaiian Community pursuant to the criteria in E.O. 13175, and that this action does not have Tribal implications pursuant to Interior's consultation policies. BSEE evaluated this proposed ruleunder the Department's consultation policy in Departmental Manual part 512 chapters 4 and 5, and under the criteria in E.O. 13175. Accordingly, BSEE did not initiate a consultation process for the proposed rule.
BSEE proposed to change the introductory sentence of § 250.1409(b) from “If you file an appeal, you must either:” to “In order to file an appeal, you must perform one of the following actions within the 60-day appeal period to have your appeal heard:”. BSEE proposed to move existing § 250.1409(d) to a new § 250.1409(e). The proposed § 250.1409(d) states that “the bonding requirement in paragraph (b) of this section is a jurisdictional precondition for a civil penalty appeal.” Together, these revised provisions would effectuate the intended functions of BSEE's bonding requirements for filing and maintaining a civil penalty appeal to the IBLA. BSEE requires bonding coverage for the full civil penalty amount of all civil penalty appeals to ensure that funds will be available to cover the civil penalty amount if the assessment is upheld and to discourage appeals filed for the sole purpose of delaying payment of that assessment.
Lastly, BSEE proposed moving existing § 250.1409(d) to the new § 250.1409(e), and revising § 250.1409(d) by changing the introductory sentence from “If you do not either pay the penalty or file a timely appeal, BSEE will take one or more of the following actions:” to “If you do not either pay the penalty or fully satisfy the appeal requirements, the Department may take one or more of the following actions:”. In paragraph (e)(1), BSEE proposed deleting “We will” and starting the sentence with “Collect.” In paragraph (e)(2), BSEE proposed deleting “We may” and starting the sentence with “Initiate.” In paragraph (e)(3), BSEE proposed deleting “We may” and starting the sentence with “Bar.” BSEE proposed these edits because different entities within Interior may take the listed actions and to improve the grammatical structure of the overall provision.
BSEE did not receive any comments on the proposed revisions and includes the proposed revisions in the final rule without change.
BSEE proposed to add a new paragraph (c) to § 290.4. Existing § 290.4 sets forth the items that BSEE must receive within 60 days after a party receives a decision for an appeal to be considered properly filed. The proposed paragraph (c) adds to that list: “If you are appealing a civil penalty assessment, either notification of payment of the penalty or documentation demonstrating satisfaction of the requirements in 30 CFR 250.1409(b).” As with the other appeal filing requirements in the section, it expressly states that the appellant “cannot extend the 60-day period for satisfying this requirement, except as specifically provided in 30 CFR 250.1409(d).” BSEE proposed these additions to ensure awareness of, and consistency with, the requirements in the proposed § 250.1409; to ensure that appealing entities timely provide BSEE with documentation demonstrating compliance with § 250.1409; and to further emphasize the nature of the bonding requirement as a jurisdictional precondition to maintenance of an appeal.
BSEE did not receive any comments on the proposed revisions and includes the proposed revisions in the final rule without change.
When an agency issues a rulemaking proposal, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires the agency to “prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis” that will “describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.” (5 U.S.C. 603(a)). Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the proposed rulemaking is not expected to have a
BSEE estimates that at least 80 entities (lessees, grant holders, and operators) are subject to this rule, of which approximately 60 percent are small according to the U.S. Small Business Administration size standards based on each firm's North American Industry Classification System code, number of employees, and annual revenues. Therefore, BSEE has determined that this rule applies to a substantial number of small entities.
However, BSEE has determined that the impact on entities affected by the rule is not significant. The provisions of this regulation only align the language of the regulations with BSEE's longstanding understanding of the effects of the existing requirement. Existing regulations have long required satisfaction of bonding requirements for appeals of civil penalty assessments, and these revisions only clarify the procedural effects of noncompliance with that requirement. They do not add any cost burdens to entities that would be subject to the rule. Accordingly, Interior hereby certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule does not meet the criteria under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
(1) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
(2) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and
(3) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This rule does not generate an annual economic effect of $100 million or more; cause major price increases for consumers, businesses, governments, or geographic regions; or degrade competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S. businesses to compete against foreign businesses. Its effects are purely administrative, legal, and procedural.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $189 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is not required.
Under the criteria in E.O. 12630, this rule does not have significant takings implications. The rule is not a governmental action capable of interference with constitutionally protected property rights. A takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. To the extent that State and local governments have a role in Outer Continental Shelf activities, this rule will not affect that role. Therefore, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule:
(1) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(2) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
BSEE strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationships with federally recognized Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. We are also respectful of our responsibilities for consultation with ANCSA Corporations. BSEE has reviewed this rule pursuant to the criteria in E.O. 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (dated November 6, 2000), and Interior's policies and procedures for consultation with Indian Tribes and ANCSA Corporations. (512 Departmental Manual 4-7). BSEE is also respectful of our responsibilities for consultation with the Native Hawaiian Community. BSEE follows the Department's Office of Native Hawaiian Relations “Standard Operating Procedure for Consultation with the Native Hawaiian Community.” This Standard Operating Procedure provides that: “Congress has also required Federal agencies to consult before taking actions that have the potential to significantly affect Native Hawaiian resources, rights, or lands by correspondingly charging the Office with fully integrating the policy and practice of meaningful consultation by such Federal agencies.” BSEE has determined that this rule will not have substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes, ANCSA Corporations, or the Native Hawaiian Community and will not have substantial direct effects on the relationship between the Federal Government and federally recognized Indian Tribes, ANCSA Corporations, or the Native Hawaiian Community, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and federally recognized Indian Tribes, ANCSA Corporations, or the Native Hawaiian Community.
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act is not required. We may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because, as a regulation of an administrative nature, this rule is covered by a categorical exclusion (
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211. This rule is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” as amended by E.O. 14094, provides that OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant regulatory actions. A significant regulatory action is one that is likely to result in a rule that:
A. Has an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more (adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of OIRA for changes in gross domestic product); or adversely affects in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or Tribal governments or communities;
B. Creates a serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with an action taken or planned by another agency;
C. Materially alters the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
D. Raises legal or policy issues for which centralized review would meaningfully further the President's priorities or the principles set forth in E.O. 12866.
OIRA has concluded that this rule is not a significant action under E.O. 12866. The provisions of the final rule will align the language of the regulations with BSEE's and the regulated industry's longstanding understanding of the effects of the existing requirements and will not add any cost burdens to entities that would be subject to the rule, yielding only procedural effects. Accordingly, BSEE does not anticipate that this rule will have an annual economic impact of $200 million or more or have a material adverse effect on the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, public health or safety, the environment, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities. This rule also will not raise novel legal or policy issues.
E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 further emphasizes that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
E.O. 12898 requires Federal agencies to make achieving environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. BSEE has determined that this rule will not have a disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effect on native, minority, or low-income communities because its provisions are administrative and procedural in nature and does not affect public safety, environmental protection, or OCS operational requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Continental shelf, Environmental impact statements, Environmental protection, Government contracts, Investigations, Mineral resources, Oil and gas exploration, Penalties, Pipelines, Continental Shelf—mineral resources, Continental Shelf—rights-of-way, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur.
Administrative practice and procedure.
This action by the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary is taken herein pursuant to an existing delegation of authority.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the Interior amends 30 CFR parts 250 and 290 as follows:
30 U.S.C. 1751, 31 U.S.C. 9701, 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(1)(C), 43 U.S.C. 1334.
(b) In order to file an appeal, you must perform one of the following actions within the 60-day appeal period to have your appeal heard:
(d) Satisfying the bonding requirement in paragraph (b) of this section is a jurisdictional precondition for a civil penalty appeal. If you have timely filed a request with BOEM pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section to use your lease-specific/area-wide bond on file as the bond for the penalty amount, the IBLA's jurisdiction over the appeal is preserved while BOEM's decision on your request is pending. Should BOEM deny your request or require additional security pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, you have 30 days to satisfy paragraph (b)(1) of this section or post the required additional security, as applicable, and jurisdiction is preserved during that 30-day period. If you fail to satisfy these bonding requirements, the IBLA will lose jurisdiction and must dismiss your appeal.
(e) If you do not either pay the penalty or fully satisfy the appeal requirements, the Department may take one or more of the following actions:
(1) Collect the amount you were assessed, plus interest, late payment charges, and other fees as provided by law, from the date you received the Reviewing Officer's final decision until the date we receive payment;
(2) Initiate additional enforcement, including, if appropriate, cancellation of the lease, right-of-way, license, permit, or approval, or the forfeiture of a bond under this part; or
(3) Bar you from doing further business with the Federal Government according to Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, and section 2455 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, 31 U.S.C. 6101. The Department of the Interior's regulations implementing these authorities are found at 43 CFR part 12, subpart D.
5 U.S.C. 305; 43 U.S.C. 1334.
The addition reads as follows:
(c) If you are appealing a civil penalty assessment, either notification of payment of the penalty or documentation demonstrating satisfaction of the requirements in 30 CFR 250.1409(b). You cannot extend the 60-day period for satisfying this requirement, except as specifically provided in 30 CFR 250.1409(d).
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Publication of a web general license.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing a general license (GL) issued pursuant to the Belarus Sanctions Regulations: GL 10, which was previously made available on OFAC's website.
GL 10 was issued on December 5, 2023. See
OFAC: Assistant Director for Licensing, 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, 202-622-4855; or Assistant Director for Compliance, 202-622-2490 or
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website:
On December 5, 2023, OFAC issued GL 10 to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by the Belarus Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 548. GL 10 was made available on OFAC's website (
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by the Belarus Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 548 (BSR), that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of any transaction involving Tabak Invest LLC (“Tabak Invest”), or any entity in which Tabak Invest owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, February 2, 2024, provided that any payment to a blocked person is made into a blocked account at a U.S. financial institution in accordance with the BSR.
(b) This general license does not authorize any transactions otherwise prohibited by the BSR, including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the BSR other than the blocked persons described in paragraph (a), unless separately authorized.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Publication of web general licenses.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing five general licenses (GLs) issued pursuant to the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations: GLs 8K, 25G, 110, 111, and 112, each of which was previously made available on OFAC's website.
GLs 8K, 25G, 110, 111, and 112 were issued on October 30, 2024. See
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website:
On October 30, 2024, OFAC issued GLs 8K, 25G, 110, 111, and 112 to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587. Each GL was made available on OFAC's website (
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 14024 involving one or more of the following entities that are related to energy are authorized, through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, April 30, 2025:
(1) State Corporation Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs Vnesheconombank;
(2) Public Joint Stock Company Bank Financial Corporation Otkritie;
(3) Sovcombank Open Joint Stock Company;
(4) Public Joint Stock Company Sberbank of Russia;
(5) VTB Bank Public Joint Stock Company;
(6) Joint Stock Company Alfa-Bank;
(7) Public Joint Stock Company Rosbank;
(8) Bank Zenit Public Joint Stock Company;
(9) Bank Saint-Petersburg Public Joint Stock Company;
(10) National Clearing Center (NCC);
(11) Any entity in which one or more of the above persons own, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest; or
(12) the Central Bank of the Russian Federation.
(b) For the purposes of this general license, the term “related to energy” means the extraction, production, refinement, liquefaction, gasification, regasification, conversion, enrichment, fabrication, transport, or purchase of petroleum, including crude oil, lease condensates, unfinished oils, natural gas liquids, petroleum products, natural gas, or other products capable of producing energy, such as coal, wood, or agricultural products used to manufacture biofuels, or uranium in any form, as well as the development, production, generation, transmission, or exchange of power, through any means, including nuclear, thermal, and renewable energy sources.
(c) This general license does not authorize:
(1) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 1A under E.O. 14024,
(2) The opening or maintaining of a correspondent account or payable-through account for or on behalf of any entity subject to Directive 2 under E.O. 14024,
(3) Any debit to an account on the books of a U.S. financial institution of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation; or
(4) Any transactions otherwise prohibited by the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR), including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the RuHSR other than the blocked persons described in paragraph (a) of this general license, unless separately authorized.
(d) Effective October 30, 2024, General License No. 8J, dated June 12, 2024, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 8K.
This authorization is valid until April 30, 2025, unless renewed.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this general license, all transactions ordinarily incident and necessary to the receipt or transmission of telecommunications involving the Russian Federation that are prohibited by the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR), are authorized.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this general license, the exportation or reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States or by U.S. persons, wherever located, to the Russian Federation of services incident to the exchange of communications over the internet, such as instant messaging, chat and email, social networking, sharing of photos and movies, web browsing, blogging, social media platforms, collaboration platforms, video conferencing, e-gaming, e-learning platforms, automated translation, web maps, user authentication services, web hosting, and domain name registration services, that is prohibited by the RuHSR, is authorized.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this general license, the exportation or reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States or by U.S. persons, to the Russian Federation of software, hardware, or technology incident to the exchange of communications over the internet is authorized, provided that:
(1) If the software, hardware, or technology is subject to the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730 through 774 (EAR), the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply to the Russian Federation of such software, hardware, or technology is licensed or otherwise authorized by the Department of Commerce pursuant to the EAR; and
(2) If the software, hardware, or technology is not subject to the EAR, the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply to the Russian Federation of such software, hardware, or technology would be eligible for a license exception or otherwise authorized by the Department of Commerce if it were subject to the EAR.
(d) This general license does not authorize:
(1) The opening or maintaining of a correspondent account or payable-through account for or on behalf of any entity subject to Directive 2 under Executive Order (E.O.) 14024,
(2) Any debit to an account on the books of a U.S. financial institution of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, the National Wealth Fund of the Russian Federation, or the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation;
(3) Any transactions prohibited by E.O. 14066 or E.O. 14068; or
(4) Any transactions prohibited by the RuHSR involving one or more of the following entities, unless separately authorized:
(i) Joint Stock Company Channel One Russia;
(ii) Joint Stock Company NTV Broadcasting Company;
(iii) Television Station Russia-1;
(iv) Limited Liability Company Algoritm;
(v) New Eastern Outlook;
(vi) Oriental Review;
(vii) Garantex Europe OU;
(viii) Autonomous Non-Profit Organization Dialog;
(ix) Autonomous Non-Profit Organization Dialog Regions;
(x) Federal State Unitary Enterprise International Information Agency Rossiya Segodnya;
(xi) Autonomous Non Profit Organization TV Novosti;
(xii) XH Smart Tech China Co Ltd; or
(xiii) CJSC Perspective Technologies Agency.
(e) Effective October 30, 2024, General License No. 25F, dated September 13, 2024, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 25G.
Nothing in this general license relieves any person from compliance with any other Federal laws or requirements of other Federal agencies, including export, reexport, and transfer (in-country) licensing requirements maintained by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security under the EAR.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of any transaction involving one or more of the following blocked entities are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, December 14, 2024, provided that any payment to a blocked person is made into a blocked account in accordance with the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR):
(1) XH Smart Tech China Co Ltd;
(2) Lokesh Machines Limited;
(3) Galaxy Bearings Ltd;
(4) Orbit Fintrade LLP;
(5) Wuhan Huazhong Numerical Control Co Ltd;
(6) Beijing Dynamic Power Co Limited;
(7) Sharpline Automation Private Limited; or
(8) Any entity in which one or more of the above persons own, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest.
(b) This general license does not authorize:
(1) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 2 under E.O. 14024,
(2) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 4 under E.O. 14024,
(3) Any transactions otherwise prohibited by the RuHSR, including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the RuHSR other than the blocked persons described in paragraph (a) of this general license, unless separately authorized.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the divestment or transfer, or the facilitation of the divestment or transfer, of debt or equity issued or guaranteed by the following blocked entities (“Covered Debt or Equity”) to a non-U.S. person are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, December 14, 2024:
(1) XH Smart Tech China Co Ltd;
(2) Lokesh Machines Limited;
(3) Galaxy Bearings Ltd;
(4) Beijing Dynamic Power Co Limited;
(5) Wuhan Huazhong Numerical Control Co Ltd; or
(6) Any entity in which one or more of the above persons own, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by E.O. 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to facilitating, clearing, and settling trades of Covered Debt or Equity that were placed prior to 4:00 p.m. eastern daylight time, October 30, 2024 are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, December 14, 2024.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by E.O. 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of derivative contracts entered into prior to 4:00 p.m. eastern daylight time, October 30, 2024 that (i) include a blocked person described in paragraph (a) of this general license as a counterparty or (ii) are linked to Covered Debt or Equity are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, December 14, 2024, provided that any payments to a blocked person are made into a blocked account in accordance with the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR).
(d) Paragraph (a) of this general license does not authorize:
(1) U.S. persons to sell, or to facilitate the sale of, Covered Debt or Equity to, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked; or
(2) U.S. persons to purchase or invest in, or to facilitate the purchase of or investment in, directly or indirectly, Covered Debt or Equity, other than purchases of or investments in Covered Debt or Equity ordinarily incident and necessary to the divestment or transfer of Covered Debt or Equity as described in paragraph (a) of this general license.
(e) This general license does not authorize:
(1) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 2 under E.O. 14024,
(2) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 4 under E.O. 14024,
(3) Any transactions otherwise prohibited by the RuHSR, including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the RuHSR other than the blocked persons described in paragraph (a) of this general license, unless separately authorized.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c), all transactions prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the provision, exportation, or reexportation of goods, technology, or services to ensure the safety of civil aviation involving Shaurya Aeronautics Private Limited (Shaurya), or any entity in which Shaurya owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest (collectively, the “Blocked Persons”), are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, December 14, 2024, provided that the goods, technology, or services that are provided, exported, or reexported are for use on aircraft operated solely for civil aviation purposes.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by E.O. 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of any transaction involving the Blocked Persons, are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, December 14, 2024, provided that any payment to the Blocked Persons must be made into a blocked account in accordance with the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR).
(c) This general license does not authorize:
(1) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 2 under E.O. 14024,
(2) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 4 under E.O. 14024,
(3) Any transactions otherwise prohibited by the RuHSR, including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the RuHSR other than Blocked Persons described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this general license, unless separately authorized.
Note to General License 112. Nothing in this general license relieves any person from compliance with any other Federal laws or requirements of other Federal agencies, including export, reexport, and transfer (in-country) licensing requirements maintained by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security under the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730-774.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; technical correction.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is correcting a final rule that appeared in the
The final rule is effective on November 14, 2024.
The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0156. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Dr. Felica Davis, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-4857; and email address:
Categories and entities potentially affected by this action are shown in table 1 of this preamble.
Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this final action. To determine whether your entity is affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 60.2885, 60.2981, and 60.2991. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final action will also be available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action at:
Section 129 of the CAA, entitled “Solid Waste Combustion,” requires the EPA to establish performance standards and other requirements for each category of solid waste incineration unit. Such standards must include emissions limitations applicable to new units (CAA section 129(a)) and guidelines applicable to existing units (CAA section 129(b)). Statutory authority for the rulemaking procedures followed in this action is provided by Administrative Procedure Act (APA) section 553(b)(B), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) (good cause exception to notice and comment rulemaking).
Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States
The EPA finalized the Other Solid Waste Incinerators (OSWI); Title V Permitting Provisions rule which removed title V permitting requirements for air curtain incinerators that burn only wood waste, clean lumber, yard waste, or a mixture of these 3 types of waste on April 17, 2024. Following publication of this final rule, the EPA discovered inadvertent errors in the regulatory text and is correcting them in this action. These technical corrections correct the regulatory text to read as described in the preamble of the April 17, 2024, final rule. 89 FR 27392 (April 17,2024). As such, the EPA is not making corrections to the preamble of the April 17, 2024, final rule. The EPA finds that there is good cause for finalizing these technical corrections without public notice or hearing, as explained in greater detail in section IV of this preamble. Notice and comment procedures are unnecessary here because the public is already aware of this action and its contents. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
In the
First, the EPA is revising 40 CFR 60.2966, “Am I required to apply for and obtain a title V operating permit for my unit?”, to conform with what was described in the April 17, 2024, final rule preamble. As described in that preamble, the owner or operator of an OSWI incinerator is required to apply for and obtain a title V operating permit unless the incinerator is excluded under 40 CFR 60.2887 or unless the incinerator is an air curtain incinerator that burns only wood waste, yard waste, clean lumber, or a mixture of these 3 types of waste, as long as the air curtain incinerator is not located at a title V facility or otherwise required to obtain a title V operating permit.
Second, in 40 CFR 60.2967, “When must I submit a title V permit application for my new unit?”, paragraphs (a) and (b) were inadvertently revised and paragraph (c) was unintentionally reserved. In this action, the EPA is restoring 40 CFR 60.2967 paragraphs (a) through (c) to the text displayed in the electronic CFR (eCFR) as of April 16, 2024, and adding paragraph (d) reiterating that a title V operating permit is not needed for an air curtain incinerator that burns only wood waste, yard waste, clean lumber, or a mixture of these 3 types of waste as long as the air curtain incinerator is not located at a title V facility or otherwise required to obtain a title V operating permit.
Third, 40 CFR 60.2969, “What are the requirements for air curtain incinerators used in disaster recovery?”, was inadvertently removed and the section reserved. In this action, the EPA is restoring 40 CFR 60.2969 to the text displayed in the eCFR as of April 16, 2024. This section exempts temporary-use incinerators and air curtain incinerators used in disaster recovery from OSWI requirements if they meet the conditions set out in this provision.
First, a typo removed a portion of the title of 40 CFR part 60, subpart FFFF. In this action, the EPA is restoring the entire title of 40 CFR part 60, subpart FFFF, “Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Other Solid Waste Incineration Units that Commenced Construction On or Before December 9, 2004.”
Second, the EPA is revising 40 CFR 60.3059, “Am I required to apply for and obtain a title V operating permit for my unit?”, to conform with what was described in the April 17, 2024, final rule preamble. The requirements for owners and operators to obtain title V operating permits are discussed in more detail above in section II.A of this preamble.
Third, 40 CFR 60.3060, “When must I submit a title V application for my existing unit?”, was inadvertently removed and the section reserved. In this action, the EPA is restoring 40 CFR 60.3060 paragraphs (a) through (c) to the text displayed in the eCFR as of April 16, 2024, making a minor clarification in (a)(1) specifying the title V permit application deadline, and adding paragraph (d) reiterating that a title V operating permit is not needed for an air curtain incinerator that burns only wood waste, yard waste, clean lumber, or a mixture of these 3 types of waste as long as the air curtain incinerator is not located at a title V facility or otherwise required to obtain a title V operating permit.
Fourth, in 40 CFR part 60, subpart FFFF, 40 CFR 60.3069, “Am I required to apply for and obtain a title V operating permit for my air curtain incinerator that burns only wood waste, clean lumber, and yard waste?”, was inadvertently left in the regulatory text. In this action the EPA is removing and reserving 40 CFR 60.3069.
These corrections make the regulatory text consistent with the description in the April 17, 2024, final rule preamble. Thus, the EPA finds good cause to make these corrections in this final action (see Section IV, Rulemaking Procedures, below).
This action will have no cost, environmental, or economic impacts beyond the impacts presented in the April 17, 2024, Other Solid Waste Incinerators; Title V Permitting Provisions final rule (89 FR 27392).
The EPA's authority for the rulemaking procedures followed in this action is provided by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553. In general, an agency issuing a rule must provide prior notice and an opportunity for public comment, but APA section 553(b)(B) includes an exemption from notice-and-comment requirements “when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rule issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” This action is being issued without prior notice or opportunity for public comment because the EPA finds that the APA “good cause” exemption from notice-and-comment requirements applies here.
Following notice-and-comment procedures is unnecessary for this action. This action corrects purely technical errors resulting in the inadvertent deletion and inclusion of certain regulatory text that was neither proposed nor envisioned in the notice for the April 17, 2024, rule, thus ensuring the regulatory text comports with the description of the rule in the final rule preamble. Thus, it is critical to timely correct the identified errors to avoid confusion over the regulatory text.
This action is effective immediately upon publication. Although the APA typically requires publication of the final rule to precede the effective date by at least 30 days unless, as relevant
Good cause exists for this rule to be made immediately effective. The EPA has balanced the necessity for immediate implementation against the benefits of delaying implementation. Because this rule makes technical corrections to a rule that has already been promulgated, the public is aware of the content of the rule. Making these technical corrections effective immediately would make the regulatory text consistent with what the proposed rule and the preamble to the final rule have described.
For a complete discussion of all the statutes, executive orders, and administrative requirements applicable to this action, see the final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of the
Environmental protection, Administrative practices and procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401,
(a) Yes, if you are subject to this subpart, you are required to apply for and obtain a title V operating permit unless you meet the relevant requirements for an exemption specified in § 60.2887, or unless your unit is an air curtain incinerator exempt under paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) If you own or operate an air curtain incinerator that burns only wood waste; clean lumber; yard waste; or a mixture of wood waste, clean lumber, and/or yard waste and that is subject only to the requirements in §§ 60.2970 through 60.2973, you are exempt from the obligation to obtain a title V operating permit, provided that your air curtain incinerator is not otherwise required to obtain a title V operating permit.
(a) If your new unit subject to this subpart is not subject to an earlier permit application deadline, a complete title V permit application must be submitted on or before one of the dates specified in paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of this section. (See section 503(c) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) and 40 CFR 71.5(a)(1)(i).)
(1) For a unit that commenced operation as a new source as of December 16, 2005, then a complete title V permit application must be submitted not later than December 18, 2006.
(2) For a unit that does not commence operation as a new source until after December 16, 2005, then a complete title V permit application must be submitted not later than 12 months after the date the unit commences operation as a new source.
(b) If your new unit subject to this subpart is subject to title V as a result of some triggering requirement(s) other than this subpart (for example, a unit subject to this subpart may be a major source or part of a major source), then your unit may be required to apply for a title V permit prior to the deadlines specified in paragraph (a) of this section. If more than one requirement triggers a source's obligation to apply for a title V permit, the 12-month timeframe for filing a title V permit application is triggered by the requirement that first causes the source to be subject to title V. (See section 503(c) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.3(a) and (b), 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i), 40 CFR 71.3(a) and (b), and 40 CFR 71.5(a)(1)(i).)
(c) A “complete” title V permit application is one that has been determined or deemed complete by the relevant permitting authority under section 503(d) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(2) or 40 CFR 71.5(a)(2). You must submit a complete permit application by the relevant application deadline in order to operate after this date in compliance with Federal law. (See sections 503(d) and 502(a) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.7(b) and 40 CFR 71.7(b).)
(d) If you own or operate an air curtain incinerator that burns only wood waste; clean lumber; yard waste; or a mixture of wood waste, clean lumber, and/or yard waste and that is subject only to the requirements in §§ 60.2970 through 60.2973, you are exempt from the obligation to obtain a title V operating permit, provided that your air curtain incinerator is not otherwise required to obtain a title V operating permit.
Your incinerator or air curtain incinerator is excluded from the requirements of this subpart if it is used on a temporary basis to combust debris from a disaster or emergency such as a tornado, hurricane, flood, ice storm, high winds, or act of bioterrorism. To qualify for this exclusion, the incinerator or air curtain incinerator must be used to combust debris in an area declared a State of Emergency by a local or State government, or the President, under the authority of the
(a) If the incinerator or air curtain incinerator is used during a period that begins on the date the unit started operation and lasts 8 weeks or less within the boundaries of the same emergency or disaster declaration area, then it is excluded from the requirements of this subpart. You do not need to notify the Administrator of its use or meet the emission limitations or other requirements of this subpart.
(b) If the incinerator or air curtain incinerator will be used during a period that begins on the date the unit started operation and lasts more than 8 weeks within the boundaries of the same emergency or disaster declaration area, you must notify the Administrator that the temporary-use incinerator or air curtain incinerator will be used for more than 8 weeks and request permission to continue to operate the unit as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) The notification must be submitted in writing by the date 8 weeks after you start operation of the temporary-use incinerator or air curtain incinerator within the boundaries of the current emergency or disaster declaration area.
(2) The notification must contain the date the incinerator or air curtain incinerator started operation within the boundaries of the current emergency or disaster declaration area, identification of the disaster or emergency for which the incinerator or air curtain incinerator is being used, a description of the types of materials being burned in the incinerator or air curtain incinerator, a brief description of the size and design of the unit (for example, an air curtain incinerator or a modular starved-air incinerator), the reasons the incinerator or air curtain incinerator must be operated for more than 8 weeks, and the amount of time for which you request permission to operate including the date you expect to cease operation of the unit.
(c) If you submitted the notification containing the information in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, by the date specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, you may continue to operate the incinerator or air curtain incinerator for another 8 weeks, which is a total of 16 weeks from the date the unit started operation within the boundaries of the current emergency or disaster declaration area. You do not have to meet the emission limitations or other requirements of this subpart during this period.
(1) At the end of 16 weeks from the date the incinerator or air curtain incinerator started operation within the boundaries of the current emergency or disaster declaration area, you must cease operation of the unit or comply with all requirements of this subpart, unless the Administrator has approved in writing your request to continue operation.
(2) If the Administrator has approved in writing your request to continue operation, then you may continue to operate the incinerator or air curtain incinerator within the boundaries of the current emergency or disaster declaration area until the date specified in the approval, and you do not need to comply with any other requirements of this subpart during the approved time period.
(a) Yes, if your OSWI unit is an existing incineration unit subject to an applicable EPA-approved and effective Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 State or Tribal plan or an applicable and effective Federal plan, you are required to apply for and obtain a title V operating permit unless you meet the relevant requirements for an exemption specified in § 60.2993, or unless your unit is an air curtain incinerator exempt under paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) If you own or operate an air curtain incinerator that burns only wood waste; clean lumber; yard waste; or a mixture of wood waste, clean lumber, and/or yard waste and is subject only to the requirements in §§ 60.3062 through 60.3068, you are exempt from the obligation to obtain a title V operating permit, provided that your air curtain incinerator is not otherwise required to obtain a title V operating permit.
(a)(1) If your existing unit is not subject to an earlier title V permit application deadline, a complete title V permit application must be submitted on or before the earlier of the dates specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. (See sections 129(e), 503(c), 503(d), and 502(a) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i) and 40 CFR 71.5(a)(1)(i).)
(i) 12 months after the effective date of any applicable EPA-approved Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 State or Tribal plan.
(ii) 12 months after the effective date of any applicable Federal plan.
(iii) December 16, 2008.
(2) For any existing unit not subject to an earlier permit application deadline, the application deadline of 36 months after the promulgation of 40 CFR part 60, subpart FFFF, applies regardless of whether or when any applicable Federal plan is effective, or whether or when any applicable Clean Air Act section 111(d)/129 State or Tribal plan is approved by EPA and becomes effective.
(b) If your existing unit is subject to title V as a result of some triggering requirement(s) other than those specified in paragraph (a) of this section (for example, a unit may be a major source or part of a major source), then your unit may be required to apply for a title V permit prior to the deadlines specified in paragraph (a) of this section. If more than one requirement triggers a source's obligation to apply for a title V permit, the 12-month timeframe for filing a title V permit application is triggered by the requirement which first causes the source to be subject to title V. (See section 503(c) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.3(a) and (b), 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(i), 40 CFR 71.3(a) and (b), and 40 CFR 71.5(a)(1)(i).)
(c) A “complete” title V permit application is one that has been determined or deemed complete by the relevant permitting authority under section 503(d) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.5(a)(2) or 40 CFR 71.5(a)(2). You must submit a complete permit application by the relevant application deadline in order to operate after this date in compliance with Federal law. (See sections 503(d) and 502(a) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.7(b) and 40 CFR 71.7(b).)
(d) If you own or operate an air curtain incinerator that burns only wood waste; clean lumber; yard waste; or a mixture of wood waste, clean lumber, and/or yard waste and is subject only to the requirements in §§ 60.3062 through 60.3068, you are exempt from the obligation to obtain a title V operating permit, provided that your air curtain incinerator is not otherwise required to obtain a title V operating permit.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Final supplementary rule.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is finalizing a supplementary rule to regulate conduct on public lands within Canyons of the Ancients National Monument (CANM or Monument). This final supplementary rule will implement planning decisions in the 2010 CANM Resource Management Plan (RMP). The final supplementary rule will provide for the protection of persons, property, and public-land resources administered by the BLM's Tres Rios Field Office and CANM, located in Dolores and Montezuma Counties, Colorado.
The final supplementary rule is effective on December 16, 2024.
Inquiries may be directed to the BLM CANM at (970) 882-5600 or 27501 Highway 184, Dolores, CO 81323. The final supplementary rule and accompanying environmental documents are available for inspection at the BLM CANM. A map of the management area and boundaries can be obtained by contacting the CANM.
Tyler Fouss, Field Staff Ranger, Bureau of Land Management, Tres Rios Field Office, 29211 Hwy. 184, Dolores, CO 81323; telephone (970) 882-1131; email:
The BLM is establishing this supplementary rule under the authority of 43 CFR 8365.1-6, which authorizes BLM state directors to establish supplementary rules for the protection of persons, property, and public lands and resources.
CANM is part of the BLM's National Conservation Lands system and consists of approximately 174,881 acres of BLM-administered public lands. The monument is located in Dolores and Montezuma counties in the Four Corners region of southwestern Colorado. President Clinton established CANM on June 9, 2000, by Presidential Proclamation Number 7317, pursuant to the Antiquities Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 225, 54 U.S.C. 320301), to preserve the cultural and natural objects of the Monument. Prior to the issuance of Proclamation 7317, CANM was managed as the Anasazi Culture Multiple Use Area of Critical Environmental Concern, established through the 1985 San Juan-San Miguel RMP Record of Decision (ROD).
The BLM developed the CANM RMP with extensive input from the public, Tribes, and elected officials through scoping, opportunities for public comment, and advisory committee meetings.
The BLM signed the CANM RMP and ROD in June 2010, replacing portions of the San Juan-San Miguel RMP/ROD and incorporating management direction from the Presidential Proclamation establishing CANM. The CANM RMP identifies specific management actions that restrict certain activities and define allowable uses within CANM. This final supplementary rule will facilitate the implementation and enforcement of those management actions.
This final supplementary rule implements management decisions in the CANM RMP related to recreational sporting activities, camping, travel management, and collecting geological and biological materials. Within the Sand Canyon-Rock Creek Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA), activities such as hiking, mountain biking, and horseback riding and packing will be allowed only on designated travel routes, as provided in the CANM RMP.
The BLM published a proposed supplementary rule on April 6, 2023 (88 FR 20449), and received 116 comment submissions during the 60-day public comment period. Three commenters expressed support for the supplementary rule.
One comment submitted by 112 individuals through a form email expressed opposition to the proposed rule prohibiting camping within 300 feet of riparian areas and indicated that the BLM should instead implement a 100-foot buffer between campsites and riparian areas. The 300-foot restriction is set forth in the RMP and cannot be changed without a plan amendment. The prohibition on camping within 300 feet of springs, seeps, or streams affects approximately 2,785 acres (roughly 1.6 percent of the monument) within CANM. Most of the acreage is not conducive to camping and has few established campsites. The areas most impacted are in lower Yellowjacket Creek and McElmo Creek, where some roads are close to streams. The definition of riparian area has been refined to match the definition in the RMP, and the final rule has been updated to clarify areas where the rule applies. The definition in the proposed rule was too broad and did not properly identify the area where the rule will apply.
A second comment in the form email expressed the view that the BLM should create additional routes and remove wilderness study areas (WSAs). Designating new routes is beyond the scope of this supplementary rulemaking process, which is focused solely on implementing existing decisions that the BLM has already analyzed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Designated routes identified in the CANM transportation management plan (TMP) are intended to avoid sensitive cultural resources and other resource concerns. Removal of WSAs identified under section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) would require Congress to release them from WSA status.
One individual commented that the NEPA process was flawed and the RMP was deficient in providing a range of alternatives. The commenter outlined several recommendations for producing alternatives. The commenter also expressed the view that WSAs should be removed and that camping restrictions, geocaching, and gathering of pine nuts should be analyzed. This supplementary rule is not a planning document but implements decisions already analyzed through the CANM RMP planning process. Compliance with NEPA is documented in Section IV. Procedural Matters, later in this preamble. The restriction on camping, geocaching, and pine nut collecting is
In response to public comments, the BLM revised the definition for “riparian area” and clarified where the riparian area rule applies in the final rule. The remainder of the proposed supplementary rules have been incorporated into this final rule.
The purpose of the final supplementary rule is to protect public health and safety and prevent damage to natural and cultural resources, as well as other resources, objects, and values identified in the CANM Proclamation and the CANM RMP. Certain activities, by their very nature, have the potential to adversely impact the objects the Monument was established to protect. The CANM RMP contains management actions directing how the BLM manages those activities, consistent with the Proclamation. Many uses are permissible so long as the objects of the Monument are protected. Additionally, the average user is unlikely to notice changes resulting from the establishment of this supplementary rule implementing the CANM RMP.
The President established CANM to protect objects of historic and scientific interest, including archaeological and geological resources, raptors and other bird species, and reptiles. CANM contains the highest known density of archaeological sites in the United States, with an average of one site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places every 6 acres, or an estimated 30,000 sites on this landscape. The BLM is responsible for protecting the objects for which the Monument was designated and for avoiding or minimizing impacts to them.
The reasoning for each provision is discussed below:
The CANM RMP prohibits camping in or near sensitive resources and areas that experience the highest visitor use in the Monument. This prohibition is necessary to minimize impacts camping could cause to those resources, including the potential for the illegal collecting or moving of artifacts, the compromising of scientific research, and the contamination of the archaeological record.
In areas where campfires are allowed,
BLM policy directs WSAs be managed to prevent the impairment of wilderness characteristics, and the CANM RMP and TMP designates no routes for motorized or mechanized travel in WSAs.
To protect cultural resources in the Sand Canyon-Rock Creek SRMA, which is the most highly visited recreation area in the Monument, the CANM RMP
The April 6, 2023, Notice of Proposed Supplementary Rule included the name Anasazi Heritage Center SRMA, which was changed by RMP Plan Maintenance to the Visitor Center and Museum SRMA. The correction has been made in this final supplementary rule.
This final supplementary rule is not a significant regulatory action and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 as amended by Executive Order 14094. This final supplementary rule will not have an annual effect of $200 million or more on the economy. It is not intended to affect commercial activity, but rather to impose rules of conduct for public use on a limited area of public lands. It will not adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, environment, public health or safety, State, local, or Tribal governments, or communities. This final supplementary rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.
The rule will not materially alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients; nor will it raise novel legal or policy issues. It merely strives to protect public safety and the environment.
Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended (5 U.S.C. 601-612), to ensure that Government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. The RFA requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of small entities. Statistics indicate that CANM helps nearby communities diversify economically while increasing quality of life and recreational opportunities that make communities more attractive for new residents, businesses, and investment. Recreation has the potential to result in small, localized impacts to the area's economy. According to Headwaters Economics, in 2023 recreation and tourism-related industries accounted for 20 percent of combined total employment in Dolores and Montezuma counties, compared with 16 percent statewide in Colorado. Furthermore, recreation and tourism generates tax income through sales and lodging taxes. However, relative to the overall economy, the BLM expects impacts from this final supplementary rule to affect a small number of outfitters and have only a minor socioeconomic impact relative to the area's overall economy. This rule merely establishes rules of conduct for public use of a limited area of public lands. Therefore, the BLM has determined that under the RFA this final supplementary rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This final supplementary rule does not constitute a “major rule” as defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). It will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. This final supplementary rule merely establishes rules of conduct for public use of a limited area of public lands.
This final supplementary rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments in the aggregate, or the private sector, of more than $100 million per year, nor will it have a significant or unique effect on small governments. This final supplementary rule will merely impose reasonable rules of conduct on public lands in Colorado to protect natural resources and public safety. Therefore, the BLM is not required to prepare a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1531
This final supplementary rule is not a government action capable of interfering with constitutionally protected property rights. This final supplementary rule does not address property rights in any form and will not cause the impairment of constitutionally protected property rights. Therefore, the BLM has determined this final supplementary rule will not cause a “taking” of private property or require further discussion of takings implications under this Executive order.
This final supplementary rule will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This final supplementary rule will not conflict with any State law or regulation. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, the BLM has determined this final supplementary rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment.
Under Executive Order 12988, the BLM has determined this final supplementary rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of this order are met.
In accordance with Executive Order 13175, the BLM has determined that the regulations this final supplementary rule establishes will have minimal Tribal implications and no bearing on trust lands or on lands for which title is held in fee status by American Indian Tribes or U.S. Government-owned lands managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Since this supplementary rule does not involve Indian reservation lands or resources, the BLM has determined government-to-government relationships remain unaffected. Traditional Tribal use in CANM will continue to be authorized by the CANM Manager. This final supplementary rule will merely establish rules of conduct for public use of a limited area of public lands.
This final supplementary rule does not contain information collection requirements the Office of Management and Budget must approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
The BLM published its CANM Draft RMP/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in October 2007, which incorporated analysis and input provided by the public; local, State, and other Federal agencies and organizations; Native American Tribes; cooperating agencies; and BLM staff. After considering public comments and additional input, analysis, and review,
On November 18, 2020, the BLM completed a Determination of NEPA Adequacy for the proposed CANM supplementary rule. The BLM confirmed the NEPA analysis contained in the Final EIS for the CANM RMP was sufficient to inform its consideration of the proposed supplementary rule.
This final supplementary rule does not comprise a significant energy action. This final supplementary rule will not have an adverse effect on energy supply, production, or consumption and have no connection with energy policy.
In developing this final supplementary rule, the BLM did not conduct or use a study, experiment or survey requiring peer review under the Information Quality Act (section 515 of Pub. L. 106-554).
The principal author of this final supplementary rule is Tyler Fouss, Field Staff Ranger, Tres Rios Field Office, Colorado.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, and under the authority for supplementary rules at 43 U.S.C. 1733, 43 U.S.C. 1740, and 43 CFR 8365.1-6, the BLM Colorado State Director establishes the following supplementary rule for public lands managed by the BLM in Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, to read as follows:
Unless otherwise authorized, the following acts are prohibited on all public lands, roads, trails, and waterways administered by the BLM within CANM:
1. You must not collect fossils of any kind, including vertebrate, invertebrate, plant, or trace fossils, unless authorized by permit.
2. Unless otherwise permitted under applicable law, you must not collect or remove any rock, mineral specimen, semiprecious gemstone, or petrified wood.
3. You must not cut or collect live, dead, or downed wood.
4. You must not harvest more than 22.5 pounds of pinyon pine nuts for personal use. You must not harvest pinyon pine nuts for commercial use.
5. You must not discharge any weapon within the Monument, except in accordance with State law when hunting with a valid Colorado hunting license.
6. You must not engage in any cache-type activities (including geocaching and earth caching).
7. You must not participate in climbing, including rock climbing, rappelling, or bouldering, outside of designated climbing areas.
8. You must not camp in the Pueblo Sites SRMA (Painted Hand Pueblo, Lowry Pueblo, and Sand Canyon Pueblo), in the Sand Canyon-Rock Creek SRMA, or in the Visitor Center and Museum SRMA.
9. You must not camp within 300 feet of a developed recreation site or area.
10. You must not camp within 300 feet of riparian areas, including riparian areas along perennial or intermittent streams and near seeps and springs.
11. You must not camp in archaeological sites, rock shelters, or alcoves.
12. You must not ignite or maintain a campfire in the Pueblo Sites SRMA (Painted Hand Pueblo, Lowry Pueblo, and Sand Canyon Pueblo), Sand Canyon-Rock Creek SRMA, or Visitor Center and Museum SRMA.
13. You must not ignite or maintain a campfire in archaeological sites, rock shelters, or alcoves.
14. You must use a fire pan for campfires or charcoal fires when a metal fire ring is not provided unless using a mechanical stove or other appliance fueled by gas and equipped with a valve that allows the operator to control the flame.
15. You must not operate or possess a mechanized vehicle on any route, trail, or area that is not designated as open to such use by a BLM sign, map, or the appropriate travel management plan, unless you have specific authorization from the BLM.
16. You must not operate or possess a motorized or mechanized vehicle in any WSA.
17. You must not park more than 20 feet from the edge of a designated travel route or in a manner that causes resource damage.
18. You must not park in riparian areas.
19. Within the Sand Canyon-Rock Creek SRMA, you must not ride or be in possession of horses or other pack animals on any route, trail, or area not designated as open to such use by a BLM sign, map, or the appropriate travel management plan. Horses and pack animals are allowed both on and off designated travel routes throughout the remainder of the Monument.
20. Within the Sand Canyon-Rock Creek SRMA, you must not hike on any route, trail, or area not designated as open to such use by a BLM sign, map, or the appropriate travel management plan. Hiking is allowed both on and off designated travel routes throughout the remainder of the Monument.
The following persons are exempt from this supplementary rule: Federal, State, or local officers or employees acting within the scope of their duties; members of any organized law enforcement, military, rescue, or fire-fighting force in performance of an official duty; and any person whose activities are authorized in writing by the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Manager.
Any person who violates any part of this supplementary rule may be tried before a United States Magistrate and fined in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3571, imprisoned no more than 12 months under 43 U.S.C. 1733(a) and 43 CFR 8360.0-7, or both. In accordance with 43 CFR 8365.1-7, State or local officials may also impose penalties for violations of Colorado or local law.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42 and Model ATR72 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by the insufficient accuracy of a certain Angle of Attack (AoA) probe at low airspeeds which could lead to a delayed activation of the stick pusher in a flaps-extended configuration. This proposed AD would require replacing each affected part with a serviceable part, and would also prohibit the installation of affected parts, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation by reference (IBR). The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 30, 2024.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For EASA material identified in this proposed AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 206-231-3220; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Shahram Daneshmandi, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 206-231-3220; email
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2024-0140, dated July 12, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0140) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-200, -300, -320, -400, and -500 airplanes; and Model ATR72-101, -102, -201, -202, -211, -212, and -212A airplanes. Model ATR42-400 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this proposed AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability. The MCAI states that during an acceptance flight of an airplane fitted with an affected part, an issue has been identified on the stall warning system. Further investigation highlighted an insufficient accuracy of the affected parts at low airspeeds, which could lead to a delayed activation of the stick pusher in a flaps-extended configuration. This condition, if not
The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
EASA AD 2024-0140 specifies procedures for replacing each Angle of Attack (AoA) probe having Part Number (P/N) 0861GP with a serviceable part and would also prohibit the installation of the affected part. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2024-0140 described previously.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2024-0140 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2024-0140 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2024-0140 does not mean that operators need to comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2024-0140. Material required by EASA AD 2024-0140 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 77 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by December 30, 2024.
None.
This AD applies to all ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-200, -300, -320, and -500 airplanes; and Model ATR72-101, -102, -201, -202, -211, -212, and -212A airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by the insufficient accuracy of a certain Angle of Attack (AoA) probe at low airspeeds which could lead to a delayed activation of the stick pusher in flaps-extended configuration. The FAA is issuing this AD to address this unsafe condition, which if not addressed, could, in combination with flight at a high angle of attack, result in non-activation of the stick pusher and ultimately to a loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2024-0140, dated July 12, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0140).
(1) Where EASA AD 2024-0140 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where EASA AD 2024-0140 defines a serviceable part as “AoA probe, eligible for installation, in accordance with ATR instructions, which is not an affected part,” for this AD replace that text with “AoA probe, eligible for installation, which is not an affected part.”
(3) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2024-0140.
Although the material referenced in EASA AD 2024-0140 requires the submittal of certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
For more information about this AD, contact Shahram Daneshmandi, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 206-231-3220; email
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2024-0140, dated July 12, 2024.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing to establish an annually recurring safety zone for certain waters of St. Louis Bay. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near Bay St. Louis, MS during the Swim Across the Bay swim event. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Mobile or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before December 16, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2024-1001 using the Federal Decision-Making Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Lawrence J. Schad, Waterways Management Division, Sector Mobile, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 251-441-5678, email
On July 11, 2024, an organization notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting Swim Across the Bay, an annual recurring swim event that will occur on the 3rd or 4th Saturday or Sunday of September in St. Louis Bay. The Captain of the Port Sector Mobile (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the swim event would be a safety concern for non-participants within the designated area, extending the entire width of the channel, approximately 1 mile south of the Hwy. 90 Bridge in Bay St. Louis, MS.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of participants, authorized vessels, and the navigable waters within the course of the swim before, during and after the scheduled marine event. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034.
The COTP is proposing to establish a permanent safety zone to protect
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration, of the safety zone. This safety zone would restrict navigation for one day near the opening of St. Louis Bay, approximately 1 mile south of the Hwy. 90 Bridge in Bay St. Louis, MS, extending the entire width of the channel. The Coast Guard would issue a Local Notice to Mariners (LNM) about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV. A. above, this rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the potential effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the establishment of a safety zone lasting one day that would prohibit entry in, out, or through the navigable waters near the opening of St. Louis Bay, extending the entire width of the channel approximately 1 mile south of the Hwy. 90 Bridge in Bay St. Louis, MS annually on the 3rd or 4th Saturday or Sunday of September. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Washington State Implementation Plan (SIP) that were submitted by the Department of Ecology (Ecology) in coordination with the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA). In 2021, the EPA approved a comprehensive update to the SRCAA general air quality regulations in the SIP, which include new source review permitting requirements as well as other general requirements for sources regulated under SRCAA's jurisdiction. In this action, the EPA proposes to approve additional updates to the SRCAA general air quality regulations promulgated since our comprehensive approval in 2021.
Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2024.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2024-0433 at
Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue—Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101, at (206) 553-0256, or
On May 10, 2021, the EPA approved a comprehensive update of the general air quality regulations, codified in SRCAA Regulation I, into the SIP (86 FR 24718). Under the Washington Clean Air Act, local clean air agencies may adopt equally stringent or more stringent requirements to apply in lieu of Ecology's Statewide general air quality regulations for sources regulated under the local agency's jurisdiction, if they so choose.
Effective June 11, 2020, the State legislature recodified the Washington Clean Air Act from Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 70.94 to RCW 70A.15. Local air agencies were encouraged to update affected rules to reflect new statutory references by July 1, 2025. This change affected SRCAA sections 1.01, 1.04, 2.01, 2.03, 2.04, 2.05, 2.08, 2.11, 2.12, 4.04, 5.02, 5.04, 5.05, 5.07, 5.08, 5.10, 5.13, 6.04, 8.03, 8.07, 8.08, 8.09, and 8.10, which were submitted for reapproval in the SIP. In addition to the recodification, SRCAA made other generally minor typographical and formatting changes. Comprehensive redline/strikeout versions of each updated section of Regulation I are included in the docket for this action, as well as the EPA's analysis of the revisions proposed for approval in this action. Therefore, the relatively minor citation updates, formatting changes, and typographical revisions are not restated here.
The most substantive proposed change, other than the changes described in sections I.B. and I.C. of this preamble, relates to Regulation I, section 2.08
Effective March 9, 2023, as part of Washington State Register 23-05-21 included in the docket for this action, SRCAA removed marijuana producers and processors from the list of source categories subject to regulation under SRCAA section 4.04. We note that in our prior approval of SRCAA Regulation I, the EPA did not include the marijuana provisions in subsections (A)(3)(u), (A)(3)(v), and (A)(5)(e)(9) formerly contained in SRCAA section 4.04, because provisions related to odor and nuisance are outside the scope of the SIP (86 FR 24718, May 10, 2021). However, removal of these provisions affected the codification of citations for other provisions approved in the SIP. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve the updated version of section 4.04, including the minor typographical and statutory citation revisions discussed above in section I.A. of this preamble, to reflect the recodification of citations for the remaining SIP-approved provisions in section 4.04. SRCAA also made a minor revision to section 5.02
As discussed in the proposed rulemaking for our 2021 update of Regulation I in the SIP, SRCAA uses a registration-based, source category approach in section 4.04
As part of SRCAA's update to Regulation I, SRCAA added a new provision (c) under subsection 5.02(I)(1) related to surface coating, which could impact criteria pollutants or precursors to criteria pollutants. Subsection 5.02(I)(1)(c) continues to require surface coating operations with the potential to emit (PTE) emissions above 100 pounds per year to register as a source category listed under section 4.04. However, for sources that only use non-spray application methods (
We are proposing to determine that the minor NSR applicability thresholds in subsections 5.02(I)(1)(b) and (c) are reasonable because emissions at these low thresholds are highly unlikely to impact continued attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants in the Spokane area.
On September 28, 2015, the EPA approved Regulation I, Article VIII
The remainder of the changes to Article VIII are syntax, formatting, and citation updates. These changes, along with the EPA's analyses of the Article VIII sections submitted for approval, are included in the docket for this action and are not restated here. With the exceptions noted above, we are proposing to approve the revisions to Article VIII consistent with the same exclusions as our 2015 approval.
The EPA is proposing to approve and incorporate by reference into the Washington SIP at 40 CFR 52.2470(c)—
In addition to the regulations proposed for approval and incorporation by reference in section II.A. of this preamble, the EPA reviews and approves State and local clean air agency submissions to ensure they provide adequate enforcement authority and other general authority to implement and enforce the SIP. However, regulations describing such agency enforcement and other general authority are generally not incorporated by reference so as to avoid potential conflict with the EPA's independent authorities. Therefore, we are proposing to approve but not incorporate by reference revisions, effective July 15, 2023, to SRCAA sections 2.01, 2.03, 2.04, 2.05, 2.11, 2.12, and 8.11 in 40 CFR 52.2470(e),
In this document, the EPA is proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on communities with environmental justice (EJ) concerns to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. The EPA defines EJ as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.”
The air agency did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the Clean Air Act and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of this action, it is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of Executive Order 12898 of achieving environmental justice for communities with EJ concerns.
In addition, this proposed action would not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before January 13, 2025.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments via email to Sathiyan Sivakumaran, Program Manager and Analyst, U.S. Department of Commerce, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Sathiyan Sivakumaran, Program Manager and Analyst, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 at
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) leads the Federal economic development agenda by promoting innovation and competitiveness and preparing American regions for growth and success in the worldwide economy. Guided by the basic principle that sustainable economic development should be driven locally, EDA works directly with communities and regions to help them build the capacity for economic development based on local business conditions and needs. Section 29 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (Distressed Area Recompete Pilot Program (15 U.S.C. 3722b) is the legal authority under which EDA awards financial assistance and designee status under the Fiscal Year (FY) 23 Distressed Area Recompete Pilot Program (“Recompete”). Under Recompete, EDA seeks to address deep economic distress across the U.S. through place-based investments in communities where the prime-age (25-54 years old) employment rate significantly trails the national average. Recompete is a two-phase program. In Phase 1, EDA funded 24 strategy development grants, which were approximately $500,000 each. Additionally, 22 communities were selected as Recompete Finalists, signifying their eligibility to apply for implementation funding in Phase 2 of the competition. In Phase 2, EDA selected 6 of the 22 Finalists (“Recompete Awardees”) to receive implementation funding which ranged from $20 million-$40 million per community. Further information on Recompete can be found at
The purpose of this notice is to seek comments from the public and other Federal agencies on a request for a new information collection for six Phase 2 Awardees to help ensure that Recompete investments are evidence-based, data-driven, and accountable to participants and the public.
Lead coalition members of the six Recompete Awardees will submit identified program metrics and qualitative information to help assess specific program objectives. A recurring questionnaire will be sent to each of the Recompete coalition leads every six months for a total of five years to gather the relevant data and stories from each of six Recompete Awardees, resulting in community impact evaluation, resources, and tools for place-based economic development decisionmakers. The six Recompete Awardees will provide information on the following areas related to Recompete objectives:
(1) Employment among prime-age individuals who interact with Recompete programming, which may include information on success stories, employment, and wage outcomes for participants in EDA-funded activities.
(2) Economic distress in Recompete service areas, which may include information on success stories, changes in local employment rates, changes in local income and wage rates, and other place-based metrics.
(3) Effectiveness of workforce development programming, which may include information on enrollment, completion, placement, retention, and attrition for individuals participating in EDA-funded activities, in addition to the examples of outcomes metrics in objective #1.
(4) Effectiveness of entrepreneurship and small business supports, which may include information on enrollment, completion, business launch, and business success for entrepreneurs and small/mid-size enterprises participating in EDA-funded activities, as well as their impact on local employment.
(5) Local economic development capacity, which may include assessing relationships with Federal, State, and local entities, current partnerships, and information about sources of capital and commitments to continue to ensure economic well-being in the Recompete community.
Recompete Awardees must submit data on a semi-annual basis (
EDA is particularly interested in public comment on how the proposed data collection will support the assessment of job quality, including in ways that rely on pairing this information with administrative data for analysis and other ways to minimize burden, or if alternative information should be considered.
Data will be collected electronically.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received scope ruling applications, requesting that scope inquiries be conducted to determine whether identified products are covered by the scope of antidumping duty (AD) and/or countervailing duty (CVD) orders and that Commerce issue scope rulings pursuant to those inquiries. In accordance with Commerce's regulations, we are notifying the public of the filing of the scope ruling applications listed below in the month of September 2024.
Applicable November 14, 2024.
Terri Monroe, 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) 482-1384.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(d)(3), we are notifying the public of the following scope ruling applications related to AD and CVD orders and findings filed in or around the month of September 2024. This notification includes, for each scope application: (1) identification of the AD and/or CVD orders at issue (19 CFR 351.225(c)(1)); (2) concise public descriptions of the products at issue, including the physical characteristics (including chemical, dimensional and technical characteristics) of the products (19 CFR 351.225(c)(2)(ii)); (3) the countries where the products are produced and the countries from where the products are exported (19 CFR 351.225(c)(2)(i)(B)); (4) the full names of the applicants; and (5) the dates that the scope applications were filed with Commerce and the name of the ACCESS scope segment where the scope applications can be found.
Wood Mouldings and Millwork Products from the People's Republic of China (China) (A-570-117/C-570-118); Wooden Window Shade Slats (Wooden Slats);
Sugar from Mexico (A-201-845/C-201-846); Re-Packaged Powdered Sugar (Sugar);
Certain Steel Wheels from China (A-570-082/C-570-083); Certain Steel Wheels (Steel Wheels);
Certain Steel Wheels 12 to 16.5 inches in diameter from China (A-570-090/C-570-091); steel wheels;
This list of scope ruling applications is not an identification of scope inquiries that have been initiated. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(d)(1), if Commerce has not rejected a scope ruling application nor initiated the scope inquiry within 30 days after the filing of the application, the application will be deemed accepted and a scope inquiry will be deemed initiated the following day—day 31.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(m)(2), if there are companion AD and CVD orders covering the same merchandise from the same country of origin, the scope inquiry will be conducted on the record of the AD proceeding. Further, please note that pursuant to 19 CFR 351.225(m)(1), Commerce may either apply a scope ruling to all products from the same country with the same relevant physical characteristics, (including chemical, dimensional, and technical characteristics) as the product at issue, on a country-wide basis, regardless of the producer, exporter, or importer of those products, or on a company-specific basis.
For further information on procedures for filing information with Commerce through ACCESS and participating in scope inquiries, please refer to the Filing Instructions section of the Scope Ruling Application Guide, at
Please note that this notice of scope ruling applications filed in AD and CVD proceedings may be published before any potential initiation, or after the initiation, of a given scope inquiry based on a scope ruling application identified in this notice. Therefore, please refer to the case segment on ACCESS to determine whether a scope ruling application has been accepted or rejected and whether a scope inquiry has been initiated.
Interested parties who wish to be served scope ruling applications for a particular AD or CVD order may file a request to be included on the annual inquiry service list during the anniversary month of the publication of the AD or CVD order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(n) and Commerce's procedures.
Interested parties are invited to comment on the completeness of this monthly list of scope ruling applications received by Commerce. Any comments should be submitted to Scot T. Fullerton, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, via email to
This notice of scope ruling applications filed in AD and CVD proceedings is published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(d)(3).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) from India is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Applicable November 14, 2024.
Adam Simons, 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) 482-6172.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b)
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation,
The product covered by this investigation is 2,4-D from India. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the
Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Commerce has calculated export prices in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Constructed export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary determination,
Sections 733(d)(1)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate 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 and
In this investigation, Commerce calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margins for Atul Limited (Atul) and Meghmani Organics Limited (MOL) that are not zero,
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in
Commerce normally adjusts cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties by the amount of export subsidies countervailed in a companion countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding, when CVD provisional measures are in effect. Accordingly, where Commerce preliminarily made an affirmative determination for countervailable export subsidies, Commerce has offset the estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the appropriate CVD rate. Any such adjusted cash deposit rate may be found in the “Preliminary Determination” section above.
Should provisional measures in the companion CVD investigation expire prior to the expiration of provisional measures in this LTFV investigation, Commerce will direct CBP to begin collecting estimated antidumping duty cash deposits unadjusted for countervailed export subsidies at the time that the provisional CVD measures expire. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(e), Commerce will analyze and, if appropriate, correct any timely allegations of significant ministerial errors by amending the preliminary determination. However, consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(d), Commerce will not consider incomplete allegations that do not address the significance standard under 19 CFR 351.224(g) following the preliminary determination. Instead, Commerce will address such allegations in the final determination together with issues raised in the case briefs or other written comments.
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. A timeline for the submission of case briefs and written comments will be notified to interested parties at a later date. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this investigation, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. Section 351.210(e)(2) of Commerce's regulations requires that a request by exporters for postponement of the final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.
On October 21, 2024, MOL requested that Commerce postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and its derivative products, including salt and ester forms of 2,4-D. 2,4-D has the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry number of 94-75-7 and the chemical formula C
Salt and ester forms of 2,4-D include 2,4-D sodium salt (CAS 2702-72-9), 2,4-D diethanolamine salt (CAS 5742-19-8), 2,4-D dimethyl amine salt (CAS 2008-39-1), 2,4-D isopropylamine salt (CAS 5742-17-6), 2,4-D tri-isopropanolamine salt (CAS 3234180-3), 2,4-D choline salt (CAS 1048373-72-3), 2,4-D butoxyethyl ester (CAS 1929-733), 2,4-D 2-ethylhexylester (CAS 1928-43-4), and 2,4-D isopropylester (CAS 94-11-1). All 2,4-D, as well as the salt and ester forms of 2,4-D, is covered by the scope irrespective of purity, particle size, or physical form.
The conversion of a 2,4-D salt or ester from 2,4-D acid, or the formulation of nonsubject merchandise with the subject 2,4-D, its salts, and its esters in the country of manufacture or in a third country does not remove the subject 2,4-D, its salts, or its esters from the scope. For any such formulations, only the 2,4-D, 2,4-D salt, and 2,4-D ester components of the mixture is covered by the scope of the investigation. Formulations of 2,4-D are products that are registered for end-use applications with the Environmental Protection Agency and contain a dispersion agent.
The country of origin of any 2,4-D derivative salt or ester is determined by the country in which the underlying 2,4-D acid is produced. 2,4-D, its salts, and its esters are classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2918.99.2010. Subject merchandise, including the abovementioned formulations, may also be classified under HTSUS subheadings 2922.12.0001, 2921.11.0000, 2921.19.6195, 2922.19.9690, 3808.93.0500, and 3808.93.1500. The HTSUS subheadings and CAS registry numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that sales of carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from Mexico were made at less than normal value during the period of review (POR), October 1, 2022, through September 30, 2023. Additionally, Commerce is rescinding this administrative review with respect to one company. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable November 14, 2024.
Laurel LaCivita or Matthew Palmer, 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) 482-4243 or (202) 482-1678, respectively.
On October 29, 2002, Commerce published the antidumping duty order on wire rod from Mexico in the
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The merchandise subject to the
A full description of the scope of the
As noted above, we initiated this review with respect to nine companies.
Commerce received timely withdrawal requests within 90 days of the date of publication of the
In addition, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), Commerce will rescind an administrative review when there are no reviewable suspended entries. Based on our analysis of the U.S. Customers and Border Protection (CBP) information, five companies listed in the
After considering the comments received, and consistent with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are rescinding this review, in part, with respect to Ingeteknos and Deacero Summit, which both had no entries in the POR and for which withdrawal requests were not previously received from all parties requesting review.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Export price and constructed export price were calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value was calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results to interested parties within five days after the date of publication of this notice, or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their briefs that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this review, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, using Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS system within 30 days of publication of this notice.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), Commerce will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their case briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
For any individually examined respondents whose weighted-average dumping margin is above
In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by each respondent which did not know that its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate entries not reviewed at the all-others rate of 20.11 percent
For the companies 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 notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of wire rod from Mexico entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the firms listed above will be equal to the dumping margins established in the final results of this review, except if the ultimate rates are
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable November 14, 2024.
Paul Senoyuit (202) 482-6106, or Sofia Pedrelli (202) 482-4310, Office II (Brazil), Colin Thrasher (202) 482-3004, Office V (Canada), Maria Aymerich (202) 482-0499, Office IV (Mexico), or Mary Kolberg (202) 482-1785, Office I (Vietnam), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On September 25, 2024, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated countervailing duty (CVD) investigations of U.S. imports of certain corrosion-resistant steel products (CORE) from Brazil, Canada, Mexico, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam).
Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in a CVD investigation within 65 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 703(c)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination in a CVD investigation until no later than 130 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) the petitioner makes a timely request for an extension of the period within which the determination must be made; or (B) Commerce concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make the preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.
On November 4, 2024, Steel Dynamics, Inc. (SDI), Nucor Corporation (Nucor), United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel), Wheeling-Nippon Steel, Inc. (Wheeling-Nippon), and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (the USW), the petitioners in the respective investigations, timely requested that Commerce postpone the preliminary determinations in the investigations.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioners submitted their requests for postponement of the preliminary determinations in the investigations 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determinations and stated the reasons for their requests. Commerce finds no compelling reason to deny the requests. Therefore, in accordance with section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, Commerce is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determinations in the investigations to no later than 130 days after the date on which it initiated the investigations,
Pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determinations in the investigations will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determinations.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
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 October anniversary dates. In accordance with Commerce's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews.
Applicable November 14, 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 October 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
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 1930, as amended (the Act), the following guidelines regarding collapsing of companies for purposes of respondent selection will apply. In general, Commerce has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (
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
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 of the proceeding
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 October 31, 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 factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The regulations, at 19 CFR 351.301, also provide specific time limits for such factual submissions based on the type of factual information being submitted. Please review the
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).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers/exporters of common alloy aluminum sheet (aluminum sheet) from the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye) during the period of review (POR) January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022.
Applicable November 14, 2024.
Mark Hoadley, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3148.
On May 3, 2024, Commerce published the preliminary results of this administrative review.
The products covered by the
All issues raised in the parties' briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues addressed is attached as an appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on comments received from interested parties and record information, we made certain changes from the
Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each subsidy program found countervailable, Commerce finds that there is a subsidy,
The Act and Commerce's regulations do not directly address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(e)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 705(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for determining the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies that were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Section 777A(e)(2) of the Act provides that “the individual countervailable subsidy rates determined under subparagraph (A) shall be used to determine the all-others rate under section 705(c)(5) {of the Act}.” Under section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or
Accordingly, to determine the rate for companies not selected for individual examination, Commerce's practice is to weight average the net subsidy rates for the selected mandatory respondents, excluding rates that are zero,
The companies for which a review was requested, which were not selected as mandatory respondents or found to be cross-owned with a mandatory respondent, are: ASAS Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.; Kibar Dis Ticaret A.S; Kibar Holding A.S.; Kibar Americas, Inc.; P.M.S. Metal Profil Aluminum Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S.; and TAC Metal Ticaret A.S.
We determine that the following net countervailable subsidy rates exist for the period January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations and analysis performed for these final results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to sections 751(a)(1) and (a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.
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
In accordance with section 751(a)(1) and (a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown for the companies listed above on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. Because the rate calculated for Teknik is
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply
Commerce is issuing the final results and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On October 17, 2024, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) published the preliminary results of changed circumstances reviews (CCRs) 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). For these final results, Commerce continues to find that Hyundai Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (HSP) is the successor-in-interest to Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai Steel), and that HSP is entitled to the AD cash deposit rates determined for Hyundai Steel with respect to entries of the subject merchandise in the above-referenced proceedings.
Applicable November 14, 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 October 17, 2024, Commerce published 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,
For the reasons stated in the
Consequently, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of all shipments of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by HSP and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice in the
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 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 terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing this determination and publishing these final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1), and 777(i)(1) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.216(e), 351.221(b)(5), and 351.221(c)(3)(i).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) from the People's Republic of China (China) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Applicable November 14, 2024.
Matthew Palmer or Anjali Mehindiratta, 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) 482-1678 or (202) 482-9127, respectively.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on April 30, 2024.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation,
The products covered by this investigation is 2,4-D from China. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the
Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Commerce has calculated export prices in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Because China is a non-market economy, within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, Commerce has calculated normal value in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. Furthermore, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, Commerce preliminarily relied upon facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences, for the China-wide entity, which includes Shandong Weifang Rainbow Chemical Co., Ltd. (Weifang Rainbow), and the following companies: (1) CAC Nantong Chemical Co., Ltd.; (2) Changzhou Wintafone Chemical; (3) Gansu Xinlengmao Science and Tech Co.; (4) Gansu Yufengyuan Science and Tec Co., Ltd.; (4) Jilin Ivsheng Agrochemical Co., Ltd.; (6) Jingma Chemicals Ltd.; (7) Nanjing Agrochemical Co., Ltd.; (8) Ningxia Hanrun Biotechnology Co., Ltd.; and (9) Tangshan Shengdong Chemical Co., Lt. For a full description of the methodology underlying Commerce's preliminary determination,
In the
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
To determine the cash deposit rate, Commerce normally adjusts the estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the amount of domestic subsidy pass-through and export subsidies determined in a companion countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding when CVD provisional measures are in effect. Accordingly, where Commerce has made a preliminary affirmative determination for domestic subsidy pass-through or export subsidies, Commerce has offset the calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the appropriate rate(s). Any such adjusted rates may be found in the “Preliminary Determination” section's table of estimated weighted-average dumping margins above.
Should provisional measures in the companion CVD investigation expire prior to the expiration of provisional measures in this LTFV investigation, Commerce will direct CBP to begin collecting cash deposits at a rate equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins calculated in this preliminary determination unadjusted for the passed-through domestic subsidies or for export subsidies at the time that the CVD provisional measures expire.
These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
Commerce intends to disclose to parties to the proceeding the calculations and analysis it performed in this preliminary determination within five days of public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(e), Commerce will analyze and, if appropriate, correct any timely allegations of significant ministerial errors by amending the preliminary determination. However, consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(d), Commerce will not consider incomplete allegations that do not address the significance standard under 19 CFR 351.224(g) following the preliminary determination. Instead, Commerce will address such allegations in the final determination together with issues raised in the case briefs or other written comments.
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify information relied upon in making its final determination with regard to the cooperative mandatory respondent.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last final verification report is issued in this investigation.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this investigation, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioners. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), Commerce requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping duty determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.
On October 18, 2024, Thai Harvest requested that Commerce postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether imports of subject merchandise are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This preliminary determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and its derivative products, including salt and ester forms of 2,4-D. 2,4- D has the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry number of 94-75-7 and the chemical formula C
Salt and ester forms of 2,4-D include 2,4-D sodium salt (CAS 2702-72-9), 2,4-D diethanolamine salt (CAS 5742-19-8), 2,4-D dimethyl amine salt (CAS 2008-39-1), 2,4-D isopropylamine salt (CAS 5742-17-6), 2,4-D tri-isopropanolamine salt (CAS 3234180-3), 2,4-D choline salt (CAS 1048373-72-3), 2,4- D butoxyethyl ester (CAS 1929-733), 2,4-D 2- ethylhexylester (CAS 1928-43-4), and 2,4-D isopropylester (CAS 94-11-1). All 2,4-D, as well as the salt and ester forms of 2,4-D, is covered by the scope irrespective of purity, particle size, or physical form.
The conversion of a 2,4-D salt or ester from 2,4-D acid, or the formulation of nonsubject merchandise with the subject 2,4-D, its salts, and its esters in the country of manufacture or in a third country does not remove the subject 2,4-D, its salts, or its esters from the scope. For any such formulations, only the 2,4-D, 2,4-D salt, and 2,4-D ester components of the mixture is covered by the scope of the investigations. Formulations of 2,4-D are products that are registered for end-use applications with the Environmental Protection Agency and contain a dispersion agent.
The country of origin of any 2,4-D derivative salt or ester is determined by the country in which the underlying 2,4-D acid is produced. 2,4-D, its salts, and its esters are classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2918.99.2010. Subject merchandise, including the abovementioned formulations, may also be classified under HTSUS 2922.12.0001, 2921.11.0000, 2921.19.6195, 2922.19.9690, 3808.93.0500, and 3808.93.1500. The HTSUS subheadings and CAS registry numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that common alloy aluminum sheet (CAAS) from the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye) was sold in the United States at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) April 1, 2022, through March 31, 2023. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable November 14, 2024.
Mark Hoadley, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3148.
On May 3, 2024, Commerce published the
The merchandise subject to the
All issues raised in parties' case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum and are listed in the appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on our analysis of the comments received from interested parties, Commerce made certain changes to the margin calculations for Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Assan) and Teknik Aluminyum Sanayi A.S. (Teknik).
The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a weighted-average dumping margin to be determined for 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 when determining the weighted-average dumping margin 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 rates that are zero,
We determine the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins for the period April 1, 2022, through March 31, 2023:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed for these final results of review to interested parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce will determine, 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. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), because Assan's and Teknik's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
Consistent with Commerce's clarification of its assessment practice, for entries of subject merchandise
For the non-examined companies subject to review, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all applicable entries of subject merchandise during the POR at the rate listed in the table above.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the company-specific cash deposit rate for Assan and Teknik will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review for each respondent (except, if that rate is
This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an 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 the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2) and 351.221(b)(5).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 87 assessment webinar IV for Gulf of Mexico white, pink, and brown shrimp.
The SEDAR 87 assessment process of Gulf of Mexico white, pink, and brown shrimp will consist of a Data Workshop, and a series of assessment webinars, and a Review Workshop. See
The SEDAR 87 assessment webinar IV will be held December 2, 2024, from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m., Eastern Time.
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop, (2) a series of assessment webinars, and (3) A Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The assessment webinars produce a report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions,
The items of discussion during the Assessment webinar IV are as follows:
Participants will review the assessment modeling work to date and provide recommendations to the analytic team.
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 intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council; SAFMC) will hold meetings of the following: Citizen Science Committee; Dolphin Wahoo Committee; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) Committee; and Snapper Grouper Committee. The meeting week will also include a formal public comment session and meetings of the Full Council.
The Council meeting will be held from 8:30 a.m. on Monday, December 2, 2024, until 12 p.m. on Friday, December 6, 2024.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; telephone: (843) 302-8440 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
Meeting information, including agendas, overviews, and briefing book materials will be posted on the Council's website at:
The items of discussion in the individual meeting agendas are as follows:
The Council will meet in closed session to receive a litigation brief if needed, review the advisory panel policy, address appointments to advisory panels and the Council's Citizen Science Advisory Committee and review the Law Enforcement Officer of the Year process.
The Council will receive a litigation brief and reports from NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, the U.S. Coast Guard, Council liaisons, and state agencies. The Council will receive an update on the Southeast Reef Fish Survey (SERFS) and the Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP), an update on electronic reporting for Highly Migratory Species (HMS) from NOAA Fisheries, and review the Southeast For-Hire Integrated Electronic Reporting (SEFHIER) Improvement Amendment currently under development. The Amendment review will include recommendations from the Council's Social and Economic Panel, a presentation on the use of electronic vessel trip report data by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, and a presentation on the SEFHEIR Program from NOAA Fisheries.
The Council will consider approving a summary allocations report on Atlantic Spadefish and the Jacks Complex. Council members will receive a report on Headboat Vessel Limits, a report on the recent Council Coordination Committee meeting, a staff report, and an update on Stakeholder Engagement Meetings.
The Committee will receive an update on the Citizen Science Program Evaluation, review recommendations, and receive a Citizen Science projects update.
The Committee will receive an update by NOAA Fisheries on the Dolphin Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) for the dolphin fishery along the Atlantic coast, and discuss potential actions to include in Regulatory Amendment 3 to the Dolphin Wahoo Fishery Management Plan.
The SEDAR Committee will review recommendations from the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) pertaining to proposed changes in the SEDAR stock assessment process. Council staff will also lead discussion on the topic of Key Stocks relative to the SEDAR process.
The Committee will receive an update on the status of amendments under review from NOAA Fisheries, recommendations from the Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel on items not on the December meeting agenda, and review management measures proposed for black sea bass through Amendment 56 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan. Review of Amendment 56 includes recommendations from the Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel and the Council's SSC. The Council will receive on the results of the MSE for the Snapper Grouper Fishery, including recommendations from the Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel and the SSC.
The Committee will discuss review approaches for ongoing assessments for blueline tilefish, yellowtail snapper, and mutton snapper, and discuss a management approach for the yellowtail snapper and mutton snapper stocks, which extend into the jurisdiction of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. The Committee will receive a presentation on Stock Risk Rating for golden tilefish, blueline tilefish, red snapper, mutton snapper, and yellowtail snapper. The Committee will receive an update on Amendment 46 to the Snapper Grouper FMP addressing proposed Private Recreational Permit and Education requirements, including a report from the Snapper Grouper Private Angler Advisory Panel. The golden tilefish stock assessment will be the focus of a presentation by NOAA Fisheries and recommendations from the SSC will also be considered. A summary of the discussion of the Commercial Fishery Sub-Committee will conclude the Committee meeting.
The Council will receive agency reports from NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Fisheries Science Center, and a report from the Outreach and Communications AP. The Council will receive a report from the SSC on items not covered in committees and an update from the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
The Executive Director's annual review will be conducted during Closed Session. The Council will receive Committee reports, review the Council Workplan and upcoming meetings, and discuss any other business as needed.
Documents regarding these issues are available from the Council office (see
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 these meetings. 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.
These meetings are 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.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permits, permit amendments, and permit modifications.
Notice is hereby given that permits, permit amendments, and permit modifications have been issued to the following entities under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as applicable.
The permits and related documents are available for review upon written request via email to
Amy Hapeman (Permit Nos. 26725-01 and 28119), Shasta McClenahan, Ph.D., (Permit Nos. 27858, 27867, 28184, and 28277), Jennifer Skidmore (Permit No. 28080), and Erin Markin, Ph.D., (Permit Nos. 28171, 28192 and 23096-02); at (301) 427-8401.
Notices were published in the
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
As required by the ESA, as applicable, issuance of these permit was based on a finding that such permits: (1) were applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public online meeting.
The Groundfish Subcommittee of the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council's) Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will hold a meeting to update the Accepted Practices Guidelines for Groundfish Stock Assessments document. The SSC Groundfish Subcommittee meeting is open to the public and is being conducted in-person with a web broadcast that provides the opportunity for remote listening and public comment.
The SSC Groundfish Subcommittee's meeting will be held Monday, December 2, 2024, from 1 p.m., Pacific Time until business for the day is completed, and reconvene Tuesday, December 3, 2024, from 8:30 a.m., Pacific Time until business for the day has been completed.
The SSC Groundfish Subcommittee's meeting will be held in the Large Conference Room at the Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Portland, OR 97220; telephone: (503) 820-2280. This meeting is being conducted in-person with a web broadcast that provides the opportunity for remote public comment. Specific meeting information, including directions on how to join the meeting and system requirements, will be provided in the meeting announcement on the Pacific Council's website (see
Marlene A. Bellman, Staff Officer, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2414, email:
The purpose of the SSC Groundfish Subcommittee's meeting is to update accepted practices guidelines for conducting groundfish stock assessments. The meeting will also contain presentations on two associated topics: (a) use of remotely operated vehicle data in stock assessments and (b) results of a literature review of methods addressing large area closures within stock assessments. Recommendations of SSC Groundfish Subcommittee members will inform the Accepted Practices Guidelines for Stock Assessments in 2025 and 2026 document, which is a compilation of guidelines for groundfish stock assessment scientists. An updated version of the Accepted Practices Guidelines for Stock Assessments in 2025 and 2026 document will be available and posted shortly after this meeting for stock assessment scientists and provided to the full SSC and the Pacific Council in March 2025. Representatives of the Pacific Council's Groundfish Management Team and the Groundfish Advisory Subpanel will also participate in the meeting as advisers.
No management actions will be decided by the SSC Groundfish Subcommittee. The SSC Groundfish Subcommittee members' role will be development of recommendations for consideration by U.S. West Coast groundfish stock assessment scientists.
Although nonemergency issues not contained in the meeting agendas may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent of the SSC Groundfish Subcommittee to take final action to address the emergency.
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt (
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a one day virtual meeting of its Standing and Special Mackerel Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSC).
The meeting will be held Thursday, December 5, 2024, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., EST.
The meeting will take place virtually. Registration information will be available on the Council's website by visiting
Mr. Ryan Rindone, Lead Fishery Biologist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council;
The meeting will begin with Introductions and Adoption of Agenda, Scope of Work, and review and approval of Meeting Minutes from the July/August 2024 SSC meeting.
Public comments will be heard at the end of the day before any items under Other Business are discussed.
The meeting will be broadcast via webinar. You may register for the webinar by visiting
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Scientific and Statistical Committees for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Scientific and Statistical Committee will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda 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-action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to Kathy Pereira, (813) 348-1630, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a one day in-person meeting of its Reef Fish Advisory Panel (AP).
The meeting will take place Tuesday, December 3, 2024, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., EST.
The in-person meeting will take place at the Gulf Council office. Registration information will be available on the Council's website by visiting
Mr. Ryan Rindone, Lead Fishery Biologist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council;
The meeting will begin with Introductions of Members and Adoption of Agenda, Election of New Chair and Vice Chair, Approval of Minutes and Meeting Summary from the October 2023 meeting, Scope of Work and Reef Fish and Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program Landings.
The AP will review and discuss Amendment 58A:
The AP will then review Framework Actions for Removal of the 20-fathom
Lastly, the AP will receive Public Comment and discuss any Other Business items.
The meeting will also be broadcast via webinar. You may register for the webinar by visiting
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Advisory Panel for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Advisory Panel will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda 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-action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to Kathy Pereira, (813) 348-1630, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council, NEFMC) will hold a three-day hybrid meeting with both in-person and remote participation to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, December 3, 2024, through Thursday, December 5, 2024, beginning at 9 a.m. all three days.
The meeting will take place at the Hotel Viking, One Bellevue Avenue, Newport, RI 02840; telephone: (844) 806-4895; online at
Cate O'Keefe, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492, ext. 113.
After brief announcements, the Council will receive reports on recent activities from its Chair and Executive Director, the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) Regional Administrator, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) Director, the NOAA Office of General Counsel, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council liaison, and representatives from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), the U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement, and the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO). Next, the Council will hear remarks from the NOAA Fisheries Deputy Administrator for Regulatory Programs and have an opportunity to ask questions. It then will receive an overview of the NOAA Fisheries Equity and Environmental Justice (EEJ) Implementation Plan for the New England/Mid-Atlantic Region. Up next will be a progress report on the Council's climate, ecosystem, and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) initiatives entailing: (1) an update on the membership and upcoming activities of the new Climate and Ecosystem Steering Committee, including coordination with NEFSC's Climate, Ecosystems, and Fisheries Initiative (CEFI) and the Council's IRA-funded projects; and (2) a report on the October 2024 meeting of the East Coast Climate Coordination Group (E3CG) and the group's planned work for 2025. NOAA General Counsel will provide a briefing on disclosure of financial interests and voting recusal
Following the lunch break, members of the public will have the opportunity to speak during an open comment period on issues that relate to Council business but are not included on the published agenda for this meeting. The Council asks the public to limit remarks to 3-5 minutes. These comments will be received both in person and through the webinar. A guide for how to publicly comment through the webinar is available on the Council website at
The Council will begin the second day of its meeting with a discussion of 2025 spiny dogfish specifications, which will include: (1) a review of recommendations from the Spiny Dogfish Committee, Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee, the Mid-Atlantic Council's SSC, and the Spiny Dogfish Advisory Panel; (2) a review of previously adopted 2025 specifications and management measures; and (3) consideration of whether any changes are needed. The Northeast Fisheries Science Center then will provide a summary of the September 2024 Management Track Stock Assessments for American plaice, Gulf of Maine haddock, Georges Bank haddock, Atlantic pollock, witch flounder, and Atlantic halibut. The Scientific and Statistical Committee chair then will provide the SSC's overfishing limit (OFL) and acceptable biological catch (ABC) recommendations for Atlantic sea scallops, witch flounder, American plaice, Gulf of Maine haddock, Georges Bank haddock, pollock, and Atlantic halibut.
Following the lunch break, the Council will review, discuss, and approve the Transboundary Management Guidance Committee's (TMGC) recommendations for 2025 total allowable catches (TACs) for three shared U.S./Canada groundfish resources on Georges Bank—Eastern Georges Bank cod, Eastern Georges Bank haddock, and Georges Bank yellowtail flounder. The Groundfish Committee report will follow. The Council will take final action on Framework Adjustment 69 to the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery Management Plan, which will: (1) set specifications for several groundfish stocks for fishing years 2025-2027; (2) set U.S./Canada TACs for 2025; (3) incorporate revisions to scallop fishery flatfish accountability measure (AM) triggers; and (4) set measures to address Phase 1 of the Council's Atlantic cod management transition plan. The Council then will adjourn for the day.
The Council will lead off the third day of its meeting with the Scallop Committee report and take final action on Framework Adjustment 39 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan. Framework 39 includes: (1) 2025 fishing year specifications; (2) 2026 default specifications; (3) revisions to Scallop Access Area II seasonal closures to reduce flatfish bycatch and improve scallop yield; and (4) measures to allow Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM) permit holders fishing on directed scallop trips in the NGOM Management Area to possess scallops south of 42°20′. The Council then will receive an overview of the NOAA Fisheries National Seafood Strategy Implementation Plan. Following this presentation, the Council will discuss and take final action on 2025 Council Priorities for all fishery management plans and other Council responsibilities before closing out the meeting with other business.
Although non-emergency issues not contained on this agenda may come before the Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens 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 public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Executive Director Cate O'Keefe (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and its advisory committees will meet in December. The meetings will be held via hybrid conference.
The meetings will be held December 2, 2024, through December 10, 2024. See
The meetings will be a hybrid conference. The in-person component of the meeting will be held at the Egan Center, 555 W 5th Ave, Anchorage, AK 99501, or join the meeting online through the links at
Diana Evans, Council staff; email:
The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will begin at 8 a.m. on Monday, December 2, 2024, and continue through Wednesday, December 4, 2024. The Council's Advisory Panel (AP) will begin at 8 a.m. on Tuesday, December 3, 2024, and continue through Friday, December 6, 2024. The Council will begin at 8 a.m. on Thursday, December 5, 2024, and continue through Tuesday, December 10, 2024. The Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Committee will meet Monday, December 2, 2024, from 10 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. The Charter Halibut Management Committee will meet Tuesday, December 3, 2024, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Both committee meetings will be held in the North Pacific Fishery Management Council's Conference Room; 1007 W 3rd Ave, Suite 400, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252. All times listed are Alaska Time.
The SSC agenda will include the following issues:
In addition to providing ongoing scientific advice for fishery management decisions, the SSC functions as the Council's primary peer review panel for scientific information, as described by the Magnuson-Stevens Act section 302(g)(1)(e), and the National Standard 2 guidelines (78 FR 43066). The peer-review process is also deemed to satisfy the requirements of the Information Quality Act, including the OMB Peer Review Bulletin guidelines.
The IFQ Committee agenda will include: (a) IFQ program review; (b) committee draft Terms of Reference; and (c) other business. The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
The Charter Halibut Management Committee agenda will include: (a) 2025 management measures, and (b) other business. The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
The Advisory Panel agenda will include the following issues:
The Council agenda will include the following issues. The Council may take appropriate action on any of the issues identified.
You can attend the meeting online using a computer, tablet, or smart phone, or by phone only. Connection information will be posted online at:
If you are attending the meeting in-person, please refer to the COVID avoidance protocols on our website,
Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted electronically through the links at
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. 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 Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The DoD is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense (DAC-IPAD) of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces will take place.
December 3, 2024, and December 4, 2024. Day 1, open to the public from 9:45 a.m. to 5 p.m. and day 2, open to the public from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST).
The meeting will be held at the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 333 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20001. For virtual access to the meeting, email your request along with your name and contact information to the DAC-IPAD public email at
Dwight Sullivan, 703-695-1055 (Voice),
This meeting is being held under the provisions of chapter 10 of title 5 United States Code (U.S.C.) (commonly known as the “Federal Advisory Committee Act” or “FACA”), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 102-3.140 and 102-3.50.
Registration for oral public comment is on a first-come, first-served basis. Comments are limited to five (5) minutes or less per person. After the maximum number of speakers is exceeded, individuals registered to provide oral comment will be placed on a wait list and notified should an opening become available. Should time expire for oral public comments those not presented will be provided to the Chair of the DAC IPAD for consideration. You will be notified via email no later than December 3, 2024 if you have been identified to provide in-person public comment.
Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a new information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before January 13, 2025.
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 Anousheh Shayestehpour, 202-987-1148.
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.
REL Southwest is developing the LEAD intervention through an approved Training, Coaching, and Technical Support (TCTS) project. To increase the likelihood that the LEAD intervention will achieve its intended outcomes, the partnership is also studying the usability, feasibility, and acceptability of the core components of the LEAD
REL Southwest is requesting clearance to conduct an efficacy study with a third cohort of schools. The study will be conducted in 44 schools across Oklahoma and will focus on school leaders and preK and kindergarten teachers and students. Data collected for this study will be used to measure the implementation of the LEAD intervention in participating schools and the LEAD intervention's efficacy in improving school leaders' and teachers' knowledge of research-based early learning practices; teachers' use of play-based learning practices and high-quality teacher-student interactions; and students' attendance, early academic skills, and skills to support learning. This efficacy study will provide evidence on LEAD implementation and its impact on educators and preK and kindergarten students in Oklahoma.
Take notice that on November 7, 2024, Louisville Gas and Electric Company requested from the Chief Accountant of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) approval to use Account 182.2, Unrecovered Plant and Regulatory Study Costs, of the Commission's Uniform System of Accounts, to record the Retirement Costs of its Mill Creek Unit 1.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that on October 31, 2024, Golden Triangle Storage, Inc. (GTS) requested that the Commission grant an extension of time, until December 31, 2027, to complete the development of Storage Caverns 1 and 2 to their certificated storage capacities for the GTS Project in Jefferson and Orange Counties, Texas as authorized in the Order Authorizing Certificates issued on December 31, 2007.
GTS explains that as of June 16, 2012, GTS placed all certificated facilities into service except the completion of Caverns 1 and 2 to their maximum certificated capacities. GTS further explains that, prior to this request, it requested and received three extensions of time, primarily to accommodate the lengthy cavern rewatering process required to enlarge the caverns to their full capacity and to deal with salt creep which slowly reduces cavern capacity. GTS states that it will not be able to complete the expansion of Caverns 1 and 2 by December 31, 2024, and therefore requests an extension of time until December 31, 2027.
This notice establishes a 15-calendar day intervention and comment period deadline. Any person wishing to comment on GTS's request for an extension of time may do so. No reply
As a matter of practice, the Commission itself generally acts on requests for extensions of time to complete construction for NGA facilities when such requests are contested before order issuance. For those extension requests that are contested,
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments in lieu of paper using the “eFile” link 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 Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC) regulations, 18 CFR part 380, Commission staff reviewed Jeffersonville Hydroelectric Co.'s application to surrender the exemption of the Lake Jefferson Project No. 6055 and have prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed surrender. The exemptee proposes to surrender the exemption by: (1) leaving the turbines and all generating equipment disconnected from the grid; (2) securing the power generation area of the powerhouse/residence by means of a locked barricade; and (3) upon surrender, keeping the lake level as low as possible, mainly through operation of the low-level drain valve. The project is located on the East Branch Callicoon Creek, in Sullivan County, New York, and does not occupy Federal lands.
The EA contains Commission staff's analysis of the potential environmental effects of the proposed surrender of the exemption, and concludes that the proposed surrender, would not constitute a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
The final EA may be viewed on the Commission's website at
You may also register online 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
For further information, contact Jeremy Jessup at 202-502-6779 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.
l.
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.
m.
n.
o. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
p.
q.
r. The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) staff (Protestor) hereby protests the prior notice request filed under the provisions of the Commission's regulations at Part 157, subpart F, by Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC (FGT), on August 30, 2024, in the above referenced docket. Pursuant to its Part 157, subpart F, blanket certificate authority, FGT proposes to: (1) complete minor auxiliary facility modifications at its existing Compressor Station 13 in Washington County, Florida; (2) construct 2.57 miles of 12-inch-diameter lateral loop pipeline in Putnam County, Florida; (3) modify the existing Palatka—CertainTeed Gypsum Meter and Regulation Station in Putnam County, Florida; and (4) construct appurtenant facilities under section 2.55(a) of the Commission's regulations (Palatka Project). Protestor seeks to have this prior notice request processed as a case-specific application filed under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157, subpart A, of the Commission's regulations.
Protestor notes that FGT did not provide a copy of a finding by the Florida State Historic Preservation Office of “no historic properties” or “no historic properties effected.” This documentation is necessary to demonstrate the Project's compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as required under the Commission's regulations at section 157.208(c)(9) and appendix II of subpart F. Without this documentation, the environmental concerns cannot be adequately addressed before the protest period expires on November 8, 2024.
Take notice that on October 31, 2024, Coronado Midstream LLC (Coronado), 1722 Routh Street, Suite 1300, Dallas, Texas 75201, filed an application under section 7c of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization for a blanket certificate of public convenience and necessity that will allow Coronado to perform certain activities under section 157.203 and related sections of the Commission's Regulations. All of Coronado's jurisdictional facilities are located in Andrews and Martin Counties, Texas, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open for public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Any questions regarding the proposed project should be directed to Coronado Midstream LLC, Ashley D. Stevens, Senior Counsel & Director of Regulatory Affairs, 1722 Routh St., Suite 1300 Dallas, Texas 75201, by phone at (214) 721-9355, or by email at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file comments on the project, you can protest the filing, and you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding. There is no fee or cost for filing comments or intervening. The deadline for filing a motion to intervene is 5 p.m. eastern time on November 27, 2024. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. Comments may include statements of support or objections, to the project as a whole or specific aspects of the project. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.
Pursuant to sections 157.10(a)(4)
To ensure that your comments or protests are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before November 27, 2024.
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments or protests to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket number CP25-13-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website at
(2) You may file your comments or protests electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments or protests by mailing them to the following address below. Your written comments must reference the Project docket number (CP25-13-000).
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments (options 1 and 2 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Persons who comment on the environmental review of this project will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will receive notification when the environmental documents (EA or EIS) are issued for this project and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. However, the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding. For instructions on how to intervene, see below.
Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses, municipalities, and other entities,
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
There are two ways to submit your motion to intervene. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP25-13-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your motion to intervene by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your motion to intervene, along with three copies, by mailing the documents to the address below. Your motion to intervene must reference the Project docket number CP25-13-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of motions to intervene (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail or email at: Ashley D. Stevens, Senior Counsel & Director of Regulatory Affairs, 1722 Routh St., Suite 1300 Dallas, Texas 75201 or by email (with a link to the document) at
All timely, unopposed
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that on October 29, 2024, NGO Transmission, Inc. (NGO Transmission), 1500 Granville Road, Newark, Ohio 43058-4970, filed an application under section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization to abandon all of its jurisdictional facilities, consisting of three underground natural gas storage facilities and approximately 171 miles of small and medium diameter natural gas pipelines and appurtenant facilities located in Perry, Muskingum, and Licking counties in Ohio. NGO Transmission seeks to reclassify these facilities from jurisdictional transmission facilities to non-jurisdictional local distribution facilities, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open for public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Any questions regarding the proposed project should be directed to Daniel S. McVey, Chief Operating Officer, 1500 Granville Road, Newark, Ohio 43058-4970, by phone at (740) 344-2102 (Ext. 1238), or by email at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file comments on the project, you can protest the filing, and you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding. There is no fee or cost for filing comments or intervening. The deadline for filing a motion to intervene is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 28, 2024. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. Comments may include statements of support or objections, to the project as a whole or specific aspects of the project. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.
Pursuant to sections 157.10(a)(4)
To ensure that your comments or protests are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before November 28, 2024.
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments or protests to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket number CP25-11-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website at
(2) You may file your comments or protests electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments or protests by mailing them to the following address below. Your written comments must reference the Project docket number (CP25-11-000).
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments (options 1 and 2 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Persons who comment on the environmental review of this project will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will receive notification when the environmental documents (EA or EIS) are issued for this project and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. However, the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding. For instructions on how to intervene, see below.
Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses, municipalities, and other entities,
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
There are two ways to submit your motion to intervene. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP25-11-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your motion to intervene by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your motion to intervene, along with three copies, by mailing the documents to the address below. Your motion to intervene must reference the Project docket number CP25-11-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of motions to intervene (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail at: Daniel S. McVey, Chief Operating Officer, 1500 Granville Road, Newark, Ohio 43058-4970 or by email (with a link to the document) at
All timely, unopposed
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the 2024 Totem Enhanced Deliverability Project (Project), proposed by Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C. (CIG) in the above-referenced docket. CIG requests authorization to install, replace, reclassify, operate, and abandon certain natural gas pipeline facilities to enable CIG to enhance its existing Totem Natural Gas Storage Field (Totem Storage Field), and provide 53,700 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of increased deliverability, facilitated by injection of 1 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of additional base gas into the Totem Storage Field occurring over two injection seasons in Adams County, Colorado.
The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The Project would consist of the following facilities and activities:
• Installation of six new injection/withdrawal (I/W) wells, each with a wellhead and meter yard and 0.42 mile of 6-inch-diameter lateral pipeline to connect the new wells to gathering lines;
• Reclassification of one existing I/W well to an observation well;
• Line 254F-1:
○ Replacement of 0.62 mile of 8-inch-diameter gathering pipeline with approximately 0.72 mile of 12-inch-diameter gathering pipeline to connect the Totem Compressor Station to existing and new I/W wells;
○ Replacement of approximately 0.12 mile of existing 6-inch-diameter pipeline with approximately 0.08 mile of new 4-inch and 6-inch-diameter pipeline to interconnect with the new 12-inch-diameter segment;
○ Installation of 7 new tap valves/lateral tie-ins;
○ Replacement of the launcher/receiver facilities;
• Line 254-2:
○ Replacement of approximately 0.28 mile of existing 6-inch and 10-inch-diameter pipeline with approximately 0.26 mile of new 3-inch, 4-inch and 6-inch-diameter pipeline to interconnect with existing Line 254-2;
○ Installation of 7 new tap valves/lateral tie-ins;
• Abandonment in place of approximately 0.4 mile of 3-inch-diameter on Line 254F-7;
• Installation of approximately 0.68 mile of new permanent access road that would encircle each of the new I/W wells; and
• Modifications at the existing Totem Compressor Station including an installation of new Vortex Separator, new 6-inch bypass with actuated valve and recommissioning of an existing vessel V-5530 along with various piping modifications.
The Commission mailed a copy of the of the
The EA is not a decision document. It presents Commission staff's independent analysis of the environmental issues for the Commission to consider when addressing the merits of all issues in this proceeding. Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the EA's disclosure and discussion of potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 9, 2024.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's website (
(2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP24-124-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or judicial review of the Commission's decision. At this point in this proceeding, the timeframe for filing timely intervention requests has expired. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene out-of-time pursuant to Rule 214(b)(3) and (d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214(b)(3) and (d)) and show good cause why the time
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (
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
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental document, that will discuss the environmental impacts of the 507G Line Abandonment Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Tennessee) in Acadia, Vermilion, Iberia, and St. Mary Parishes, Louisiana. The Commission will use this environmental document in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies regarding the project. As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process, the Commission takes into account concerns the public may have about proposals and the environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the issuance of an authorization. This gathering of public input is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the environmental document on the important environmental issues. Additional information about the Commission's NEPA process is described below in the
By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of issues to address in the environmental document. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before 5:00pm Eastern Time on December 9, 2024. Comments may be submitted in written form. Further details on how to submit comments are provided in the
Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the environmental document. Commission staff will consider all written comments during the preparation of the environmental document.
If you submitted comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on September 30, 2024, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP24-529-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
Tennessee provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” which addresses typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. This fact sheet along with other landowner topics of interest are available for viewing on the FERC website (
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP24-529-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of time you spend
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
Tennessee proposes to abandon a portion of its 507G pipeline. The 507G Line Abandonment Project would consist of abandonment in-place and by removal of a portion of the 507G-100 Line and abandonment in-place and by removal of the remaining portion of the 507G-500 Line. According to Tennessee, since these pipeline facilities were placed in service, there have been changes in natural gas supply locations, patterns, and flows that have led Tennessee to now request abandonment of these facilities.
The 507G Line Abandonment Project would consist of the following facilities:
• abandon in-place and by removal approximately 59.6 miles and 15.8 miles of 16-inch-diameter pipeline of the 507G-100 Line, respectively; and
• abandon in-place and by removal approximately 7.9 miles and 1.1 miles of 12-inch-diameter pipeline of the 507G-500 supply lateral pipeline, respectively.
Under Section 2.55(a) of the Commission's regulations, Tennessee intends to relocate an existing pigging facility.
Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 458.64 acres of land for the abandonment of the pipelines. Following construction, Tennessee would maintain about 0.08 acre for permanent operation of the pigging facility; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses.
Any environmental document issued by the Commission will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under the relevant general resource areas:
Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your comments will help Commission staff identify and focus on the issues that might have an effect on the human environment and potentially eliminate others from further study and discussion in the environmental document.
Following this scoping period, Commission staff will determine whether to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EA or the EIS will present Commission staff's independent analysis of the issues. If Commission staff prepares an EA, a
With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project and includes a mailing address with their comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that
If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of the following steps:
(1) Send an email to
(2) Return the attached “Mailing List Update Form” (appendix 2).
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of request for nominations of candidates to the Environmental Financial Advisory Board.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites nominations of qualified candidates to be considered for appointment to the Environmental Financial Advisory Board (the Board or EFAB). The Board provides advice to EPA on ways to lower the costs of, and increase investments in, environmental and public health protection. Appointments will be made by the Administrator and will be announced in June 2025. EPA may also consider nominations received through this solicitation in the event of unanticipated vacancies on the Board.
Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later than December 16, 2024.
Nominations should be sent via email to
Any member of the public who wants further information concerning the nomination process may contact Tara Johnson via telephone/voicemail at (202) 809-7368 or email to
• Creating incentives to increase private investment in the provision of environmental services and removing or reducing constraints on private involvement wherever possible;
• Developing new and innovative environmental financing approaches and supporting and encouraging the use of cost-effective existing approaches;
• Identifying approaches, challenges, opportunities, and methodologies specifically targeted to small community financing;
• Assessing government strategies for implementing public-private partnerships, including privatization, operations and maintenance issues, and other alternative financing mechanisms;
• Improving governmental principles of accounting and disclosure standards to help improve the financial sustainability of environmental programs;
• Increasing the capacity of state and local governments to carry out their respective environmental programs under current Federal laws;
• Increasing the total investment in environmental protection and stewardship of public and private environmental resources to help ease the environmental financing challenge facing our nation; and
• Developing innovative investment models and market-based approaches that increase the long-term resiliency of infrastructure.
The Board's recent work has included:
• Options for the development of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund authorized under the Inflation Reduction Act; and
• Recommendations for catalyzing pollution prevention finance, enhancing the agency's approach to encourage increased Opportunity Zone funds investment alongside existing EPA funding tools, and improving the availability of public and private sources of funding for stormwater infrastructure.
The Board meets either in-person or virtually two times each calendar year (two days per meeting) at different locations within the continental United States. In addition to the bi-annual meetings, additional virtual meetings may be held during the year to ensure timely completion of the Board's work. Board members typically contribute approximately 3 to 8 hours per month to the activities of the Board. This includes participation on one or more of the Board's active workgroups. Members serve on the Board without compensation; however, Board members may receive travel and per diem allowances where appropriate and in accordance with Federal travel regulations.
Members are appointed to represent the perspective of specific organizations, associations, or groups of persons (Representative members), or to provide their individual expertise (Special Government Employee, or SGE, members). Candidates invited to serve as SGE members will be asked to submit the “Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential form allows EPA to determine whether there is a statutory conflict between that person's public responsibilities as an SGE member and private interests and activities, or the
In accordance with Executive Order 14035 (June 25, 2021) and consistent with law, EPA values and welcomes opportunities to increase diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility on its Federal advisory committees. EPA's Federal advisory committees strive to have a workforce that reflects the diversity of the American people. Nominee qualifications will be assessed under the mandates of the FACA, which requires that committees be balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed; for the Board, this balance includes diversity across a broad range of constituencies, sectors, and groups. In addition to this notice, other sources may be utilized to make interested parties aware of this solicitation for nominees. EPA may also consider nominations received through this solicitation in the event of unanticipated vacancies on the Board.
Nominations can only be submitted via email to
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is announcing the availability of the final supplement to the risk evaluation and revised unreasonable risk determination under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 1,4-dioxane. The purpose of risk evaluations under TSCA is to determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment, without consideration of costs or non-risk factors, including unreasonable risk to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by EPA, under the conditions of use. The Agency used the best available science to prepare this final supplement to the risk evaluation and has determined that 1,4-dioxane poses unreasonable risk to human health. Under TSCA, EPA must initiate risk management actions to address the unreasonable risk.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0723, is available online at
This action is directed to the public in general and may be of particular interest to those involved in the manufacture, processing, distribution, use, and disposal of 1,4-dioxane, related industry trade organizations, non-governmental organizations with an interest in human and environmental health, State and local governments, Tribal Nations, and/or those interested in the assessment of risks involving chemical substances and mixtures regulated under TSCA. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that this action might apply to. If you need help determining applicability, consult the technical contact listed under
The Agency is conducting this risk evaluation under TSCA section 6, 15 U.S.C. 2605, which requires that EPA conduct risk evaluations on chemical substances and identifies the minimum components EPA must include in all chemical substance risk evaluations. Each risk evaluation must be conducted consistent with the best available science, be based on the weight of
EPA is announcing the availability of the final supplement to the 1,4-dioxane risk evaluation and final revised unreasonable risk determination under TSCA. The purpose of risk evaluations under TSCA is to determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or non-risk factors, including unreasonable risk to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by EPA, under the conditions of use. EPA has used the best available science to prepare this final risk evaluation and has determined that 1,4-dioxane poses unreasonable risk to human health. Upon a determination of unreasonable risk, EPA must initiate risk management action as required pursuant to 15 U.S.C 2605(a) to address the unreasonable risk.
In 2016, EPA announced its designation of 1,4-dioxane for risk evaluation under TSCA (81 FR 91927, December 19, 2016 (FRL-9956-47)). 1,4-Dioxane was one of the first 10 chemical substances undergoing the TSCA risk evaluation process after passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which amended TSCA. 1,4-Dioxane is primarily used as a solvent in a variety of commercial and industrial applications such as the manufacture of other chemicals (
In the “Draft Risk Evaluation for 1,4-Dioxane” released in June 2019 (hereafter “2019 draft risk evaluation”) (84 FR 31315, July 1, 2019 (FRL-9995-40)), EPA reviewed the exposures and hazards of 1,4-dioxane for industrial and commercial uses and assessed risk from occupational exposures and surface water exposures to environmental organisms. That assessment, which included the physical and chemical properties, lifecycle information, environmental fate and transport information, and hazard identification and dose-response analysis, was peer reviewed by the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC). In November 2020, EPA released the “Draft Supplemental Analysis to the Draft Risk Evaluation for 1,4-Dioxane” (hereafter “2020 draft supplement”) that assessed conditions of use (COUs) of 1,4-dioxane as a contaminant in consumer products and general population exposure from incidental contact with surface water. The Agency determined that the 2020 draft supplement did not warrant additional peer review as there was no novel analysis. The 2019 draft risk evaluation and 2020 draft supplement were both incorporated into the “Final Risk Evaluation for 1,4-Dioxane” that was released in December 2020 (hereinafter “2020 final risk evaluaton”).
In early 2021, and in response to presidential executive orders and policy changes, EPA reviewed the risk evaluations for the first 10 chemical substances to ensure that the risk evaluations met the requirements of TSCA, including the requirement to use the best available science in decision-making. As a result of that review, the Agency announced plans to revise specific aspects of the first 10 risk evaluations to ensure that they appropriately identify unreasonable risks and thereby help to ensure the protection of human health and the environment. EPA determined an additional supplement to the 2020 final risk evaluation was needed to consider critical exposure pathways not previously assessed. Specifically, that additional supplement (hereinafter “2023 draft supplement”) includes evaluation of additional conditions of use in which 1,4-dioxane is a byproduct in industrial processes and a contaminant in certain commercial products, and evaluates risks from general population exposures to 1,4-dioxane released to ambient surface water and groundwater, ambient air, and land. To evaluate these additional exposure pathways, the Agency used new methods and novel applications of existing methods. These new methods were subject to public comment and peer review as part of the 2023 draft supplement (88 FR 48249, July 26, 2023 (FRL-7918-02-OCSPP)).
Along with the 2023 draft supplement, EPA also published and took public comment on draft revisions to the unreasonable risk determination for 1,4-dioxane that considers the 2020 risk evaluation and the 2023 draft supplement. The 2023 draft revision to the unreasonable risk determination reflects policy changes announced in June 2021, and EPA preliminarily determined that 1,4-dioxane presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health when evaluated under its conditions of use.
The final revised unreasonable risk determination that is being released with this announcement considers the 2020 risk evaluation and the final supplement that is also being released with this announcement. This final revised unreasonable risk determination supersedes the condition of use-specific no unreasonable risk determinations in the 2020 risk evaluation (and withdraws the associated order) and makes a final determination of unreasonable risk for 1,4-dioxane as discussed in Unit III.
EPA has determined that 1,4-dioxane presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health under the conditions of use. The Agency has determined that the unreasonable risk to human health presented by 1,4-dioxane is based on cancer and non-cancer risks (from liver toxicity and effects in the olfactory epithelium) to workers and occupational non-users (ONUs) from inhalation and dermal exposures, and cancer risks to the general population, including fenceline communities, from exposures to 1,4-dioxane in drinking water sourced from surface water contaminated with industrial discharges of 1,4-dioxane (including when it is generated as a byproduct) and down-the-drain disposals of commercial and consumer products that are contaminated with 1,4-dioxane generated as a byproduct.
Consistent with the statutory requirements of TSCA section 6(a), EPA will propose risk management regulatory actions to the extent necessary so that 1,4-dioxane no longer presents an unreasonable risk to health. The Agency expects to focus its risk management action on the conditions of use that significantly contribute to the unreasonable risk. However, it should be noted that under TSCA section 6(a), EPA is not limited to regulating the specific activities found to contribute significantly to unreasonable risk and may select from among a suite of risk management requirements in TSCA section 6(a) related to manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce, commercial use, and disposal as part of its regulatory options to address the unreasonable risk. As a general example, EPA may regulate upstream activities (
In addition, as part of its evaluation, EPA has determined that 1,4-dioxane in drinking water sourced from surface water contaminated with industrial discharges of 1,4-dioxane (including when it is generated as a byproduct) and down-the-drain disposals of commercial and consumer products that are contaminated with 1,4-dioxane significantly contribute to the unreasonable risk from 1,4-dioxane. TSCA section 9(b) requires EPA to coordinate TSCA actions with actions taken under other Agency authorities. In coordinating regulatory action under TSCA with other offices at EPA, the Agency considered the authorities of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and has determined that certain regulatory actions under the SDWA may also be appropriate. Therefore, as described in more detail in a memorandum included in this docket, and consistent with TSCA section 9(b)(1), OCSPP has memorialized this agreement for coordinated action on risks from 1,4-dioxane contamination in drinking water through actions under both TSCA section 6(a) and, for Office of Water consideration of remaining risks and appropriate action, under SDWA.
For more information about the TSCA risk evaluation process for existing chemicals, go to
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), 2022 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit (CGP) for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities (Renewal) (EPA ICR Number 2686.03, OMB Control Number 2040-0305) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed renewal of the current ICR, which is currently approved through February 28, 2025. This notice allows for 60 days for public comments.
Comments must be submitted on or before January 13, 2025.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OW-2024-0482 to EPA online using
Greg Schaner, Water Permits Division, Office of Wastewater Management, Office of Water at telephone number: (202) 564-0721 or email address:
This is a proposed renewal of the current ICR, which is currently approved through February 28, 2025. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This notice allows 60 days for public comments. Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate forms of information technology. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another
The current ICR for the 2022 CGP expires on February 28, 2025. This proposed ICR will renew the existing ICR prior to expiration. The proposed ICR renewal will further EPA's specific needs to collect data related to the 2022 CGP, which include the following:
• To provide information supporting operator eligibility to be covered by the permit;
• To provide information to EPA and states to prioritize permit activities;
• To provide information on the quality of dewatering discharges to sensitive waters;
• To determine whether operators are in compliance with permit conditions; and
• To provide information to EPA to determine the need for and develop permit conditions.
The burden and costs associated with the entire NPDES program, including the administration of the 2017 CGP, are accounted for in the 2017 NPDES Program ICR (EPA ICR number 0229.23 OMB control no. 2040-0004). Certain changes in the 2022 CGP required revisions to the NPDES Program ICR to
The information collection changes between the 2017 CGP and the 2022 CGP that is captured in the current ICR are associated with the following:
• New notice of intent (NOI) questions;
• New notice of termination (NOT) documentation requirements;
• New dewatering inspection requirements;
• New turbidity benchmark monitoring requirements for sites discharging dewatering water to sensitive waters; and
• Changes to Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requirements, related to new and modified permit requirements.
10:03 a.m. on Tuesday, November 12, 2024.
The meeting was held in the Board Room located on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC.
Closed.
The Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met to consider matters related to the Corporation's resolution, supervision, and corporate activities. In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Director Michael J. Hsu (Acting Comptroller of the Currency), seconded by Director Rohit Chopra (Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), by the unanimous vote of Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, Vice Chairman Travis Hill, Director Jonathan McKernan, Director Michael J. Hsu (Acting Comptroller of the Currency), and Director Rohit Chopra (Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10)).
Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Debra A. Decker, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at 202-898-8748.
The Commission hereby gives notice of filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the agreements to the Secretary by email at
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments 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 29, 2024.
1.
2.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's
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 December 16, 2024.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice of 2025 deductible and coinsurance amounts.
This notice announces the inpatient hospital deductible and the hospital and extended care services coinsurance amounts for services furnished in calendar year (CY) 2025 under Medicare's Hospital Insurance Program (Medicare Part A). The Medicare statute specifies the formulae used to determine these amounts. For CY 2025, the inpatient hospital deductible will be $1,676. The daily coinsurance amounts for CY 2025 will be as follows: $419 for the 61st through 90th day of hospitalization in a benefit period; $838 for lifetime reserve days; and $209.50 for the 21st through 100th day of extended care services in a skilled nursing facility in a benefit period.
The deductible and coinsurance amounts announced in this notice are effective on January 1, 2025.
Suzanne Codespote, (410) 786-7737 or Yaminee Thaker, (410) 786-7921.
Section 1813 of the Social Security Act (the Act) provides for an inpatient hospital deductible to be subtracted from the amount payable by Medicare for inpatient hospital services furnished to a beneficiary. It also provides for certain coinsurance amounts to be subtracted from the amounts payable by Medicare for inpatient hospital and extended care services. Section 1813(b)(2) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to determine and publish each year the amount of the inpatient hospital deductible and the hospital and extended care services coinsurance amounts applicable for services furnished in the following calendar year (CY).
Section 1813(b) of the Act prescribes the method for computing the amount of the inpatient hospital deductible. The inpatient hospital deductible is an amount equal to the inpatient hospital deductible for the preceding CY, adjusted by the Secretary's best estimate of the payment-weighted average of the applicable percentage increases (as defined in section 1886(b)(3)(B) of the Act) used for updating the payment rates to hospitals for discharges in the fiscal year (FY) that begins on October 1 of the same preceding CY, and adjusted to reflect changes in real case-mix. The adjustment to reflect real case-mix is determined on the basis of the most recent case-mix data available. The amount determined under this formula is rounded to the nearest multiple of $4 (or, if midway between two multiples of $4, to the next higher multiple of $4).
Under section 1886(b)(3)(B)(i)(XX) of the Act, the percentage increase used to update the payment rates for FY 2025 for hospitals paid under the inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS) is the IPPS operating market basket percentage increase, otherwise known as the IPPS market basket update, reduced by an adjustment based on changes in the economy-wide productivity (productivity adjustment) (see section 1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) of the Act). Under section 1886(b)(3)(B)(viii) of the Act, for FY 2025, the applicable percentage increase for hospitals that do not submit quality data as specified by the Secretary is reduced by one quarter of the market basket update. We are estimating that after accounting for those hospitals receiving the lower market basket update in the payment-weighted average update, the calculated deductible will not be affected, since the majority of hospitals submit quality data and receive the full market basket update. Section 1886(b)(3)(B)(ix) of the Act requires that any hospital that is not a meaningful electronic health record (EHR) user (as defined in section 1886(n)(3) of the Act) will have three-quarters of the market basket update reduced by 100 percent for FY 2017 and each subsequent FY. We are estimating that after accounting for these hospitals receiving the lower market basket update, the calculated deductible will not be affected, since the majority of hospitals are meaningful EHR users and are expected to receive the full market basket update.
Under section 1886 of the Act, the percentage increase used to update the payment rates (or target amounts, as applicable) for FY 2025 for hospitals excluded from the inpatient prospective payment system is as follows:
• The percentage increase for long term care hospitals (LTCH) is the LTCH market basket percentage increase reduced by the productivity adjustment (see section 1886(m)(3)(A) of the Act). In addition, these hospitals may also be impacted by the quality reporting adjustments and the site-neutral payment rates (see sections 1886(m)(5) and 1886(m)(6) of the Act).
• The percentage increase for inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRF) is the IRF market basket percentage increase reduced by the productivity adjustment in accordance with section 1886(j)(3)(C)(ii)(I) of the Act. In addition, these hospitals may also be impacted by the quality reporting adjustments (see section 1886(j)(7) of the Act).
• The percentage increase used to update the payment rate for inpatient psychiatric facilities (IPF) is the IPF
• The percentage increase used to update the target amounts for other types of hospitals that are excluded from the inpatient prospective payment system and that are paid on a reasonable cost basis, subject to a rate-of-increase ceiling, is the IPPS operating market basket percentage increase, which is described at section 1886(b)(3)(B)(ii)(VIII) of the Act and 42 CFR 413.40(c)(3). These other types of hospitals include cancer hospitals, children's hospitals, extended neoplastic disease care hospitals, and hospitals located outside the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
The IPPS operating market basket percentage increase for FY 2025 is 3.4 percent and the productivity adjustment is 0.5 percentage point, as announced in the final rule that appeared in the
To develop the adjustment to reflect changes in real case-mix, we first calculated an average case-mix for each hospital that reflects the relative costliness of that hospital's mix of cases compared to those of other hospitals. We then computed the change in average case-mix for hospitals paid under the Medicare inpatient prospective payment system in FY 2024 compared to FY 2023. (We excluded from this calculation hospitals whose payments are not based on the inpatient prospective payment system because their payments are based on alternate prospective payment systems or reasonable costs.) We used Medicare bills from prospective payment hospitals that we received as of July 2024. These bills represent a total of about 5.8 million Medicare discharges for FY 2024 and provide the most recent case-mix data available at this time. Based on these bills, the change in average case-mix in FY 2024 is −0.3 percent. Based on these bills and past experience, we expect the overall FY 2024 case mix change to be −0.3 percent as the year progresses and more FY 2024 data become available.
Section 1813(b) of the Act requires that the inpatient hospital deductible be adjusted only by that portion of the case mix change that is determined to be real. Real case-mix is that portion of case-mix that is due to changes in the mix of cases and not due to coding optimization. COVID-19 has complicated the determination of real case-mix changes over the last few years, since these cases typically had higher-weighted Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Groups, which resulted in an increase in real case-mix. However, the number of COVID-19 cases and the severity of these cases is lower in 2024, compared to the last several years, and resulted in a decrease in case-mix of −0.3 percent. We are assuming that this decrease in case-mix is real and not a result of coding optimization.
Thus, the estimate of the payment-weighted average of the applicable percentage increases used for updating the payment rates is 2.92 percent, and the real case-mix adjustment factor for the deductible is −0.3 percent. Therefore, using the statutory formula as stated in section 1813(b) of the Act, we calculate the inpatient hospital deductible for services furnished in CY 2025 to be $1,676. This deductible amount is determined by multiplying $1,632 (the inpatient hospital deductible for CY 2024 (88 FR 59035)) by the payment-weighted average increase in the payment rates of 1.0292 multiplied by the decrease in real case-mix of 0.997, which equals $1,674.62 and is rounded to $1,676 (based on rounding to the nearest multiple of 4).
The coinsurance amounts provided for in section 1813 of the Act are defined as fixed percentages of the inpatient hospital deductible for services furnished in the same CY. The increase in the deductible generates increases in the coinsurance amounts. For inpatient hospital and extended care services furnished in CY 2025, in accordance with the fixed percentages defined in the law, the daily coinsurance for the 61st through 90th day of hospitalization in a benefit period will be $419 (one-fourth of the inpatient hospital deductible as stated in section 1813(a)(1)(A) of the Act); the daily coinsurance for lifetime reserve days will be $838 (one-half of the inpatient hospital deductible as stated in section 1813(a)(1)(B) of the Act); and the daily coinsurance for the 21st through 100th day of extended care services in a skilled nursing facility (SNF) in a benefit period will be $209.50 (one-eighth of the inpatient hospital deductible as stated in section 1813(a)(3) of the Act).
Table 1 summarizes the deductible and coinsurance amounts for CYs 2024 and 2025, as well as the number of each that is estimated to be paid.
The estimated total increase in costs to beneficiaries is about $170 million (rounded to the nearest $10 million) due to: (1) the increase in the deductible and coinsurance amounts; and (2) the change in the number of deductibles and daily coinsurance amounts paid. We determine the increase in cost to beneficiaries by calculating the difference between the 2024 and 2025 deductible and coinsurance amounts multiplied by the estimated change in the number of deductible and coinsurance amounts paid.
We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
The annual inpatient hospital deductible and the hospital and extended care services coinsurance amounts announcement set forth in this notice does not establish or change a substantive legal standard regarding the matters enumerated by the statute or constitute a substantive rule which would be subject to the notice requirements in section 553(b) of the APA. However, to the extent that an opportunity for public notice and comment could be construed as required for this notice, we find good cause to waive this requirement.
Section 1813(b)(2) of the Act requires publication of the inpatient hospital deductible and the hospital and extended care services coinsurance amounts between September 1 and September 15 of the year preceding the year to which they will apply. Further, the statute requires that the agency determine and publish the inpatient hospital deductible and hospital and extended care services coinsurance amounts for each CY in accordance with the statutory formulae, and we are simply notifying the public of the changes to the deductible and coinsurance amounts for CY 2025. We have calculated the inpatient hospital deductible and hospital and extended care services coinsurance amounts as directed by the statute; the statute establishes both when the deductible and coinsurance amounts must be published and the information that the Secretary must factor into the deductible and coinsurance amounts, so we do not have any discretion in that regard. We find notice and comment procedures to be unnecessary for this notice and we find good cause to waive such procedures under section 553(b)(B) of the APA and section 1871(b)(2)(C) of the Act, if such procedures may be construed to be required at all. Through this notice, we are simply notifying the public of the updates to the inpatient hospital deductible and the hospital and extended care services coinsurance amounts, in accordance with the statute, for CY 2025. As such, we also note that even if notice and comment procedures were required for this notice, for the reasons stated above, we would find good cause to waive the delay in effective date of the notice, as additional delay would be contrary to the public interest under section 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. Publication of this notice is consistent with section 1813(b)(2) of the Act, and we believe that any potential delay in the effective date of the notice, if such delay were required at all, could cause unnecessary confusion both for the agency and Medicare beneficiaries.
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
Although this notice does not constitute a significant regulatory action (defined below), we nevertheless prepared this Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) section in the interest of ensuring that the impacts of this notice are fully understood.
This notice announces the Medicare Part A inpatient hospital deductible and associated coinsurance amounts for hospital and extended care services applicable for care provided in CY 2025, as required by section 1813 of the Act. It also responds to section 1813(b)(2) of the Act, which requires the Secretary to provide for publication of these amounts in the
We have examined the impacts of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), Executive Order 14094 titled “Modernizing Regulatory Review” (April 6, 2024), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (March 22, 1995; Pub. L. 104-4), Executive Order 13132 on federalism (August 4, 1999), and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic,
An RIA must be prepared for rules that are likely to result in a significant regulatory action(s) as set forth in section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 ($200 million or more in any 1 year). Based on our estimates, OIRA has determined that this notice is not significant per section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866 as measured by the $200 million or more impact in any 1 year.
In accordance with the Congressional Review Act, OIRA has determined that this notice meets the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Accordingly, we have prepared an RIA that to the best of our ability presents the costs and benefits of this notice.
As stated in section IV. of this notice, we estimate that the total increase in costs to beneficiaries is about $170 million due to: (1) the increase in the deductible and coinsurance amounts; and (2) the change in the number of deductibles and daily coinsurance amounts paid.
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small entities, if a rule has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by being nonprofit organizations or by meeting the Small Business Administration's definition of a small business (having revenues of less than $9.0 million to $47 million in any 1 year). Individuals and states are not included in the definition of a small entity. This annual notice announces the Medicare Part A deductible and coinsurance amounts for CY 2025 and will have an impact on the Medicare beneficiaries. As a result, we are not preparing an analysis for the RFA because the Secretary has certified that this notice will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare an RIA if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a metropolitan statistical area and has fewer than 100 beds. This annual notice announces the Medicare Part A deductible and coinsurance amounts for CY 2025 and will have an impact on the Medicare beneficiaries. As a result, we are not preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because the Secretary has certified that this notice will not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2024, that threshold is approximately $183 million. This notice would not impose a mandate that will result in the expenditure by state, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $183 million in any 1 year.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on state and local governments, preempts state law, or otherwise has federalism implications. This notice will not have a substantial direct effect on state or local governments, preempt state law, or otherwise have federalism implications.
This notice is subject to the Congressional Review Act and has been transmitted to the Congress and the Government Accountability Office's Comptroller General for review.
Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, approved this document on October 31, 2024.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of 2025 Medicare Part B rates and amounts.
This notice announces the monthly actuarial rates for aged (age 65 and over) and disabled (under age 65) beneficiaries enrolled in Part B of the Medicare Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) program beginning January 1, 2025. In addition, this notice announces the monthly premium for aged and disabled beneficiaries, the deductible for 2025, and the income-related monthly adjustment amounts to be paid by beneficiaries with modified adjusted gross income above certain threshold amounts. The monthly actuarial rates for 2025 are $368.10 for aged enrollees and $487.80 for disabled enrollees. The standard monthly Part B premium rate for all enrollees for 2025 is $185.00, which is equal to 50 percent of the monthly actuarial rate for aged enrollees (or approximately 25 percent of the expected average total cost of Part B coverage for aged enrollees) plus the $0.90 repayment amount required under current law. (The 2025 premium is 5.9 percent or $10.30 higher than the 2024 standard premium rate of $174.70, which included a $3.00 repayment amount.) The Part B deductible for 2025 is $257.00 for all Part B beneficiaries. If a beneficiary has to pay an income-related monthly adjustment amount, that individual will have to pay a total monthly premium of about 35, 50, 65, 80, or 85 percent of the total cost of Part B coverage plus a repayment amount of $1.30, $1.80, $2.30, $2.90, or $3.10, respectively. Beginning in 2023, certain Medicare enrollees who are 36 months post kidney transplant, and therefore no longer eligible for full Medicare coverage, can elect to continue Part B coverage of immunosuppressive drugs by paying a premium. For 2025, the standard monthly Part B immunosuppressive drug coverage only premium is $110.40.
The Medicare Part B rates and amounts announced in this document are effective January 1, 2025.
M. Kent Clemens, (410) 786-6391.
Part B is the voluntary portion of the Medicare program that pays all or part of the costs for physicians' services; outpatient hospital services; certain home health services; services furnished by rural health clinics, ambulatory surgical centers, and comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facilities; and certain other medical and health services not covered by Medicare Part A, Hospital Insurance. Medicare Part B is available to individuals who are entitled to Medicare Part A, as well as to U.S. residents who have attained age 65 and are citizens and to non-citizens who were lawfully admitted for permanent residence and have resided in the United States for 5 consecutive years. Part B requires enrollment and payment of monthly premiums, as described in 42 CFR part 407, subpart B, and part 408, respectively. The premiums paid by (or on behalf of) all enrollees fund approximately one-fourth of the total incurred costs, and transfers from the general fund of the Treasury pay approximately three-fourths of these costs.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) (the Secretary) is required by section 1839 of the Social Security Act (the Act) to announce the Part B monthly actuarial rates for aged and disabled beneficiaries as well as the monthly Part B premium. The Part B annual deductible, income-related monthly adjustment amounts, and immunosuppressive drug premium are included because their determinations are directly linked to the aged actuarial rate.
The monthly actuarial rates for aged and disabled enrollees are used to determine the correct amount of general revenue financing per beneficiary each month. These amounts, according to actuarial estimates, will equal, respectively, one-half of the expected average monthly cost of Part B for each aged enrollee (age 65 or over) and one-half of the expected average monthly cost of Part B for each disabled enrollee (under age 65).
The Part B deductible to be paid by enrollees is also announced. Prior to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108-173), the Part B deductible was set in statute. After setting the 2005 deductible amount at $110.00, section 629 of the MMA (amending section 1833(b) of the Act) required that the Part B deductible be indexed beginning in 2006. The inflation factor to be used each year is the annual percentage increase in the Part B actuarial rate for enrollees age 65 and over. Specifically, the 2025 Part B deductible is calculated by multiplying the 2024 deductible by the ratio of the 2025 aged actuarial rate to the 2024 aged actuarial rate. The amount determined under this formula is then rounded to the nearest $1.00.
The monthly Part B premium rate to be paid by aged and disabled enrollees is also announced. (Although the costs to the program per disabled enrollee are different from those for the aged, the statute provides that the two groups pay the same premium amount.) Beginning with the passage of section 203 of the Social Security Amendments of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-603), the premium rate, which was determined on a fiscal-year basis, was limited to the lesser of the actuarial rate for aged enrollees, or the current monthly premium rate increased by the same percentage as the most recent general increase in monthly Title II Social Security benefits.
However, the passage of section 124 of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) (Pub. L. 97-248) suspended this premium determination process. Section 124 of TEFRA changed the premium basis to 50 percent of the monthly actuarial rate for aged enrollees (that is, 25 percent of program costs for aged enrollees). Section 606 of the Social Security Amendments of 1983 (Pub. L. 98-21), section 2302 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (DEFRA 84) (Pub. L. 98-369), section 9313 of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA 85) (Pub. L. 99-272), section 4080 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (OBRA 87) (Pub. L. 100-203), and section 6301 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 (OBRA 89) (Pub. L. 101-239) extended the provision that the premium be based on 50 percent of the monthly actuarial rate for aged enrollees (that is, 25 percent of program costs for aged enrollees). This extension expired at the end of 1990.
The premium rate for 1991 through 1995 was legislated by section 1839(e)(1)(B) of the Act, as added by section 4301 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA 90) (Pub. L. 101-508). In January 1996, the premium determination basis would have reverted to the method established by the 1972 Social Security Act Amendments. However, section 13571 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Section 4571 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) (Pub. L. 105-33) permanently extended the provision that the premium be based on 50 percent of the monthly actuarial rate for aged enrollees (that is, 25 percent of program costs for aged enrollees).
The BBA included a further provision affecting the calculation of the Part B actuarial rates and premiums for 1998 through 2003. Section 4611 of the BBA modified the home health benefit payable under Part A for individuals enrolled in Part B. Under this section, beginning in 1998, expenditures for home health services not considered “post-institutional” are payable under Part B rather than Part A. However, section 4611(e)(1) of the BBA required that there be a transition from 1998 through 2002 for the aggregate amount of the expenditures transferred from Part A to Part B. Section 4611(e)(2) of the BBA also provided a specific yearly proportion for the transferred funds. The proportions were one-sixth for 1998, one-third for 1999, one-half for 2000, two-thirds for 2001, and five-sixths for 2002. For the purpose of determining the correct amount of financing from general revenues of the Federal Government, it was necessary to include only these transitional amounts in the monthly actuarial rates for both aged and disabled enrollees, rather than the total cost of the home health services being transferred.
Section 4611(e)(3) of the BBA also specified, for the purpose of determining the premium, that the monthly actuarial rate for enrollees age 65 and over be computed as though the transition would occur for 1998 through 2003 and that one-seventh of the cost be transferred in 1998, two-sevenths in 1999, three-sevenths in 2000, four-sevenths in 2001, five-sevenths in 2002, and six-sevenths in 2003. Therefore, the transition period for incorporating this home health transfer into the premium was 7 years while the transition period for including these services in the actuarial rate was 6 years.
Section 811 of the MMA, which amended section 1839 of the Act, requires that, starting on January 1, 2007, the Part B premium a beneficiary pays each month be based on that individual's annual income. (The MMA specified that there be a 5-year transition period to reach full implementation of this provision. However, section 5111 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) (Pub. L. 109-171) modified the transition to a 3-year period, which ended in 2009.) Specifically, if a beneficiary's modified adjusted gross income is greater than the legislated threshold amounts (for 2025, $106,000 for a beneficiary filing an individual income tax return and $212,000 for a beneficiary filing a joint tax return), the beneficiary is responsible for a larger portion of the estimated total cost of Part B benefit coverage. In addition to the standard premium, these beneficiaries now have to pay an income-related monthly adjustment amount. The MMA made no change to the actuarial rate calculation, and the standard premium, which will continue to be paid by beneficiaries whose modified adjusted gross income is below the applicable thresholds, still represents 25 percent of the estimated total cost to the program of Part B coverage for an aged enrollee. However, depending on income and tax filing status, a beneficiary can now be responsible for 35, 50, 65, 80, or 85 percent of the estimated total cost of Part B coverage, rather than 25 percent. Section 402 of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) (Pub. L. 114-10) modified the income thresholds beginning in 2018, and section 53114 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA of 2018) (Pub. L. 115-123) further modified the income thresholds beginning in 2019. For years beginning in 2019, the BBA of 2018 established a new income threshold. If a beneficiary's modified adjusted gross income is greater than or equal to $500,000 for a beneficiary filing an individual income tax return and $750,000 for a beneficiary filing a joint tax return, the beneficiary is responsible for 85 percent of the estimated total cost of Part B coverage. The BBA of 2018 specified that these new income threshold levels be inflation-adjusted beginning in 2028. The result of the higher premium is that the Part B premium subsidy is reduced, and less general revenue financing is required, for beneficiaries with higher income because they are paying a larger share of the total cost with their premium. That is, the premium subsidy continues to be approximately 75 percent for beneficiaries with income below the applicable income thresholds, but it will be reduced for beneficiaries with income above these thresholds.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 116-260) established a new basis for Medicare Part B eligibility for post-kidney-transplant immunosuppressive drug coverage only. Medicare eligibility due solely to end-stage renal disease generally ends 36 months after a successful kidney transplant. Beginning in 2023, post-kidney-transplant individuals without certain types of insurance coverage can elect to enroll in Part B and receive coverage of immunosuppressive drugs only. The premium for this continuation of coverage is 15 percent of a different aged actuarial rate, which is equal to 100 percent of the costs for aged enrollees (rather than the standard aged actuarial rate, which is equal to one-half of the costs for aged enrollees). Enrollees paying the immunosuppressive premium are not subject to the late enrollment penalty and the $3.00 repayment amounts, but they are subject to the hold-harmless provision (described later) and the income-related monthly adjustment amounts. The law requires transfers equal to the reduction in aggregate premiums payable that results from enrollees with coverage only for immunosuppressive drugs paying the standard immunosuppressive drug coverage only Part B premium rather than the standard Part B premium. These transfers are to be treated as premiums payable for general revenue matching purposes.
Section 4732(c) of the BBA added section 1933(c) of the Act, which required the Secretary to allocate money from the Part B trust fund to State Medicaid programs for the purpose of providing Medicare Part B premium assistance from 1998 through 2002 for low-income Medicaid beneficiaries who qualify under section 1933 of the Act. This allocation, while not a benefit expenditure, was an expenditure of the trust fund and was included in calculating the Part B actuarial rates through 2002. For 2003 through 2015, the expenditure was made from the trust fund because the allocation was temporarily extended. However, because the extension occurred after the financing was determined, the allocation was not included in the calculation of the financing rates for these years. Section 211 of MACRA permanently extended this expenditure, which is included in the calculation of the Part B actuarial rates for 2016 and subsequent years.
Another provision affecting the calculation of the Part B premium is section 1839(f) of the Act, as amended by section 211 of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 (MCCA 88) (Pub. L. 100-360). (The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Repeal Act of 1989 (Pub. L. 101-234) did not repeal the revisions to section 1839(f) of the Act made by MCCA 88.) Section 1839(f) of the Act, referred to as the
A check for benefits under section 202 or 223 of the Act is received in the month following the month for which the benefits are due. The Part B premium that is deducted from a particular check is the Part B payment for the month in which the check is received. Therefore, a benefit check for November is not received until December, but December's Part B premium has been deducted from it.
Generally, if a beneficiary qualifies for hold-harmless protection, the reduced premium for the individual for that January and for each of the succeeding 11 months is the greater of either—
• The monthly premium for January reduced as necessary to make the December monthly benefits, after the deduction of the Part B premium for January, at least equal to the preceding November's monthly benefits, after the deduction of the Part B premium for December; or
• The monthly premium for that individual for that December.
In determining the premium limitations under section 1839(f) of the Act, the monthly benefits to which an individual is entitled under section 202 or 223 of the Act do not include retroactive adjustments or payments and deductions on account of work. Also, once the monthly premium amount is established under section 1839(f) of the Act, it will not be changed during the year even if there are retroactive adjustments or payments and deductions on account of work that apply to the individual's monthly benefits.
Individuals who have enrolled in Part B late or who have re-enrolled after the termination of a coverage period are subject to an increased premium under section 1839(b) of the Act. The increase is a percentage of the premium and is based on the new premium rate before any reductions under section 1839(f) of the Act are made.
Section 1839 of the Act, as amended by section 601(a) of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-74), specified that the 2016 actuarial rate for enrollees age 65 and older be determined as if the hold-harmless provision did not apply. The premium revenue that was lost by using the resulting lower premium (excluding the forgone income-related premium revenue) was replaced by a transfer of general revenue from the Treasury, which will be repaid over time to the general fund.
Similarly, section 1839 of the Act, as amended by section 2401 of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other Extensions Act (Pub. L. 116-159), specified that the 2021 actuarial rate for enrollees age 65 and older be determined as the sum of the 2020 actuarial rate for enrollees age 65 and older and one-fourth of the difference between the 2020 actuarial rate and the preliminary 2021 actuarial rate (as determined by the Secretary) for such enrollees. The premium revenue lost by using the resulting lower premium (excluding the forgone income-related premium revenue) was replaced by a transfer of general revenue from the Treasury, which will be repaid over time.
Starting in 2016, in order to repay the balance due (which includes the transfer amounts and the forgone income-related premium revenue from the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 and the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other Extensions Act), the Part B premium otherwise determined will be increased by $3.00. (In the final repayment year, the repayment amount may be less than $3.00 to avoid an overpayment. The final repayment year will be 2025, and the repayment amount is $0.90.) The repayment amounts will be added to the Part B premium otherwise determined each year and will be paid back to the general fund of the Treasury, and they will continue until the balance due is paid back.
High-income enrollees pay the repayment amount plus an additional amount as part of the income-related monthly adjustment amount (IRMAA) premium dollars, which reduce (dollar for dollar) the amount of general revenue received by Part B from the general fund of the Treasury. (For 2025, high-income enrollees pay a $0.90 repayment amount plus an additional $0.40, $0.90, $1.40, $2.00, or $2.20.) Because of this general revenue offset, the repayment IRMAA premium dollars are not included in the direct repayments made to the general fund of the Treasury from Part B in order to avoid a double repayment. (Only the $0.90 monthly repayment amounts are included in the direct repayments.)
These repayment amounts will continue until the balance due is zero. (In the final year of the repayment, the additional amounts may be modified to avoid an overpayment.) The repayment amounts (excluding those for high-income enrollees) are subject to the hold-harmless provision. The original balance due was $9,066,409,000, consisting of $1,625,761,000 in forgone income-related premium revenue plus a transfer amount of $7,440,648,000 from the provisions of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. The increase in the balance due in 2021 was $8,799,829,000, consisting of $946,046,000 in forgone income-related premium income plus a transfer amount of $7,853,783,000 from the provisions of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other Extensions Act. The balance due is expected to be zero by the end of 2025.
The Medicare Part B monthly actuarial rates applicable for 2025 are $368.10 for enrollees age 65 and over and $487.80 for disabled enrollees under age 65. In section II.B. of this notice, we present the actuarial assumptions and bases from which these rates are derived. The Part B standard monthly premium rate for all enrollees for 2025 is $185.00. The Part B standard monthly immunosuppressive drug coverage only premium is $110.40.
The following are the 2025 Part B monthly premium rates to be paid by (or on behalf of) beneficiaries with full Part B coverage who file either individual tax returns (and are single individuals, heads of households, qualifying widows or widowers with dependent children, or married individuals filing separately who lived apart from their spouses for the entire taxable year) or joint tax returns.
For beneficiaries with Part B immunosuppressive drug coverage only who file either individual tax returns (and are single individuals, heads of households, qualifying widows or widowers with dependent children, or married individuals filing separately who lived apart from their spouses for the entire taxable year) or joint tax returns, the 2025 Part B monthly premium rates are shown below.
In addition, the monthly premium rates to be paid by (or on behalf of) beneficiaries with full Part B coverage who are married and lived with their spouses at any time during the taxable year, but who file separate tax returns from their spouses, are as follows:
The monthly premium rates to be paid by (or on behalf of) beneficiaries with Part B immunosuppressive drug coverage only who are married and lived with their spouses at any time during the taxable year, but who file separate tax returns from their spouses, are as follows:
The Part B annual deductible for 2025 is $257.00 for all beneficiaries.
The actuarial assumptions and bases used to determine the monthly actuarial rates and the monthly premium rates for Part B are established by CMS' Office of the Actuary. The estimates underlying these determinations are prepared by actuaries meeting the qualification standards and following the actuarial standards of practice established by the Actuarial Standards Board.
Under section 1839 of the Act, the starting point for determining the standard monthly premium is the amount that would be necessary to finance Part B on an incurred basis. This is the amount of income that would be sufficient to pay for services furnished during that year (including associated administrative costs) even though payment for some of these services will not be made until after the close of the year. The portion of income required to cover benefits not paid until after the close of the year is added to the trust fund and used when needed.
Because the premium rates are established prospectively, they are subject to projection error. Additionally, legislation enacted after the financing was established, but effective for the period in which the financing is set, may affect program costs. As a result, the income to the program may not equal incurred costs. Trust fund assets must therefore be maintained at a level that is adequate to cover an appropriate degree of variation between actual and projected costs, and the amount of incurred, but unpaid, expenses. Numerous factors determine what level of assets is appropriate to cover variation between actual and projected costs. For 2025, the three most important of these factors are (1) the difference from prior years between the actual performance of the program and estimates made at the time financing was established; (2) the likelihood and potential magnitude of expenditure changes resulting from enactment of legislation affecting Part B costs in a year subsequent to the establishment of financing for that year; and (3) the expected relationship between incurred and cash expenditures. These factors are analyzed on an ongoing basis, as the trends can vary over time.
Table 1 summarizes the estimated actuarial status of the trust fund as of the end of the financing period for 2023 and 2024.
The monthly actuarial rate for enrollees age 65 and older is one-half of the sum of monthly amounts for (1) the projected cost of benefits; and (2) administrative expenses for each enrollee age 65 and older, after adjustments to this sum to allow for interest earnings on assets in the trust fund and an adequate contingency margin. The contingency margin is an amount appropriate to provide for possible variation between actual and projected costs and to amortize any surplus assets or unfunded liabilities.
The monthly actuarial rate for enrollees age 65 and older for 2025 is determined by first establishing per enrollee costs by type of service from program data through 2023 and then projecting these costs for subsequent years. The projection factors used for financing periods from January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2025, are shown in table 2.
As indicated in table 3, the projected per enrollee amount required to pay for one-half of the total of benefits and administrative costs for enrollees age 65 and over for 2025 is $371.36. Based on current estimates, the assets at the end of 2024 are sufficient to cover the amount of incurred, but unpaid, expenses, to provide for substantial variation between actual and projected costs. Thus, a near-zero contingency margin can be included to decrease assets to a more appropriate level. The monthly actuarial rate of $368.10 provides an adjustment of −$0.01 for a contingency margin and −$3.25 for interest earnings.
Starting in 2011, manufacturers and importers of brand-name prescription drugs pay a fee that is allocated to the Part B account of the SMI trust fund. For 2025, the total of these brand-name drug fees is estimated to be $2.8 billion. The contingency margin for 2025 has been reduced to account for this additional revenue.
The traditional goal for the Part B reserve has been that assets minus liabilities at the end of a year should represent between 15 and 20 percent of the following year's total incurred expenditures. To accomplish this goal, a 17-percent reserve ratio, which is a fully adequate contingency reserve level, has been the normal target used to calculate the Part B premium. At the end of 2024, the reserve ratio is expected to be 21.8 percent. When the reserve ratio is higher than 20 percent, the typical approach in the premium determination is to target a gradual reduction in the reserve ratio over several years until 20 percent is reached.
The actuarial rate of $368.10 per month for aged beneficiaries, as
Disabled enrollees are those persons under age 65 who are enrolled in Part B because of entitlement to Social Security disability benefits for more than 24 months or because of entitlement to Medicare under the end-stage renal disease (ESRD) program. Projected monthly costs for disabled enrollees (other than those with ESRD) are prepared in a manner parallel to the projection for the aged using appropriate actuarial assumptions (see table 2). Costs for the ESRD program are projected differently because of the different nature of services offered by the program.
As shown in table 4, the projected per enrollee amount required to pay for one-half of the total of benefits and administrative costs for disabled enrollees for 2025 is $471.73. The monthly actuarial rate of $487.80 also provides an adjustment of −$2.90 for interest earnings and $18.97 for a contingency margin, reflecting the same factors described previously for the aged actuarial rate at magnitudes applicable to the disabled rate determination. Based on current estimates, the assets associated with disabled Medicare beneficiaries at the end of 2024 are not sufficient to cover the amount of incurred, but unpaid, expenses and to provide for a significant degree of variation between actual and projected costs, and accordingly a positive margin is needed.
The actuarial rate of $487.80 per month for disabled beneficiaries, as announced in this notice for 2025, reflects the combined net effect of the factors described previously for aged beneficiaries and the projection assumptions listed in table 2.
Several factors contribute to uncertainty about future trends in medical care costs. It is appropriate to test the adequacy of the rates using alternative cost growth rate assumptions, the results of which are shown in table 5. One set represents increases that are higher and, therefore, more pessimistic than the current estimate, and the other set represents increases that are lower and, therefore, more optimistic than the current estimate. The values for the alternative assumptions were determined from a statistical analysis of the historical variation in the respective increase factors.
As indicated in table 5, the monthly actuarial rates would result in an excess of assets over liabilities of $127,119 million by the end of December 2025 under the cost growth rate assumptions shown in table 2 and under the assumption that the provisions of current law are fully implemented. This result amounts to 19.8 percent of the estimated total incurred expenditures for the following year.
Assumptions that are somewhat more pessimistic (and that therefore test the adequacy of the assets to accommodate projection errors) produce a surplus of $80,649 million by the end of December 2025 under current law, which amounts to 11.2 percent of the estimated total incurred expenditures for the following year. Under fairly optimistic assumptions, the monthly actuarial rates would result in a surplus of $175,715 million by the end of December 2025, or 31.0 percent of the estimated total incurred expenditures for the following year.
The sensitivity analysis indicates that, in a typical year, the premium and general revenue financing established for 2025, together with existing Part B account assets, would be adequate to cover estimated Part B costs for 2025 under current law, should actual costs prove to be somewhat greater than expected.
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
This notice announces the monthly actuarial rates and premium rates, as required by section 1839(a) of the Act, and the annual deductible, as required by section 1833(b) of the Act, for beneficiaries enrolled in Part B of the Medicare Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) program beginning January 1, 2025. It also responds to section 1839(a)(1) of the Act, which requires the Secretary to provide for
We have examined the impacts of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), Executive Order 14094 titled “Modernizing Regulatory Review” (April 6, 2023), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (March 22, 1995; Pub. L. 104-4), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999), and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). The Executive Order 14094 titled “Modernizing Regulatory Review” amends section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review). The amended section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more, (adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for changes in gross domestic product); or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would meaningfully further the President's priorities or the principles set forth in this Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely manner by OIRA in each case.
An RIA must be prepared for rules with significant regulatory action/s as per section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 ($200 million or more in any 1 year).
Based on our estimates, OIRA has determined that this rulemaking is significant per section 3(f)(1) as measured by the $200 million or more in any 1 year. The 2025 standard Part B premium of $185.00 is $10.30 higher than the 2024 premium of $174.70. We estimate that the total premium increase, for the approximately 64 million Part B enrollees in 2025, will be $7.9 billion, which is an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more. Accordingly, we have prepared an RIA that to the best of our ability presents the costs and benefits of this notice. OMB has reviewed this notice and HHS has provided the following assessment of its impact.
As discussed earlier, this notice announces that the monthly actuarial rates applicable for 2025 are $368.10 for enrollees age 65 and over and $487.80 for disabled enrollees under age 65. It also announces the 2025 monthly Part B premium rates to be paid by (or on behalf of) beneficiaries with full Part B coverage who file either individual tax returns (and are single individuals, heads of households, qualifying widows or widowers with dependent children, or married individuals filing separately who lived apart from their spouses for the entire taxable year) or joint tax returns.
For beneficiaries with Part B immunosuppressive drug coverage only who file either individual tax returns (and are single individuals, heads of households, qualifying widows or widowers with dependent children, or married individuals filing separately who lived apart from their spouses for the entire taxable year) or joint tax returns, the 2025 Part B monthly premium rates are announced and shown in the following table.
In addition, the monthly premium rates to be paid by (or on behalf of) beneficiaries with full Part B coverage who are married and lived with their spouses at any time during the taxable year, but who file separate tax returns from their spouses, are also announced and listed in the following table:
The monthly premium rates to be paid by (or on behalf of) beneficiaries with Part B immunosuppressive drug coverage only who are married and lived with their spouses at any time during the taxable year, but who file separate tax returns from their spouses, are announced and listed in the following table:
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses, if a rule or other regulatory document has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by being nonprofit organizations or by meeting the Small Business Administration's (SBA) definition of a small business (having revenues of less than $9.0 million to $47 million in any 1 year). Individuals and States are not included in the definition of a small entity. This notice announces the monthly actuarial rates for aged (age 65 and over) and disabled (under age
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule or other regulatory document may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area and has fewer than 100 beds. As we discussed previously, we are not preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because the Secretary has determined that this notice will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small rural hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2024, that threshold is approximately $183 million. Part B enrollees who are also enrolled in Medicaid have their monthly Part B premiums paid by Medicaid. The cost to each State Medicaid program from the 2025 premium increase is estimated to be more than the threshold. This notice does not impose mandates that will have a consequential effect of the threshold amount or more on State, local, or tribal governments or on the private sector.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on state and local governments, preempts state law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. This notice will not have a substantial direct effect on state or local governments, preempt state law, or otherwise have Federalism implications.
This notice is subject to the Congressional Review Act and has been transmitted to the Congress and the Government Accountability Office's Comptroller General for review.
We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
The annual updated amounts for the Part B monthly actuarial rates for aged and disabled beneficiaries, the Part B premium, and the Part B deductible set forth in this notice do not establish or change a substantive legal standard regarding the matters enumerated by the statute or constitute a substantive rule that would be subject to the notice requirements in section 553(b) of the APA. However, to the extent that an opportunity for public notice and comment could be construed as required for this notice, we find good cause to waive this requirement.
Section 1839 of the Act requires the Secretary to determine the monthly actuarial rates for aged and disabled beneficiaries, as well as the monthly Part B premium (including the income-related monthly adjustment amounts to be paid by beneficiaries with modified adjusted gross income above certain threshold amounts), for each calendar year in accordance with the statutory formulae, in September preceding the year to which they will apply. Further, the statute requires that the agency promulgate the Part B premium amount, in September preceding the year to which it will apply, and include a public statement setting forth the actuarial assumptions and bases employed by the Secretary in arriving at the amount of an adequate actuarial rate for enrollees age 65 and older. We include the Part B annual deductible, which is established in accordance with a specific formula described in section 1833(b) of the Act, because the determination of the amount is directly linked to the rate of increase in actuarial rate under section 1839(a)(1) of the Act. We have calculated the monthly actuarial rates for aged and disabled beneficiaries, the Part B deductible, and the monthly Part B premium as directed by the statute; since the statute establishes both the time frame in which the monthly actuarial rates for aged and disabled beneficiaries and the monthly Part B premium must be published and the information that the Secretary must factor into those amounts, we do not have any discretion in that regard. We find notice and comment procedures to be unnecessary for this notice, and we find good cause to waive such procedures under section 553(b)(B) of the APA and section 1871(b)(2)(C) of the Act, if such procedures may be construed to be required at all. Through this notice, we are simply notifying the public of the updates to the monthly actuarial rates for aged and disabled beneficiaries and the Part B deductible, as well as the monthly Part B premium amounts and the income-related monthly adjustment amounts to be paid by certain beneficiaries, in accordance
Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, approved this document on October 31, 2024.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice of 2025 Medicare Part A premium for uninsured enrollees.
This notice announces Medicare's Hospital Insurance Program (Medicare Part A) premium for uninsured enrollees in calendar year (CY) 2025. This premium is paid by enrollees aged 65 and over who are not otherwise eligible for benefits under Medicare Part A (hereafter known as the “uninsured aged”) and by certain individuals with disabilities who have exhausted other entitlement. The monthly Medicare Part A premium for the 12 months beginning January 1, 2025, for these individuals will be $518. The premium for certain other individuals as described in this notice will be $285.
The premium announced in this notice is effective on January 1, 2025.
Yaminee Thaker, (410) 786-7921.
Section 1818 of the Social Security Act (the Act) provides for voluntary enrollment in Medicare Part A, subject to payment of a monthly premium, of certain persons aged 65 and older who are uninsured under the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program or the Railroad Retirement Act and do not otherwise meet the requirements for entitlement to Medicare Part A. These “uninsured aged” individuals are uninsured under the OASDI program or the Railroad Retirement Act, because they do not have 40 quarters of coverage under Title II of the Act (or are/were not married to someone who did). (Persons insured under the OASDI program or the Railroad Retirement Act and certain others do not have to pay premiums for Medicare Part A.)
Section 1818A of the Act provides for voluntary enrollment in Medicare Part A, subject to payment of a monthly premium for certain individuals with disabilities who have exhausted other entitlement. These are individuals who were entitled to coverage due to a disabling impairment under section 226(b) of the Act, but who are no longer entitled to disability benefits and premium-free Medicare Part A coverage because they have gone back to work and their earnings exceed the statutorily defined “substantial gainful activity” amount (section 223(d)(4) of the Act).
Section 1818A(d)(2) of the Act specifies that the provisions relating to premiums for the aged under section 1818(d) through section 1818(f) of the Act will also apply to certain individuals with disabilities as described above.
Section 1818(d)(1) of the Act requires us to estimate, on an average per capita basis, the amount to be paid from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for services incurred in the upcoming calendar year (CY) (including the associated administrative costs) on behalf of individuals aged 65 and over who will be entitled to benefits under Medicare Part A. We must then determine the monthly actuarial rate for the following year (the per capita amount estimated above divided by 12) and publish the dollar amount for the monthly premium in the succeeding CY. If the premium is not a multiple of $1, the premium is rounded to the nearest multiple of $1 (or, if it is a multiple of 50 cents but not of $1, it is rounded to the next highest $1).
Section 13508 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-66) amended section 1818(d) of the Act to provide for a reduction in the premium amount for certain voluntary enrollees (sections 1818 and 1818A of the Act). The reduction applies to an individual who is eligible to buy into the Medicare Part A program and who, as of the last day of the previous month:
• Had at least 30 quarters of coverage under Title II of the Act;
• Was married, and had been married for the previous 1-year period, to a person who had at least 30 quarters of coverage;
• Had been married to a person for at least 1 year at the time of the person's death if, at the time of death, the person had at least 30 quarters of coverage; or
• Is divorced from a person and had been married to the person for at least 10 years at the time of the divorce if, at the time of the divorce, the person had at least 30 quarters of coverage.
Section 1818(d)(4)(A) of the Act specifies that the premium that these individuals will pay for CY 2025 will be equal to the premium for uninsured aged enrollees reduced by 45 percent.
Section 1818(g) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary), at the request of a state, to enter into a Medicare Part A buy-in agreement with a state to pay Medicare Part A premiums for Qualified Medicare Beneficiaries (QMBs). Under the QMB program, state Medicaid agencies must pay the Medicare Part A premium for those not eligible for premium-free Medicare Part A if those individuals meet all of the eligibility requirements for the QMB program under the state's Medicaid state plan. (Entering into a Medicare Part A buy-in agreement would permit a state to avoid any Medicare Part A late enrollment penalties that the individual may owe and would allow states to enroll persons in Medicare Part A at any time of the year, without regard to Medicare enrollment periods.) Other individuals may be eligible for the Qualified Disabled Working Individuals program, through which state Medicaid programs provide coverage of Medicare Part A premiums for individuals eligible to enroll in Medicare Part A by virtue of section 1818A of the Act who meet certain financial eligibility criteria.
The monthly premium for the uninsured aged and certain individuals with disabilities who have exhausted other entitlement for the 12 months beginning January 1, 2025, is $518. The monthly premium for the individuals eligible under section 1818(d)(4)(B) of the Act, and therefore, subject to the 45
As discussed in section I of this notice, the monthly Medicare Part A premium is equal to the estimated monthly actuarial rate for CY 2025 rounded to the nearest multiple of $1 and equals one-twelfth of the average per capita amount, which is determined by projecting the number of Medicare Part A enrollees aged 65 years and over, as well as the benefits and administrative costs that will be incurred on their behalf.
The steps involved in projecting these future costs to the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund are:
• Establishing the present cost of services furnished to beneficiaries, by type of service, to serve as a projection base;
• Projecting increases in payment amounts for each of the service types; and
• Projecting increases in administrative costs.
We base our projections for CY 2025 on—(1) current historical data; and (2) projection assumptions derived from current law and the President's Fiscal Year 2025 Budget.
For CY 2025, we estimate that 61,199,491 people aged 65 years and over will be entitled to (enrolled in) benefits (without premium payment) and that they will incur about $380.149 billion in benefits and related administrative costs. Thus, the estimated monthly average per capita amount is $517.64 and the monthly premium is $518. Subsequently, the full monthly premium reduced by 45 percent is $285.
The CY 2025 monthly premium of $518 is approximately 2.6 percent higher than the CY 2024 premium of $505. We estimate that approximately 756,000 enrollees will voluntarily enroll in Medicare Part A by paying the full premium. We estimate that over 90 percent of these individuals will have their Medicare Part A premium paid for by states, since they are enrolled in the QMB program. Furthermore, the CY 2025 reduced monthly premium of $285 is approximately 2.5 percent higher than the CY 2024 premium of $278. We estimate that an additional 97,000 enrollees will pay the reduced premium. Therefore, we estimate that the total aggregate cost to enrollees paying these premiums in CY 2025, compared to the amount that they paid in CY 2024, will be about $126 million.
We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
The annual Medicare Part A premium announcement set forth in this notice does not establish or change a substantive legal standard regarding the matters enumerated by the statute or constitute a substantive rule which would be subject to the notice requirements in section 553(b) of the APA. However, to the extent that an opportunity for public notice and comment could be construed as required for this notice, we find good cause to waive this requirement. Section 1818(d) of the Act requires the Secretary during September of each year to determine and publish the amount to be paid, on an average per capita basis, from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for services incurred in the impending CY (including the associated administrative costs) on behalf of individuals aged 65 and over who will be entitled to benefits under Medicare Part A. Further, the statute requires that the agency determine the applicable premium amount for each CY in accordance with the statutory formula, and we are simply notifying the public of the changes to the Medicare Part A premiums for CY 2025. We have calculated the Medicare Part A premiums as directed by the statute; the statute establishes both when the premium amounts must be published and the information that the Secretary must factor into the premium amounts, so we do not have any discretion in that regard. We find notice and comment procedures to be unnecessary for this notice and we find good cause to waive such procedures under section 553(b)(B) of the APA and section 1871(b)(2)(C) of the Act, if such procedures may be construed to be required at all. Through this notice, we are simply notifying the public of the updates to the Medicare Part A premiums, in accordance with the statute, for CY 2025. As such, we also note that even if notice and comment procedures were required for this notice, for the reasons stated above, we would find good cause to waive the delay in effective date of the notice, as additional delay would be contrary to the public interest under section 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. Publication of this notice is consistent with section 1818(d) of the Act, and we believe that any potential delay in the effective date of the notice, if such delay were required at all, could cause unnecessary confusion both for the agency and Medicare beneficiaries.
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.
Although this notice does not constitute a significant regulatory action (defined below), we nevertheless prepared this Regulatory Impact
This notice announces the CY 2025 Medicare Part A premiums for the uninsured aged and for certain disabled individuals who have exhausted other entitlement, as required by sections 1818 and 1818A of the Act. It also responds to section 1818(d) of the Act, which requires the Secretary to provide for publication of these amounts in the
We have examined the impacts of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), Executive Order 14094 titled “Modernizing Regulatory Review” (April 6, 2023), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (March 22, 1995; Pub. L. 104-4), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999), and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). The Executive Order 14094 titled “Modernizing Regulatory Review” amends section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review). The amended section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more, (adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for changes in gross domestic product); or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would meaningfully further the President's priorities or the principles set forth in this Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely manner by OIRA in each case.
A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for rules with significant regulatory action(s) as per section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 ($200 million or more in any one year). Based on our estimates, OIRA has determined that this notice is not significant per section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866 as measured by the $200 million or more impact in any one year.
In accordance with the Congressional Review Act, OIRA has determined that this notice meets the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Accordingly, we have prepared an RIA that to the best of our ability presents the costs and benefits of this notice.
As stated in section IV. of this notice, we estimate that the overall effect of the changes in the Medicare Part A premium will be a cost to voluntary enrollees (sections 1818 and 1818A of the Act) of about $126 million.
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small entities, if a rule has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by being nonprofit organizations or by meeting the Small Business Administration's (SBA) definition of a small business (having revenues of less than $9.0 million to $47 million in any 1 year). Individuals and states are not included in the definition of a small entity. This annual notice announces the Medicare Part A premiums for CY 2025 and will have an impact on certain Medicare beneficiaries, but not on small entities as defined by the SBA. As a result, we are not preparing an analysis for the RFA because the Secretary has certified that this notice will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare an RIA if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a metropolitan statistical area and has fewer than 100 beds. This annual notice announces the Medicare Part A premiums for CY 2025 and will have an impact on certain Medicare beneficiaries. As a result, we are not preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act, because the Secretary has certified that this notice will not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on state and local governments, preempts state law, or otherwise has federalism implications. This notice will not have a substantial direct effect on state or local governments, preempt state law, or otherwise have federalism implications.
This notice is subject to the Congressional Review Act and has been transmitted to the Congress and the Government Accountability Office's Comptroller General for review.
Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, approved this document on October 31, 2024.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS
Notice of public workshop; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing the following virtual public workshop entitled “Patient-Focused Drug Development: Workshop to Discuss Methodologic and Other Challenges Related to Patient Experience Data.” The purpose of the public workshop is to discuss methodological challenges related to patient experience data, and other areas of greatest interest or concern to public stakeholders.
The public workshop will be held virtually on December 13, 2024, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time. Either electronic or written comments on this public meeting must be submitted by February 11, 2025. See the
The public workshop will be held virtually using the Zoom platform.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Ethan Gabbour, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6306, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-8112,
Under the seventh iteration of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, incorporated as part of the FDA User Fee Reauthorization Act of 2022, FDA committed to facilitate the advancement and use of systematic approaches to collect and utilize robust and meaningful patient and caregiver input that can more consistently inform drug development and, as appropriate, regulatory decision making. This included issuing a Request for Information (RFI) available at
The purpose of this virtual public workshop is to highlight and discuss methodological issues related to patient experience data, including the submission and evaluation of patient experience data in the context of the benefit-risk assessment and product labeling, as well as other areas of greatest interest or concern to stakeholders. This workshop will explore the different types of patient experience data and how FDA utilizes such data for regulatory decision-making, along with considerations for submitting patient experience data to FDA. In addition, this workshop will feature presentations and panel discussions with experts on selected methodologies and the challenges and opportunities they present.
Registration is free and persons interested in attending this public workshop must register to receive a link to the meeting. Registrants will receive a confirmation email after they register.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), an institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is giving notice of the licensing or collaboration opportunities for the inventions listed below, which are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing and collaboration to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development.
Inquiries related to these licensing or collaboration opportunities should be directed to: Zarpheen Jinnah, Ph.D., Technology Transfer Manager, NCI, Technology Transfer Center, Email:
Tissue oxygen saturation (StO2) is an important parameter to assess oxygen delivery and uptake. Hypoxia, a term used to indicate inadequate StO2, is often seen in patients with cardiac problems, respiratory infections or pulmonary diseases. Prolonged hypoxia can damage vital organs such as the brain, lungs, and heart and can be fatal. Currently available tissue oximeters to monitor StO2 are expensive and cumbersome.
NICHD has developed a novel method, which uses a single source-detector separation to calculate StO2. With this technique, a simple tissue oximeter can be made with just a LED and a photodetector, which enables the development of a miniaturized device. As a result, it can be used independently or implemented on existing technologies to measure StO2 without any hardware modifications. It can be applied in wearable devices, implantable medicines or endoscopies to measure tissue oxygenation in different tissues such as muscle, brain, spinal cord, internal organs, fetus and placenta.
This Notice is in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.
Potential Commercial Applications:
• Miniaturized tissue oximeter for implantation or endoscopy.
• Measure tissue oxygen saturation.
• Multilayer tissue oximeter.
Competitive Advantages:
• Simpler and more compact as it only requires a single light source such as LED and a single photodetector such as a photodetector to build a tissue oximeter.
• Multilayer measurement.
• Implementation with existing technologies without any hardware modifications.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The National Cancer Institute (NCI), an institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is giving notice of the licensing or collaboration opportunities for the inventions listed below, which are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing or collaboration to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally funded research and development.
Inquiries related to these licensing and collaboration opportunities should be directed to: Suna Gulay French, Ph.D., Technology Transfer Manager, NCI, Technology Transfer Center, Email:
The technology is a liquid biopsy diagnostic assay capable of detecting loss of heterozygosity (LOH) and somatic mutations in genes important for antigen processing and presentation and interferon-γ (IFN) response pathways. Immunotherapy is an effective cancer treatment utilizing T cells to recognize and eliminate cancer cells. Antigen processing and presentation machinery (APM) and IFN response pathways play an important role for T cells to target cancer cells. To evade immunotherapy, cancer cells can develop somatic mutations in genes important for APM and IFN.
Liquid biopsy is a non-invasive tool that can diagnose and monitor cancer by analyzing circulating tumor DNA. The ability to detect somatic mutations and predict response to immunotherapies using liquid biopsy would be critical to provide more personalized cancer treatment. However, currently marketed liquid biopsies cannot predict response to cellular immunotherapies. As a result, patients with relapsed or recurrent disease lose valuable time and resources on ineffective treatments.
The inventors at the NCI developed a novel method to detect somatic mutations from liquid biopsy samples. Combined with NCI's method to detect loss of heterozygosity in HLA genes—another mechanism for immunotherapy evasion—this invention allows for improved patient selection and non-invasive prediction of response. This novel precision medicine method will allow patient-tailored treatment by targeting treatment based on genetic mutations and prediction of immunotherapy response. This invention could potentially deliver better patient satisfaction, lower healthcare costs and better outcomes.
This invention will be used to select optimal patients and monitor efficacy of treatments—such as TCR-T cell therapy. There are no liquid biopsy assays on the market designed as companion diagnostics for cellular immunotherapy—such as TCR-T cell therapy. Therefore, this technology may be particularly appealing to co-development partners who are developing proprietary cellular immunotherapies.
This Notice is in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.
• Companion diagnostic for cellular immunotherapies.
• Companion diagnostic for monitoring the effectiveness of TCR-based immunotherapies.
• Companion diagnostic for T cell-based immunotherapies, including certain immune checkpoint inhibitors.
• Research use in labs studying and developing new pre-clinical therapeutic candidates.
• Research use in basic research labs studying immunotherapy resistance mechanisms, antigen processing and presentation, IFN response pathways, mutations in cancer cells, basic immunology and basic oncology.
• First method to predict response to immunotherapies by detecting damaging mutations using liquid biopsy samples.
• Non-invasive test not requiring surgery.
• Easy to administer.
• Allows patient-tailored treatment and monitor the effectiveness of TCR-based immunotherapies in a simple and cost-effective manner.
• Potential improvement in patient survival.
• Potential time and money savings for patients, physicians and hospitals.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Advisory Council for Complementary and Integrative Health, January 24, 2025, 10:00 a.m. to January 24, 2025, 4:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, DEM 2, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the
The notice is being amended to change the start and end times of the open session portion of the meeting. The open session start time has changed from 12:30 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. and the end time has changed from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. This meeting is partially closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Novel and Exceptional Technology and Research Advisory Committee.
The meeting will be held as a virtual meeting and will be open to the public as indicated below. Individuals who plan to view the virtual meeting and need special assistance or other reasonable accommodations to view the meeting should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting will be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting website (
Any interested person may file written comments by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice at least two business days prior to the meeting date. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. Other than name and contact information, please do not include any personally identifiable information or any information that you do not wish to make public. Proprietary, classified, confidential, or sensitive information should not be included in your comments. Please note that any comments NIH receives may be posted unredacted to the Office of Science Policy website.
Information is also available on the NIH Office of Science Policy website:
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Advisory Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The open session will be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting website (
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has procedures at
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The National Cancer Institute (NCI), an institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is giving notice of licensing and collaboration opportunities for the inventions listed below, which are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for license and collaboration in the U.S. to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development.
Inquiries related to a collaboration opportunity should be directed to: Aida Cremesti, Senior Technology Transfer Manager, NCI, Technology Transfer Center, Email:
Success in immunotherapy is often attributable to the reactivity of patient T-cells to specific mutated peptide(s) found in the patient's tumor known as neoepitopes. In the development of patient-specific immunotherapies, there is no consistent standard for prioritizing such neoepitopes. Current models arrive at a ranked list of potential candidates by removing epitopes based on pre-determined criteria which might lead to the elimination of known reactive neoepitopes. Identification, prioritization and targeting of patient neoepitopes are crucial for developing effective, personalized treatments. Ranking or prioritizing neoepitopes is especially important when trying to construct a cancer vaccine that will elicit a therapeutically beneficial immune response. Accordingly, scientists at the NCI created a novel approach to identify and prioritize patient neoantigens. This model uses a training dataset of known neoantigens from patient screening and determines features of importance to epitope recognition using both reactive and non-reactive epitopes. The machine learning algorithm scores epitopes for their likelihood of reactivity and provides a stable, reproducible method to prioritize epitopes that can be used anywhere.
This Notice is in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.
• Oncology.
• Prioritization of neoantigens for the development of effective personalized therapies:
○ Cancer vaccines.
○ TIL and T-cell receptor therapies.
• Add-on to current color fundus imaging modalities.
• Model is trained using a dataset of verified neoantigens from patient tumor data.
• Model is unbiased because it does not use prior assumptions about what features a neoepitope should have.
• Uses two models (MMP and NMER model) as a more reproducible approach than a single model.
• Particularly useful for prioritizing epitopes for patients with large numbers of mutations.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Cancer Advisory Board (NCAB) and NCI Board of Scientific Advisors (BSA).
This will be a hybrid meeting held in-person and virtually and will be open to the public as indicated below. Individuals who plan to attend in-person or view the virtual meeting and need special assistance or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting can be accessed from the NIH Videocast at the following link:
A portion of the National Cancer Advisory Board meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The intramural programs and projects and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the intramural programs and projects, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NCI-Shady Grove campus. All visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: NCAB:
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Nursing Research.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Registration is not required to attend this meeting. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting can be accessed from the NIH Videocast at the following link:
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The intramural programs and projects as well as the grant applications and/or contract proposals 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 and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the committee may notify the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives of an organization may submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented and a short description of the oral presentation. Only one representative of an organization may be allowed to present oral comments and presentations may be limited to five minutes. Both printed and electronic copies are requested for the record. In addition, any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has procedures at
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of open Federal advisory committee virtual meeting.
The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee (Committee) will conduct a virtual meeting to discuss new Committee taskings on Cybersecurity Regulation Implementation, Regulatory/Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular Revisions, and Homeport Modernization. The virtual meeting will be open to the public.
To join the virtual meeting or to request special accommodations, contact the individual listed in the
The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee is committed to ensuring all participants have equal access regardless of disability status. If you require reasonable accommodations due to a disability to fully participate, please email Mr. Ryan Owens at
Mr. Ryan Owens, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee, telephone 202-302-6565 or email at
Notice of this virtual meeting is in compliance with the
(1) Call to Order.
(2) Introduction.
(3) Designated Federal Official Remarks.
(4) Roll call of Committee members and determination of quorum.
(5) Remarks from Committee Leadership.
(6) Introduction and Discussion of new Tasks:
a. Cybersecurity Regulation Implementation. The Committee will be asked to create a working group to assist the U.S. Coast Guard in providing feedback and challenges in implementation of U.S. Coast Guard Cyber Security Regulations.
b. Regulatory/Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular Revisions (NVIC). The Committee will be asked to create a working group to review existing pertinent NVICs and any recommendations for updating.
c. Homeport Modernization. The Committee will be asked to create a working group to provide recommendations to the Coast Guard on modernizing the Homeport internet Portal.
(7) Public Comment Period.
(8) Closing Remarks.
(9) Adjournment of Meeting.
A copy of all meeting documentation and tasks will be available at
There will be a public comment period at the end of virtual meeting. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please note that the public comment period may end before the period allotted, following the last call for comments.
Please contact the individual listed in the
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until January 13, 2025.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0113 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2009-0024. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, telephone number (240) 721-3000 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
Consistent with President Biden's direction to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to lead implementation of ongoing efforts across the Federal Government to support vulnerable Afghans, including those who worked alongside us in Afghanistan for the past two decades, as they safely resettle in the United States, USCIS is allowing noncitizens who arrived in the United States during Operation Allies Welcome (OAW) and who completed a medical screening documented on Form SF-600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, to complete a medical screening for physical and mental disorders with associated harmful behaviors and substance use disorders in order to demonstrate that they are not inadmissible to the United States under the health-related grounds and to file USCIS Form I-693A, Report of Supplemental Medical Screening, with their USCIS Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, in lieu of completing a full immigration medical examination and filing USCIS Form I-693, Report of Immigration Medical Examination and Vaccination Record. USCIS is providing public notice as provided by 5 CFR 1320.12 and simultaneously communicating with Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on a potential submission for emergency processing under 5 CFR 1320.13. USCIS will seek emergency approval from OMB approximately 30 days after the date of this publication.
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until January 13, 2025.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0033 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2006-0074. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, telephone number (240) 721-3000 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
Consistent with President Biden's direction to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to lead implementation of ongoing efforts across the Federal government to support vulnerable Afghans, including those who worked alongside us in Afghanistan for the past two decades, as they safely resettle in the United States, USCIS is allowing noncitizens who arrived in the United States during Operation Allies Welcome (OAW) and who completed a medical screening documented on Form SF-600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, to complete a medical screening for physical and mental disorders with associated harmful behaviors and substance use disorders in order to demonstrate that they are not inadmissible to the United States under the health-related grounds and to file USCIS Form I-693A, Report of Supplemental Medical Screening, with their USCIS Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, in lieu of completing a full immigration medical examination and filing USCIS Form I-693, Report of Immigration Medical Examination and Vaccination Record. USCIS is providing public notice as provided by 5 CFR 1320.12 and simultaneously communicating with Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on a potential submission for emergency processing under 5 CFR 1320.13. USCIS will seek emergency approval from OMB approximately 30 days after the date of this publication.
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Notice.
This notice informs the public of members appointed or reappointed to the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Housing Counseling Federal Advisory Committee (HCFAC) on October 16, 2024. Members are professionals from the mortgage and real estate industry, including HUD-approved housing counseling agencies, and consumers.
Virginia F. Holman, Housing Program Technical Specialist, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Housing Counseling, Office of Outreach and Capacity Building,
Section 4 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 (HUD Act) (42 U.S.C. 3533(g)(4)) requires the Secretary to appoint an advisory committee of not more than 12 individuals to provide advice to the Director of the Office of Housing Counseling (OHC) regarding the Housing Counseling Program. The membership of the committee must equally represent the mortgage and real estate industry, including consumers and HUD-appointed housing counseling agencies. Each member serves in his or her individual capacity for a term of up to 3 years.
HUD established the Housing Counseling Federal Advisory Committee (HCFAC) on April 14, 2015. The HFCAC provides OHC valuable advice regarding its mission to provide individuals and families with the knowledge they need to obtain, sustain, and improve their housing through a strong network of HUD-approved housing counseling agencies and HUD-certified counselors. The HCFAC, however, does not have any role in reviewing or awarding OHC housing counseling grants or procurement contracts.
The HFCAC is subject to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. 1001
The following members have been appointed or reappointed to the HCFAC. The new members will serve three-year terms and begin their service in January 2025:
These newly appointed members are joined by the following Committee members who have been reappointed for additional three-year terms:
Sherri Eckles, who was appointed in June 2023 and is Senior Vice President of the Renovation and Construction Lending Programs at Norcom Mortgage, will also continue to serve on the Committee.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of initiation of reviews; request for information.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are conducting 5-year status reviews of 38 animal and plant species under the Endangered Species Act. A 5-year status review is based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review; therefore, we are requesting submission of any such information that has become available since the last reviews for the species.
To ensure consideration, we are requesting submission of new information no later than December 16, 2024. However, we will continue to accept new information about any listed species at any time.
For details on how to request or submit information, see Request for Information and How Do I Ask Questions or Provide Information? in the
For information on a particular species, contact the appropriate person or office listed in the table in the
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
A 5-year status review considers all new information available at the time of the review. In conducting these reviews, we consider the best scientific and commercial data that have become available since the listing determination or most recent status review, such as:
A. Species biology, including but not limited to population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics;
B. Habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount, distribution, and suitability;
C. Conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species;
D. Threat status and trends in relation to the five listing factors (as defined in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA); and
E. Other new information, data, or corrections, including but not limited to taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the List, and improved analytical methods.
Any new information will be considered during the 5-year status review and will also be useful in evaluating the ongoing recovery programs for the species.
The species in table 1 are under active 5-year status review.
To ensure that a 5-year status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request new information from all sources. See What information do we consider in our review? for specific criteria. If you submit information, please support it with documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, methods used to gather and analyze the data, and/or copies of any pertinent publications, reports, or letters by knowledgeable sources.
If you wish to provide information for any species under review, please submit your comments and materials to the appropriate contact in table 1. You may also direct questions to those contacts. For general questions, contact the person under
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.
A list of all completed and currently active 5-year status reviews can be found at
This document is published under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of proposed rate adjustment.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) proposes to adjust electric power rates for the Mission Valley Power Project (MVP). We are required to establish rates to recover the costs to administer, operate, maintain, and rehabilitate the MVP. We request your comments on the proposed rate adjustments.
Interested parties may submit comments on the proposed rate adjustments on or before December 16, 2024.
All comments on the proposed rate adjustments must be in writing. You may send comments via email to
Mr. Shane Hendrickson, Flathead Agency Superintendent, Bureau of Indian Affairs, P.O. Box 40, Pablo, Montana 59855, (406) 675-2700, Ext. 1301. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services.
The table in this notice provides current and proposed electric power rates for 2024, 2025, and 2026.
This notice affects you if we provide you electric service. MVP is a federally-owned power utility, operated and maintained by the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes through a contract pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, Public Law 93-638, 25 U.S.C. 5301
You can contact us using the addresses provided at the beginning of this notice, or you can use the internet site for the Government Printing Office at
We are publishing this notice to inform you that we propose to adjust our electric power rates. This notice is published in accordance with BIA's regulations governing its operation and maintenance of power projects, found at 25 CFR part 175. This regulation provides for the establishment and publication of rates for electric power assessments as well as related information about our power projects.
Our authority to issue this notice is vested in the Secretary of the Interior by 5 U.S.C. 301; 25 U.S.C. 13; 25 U.S.C. 385c; Act of March 7, 1928 (45 Stat. 212-213),
We calculate electric power rates by estimating the costs of energy delivery to our customers, which includes administration costs and operation and maintenance costs in addition to the cost of purchased power. Operation and maintenance costs include maintenance of a reserve fund to make repairs and replacements to the utility, defray emergency expenses, ensure the continuous operation of the power system, and pay other allowable expenses and obligations to the extent required or permitted by law. The result of this calculation is stated in the rate table in this notice.
We completed a review of MVP's rates in accordance with 25 CFR 175.205 to: (a) determine if our financial requirements are being met to ensure the reliable operation of the utility; and (b) determine if revenues are sufficient to meet our statutory requirements. We have determined a rate increase is needed to ensure MVP can pay its expenses and ensure continuous operation of the power system.
Interested parties have an opportunity to provide comments, and they will be considered before proposed rate adjustments go into effect. We plan to put the 2024 rate adjustment into effect this fall. The 2025 rate adjustment will be effective March 1, 2025. The 2026 rate adjustment will be effective March 1, 2026.
We may add a purchased power cost adjustment to certain categories in the below table. This adjustment is the amount (rounded to the nearest $0.0001) that MVP pays to its power suppliers. When MVP experiences unforeseen increases in the cost of purchased power, we may adjust the existing electric power rate and put it into effect immediately. MVP will publish the purchased power changes in the local newspaper and adjust the purchased power component of your bill accordingly. Such changes are not included in the procedure for adjusting electric power rates because unforeseen increases in the cost of purchased power are: (a) not under our control; (b) determined by current market rates; and (c) subject to market fluctuations that can occur at an undetermined time and frequency.
You must use any power that we supply you only on your property. You may not resell any power that we supply to you.
If you have more than one meter, we will calculate a separate bill for each meter.
We will mail or email your bill notifying you (a) the amount you owe to the United States and (b) when such amount is due. You should pay your bill by the due date stated on the bill.
All responsible parties are required to provide the following information to the billing office associated with MVP:
(1) The full legal name of the person or entity responsible for paying the bill;
(2) An adequate and correct address for mailing our bill; and
(3) The taxpayer identification number or social security number of the person or entity responsible for paying the bill.
Public Law 104-134, the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, requires that we collect the taxpayer identification number or social security number before billing a responsible party and as a condition to servicing the account.
We can refuse to provide you electrical service.
Yes. 25 CFR 175.315(b) states: “If your bill is past due we may: (1) Disconnect your service; and (2) Not reconnect your service until your bill, including any applicable fees, is paid in full.” Specific regulations regarding non-payment can be found in 25 CFR 143.5(c).
Yes. We are required to assess interest, penalties, and administrative costs on past due bills in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3717 and 31 CFR 901.9.
If you do not pay your bill or make payment arrangements to which we agree, we are required to transfer your past due bill to the Department of the Treasury for further action. Pursuant to 31 CFR 285.12, bills that are 120 days past due will be transferred to Treasury.
The rate table below contains the present electric power rates for MVP. The table also contains proposed rates for 2024, 2025, and 2026. An asterisk immediately following the rate category notes where rates are proposed for adjustment.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this notice under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria of Executive Order 13175 and have determined there to be substantial direct effects on federally recognized Tribes because the electric power utilities are located on or associated with Indian reservations. To fulfill its consultation responsibility to Tribes and Tribal organizations, BIA communicates, coordinates, and consults on a continuing basis with these entities on issues of electric power delivery, electric power availability, and costs of administration, operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of our utilities that concern them. This is accomplished at the individual power utility by utility, agency, and regional representatives, as appropriate, in accordance with local protocol and procedures. This notice is one component of our overall coordination and consultation process to provide notice to, and request comments from, these entities when we adjust electric power rates.
The proposed rate adjustments are not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
This notice complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, in issuing this notice, the Department has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988.
These proposed rate adjustments are not a significant regulatory action and do not need to be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
These proposed rate adjustments are not a rule for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because they establish “a rule of particular applicability relating to rates.” 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
These proposed rate adjustments do not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have “takings” implications under Executive Order 12630. The proposed rate adjustments do not deprive the public, State, or local governments of rights or property.
Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, these proposed rate adjustments do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement because they will not affect the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.
The Department has determined that these proposed rate adjustments do not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because the
These proposed rate adjustments do not affect the collections of information which have been approved by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The OMB Control Number is 1076-0021 and expires March 31, 2026.
These proposed rate adjustments do not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments in the aggregate, or on the private sector, of more than $130 million per year. They do not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, the Department is not required to prepare a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs made a final agency determination to acquire in trust 13.79 acres, more or less, of land consisting of three parcels, known as the Lower Highway 89 Project, in Coconino County, Arizona, for the Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico, & Utah for gaming and other purposes.
This final determination was made on November 8, 2024.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 20240,
On the date in the
The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, will immediately acquire the title to the Site in the name of the United States of America in trust for the Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico, & Utah upon fulfillment of all Departmental requirements. The legal descriptions for the Lower Highway 89 Project are as follows:
That part of the Southeast quarter of Section 28, Township 22 North, Range 8 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Coconino County, Arizona, more particularly described as follows:
Thence North 89 degrees, 53 minutes, 00 seconds East along the East-West midsection line of Section 28, a distance of 120.00 feet to a point, said point being a
Thence South 0 degrees, 05 minutes, 00 seconds West, a distance of 245.38 feet to a point, said point being a
Thence South 82 degrees, 55 minutes, 00 seconds East, a distance of 342.98 feet to a point on a curve of the Northwesterly right of way line of U.S. Highway 89, said point being a
Thence Northeasterly along the Northwesterly right of way line of U.S. Highway 89, along a curve to the left, having a central angle of 6 degrees, 44 minutes, 32 seconds, a radius of 2814.79 feet and a length of 331.2 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being the intersection of the said Northwesterly right of way line of U.S. Highway 89 with the East-West midsection line of said Section 28, and said point being a
Thence South 99 degrees, 53 minutes, 00 seconds West along the East-West midsection in of Section 28, a distance of 502.00 feet, more or less to the
A parcel of land in the Northeast quarter of Section 28, Township 22 North, Range 8 East, of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Coconino County, Arizona, more particularly described as follows:
Thence North 89°53′00″ East, along the East-West midsection line of Section 28, a distance of 120.00 feet to a point, said point being a
Thence North 00°05′00″ East, a distance of 336.61 feet to a point marked by a
Thence North 89°53′00″ East, a distance of 451.81 feet to a point marked by a
Thence South 20°48′30″ West, a distance of 360.38 feet more or less, to a point on the East-West midsection line of Section 28, marked by a
Thence South 89°53′00″ West, along the East-West midsection line of Section 28, a distance of 324.28 feet, more of less to the Point of Beginning.
A parcel of land in the Northeast quarter of Section 28, Township 22 North, Range 8 East, of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Coconino County, Arizona, more particularly described as follows:
Thence North 00°05′00″ East, along the North-South midsection line of said Section 28, a distance of 516.00 feet;
Thence North 89°51′19″ East, a distance of 774.00 feet to a point on the Westerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 89, as shown in A.D.O.T. Project No. P-037=1-008, Drawing No. D-3-T0600, sheets 9 and 10;
Thence South 20°42′53″ West, along said Westerly right-of-way line, a distance of 278.53 feet to a found A.D.O.T. brass tablet marked “STA. 10095+27.92 R/W LT”;
Thence continue South 20°42′53″ West, along said Westerly right-of-way line, a distance of 6.07 feet to a point of curvature;
Thence Southwesterly along said Westerly right-of-way line, along a curve to the right, having a central angle of 5°29′39″ and a radius of 2764.79, for a distance of 273.16 feet to a nontangent point, said point being the intersection of said Southerly right-of way line and the East-West midsection line of said Section 28;
Thence South 89°51′19″ West (Record South 89°53′00″ West, as recorded in Docket 1042, page 701, records of Coconino County, Arizona.) a distance of 121.55 feet to the Southeast comer of a parcel of land described in Docket 1042, page 700;
Thence North 20°46′49″ East, along the East parcel line of said parcel, a distance of 360.38 feet (Record North 20°48.30” East, 36'0.38 feet per Docket 1042, page 700) to the Northeast comer of said Parcel;
Thence South 89°52′00″ West, along the North parcel line of the said parcel, a distance of 451.61 feet (Record South 89°05′25″ West, 451.81 feet per Docket 1042, page 700) to the Northwest comer of said Parcel;
Thence South 0°05′25″ West, along the West parcel line of said Parcel, a distance of 336.70 feet (Record South 0°-5′00′ West, 336.61 feet per Docket 1042, page 700) to a point on the aforementioned East-West midsection line of Section 28;
Thence South 89°51′19″ West, along the said East-West midsection line, a distance of 120.00 feet (Record South 89°53′00″ West, 120.00 feet per Docket 1042, page 700) to the Point of Beginning.
A portion of a parcel of land lying within the Southeast quarter of Section 28, Township 22 North, Range 8 East of the Gila and Salt River Meridian, Coconino County, Arizona, described as follows:
Thence North 89 degrees, 50 minutes, 52 seconds East, 119.60 (North 89 degrees, 53 minutes, 00 seconds East, 120.00 feet record) along the Northerly line of said Southeast quarter;
Thence South 00 degrees, 06 minutes, 14 seconds East, 245.68 feet (South 00 degrees, 05 minutes, 00 seconds West 245.38 feet record);
Thence South 83 degrees, 06 minutes, 14 seconds East, 285.88 feet (South 82 degrees, 55 minutes, 00 seconds East, 349.98 feet record) to a point on the Westerly right of way of US Highway 89. Said point being on a curve concave to the Northwest, having a radius of 2764.79 feet to which the radius point bears South 56 degrees, 45 minutes, 50 seconds East;
Thence Southwesterly 170.02 feet along the arc of said right of way, through a central angle of 03 degrees, 31 minutes, 25 seconds;
Thence South 36 degrees, 40 minutes, 59 seconds West, 512.63 feet (South 38 degrees West, 811.14 feet record) along said right of way to the point of intersection with the Westerly line of said Southeast quarter;
Thence North 00 degrees, 00 minutes, 29 seconds West (Basis of bearings), 830.05 feet (North 00 degrees, 05 minutes, 00 seconds East, 998.58 feet record) along said line to the
That portion of the above described property which lies between the existing Westerly right of way line of U.S. Highway 89 (Flagstaff-Cameron Highway) and the following described line;
Thence North 36 degrees, 58 minutes, 18 seconds East, a distance of 2816.52 feet;
Thence along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 2764.79 feet, a distance of 500.00 feet, more or less to the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Proposed notice to lessees.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to adopt Notice to Lessees No. 5 (NTL-5), clarifying when and how operators are expected to comply with certain requirements in the oil and gas measurement regulations, which became effective in January 2017.
Send your comments on the proposed NTL-5, included below and entitled,
You may send written comments by any of the following methods:
John Ajak, Acting Division Chief, Fluid Minerals Division, telephone: 505-549-9654, email:
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
The BLM will respond to any relevant and substantive public comments it receives on this proposed NTL-5 when it ultimately publishes any final NTL-5 in the
This proposed Notice is issued pursuant to 43 CFR 3164.2, which authorizes the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to issue a Notice to Lessees (NTL) when necessary to implement the BLM's oil and gas regulations. As explained in detail below, there is a need to clarify when and how operators are expected to comply with certain requirements in the oil and gas measurement regulations (43 CFR subparts 3174 and 3175), which became effective in January of 2017. Therefore, the BLM is hereby notifying
(1) The BLM will, beginning 3 months after the effective date of this NTL, no longer decline to enforce the requirements of subpart 3174 on operators of oil measurement facilities in use prior to January 17, 2017.
(2) The BLM will delay enforcement of each of the requirements for BLM-approved equipment and software for 1 year following the BLM's publication of applicable test procedures.
(3) In compliance with 43 CFR 3175.120(e), operators must submit gas analysis reports to the Authorized Officer (AO) upon request until such time as the Gas Analysis Reporting and Verification System (GARVS) becomes available for use.
On November 17, 2016, the BLM published final rules in the
The BLM had anticipated that the Automated Fluid Minerals Support System (AFMSS) module for FMP applications would be fully functional prior to January 17, 2017. As of this date, the AFMSS FMP application module remains unavailable. Since promulgation of the final rule, therefore, the BLM has been unable to accept operators' electronic FMP applications and assign FMP numbers due to competing priorities in updating AFMSS.
In January 2017, the BLM issued Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2017-032 (Jan. 17, 2017). Recognizing the delay in finalizing the AFMSS FMP application module, the IM explained that: “State and field offices will delay implementation and enforcement of new oil measurement regulations under 3174 as they apply to permanent oil measurement facilities in place before January 17, 2017. The length of the delay will be the number of days between January 17, 2017, and the date when the BLM fully implements FMP functionality in [AFMSS]. The phase-in periods in § 3174.2(f) will apply this same delay.” As provided in the IM, the BLM sent a letter to operators informing stakeholders of this delay in enforcement.
By its own terms, the IM expired on September 30, 2020, or 1,353 days after January 17, 2017. Thus, the BLM's discretionary delay of enforcement of the subpart 3174 requirements terminated, at the latest, on September 30, 2020.
Although the BLM remains unable to accept electronic FMP applications, such applications are not a practical or legal prerequisite
Certain provisions in subparts 3174 and 3175 require operators to use BLM-approved measurement equipment and software. In 2018, IM 2018-077 explained that the BLM would delay its enforcement of the use of approved measurement equipment “until the BLM has executed the prerequisite approvals of equipment and software, and operators are afforded a reasonable opportunity to comply.” That IM, like IM 2017-32, expired on September 30, 2020.
In fiscal year 2024, the BLM anticipates publishing additional recommended test procedures on the BLM website (
Under § 3175.120(e), the “operator must submit all gas analysis reports to the BLM within 15 days of the due date for the sample.” Section 3175.120(f) requires operators to “submit all gas analysis reports and other required related information electronically through the GARVS.”
IM 2018-077 noted delays in the development of GARVS based on competing work priorities. At that time, the BLM anticipated that GARVS would be available no earlier than June 2019. IM 2018-077 instructed the BLM to require submission of the gas analysis reports, whenever appropriate, in the interim until GARVS became available. GARVS remains unavailable, and the BLM has no timeline for its development. In the interim, operators must continue to submit gas analysis reports to an AO upon request pursuant to the BLM's recordkeeping requirement at 43 CFR 3170.7(h). The BLM further notifies operators that the submission of electronic gas analysis reports through GARVS will not be required until 3 months following the BLM publicly announcing GARVS availability on the BLM website.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of new recreation fees.
Pursuant to the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Butte Field Office (BFO) is establishing new recreation fees to support expanded amenities at eight developed recreation sites: the Carbella, Crow Creek, Dickie Bridge, East Bank, Maiden Rock, Galena Gulch, Lower Toston, and Upper Toston campgrounds. The BFO is also establishing a standard amenity fee (day-use) for the Big Hole River Corridor, to include the Dickie Bridge, Divide Bridge, East Bank, Maiden Rock, and Jerry Creek day-use sites.
The new fees will take effect on May 14, 2025.
The business plan and information concerning these new fees may be reviewed at the Butte Field Office, 106 N Parkmont, Butte MT 59701; phone: (406) 533-7600; and online at:
Lindsey Babcock, Field Manager, telephone: (406) 533-7600, email:
The FLREA directs the Secretary to publish a 6-month advance notice in the
Under section 6802(g)(2)(A) and (C) of FLREA, developed campgrounds and rental cabins qualify as sites wherein visitors can be charged an “Expanded Amenity Recreation Fee.”
Pursuant to FLREA and implementing regulations at 43 CFR part 2930 subpart 2933, fees may be charged for overnight camping, rental of cabins, and group use reservations where specific amenities and services are provided. Specific visitor fees will be identified and posted at each campground, day-use site, or rental cabin.
Under section 6802(f)(4) of FLREA, all day-use sites in this notice qualify as areas wherein visitors can be charged a “Standard Amenity Recreation Fee.” Pursuant to FLREA and implementing regulations at 43 CFR part 2930 subpart 2933, fees may be charged for an area where there are significant opportunities for outdoor recreation, that has substantial Federal investments, where fees can be efficiently collected, and that contains specific amenities and services. Specific visitor fees will be identified and posted at each day-use site.
This notice informs the public that the BLM BFO is establishing new recreation fees at campgrounds and day-use site as follows:
At the Carbella, Dickie Bridge, Maiden Rock, and East Bank campgrounds, an expanded amenity fee of $15 per campsite per night will be charged. An expanded amenity campground fee of $10 per campsite per night will be charged at the Crow Creek, Galena Gulch, Lower Toston, and Upper Toston campgrounds.
The BFO also is establishing a standard amenity fee (day use) of $5 per vehicle per day in the Big Hole River Corridor at the Dickie Bridge, Divide Bridge, East Bank, Maiden Rock and Jerry Creek day-use areas. In addition, the BFO is establishing a Big Hole day-use season pass fee of $20 for the Big Hole River day-use sites.
Campground and day-use fee information will be posted at each recreation site, available at the BFO, and available online through BLM websites and/or
In response to increasing recreation demands and visitation on BLM lands, the BFO developed a recreation fee business plan. The business plan reviewed campgrounds and day-use sites where new Standard and Expanded Amenity Recreation Fees are needed to maintain visitor facilities and visitor services, replace aging infrastructure, and improve access to recreational opportunities. The business plan explains: (1) consistency with the BLM recreation fee program policy; (2) the BFO recreation management direction; (3) the need for fee collection; (4) how the fees will be used at the sites; (5) Resource Advisory Council coordination; and (6) guidance on future fee increases. As analyzed in the business plan, the recreation use fees are consistent with other nearby Federal land management agency fees and are lower than the fees charged at privately owned campgrounds. The business plan is available as listed in the
The BLM notified and involved the public at each stage of this process. A public comment period on the draft business plan, announced via seven Facebook posts, ran from September 22, 2023, to November 17, 2023. Additionally, the BLM posted hard-copy notifications at each potentially affected recreation site, notified County Commissioners in Broadwater, Gallatin, Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, Silver Bow, and Park counties as well as Congressional staff, and conducted in-person meetings/presentations upon request. The BFO also contacted local special recreation permit holders who might be affected by the new fees. The final business plan was recommended for approval by the Western Montana Resource Advisory Council on December 11, 2023.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the San Bernardino County Museum has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after December 16, 2024.
Tamara Serrao-Leiva, San Bernardino County Museum, 2024 Orange Tree Lane, Redlands, CA 92374, telephone (909) 798-8623, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The
Human remains representing, at least, one individual and three lots of associated funerary objects (one lot of stone, one lot of ceramics, and one lot of bone tools) were removed from a roasting pit under the freeway at Mountain Pass (also known as Cajon Pass) Interstate 15 in 1924, predating Caltrans ownership. Field notes state that an individual named “Waite” excavated the remains in 1924, but the collection was not donated to the museum until July 31, 1976, by E.L. McFarlane, at which point the AFOs were given accession numbers (A1361-1, A1361-5, A1361-6).
A preponderance of the evidence supports a determination that the individuals are Native American, based on the artefactual context and skeletal taphonomy. Ethnohistoric evidence indicates that the area around the Cajon Pass was occupied by the Serrano Tribe during the prehistoric and protohistoric period. This area has traditionally been identified as Serrano ancestral territory. Serrano tribal leader Santos Manuel (namesake of the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation) when being interviewed by John P. Harrington in the early 1900s, calls the area of Cajon Pass “amutskupiat”, a Serrano space.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual and four lots of associated funerary objects (one lot of lithic tools, one lot of shell, one lot of charcoal, and one lot of faunal remains) were removed from archaeological site SBCM-39 (CA-SBr-01457). The site is situated on Rialto Bench overlooking Lytle Creek Wash near the mouth of Cajon Canyon. San Bernardino County Museum's first record of the site is from 1939. Level Report Forms from California State Polytechnic University Pomona show additional excavation or survey continued or restarted in 1982. In a preliminary report on the Rialto Bench Project written by Julie C Wizorek in 1984, it is stated that Richard Reynolds of the Page Museum and Bob Yohe assisted in identifying bone, bone tools, and animal teeth from the site. Two human teeth were identified as deciduous (or primary) teeth.
A preponderance of the evidence supports a determination that the individuals are Native American, based on the artefactual context and skeletal taphonomy. Ethnohistoric evidence indicates that the area around the Cajon Pass was occupied by the Serrano tribe during the prehistoric and protohistoric period. This area has traditionally been identified as Serrano ancestral territory. Serrano tribal leader Santos Manuel (namesake of the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation) when being interviewed by John P. Harrington in the early 1900s, identified two Serrano villages in the vicinity. Papiambit, located on the edge of Lytle Creek and Apuritaimbit, southeast along Lytle Creek Wash.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The San Bernardino County Museum has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The seven lots described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, California and the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after December 16, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the San Bernardino County Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The San Bernardino County Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the San Diego Archaeological Center intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after December 16, 2024.
Stephanie Sandoval, The San Diego Archaeological Center, 16666 San Pasqual Valley Road, Escondido, CA 92027, telephone (760) 291-0370, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the San Diego Archaeological Center and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The
An approximate total of 12,901 cultural items representing 16 archaeological collections have been requested for repatriation by the Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee (KCRC), on behalf of the 12 Federally recognized Kumeyaay Tribal Nations. The 58 unassociated funerary objects include the following material classes: Ground stone fragments and Shell beads/fragments; the 569 sacred objects include the following material classes: Ceramic pipe fragments, figurine fragments, and rattle beads; Chipped stone biface, blanks, core, debitage, flakes, points, tools, and sucking tube fragment; Ground stone pendants; Ochre mineral fragment; Shell beads and pendants; and tourmaline crystals; and the 12,274 objects of cultural patrimony include the following material classes: Bone (faunal) modified and unmodified; Ceramics; Chipped stone tools; Chipped stone; Ground stone tools; Historic; Lithics; Samples (charcoal and soil); Vegetal modified and unmodified; Shell modified and unmodified.
There is no known presence of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat any of the cultural items mentioned in this notice.
The San Diego Archaeological Center has determined that:
• The 58 unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary objects have been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• The 569 sacred objects described in this notice are specific ceremonial objects needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization.
• The 12,274 objects of cultural patrimony described in this notice have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural items described in this notice and Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Campo Indian Reservation, California; Capitan Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (Barona Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians of the Barona Reservation, California; Viejas (Baron Long) Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians of the Viejas Reservation, California); Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians, California; Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel, California; Inaja Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Inaja and Cosmit Reservation, California; Jamul Indian Village of California; La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian Reservation, California; Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation, California; Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Mesa Grande Reservation, California; San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California; and the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after December 16, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the San Diego Archaeological Center must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The San Diego Archaeological Center is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University (PMAE) has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a known lineal descendant connected to the human remains in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after December 16, 2024.
Jane Pickering, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, telephone (617) 496-2374, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the PMAE, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Based on the information available, human remains representing one individual has been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The human remains were collected at the Sherman Institute, Riverside County, CA, and are hair clippings collected from one individual,
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, a lineal descendant is connected to the human remains described in this notice.
The PMAE has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• A known lineal descendant, Peter Bagnod, is connected to the human remains described in this notice.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. The known lineal descendant connected to the human remains.
2. Any other lineal descendant not identified who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after December 16, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the PMAE must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. The PMAE is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the lineal descendant and any other consulting parties.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the San Bernardino County Museum has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after December 16, 2024.
Tamara Serrao-Leiva, San Bernardino County Museum, 2024 Orange Tree Lane, Redlands, CA 92374, telephone (909) 798-8623, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the San Bernardino County Museum and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual has been identified. The eight associated funerary objects are one stone, one rounded quartz tool, one lot of quartz and quartz frags, one lot of olivella shell, two obisidian flake/microlith, one lot of red ochre and paint, and one lot of faunal fragments. In 1948-50, Stuart Peck with ASA and UCLA excavated five burials, four possible “token burial,” and associated material, at Zuma Creek, Los Angeles County (catalog number SBCM-473), under a temporary permit. under. The identity of the individual is not known.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual has been identified. There are no associated funerary objects. These remains are identified by a label reading “Solstice Creek” (Los Angeles County) cataloged under number SBCM-5906. This individual was likely a part of the larger donation to the department from the McCowns, who were actively collecting during the 1970s and 80s. The identity of the individual is not known.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual has been identified. The four associated funerary objects are one lot of soil, one lot of beads, one lot of shell, and one lot of fire-affected rock. The collections numbered SBCM-UNN:75-109 included a note found with remains reads, “Mrs. R. Holcomb, San Bernardino, 3/25/69, Dear Luis—This Indian is for the Museum. It was dug up by some kids on the heath north of Gaviota (which is north of Santa Barbara)—I don't know if these are of any interest, but you are welcome to them.—Penny Holcomb.” The ancestor and associated objects from Santa Barbara County were donated to the museum in 1969. The identity of the individual is not known.
Human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals has been identified. There are no associated funerary objects. This unnumbered collection contained a note found with the ancestors stated they were taken from the “California Coast.” The identity of the individuals is not known.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The San Bernardino County Museum has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of five individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 12 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after December 16, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the San Bernardino County Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The San Bernardino County Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District (USACE Tulsa) intends to carry out the disposition of human remains removed from Federal or Tribal lands to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization with priority for disposition in this notice.
Disposition of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after December 16, 2024. If no claim for disposition is received by November 14, 2025, the human remains in this notice will become unclaimed human remains.
Jacqueline Rodgers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, 2488 East 81st Street, Tulsa, OK 74137, telephone (918) 669-4964, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the USACE Tulsa, and additional information on the human remains or cultural items in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the identifications in this notice.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. On August 12, 2012, the remains were discovered along the shoreline of Canton Lake in Blaine County, Oklahoma and reported to local law enforcement. The remains were collected by law enforcement and remitted to the Medical Examiner, who determined the remains to be Native American and not of forensic interest. The individual was transferred to the Oklahoma Archaeological Survey (OAS) on August 28, 2013, and transferred from OAS to the Tulsa District Archaeological Repository on April 26, 2023. A precise location of the discovery was not recorded. Two nearby sites include 34BL27, a precontact site and 34BL110, a historic trash dump dating to the 1900s. The property at Canton Lake was allotted to the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma before being transferred to USACE Tulsa.
The USACE Tulsa has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• The Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma have priority for disposition of the human remains described in this notice.
Written claims for disposition of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the appropriate official identified in this notice under
1. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they have priority for disposition.
Disposition of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after December 16, 2024. If competing claims for disposition are received, the USACE Tulsa must determine the most appropriate claimant prior to disposition. Requests for joint disposition of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The USACE Tulsa is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Western Washington University (WWU) intends to repatriate a certain cultural item that meets the definition of an unassociated funerary object and that has a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice may occur on or after December 16, 2024.
Dr. Judith Pine, Western Washington University, Department of Anthropology, Arntzen Hall 340, 516 High Street, Bellingham, WA 98225, telephone (360) 650-4783, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the WWU, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The one object of cultural patrimony is a large sandstone abrader.
On August 18, 1977, WWU Master's candidate Jerry Bailey was given permission to conduct a test excavation at registered archaeological site 45SJ84 located in Reid-Prevost Harbor State Park. Certain conditions were outlined by Jan T. Tveten, Assistant Director of Resources Development, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (WSPRC). Completion of a final report and shipment of artifactual materials to Fort Warden State Park were two of these conditions (Archaeological Test Excavations at Reid Harbor, Stuart Island, Washington, Published by The Department of Anthropology, WWU, Papers in Archaeology No. 9). This project was conducted as part of Jerry Bailey's M.A. thesis project, A Distributional Study of Three Late Prehistoric Culture Types in the Gulf of Georgia Region.
No hazardous chemicals are known to have been used to treat the item while in the custody of WWU.
The WWU has determined that:
• The one object of cultural patrimony described in this notice has ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural item described in this notice and the Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation; Samish Indian Nation; and the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after December 16, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the WWU must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The WWU is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of Virginia has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after December 16, 2024.
Meg Kennedy, University of Virginia, 170 McCormick Road, Charlottesville, VA 22812, telephone (434) 924-9425, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the University of Virginia, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, five individuals have been identified. The one lot of associated funerary objects are charcoal from a burial context, pottery, copper, stone, and walnut. Human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were removed from several archaeological sites by University of Virginia faculty and students during the twentieth century. Charlton Gilmore (Gilly) Holland, M.D., a neuropsychiatrist at the University of Virginia who taught Virginia archaeology in the department of sociology for ten years, actively excavated sites in Augusta, Bath, Highland, Rockingham and Rockbridge Counties in Virginia the mid-twentieth century. Some of this work was done in conjunction with the Smithsonian Institution.
On an unknown date(s), Holland removed “bones scattered through sod” from Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) site number 44AU12 in Augusta County, Virginia. The bones are believed to be human.
On an unknown date(s) in 1962, Holland removed human remains and associated funerary objects from the Hirsch Mound (DHR site number 44BA35) in Bath County, Virginia. The material includes human remains, charcoal from a burial context and associated funerary objects including pottery, copper, stone and walnut. From his notes: “bones and charcoal from lowest level in Square A,” “charcoal from 24”1' south of stake (W) for trench,” “square F2 feet from surface +6 above skull, SE post, chips in fill,” “skull + teeth fragments burial of square F,” and “burial 1 square A second level,” as well as “square A below 3rd level stones separated from skull + burial,” “possible copper, square A 14 inches,” “1 sherd pottery found under burial #2 in 1st level,” and “walnut Square A.”
On an unknown date(s), Holland or another colleague removed one human bone (bag labeled “12-19 inches”) from Lee Site #3 in Wise County, Virginia. Holland published research on 10 sites
On August 2, 1988 (and possibly on other unknown dates), University of Virginia professor of archaeology Jeffrey Hantman excavated DHR site number 44OR1, the Rapidan Mound in Orange County, Virginia. Material believed to be human was removed for future study, in consultation with Monacan Tribal leadership. Included in the material was: “teeth NO36 L1-alluv 8/2/88” and “23 contexts with bone that is potentially human (including charred material).” Hantman's research focused on traditional Monacan lands in Albemarle, Nelson and Orange Counties.
On an unknown date(s) in 1997, University of Virginia archaeology graduate students Martin Gallivan and Michael Klein (with unnamed undergraduate students and University faculty) removed material believed to be human from DHR site number 44GO30, Elk Island on the James River in Goochland County, Virginia. This work was part of a University of Virginia field school 1994-1997. The cultural items removed include two bags: “one human molar F2 surface/disturbance 1997” and “one fragment F2 surface disturbance 1997.” It is believed that these items were inadvertently retained.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The University of Virginia has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of five individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The one lot of objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a reasonable connection between human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and the Monacan Indian Nation.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after December 16, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the University of Virginia must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The University of Virginia is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Louisiana State University, Museum of Natural Science (LSUMNS) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after December 16, 2024.
Dr. Irene Martí Gil, LSU Museum of Natural Science, 119 Foster Hall, LSU, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, telephone (225) 578-2855, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the LSUMNS, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, 16 individuals have been reasonably identified. No known individuals were identified. The 24 associated funerary objects are pottery vessels, effigies, and disks; stone mortars; bone awls; and glass beads.
From the Bayou Matherne site (16LF3, located at the confluence of Bayous Vacherie and Matherne in Lafourche Parish, LA), human remains representing, at a minimum, three adult individuals, were removed by James Q. Harris during two separate surface collection events in 1985. The burials could be Coles Creek-Plaquemine. The four funerary objects include one probably Mississippian clay bird head effigy, one undiagnostic bone awl, one undiagnostic stone mortar, and one Maddox Incised Effigy bowl. They have been identified as Late Plaquemine, Choctaw, and Caddo. One modern clay pipe replica, possibly Caddo, is available for repatriation as well. All five objects were acquired by William McIntire and Roger Saucier in 1952 and accessioned into the LSUMNS in 1953.
From the Sanson Place site (16RA1, also Joseph's Island, Stock Landing, located on a terrace by the Catahoula Lake in Rapides Parish, LA), 15 aboriginal vessels in various states of repair were transferred from “Mrs. Evans” to the LSUMNS in 1932 and 1935. Some `vessels' are distinctive sherds; others are partially reconstructed vessels. While the GIS database attributed the site to Plaquemine and Mississippian cultures, the current consensus for the cultural attribution of the Sanson Place site favors a Plaquemine component, albeit with strong Caddo influences/relationships.
From the Woodward Place site (16RA05, also known as Rougeau Mounds, located on a terrace knoll west of Bayou Robert or Boeuf and east of
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The Louisiana State University, Museum of Natural Science (LSUMNS) has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 16 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 24 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the human remains and the associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma; Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana; Jena Band of Choctaw Indians; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; and The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after December 16, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Louisiana State University, Museum of Natural Science (LSUMNS) must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Louisiana State University, Museum of Natural Science (LSUMNS) is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Cumberland University has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is no lineal descendant and no Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Upon request, repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after December 16, 2024.
Rachael C. Bible, Cumberland University, 1 Cumberland Drive, Lebanon, TN 37087, telephone (615) 549-5319, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of Cumberland University, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, two individuals have been identified. The three associated funerary objects are one scapula of a Virginia opossum (
Invitations to consult were sent to the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas; Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Catawba Indian Nation; Cherokee Nation; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Jena Band of Choctaw Indians; Kialegee Tribal Town; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Miccosukee Tribe of Indians; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Poarch Band of Creek Indians; Quapaw Nation; Seminole Tribe of Florida; Shawnee Tribe; The Chickasaw Nation; The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; The Osage Nation; The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Quapaw Nation; Shawnee Tribe; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma responded to the invitation and participated in consultation.
The following types of information about the cultural affiliation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice are available: archaeological, geographical, and other relevant information. The information, including the results of consultation, identified:
1. No earlier group is connected to the human remains or associated funerary object.
2. No Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization is connected to the human remains or associated funerary objects.
3. No relationship of shared group identity between the earlier group and
Cumberland University has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The three objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• No known lineal descendant who can trace ancestry to the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice has been identified.
• No Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation to the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice has been clearly or reasonably identified.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Upon request, repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice may occur on or after December 16, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, Cumberland University must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. Cumberland University is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to any consulting lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Evansville Museum of Arts, History & Science intends to repatriate a certain cultural item that meets the definition of an object of cultural patrimony and that has a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice may occur on or after December 16, 2024.
Kaman Hillenburg, Evansville Museum of Arts, History & Science, Evansville, IN 47713, telephone (812) 425-2406, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Evansville Museum of Arts, History & Science, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The one object of cultural patrimony is a Sea Monster hat. The hat is made of red cedar wood with a detachable wooden fin adorned with human hair. The teeth of the Sea Monster are made from abalone shell. The red paint on the hat could contain mercury.
The item was donated to the Evansville Museum of Arts, History & Science by Mrs. Edward Mead Johnson, Sr. in 1936.
The Evansville Museum of Arts, History & Science has determined that:
• The one object of cultural patrimony described in this notice has an ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural item described in this notice and the Ketchikan Indian Community.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after December 16, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Evansville Museum of Arts, History & Science must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural item are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Evansville Museum of Arts, History & Science is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after December 16, 2024.
Jane Pickering, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, telephone (617) 496-2374, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the PMAE, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual was collected at the University of New Mexico, Bernalillo County, NM. The human remains are hair clippings collected from one individual who was recorded as being 15 years old and identified as “Tesuque.” Dr. Clyde Kay Maben Kluckhohn took the hair clippings at the University of New Mexico between 1930 and 1933. Kluckhohn sent the hair clippings to George Woodbury, who donated the hair clippings to the PMAE in 1935. No associated funerary objects are present.
Based on the available information and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains described in this notice.
The PMAE has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• There is a reasonable connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after December 16, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the PMAE must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The PMAE is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribe identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of California, Riverside intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after December 16, 2024.
Megan Murphy, University of California, Riverside, 900 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92517-5900, telephone (951) 827-6349, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the University of California, Riverside, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of four cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The four lots of unassociated funerary objects are one lot of shell beads, one lot of arrowheads, one lot of faunal bones, and one lot of metal. In 1980 the UCR Archaeological Research Unit was contracted by The Planning Center, Newport Beach, to conduct a survey of 236 acres in Indio, California. During the survey the archaeologists identified fifteen loci of cultural materials in the project area; three of the loci contained possible human cremations. The three possible cremations were all located within archaeological site CA-RIV-1970. The site was described in Archaeological Research Report #570 as a large area contained seven loci of artifact and bone concentrations. No human remains were reported to have been removed from site, however, the archaeologists removed about 30 complete and fragmentary burnt Olivella disk beads, 4 arrowhead fragments, burnt fish bone, and a piece of metal.
The University of California, Riverside has determined that:
• The four unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary objects have been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation, California; Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians, California; Cabazon Band of Cahuilla Indians (
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after December 16, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the University of California, Riverside must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The University of California, Riverside is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Ball State University (BSU) intends to repatriate a certain cultural item that meets the definition of an unassociated funerary object and that has a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice may occur on or after December 16, 2024.
Chyan Gilaspy, Ball State University, Applied Anthropology Laboratories, 2000 W Riverside Avenue, Muncie, IN 47306, telephone (765) 285-5362, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of BSU and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The one unassociated funerary object is an effigy vessel or hooded water bottle (listed as animal-shaped vessel in BSU records). The item was donated to BSU by a private donor in 1953. Based on consultation, available documentation, and archaeological evidence pertaining to similar funerary objects, we conclude that this cultural item was likely removed from an ancestral Osage burial at an unrecorded date and location prior to 1953. There are no institutional records indicating the presence of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat the cultural item.
BSU has determined that:
• The one unassociated funerary object described in this notice is reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural item described in this notice and The Osage Nation.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after December 16, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, BSU must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural item are considered a single request and not competing requests. The BSU is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Tennessee State Museum intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after December 16, 2024.
Debbie Shaw, Tennessee State Museum, 1000 Rosa L Parks Blvd., Nashville, TN 37243, telephone (615) 253-0144, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative
A total of 120 cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The 120 unassociated funerary objects are three bracelets, two bells, five tinklers, four pendants, 89 beads, seven buttons, one earring, one tube, one brooch, one buckle, one jaw harp, one padlock, one projectile point, one bullet, one hanger/sword and one pipe. These items are associated with Overhill Cherokee towns (Tellico and Citico sites) in Monroe County, TN and one item has a provenience of the Old Town Site (40WM2) in Williamson County, TN.
The Tennessee State Museum has determined that:
• The 120 unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary objects have been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after December 16, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Tennessee State Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Tennessee State Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the California State University, Sacramento has completed an inventory of associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after December 16, 2024.
Dr. Mark R. Wheeler, Senior Advisor to President Luke Wood, California State University, Sacramento, 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819, telephone (916) 460-0490, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the California State University, Sacramento, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Associated funerary objects have been identified from CA-SUT-55, located in the southern portion of Sutter County, CA. The single lot of associated funerary objects include lithic materials. The funerary objects were collected by individuals associated with the California State University, Sacramento in 1978 on behalf of the US Army Corps. of Engineers. They have since been housed at the University under accession 81-88.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The California State University, Sacramento has determined that:
• The one lot of objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Cachil DeHe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community of the Colusa Rancheria, California; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation of the Cortina Rancheria (
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or
Repatriation of the associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after December 16, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the California State University, Sacramento must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The California State University, Sacramento is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) announces the availability of the draft programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) for California Offshore Wind. The Proposed Action of the draft PEIS is the identification of programmatic mitigation measures to lessen the environmental impacts of commercial-scale offshore wind energy development in the five lease areas offshore Northern and Central California on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). These mitigation measures may be required as conditions of approval for activities proposed within future construction and operations plans (COPs) prepared by leaseholders for approval to begin construction within the lease areas. This PEIS, if finalized and approved, will not result in the approval of any construction and operation activities.
The draft PEIS and associated information are available on BOEM's website at:
Lisa Gilbane, Chief, Environmental Analysis Section, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Camarillo, California Office, 760 Paseo Camarillo, Suite 102, Camarillo, CA 93010, (805) 384-6387 or
BOEM's virtual public meetings will be held on the following date at the time (Pacific time) indicated.
Tuesday January 28, 2025, 5:00 p.m.
Thursday, January 30, 2025, 12:00 p.m.
Please go to
This draft PEIS assesses potential biological, socioeconomic, physical, and cultural impacts that could result from floating offshore wind energy development associated with the two leases offshore Humboldt Bay (OCS-P 0561 and 0562) and three leases offshore Morro Bay (OCS-P 0563, 0564, and 0565) and considers the reduction or avoidance of those impacts that could result from adopting mitigation measures. BOEM issued these five leases May 16, 2023. The leases total approximately 373,000 acres (~583 square miles) and are the first wind energy leases offshore California. Water depths in the lease areas range from 1,640 to 4,265 feet (500 to 1,300 meters); the use of floating foundations that anchor to the sea floor is anticipated.
The existing wind leases grant the lessees the exclusive right to submit a COP to BOEM proposing the construction, operation, and decommissioning of offshore wind energy facilities in the lease area. BOEM will conduct site-specific National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses on all COPs submitted and may conclude that the inclusion of additional mitigation measures not identified in this draft PEIS is required.
The Proposed Action is BOEM's adoption of a suite of program-level mitigation measures that could be applied to activities to reduce or avoid potential impacts.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) has determined that there is a violation of section 337 in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission has further determined to issue a limited
Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3042. 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 July 3, 2023, based on a complaint filed by Efficient Power Conversion Corporation of El Segundo, California (“EPC”). 88 FR 42756-77 (Jul. 3, 2023). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based on the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or sale within the United States after importation of certain semiconductor devices, and methods of manufacturing same, and products containing the same by reason of the infringement of one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,312,335 (“the '335 patent”); 8,350,294 (“the '294 patent”); 8,404,508 (“the '508 patent”); and 9,748,347 (“the '347 patent”).
On October 13, 2023, Chief Administrative Law Judge (“CALJ”) held a
On December 13, 2023, the CALJ issued an initial determination (“ID”) granting a motion to terminate the investigation as to all asserted claims of the '347 patent. Order No. 9 (Dec. 13, 2023),
On February 12, 2024, the CALJ issued an ID granting a motion to terminate the investigation as to all asserted claims of the '335 patent. Order No. 12 (Feb. 12, 2024),
The CALJ held an evidentiary hearing from February 26, 2024 to March 1, 2024, and received post-hearing briefs thereafter.
On July 5, 2024, the CALJ issued the final ID finding a violation of section 337 as to claims 2 and 3 of the '294 patent and no violation of section 337 as to claim 1 of the '294 patent. The CALJ also found no violation of section 337 as to the only asserted claim of the '508 patent, claim 1. Specifically, the ID found that by appearing and participating in the investigation, the parties have consented to personal jurisdiction at the Commission. ID at 10-11. The ID found that EPC established the importation requirement under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B), noting that Innoscience does not dispute importing the accused products.
The ID included the CALJ's recommended determination on remedy and bonding (“RD”). The RD recommended, should the Commission find a violation, issuance of a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders against the Respondents. ID/RD at 154-157. The RD also recommended imposing a bond in the amount of five percent (5%) of entered value for infringing products imported during the period of Presidential review.
On July 19, 2024, EPC and Innoscience filed respective petitions for review of the ID. On July 29, 2024, the parties, including OUII, filed responses to the petitions.
On August 6, 2024, Respondents filed a motion for sanctions against EPC and its counsel for their alleged breach of the CALJ's administrative protective order (“APO”) based on an alleged disclosure EPC made in IPR proceedings before the Patent Office. Respondents requested a sanction of non-enforcement of the '294 patent. Respondents also requested a stay of the proceedings pending disposition of the sanctions motion. On August 15, 2024, OUII filed a response, opposing Respondents' motion. On August 16, 2024, Complainant file an opposition to Respondents' motion. On September 19, 2024, Respondents filed a motion for leave to file a reply brief in support of its motion for sanctions. On September 24, 2024, EPC filed an opposition to Respondents' motion for leave to file a reply. On October 2, 2024, OUII filed an opposition to Respondents' motion for leave to file a reply.
The Commission has determined to deny Respondents' motion for leave to file a reply brief. The Commission has also determined to deny Respondents' motion for a sanction of non-enforcement of the '294 patent. The Commission notes that Respondents' allegation of a breach of the APO has been referred to the Commission's Office of the Secretary for further proceedings according to the Commission's normal procedures. The Commission reminds the parties of their obligations under Commission Rule 210.25 to promptly file any allegations of breach of an APO, and to bring the matter to the attention of the presiding ALJ where, as here, the alleged breach is discovered while the investigation was pending before the CALJ. The Commission also reminds the parties of their obligation under Commission rule 210.34 to keep the identity of any alleged breacher confidential. The Commission has also determined to deny Respondent's request to stay the proceedings pending disposition of the sanctions motion.
On September 5, 2024, the Commission determined to review the final ID in its entirety. 89 FR 73719-21 (Sept. 11, 2024). The Commission asked the parties briefing questions related to: (1) construction of the claim term “compensated GaN layer” recited in claim 1 of the '294 patent and the ID's infringement, invalidity, and technical prong of the domestic industry analyses if the Commission were to adopt OUII's proposed construction of the term; (2)
On September 23, 2023, the parties filed initial submissions in response to the Commission's request for briefing. On September 30, 2023, the parties filed reply submissions.
Upon review of the parties' submissions, the ID, the RD, evidence of record, and public interest filings, the Commission has determined that Respondents violated section 337 by reason of importation and sale of articles that infringe asserted claims 2 and 3 of the '294 patent and to issue remedial orders. The Commission has determined to clarify the ID's statements on jurisdiction and standing as noted in the accompanying Commission Opinion. The Commission has determined to adopt OUII's construction of the claim term “compensated GaN layer” recited in claim 1 of the '294 patent as its plain and ordinary meaning and, as explained in the Commission opinion, finds that adoption of OUII's construction does not alter the ID's findings on infringement, invalidity, and technical prong of domestic industry, which the Commission affirms. For the '508 patent, the Commission affirms the ID's finding of no violation for the reasons provided in the ID.
For remedy, the Commission has determined to issue a limited exclusion order prohibiting further importation of infringing products and cease and desist orders against Respondents. The Commission has determined that the public interest factors do not counsel against issuing remedial orders. The Commission has determined that a bond in the amount of five percent (5%) of entered value for covered articles is required for covered products imported or sold during the period of Presidential review.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on November 7, 2024.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
On November 7, 2024, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in the lawsuit entitled
The United States filed this lawsuit under the Clean Water Act. The United States' complaint seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties for violations of the regulations that govern land application of sewage sludge (or “biosolids”) from the defendant's operations in Arizona and California. The consent decree requires the defendant to perform injunctive relief if they land apply sewage sludge in those two states, and to pay a $610,000 civil penalty.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. 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 Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Employment and Training Administration.
Notice.
The Acting Secretary of Labor signed the annual certifications under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, thereby enabling employers who make contributions to state unemployment funds to obtain certain credits against their liability for the federal unemployment tax. By letter, the certifications were transmitted to the Secretary of the Treasury. The letter and certifications are printed below.
Enclosed are an original and a copy of two separate certifications regarding unemployment compensation laws pursuant to the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, for the 12-month period ending on October 31, 2024. One certification is with respect to the federal unemployment tax credit under Section 3304 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (IRC), and the other certification is with respect to the “additional” tax credit under Section 3303 of the IRC. Both certifications list all 53 states.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 3304(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 3304(c)), I hereby certify the following named states to the Secretary of the Treasury for the 12-month period ending on October 31, 2024, in regard to the unemployment compensation laws of those states, which heretofore have been approved under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act:
This certification is for the maximum credit allowable under Section 3302(a) of the Code.
In accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) of Section 3303(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 3303(b)(1)), I hereby certify the unemployment compensation laws of the following named states, which heretofore have been certified pursuant to paragraph (3) of Section 3303(b) of the Code, to the Secretary of the Treasury for the 12-month period ending on October 31, 2024:
This certification is for the maximum additional credit allowable under Section 3302(b) subject to the limitations of Section 3302(c) of the Code.
Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS), Department of Labor.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, provides the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents is properly assessed. Currently, the DOL is soliciting comments concerning the collection of recurring reports submitted by Jobs for Veterans State Grants (JVSG) recipients regarding the planned and actual expenditure of grant funds and activities funded by the grant.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
You may submit comments by email at
Rebekah Haydin, by telephone at (240) 867-2302 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
The Department of Labor, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the OMB for final approval. This program helps to ensure requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed.
The Department of Labor's Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) administers funds for the Jobs for Veterans State Grant (JVSG) to each state, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands on an annual fiscal year basis. These non-competitive, formula-driven grants are codified under title 38, United States Code, (38 U.S.C.) section 4102A(b)(5): “Subject to subsection (c) make available for use in each state by grant or contract such funds as may be necessary to support—(A) disabled veterans' outreach program specialists appointed under section 4103A(a)(1) of this title, (B) local veterans' employment representatives assigned under section 4104(b) of this title, and (C) the reasonable expenses of such specialists and representatives described in subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively, for training, travel, supplies, and other business expenses . . .”
VETS provides funds to states in accordance with an allocation formula required by 38 U.S.C. 4102A(c)(2)(B) and as published in regulation at title 20, part 1001, subpart F of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training monitors and supervises the distribution and use of those funds as required by 38 U.S.C. 4102A(b)(6). Additionally, and in accordance with 38 U.S.C. 4107(b), the Secretary reviews performance and provides an annual report to Congress that includes a characterization of the quality and character of priority of services provided to veterans (38 U.S.C. 4215 and 20 CFR 1010.320, 1010.330), efforts to coordinate with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs in accordance with 38 U.S.C. 4102A(b)(3) and 4109; and incentive fund usage as described in 38 U.S.C. 4112.
VETS is requesting continued approval for the information collection that streamlines the annual funding request process for grantees, reports the use of grantee funds in sufficient detail to allow interim adjustments that ensure all appropriated funding is expended properly, and provides data needed for VETS' Annual Report to Congress.
The forms and reports collect required programmatic and financial data from states and territories requesting and obligating grant funds. The continued use of standardized formats for collecting this information helps to ensure that requested data is provided in a uniform way, reporting burdens are minimized, the impact of collection requirements on respondents are properly assessed, collection instruments are clearly understood by respondents, and the information is easily consolidated for posting in accordance with statutory requirements.
In addition to its standard review of all forms and instructions to incorporate programmatic updates and improve plain language, VETS is proposing to revise the information collection to add a VETS-404 Incentive Award Report form for reporting on the recipient's incentive award program. As a condition for the receipt of funds, JVSG recipients must establish and carry out an annual performance incentive program to recognize excellence and encourage the improvement of employment, training, and placement services provided under the grant. Recipients currently provide an annual report on their incentive program as a freeform attachment to their fourth-quarter VETS-403 Technical Performance Narrative. Recipients have requested a standardized form on which to complete this report so that the required data elements are more clear.
With respect to the continuation of the approved collection of information, VETS is particularly interested in comments on these topics:
(1) Whether the continued collection of information is necessary for the proper performance and oversight of the Jobs for Veterans State Grant, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the VETS' estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
This information collection is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (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. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.
The DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an Information Collection Review cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that currently approved information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
1. VETS-401, JVSG Budget Information Summary;
2. VETS-402, JVSG Expenditure Detail Report (EDR);
3. VETS-403, JVSG Technical Performance Narrative (TPN);
4. VETS-404, Incentive Award Report (IAR);
5. VETS-501, JVSG Staffing Directory.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice is a summary of a petition for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by Buchanan Minerals, LLC.
All comments on the petition must be received by MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before December 16, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. MSHA-2024-0058 by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
S. Aromie Noe, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9440 (voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 44, govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, §§ 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.
The petitioner states that:
(a) The petitioner is requesting to utilize the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR in addition to the utilization of the CleanSpace EX PAPR, which was approved through a previous Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) granted by MSHA (MSHA Docket Number M-2021-023-C).
(b) The 3M Airstream helmet has been used in mines for over 40 years. 3M has recently faced component disruptions for the Airstream product. This has caused 3M to discontinue, globally, the Airstream on June 1, 2020. The ability to order an Airstream system and components ended in February 2020, and components were available through June 2020. Currently, there are not any available replacement PAPRs that meet the MSHA standard for permissibility. PAPRs provide a constant flow of filtered air, which offers respiratory protection and comfort in hot working environments. Operators that were using the Airstream, do not have an alternative to provide to this type of protection to its miners.
(c) Buchanan Minerals, LLC, is seeking alternatives to the 3M Airstream helmet to provide miners with respirable protection against respirable coal mine and silica dust, a protection that can provide long-term health benefits.
(d) Both the CleanSpace EX and 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPRs provide a constant flow of filtered air inside the half-mask, full mask or helmet. The airflow provides respiratory protection and comfort in hot working conditions. Both PAPRs shall be equipped with the following: Particulate protection classified as 100 series under 42 CFR part 84; or Particulate protection classified as High Efficiency “HE” under 42 CFR part 84.
(e) Buchanan Minerals LLC, Buchanan No.1. Mine is seeking to continue the use of the CleanSpace EX PAPR and applying to utilize the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR in the return air outby the last open crosscut.
(f) CleanSpace EX.
(1) The CleanSpace EX is certified by TestSafe Australia (TSA) according to the IEC 60079-0:2011 (General Requirements) and IEC 60079-11:2011 (Intrinsic Safety) standards. The certificate, issued to PAFtec Australia Pty Ltd (“PAFtec”), allows PAFtec to mark the device as “Ex ib IIB T4 Gb” and “Ex ia I Ma.” Due to legal and regulatory constraints, the TSA certificate is not accepted by MSHA as evidence that the PAPR is approved for use in US mines. The IEC certification marking that applies to mining, Ex ia I Ma, is discussed below:
(2) The CleanSpace EX is certified to be used in hazardous locations (“Ex”); meets the most onerous level of intrinsic safety protection (“ia”); the level of protection is acceptable for use in mining locations (“I”), and the Equipment Protection Level appropriate for mining equipment, that has a “very high” level of protection, with sufficient security that it is unlikely to become an ignition source in normal operation, during expected malfunctions or during rare malfunctions, even when left energized in the presence of an outbreak of gas (“Ma”).
(3) NIOSH researchers, in a paper titled “An Evaluation of the Relative Safety of U.S. Mining Explosion-Protected Equipment Approval Requirements versus those of International Standards”, have determined that equipment, which meets two-fault intrinsic safety as defined in the ANSI/UL 60079 standard, would provide at least an equivalent level of safety as that provided by equipment approved under MSHA criteria.
(4) The UL certification, TSA certification, and PAFtec listing material (drawings, certificate and text report) were found to support the conclusion that the CleanSpace EX meet the applicable “two fault” intrinsic safety
(5) The CleanSpace EX carries an ingress protection rating of IP66. This rating exceeds the minimum rating of IP54 required by the ANSI/UL and IEC standards for intrinsically safe mining equipment.
(6) This product is not MSHA approved, and the manufacturer is not pursuing approval. The standards for the approval of this respirator are an accepted alternative to MSHA's standards and provide the same level of protection.
(g) 3M Versaflo TR-800.
(1) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR with motor/blower and battery qualifies as intrinsically safe, based on reports by the International Electrotechnical Commission Systems for Certification to Standards Relating to Equipment for Use in Explosive Atmospheres (IECEx). The blower is UL-certified with an intrinsically safe rating of Division 1: Class I, II, III; Division 1: Groups C, D, E, F, G; T4 under the current standard of UL 60079; ATEX-certified with a rating of “ia”. The 3M Versaflo TR-800 is rated and marked Ex ia I MA, Ex ia IIB T4 Ga, Ex ia IIIC 135oC Da; 120 °C ≤ TA ≤ +55 °C.
(2) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 carries an ingress protection rating of IP64. This rating exceeds the minimum rating of IP54 required by the ANSI/UL and IEC standards for intrinsically safe mining equipment.
(3) This product is not MSHA approved, and the manufacturer is not pursuing approval. The standards for the approval of this respirator are an accepted alternative to MSHA's standards and provide the same level of protection.
(h) The alternative method will guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.
The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:
(a) Affected mine employees shall be trained in the proper use and maintenance of the PAPR(s) to be used at the mine, the 3M Versaflo TR-800 and/or the CleanSpace EX, in accordance with established manufacturer guidelines. This training shall alert the affected employee that neither the 3M Versaflo TR-800 nor the CleanSpace EX PAPR is approved under 30 CFR part 18 and therefore shall be de-energized when 1.0 or more percent methane is detected. The training shall also include the proper method to de-energize these PAPRs. In addition to manufacturer guidelines, MSHA shall require that mine employees be trained to inspect the units before use to determine if there is any damage to the units that would negatively impact intrinsic safety as well as all stipulations in the PDO granted by MSHA.
(b) The PAPRs, battery packs, and all associated wiring and connections shall be inspected before use to determine if there is any damage to the units that would negatively impact intrinsic safety. If any defects are found, the PAPR shall be removed from service.
(c) The operator shall maintain a separate logbook for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs that shall be kept with the equipment, or in a location with other mine record books, and shall be made available to MSHA upon request. The equipment shall be examined at least weekly by a qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.512-1 and the examination results shall be recorded in the logbook. Since float coal dust is removed by the air filter prior to reaching the motor, the PAPR user shall conduct regular examinations of the filter and perform periodic testing for proper operation of the “high filter load alarm” on the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR, and the “blocked filter” alarm on the CleanSpace EX PAPR. Examination entries may be expunged after one year.
(d) All 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs to be used in the return air outby the last open crosscut shall be physically examined prior to initial use and each unit shall be assigned a unique identification number. Each unit shall be examined by the person to operate the equipment prior to taking the equipment underground to ensure the equipment is used according to the original equipment manufacturer's recommendations and maintained in a safe operating condition. The examinations for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPRs shall include:
(1) Check the equipment for any physical damage and the integrity of the case,
(2) Remove the battery and inspect for corrosion,
(3) Inspect the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery,
(4) Reinsert the battery and power up and shut down to ensure proper connections,
(5) Check the battery compartment cover or battery attachment to ensure that it is securely fastened, and
(6) For equipment utilizing lithium type cells, ensure that lithium cells and/or packs are not damaged or swelled in size.
(e) All CleanSpace EX PAPRs to be used in the return air outby the last open crosscut shall be physically examined prior to initial use and each unit shall be assigned a unique identification number. Each unit shall be examined by the person to operate the equipment prior to taking the equipment underground to ensure the equipment is used according to the original equipment manufacturer's recommendations and maintained in a safe operating condition. The CleanSpace EX PAPR does not have an accessible/removable battery. The internal battery and motor/blower assembly are both contained within the “power unit” assembly and the battery cannot be removed, reinserted or fastened. Therefore, examination of the CleanSpace EX PAPR should include any indications of physical damage.
(f) The operator shall ensure that all 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPR units are serviced according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Dates of service shall be recorded in the equipment's logbook and shall include a description of the work performed.
(g) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPR units that will be used in the return air outby the last open crosscut shall not be put into service until MSHA has initially inspected the equipment and determined that it is in compliance with all the terms and conditions of the PDO granted by MSHA.
(h) Prior to energizing the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or the CleanSpace EX PAPR in the return air outby the last open crosscut, methane tests shall be made in accordance with 30 CFR 75.323(a).
(i) All hand-held methane detectors shall be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition as defined by 30 CFR 75.320. All methane detectors shall provide visual and audible warnings when methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent.
(j) A qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.151 shall continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX PAPR in the return air outby the last open crosscut.
(k) Neither the 3M Versaflo TR-800 nor the CleanSpace EX PAPR shall be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent. When 1.0 percent or more methane is detected while the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX PAPR is being used, the equipment shall be de-energized immediately and the equipment withdrawn outby the last open crosscut.
(l) The operation and location of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs during underground blasting operations shall be defined in accordance with 30 CFR 75.1312(e)(1)
(m) Only the 3M TR-830 Battery Pack shall be used, which meets lithium battery safety standard UL 1642 or IEC 62133, in the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR. Use only the CleanSpace EX Power Unit, which meets lithium battery safety standard UL 1642 or IEC 62133, in the CleanSpace EX PAPR.
(n) Before each shift when the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX PAPR is to be used, all batteries and power units for the equipment shall be charged sufficiently for the expected usage on that shift. If spare battery packs for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR are provided, all battery “change outs” shall occur in intake air outby the last open crosscut.
(o) The following maintenance and use conditions shall apply to equipment containing lithium-type batteries:
(1) Neither the 3M TR-830 Battery Pack nor the CleanSpace EX Power Unit may be disassembled nor modified by anyone other than permitted by the manufacturer of the equipment.
(2) The 3M TR-830 Battery Pack shall be charged only in an area free of combustible material, readily monitored and located on the surface of the mine. The 3M TR-830 Battery Pack shall be charged only by a manufacturer's recommended battery charger, such as:
(i) 3M Battery Charger Kit TR-641N, which includes one 3M Charger Cradle TR-640 and one 3M Power Supply TR-941N, or
(ii) 3M 4-Station Battery Charger Kit TR-644N, which includes four 3M Charger Cradles TR-640 and one 3M 4-Station Battery Charger Base/Power Supply TR-944N.
(3) The CleanSpace EX internal battery, which is contained within the power unit assembly, shall be charged in areas located outby the last open crosscut in intake air as per 30 CFR 75.340, or in an area free of combustible material, readily monitored and located on the surface of the mine, and only the manufacturer's recommended battery chargers may be used, such as the CleanSpace EX Battery Charger, Product Code PAF-0066.
(4) Neither the 3M TR-830 Battery Pack nor the CleanSpace EX power unit which contains the internal battery, shall be exposed to water, allowed to get wet or immersed in liquid. This does not preclude incidental exposure of the 3M TR-830 Battery Pack or the CleanSpace EX power unit assembly.
(5) Neither the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR nor the CleanSpace EX PAPR, including the internal battery, shall be used, charged or stored in locations where the manufacturer's recommended temperature limits are exceeded. Neither the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR nor the CleanSpace EX PAPR shall be placed in direct sunlight nor stored near a source of heat.
(6) Neither the 3M TR-830 Battery Pack nor the CleanSpace EX PAPR's internal battery shall be used at the end of its life cycle (
(p) Personnel engaged in the use of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs shall be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with the use of the equipment in areas where methane could be present. Additionally, personnel shall be trained regarding proper procedures for donning self-contained self rescuers (SCSRs) during a mine emergency while wearing the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX PAPR. The mine operator shall submit proposed revisions to update the Mine Emergency Evacuation and Firefighting Program of Instruction under 30 CFR 75.1502.
(q) Within 60 days after the PDO granted by MSHA becomes final, the operator shall submit proposed revisions for its approved 30 CFR part 48 training plans to the Mine Safety and Health Enforcement District Manager. These proposed revisions shall specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions stated in the PDO granted by MSHA. When training is conducted on the terms and conditions in the PDO granted by MSHA, an MSHA Certificate of Training (Form 5000-23) shall be completed. Comments shall be included on the Certificate of Training indicating that the training received was for use of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or the CleanSpace EX PAPR.
(r) All personnel who will be involved with or affected by the use of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX PAPRs shall receive training in accordance with 30 CFR 48.7 on the requirements of the PDO granted by MSHA within 60 days of the date the PDO granted by MSHA becomes final. Such training shall be completed before any 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX PAPR can be used in the return air outby the last open crosscut. The operator shall keep a record of such training and provide such record to MSHA upon request.
(s) The operator shall provide annual retraining to all personnel who will be involved with or affected by the use of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX PAPRs in accordance with 30 CFR 48.8. The operator shall train new miners on the requirements of the PDO granted by MSHA in accordance with 30 CFR 48.5 and shall train experienced miners on the requirements of the PDO granted by MSHA in accordance with 30 CFR 48.6. The operator shall keep a record of such training and provide such record to MSHA upon request.
(t) The operator shall post the PDO granted by MSHA in unobstructed locations on the bulletin boards and/or in other conspicuous places where notices to miners are ordinarily posted, for a period of not less than 60 consecutive days.
(u) There are no representatives of miners at Buchanan Minerals LLC, Buchanan No. 1 Mine. A copy of this petition has been posted on the bulletin board as of August 28, 2024.
The petitioner asserts that the alternative method will guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice is a summary of a petition for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by Tunnel Ridge, LLC.
All comments on the petition must be received by MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before December 16, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. MSHA-2024-063 by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
S. Aromie Noe, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9440 (voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 44, govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, §§ 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.
The petitioner states that:
(a) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR with motor/blower and battery qualifies as intrinsically safe.
(b) The CleanSpace EX PAPR also qualifies as intrinsically safe.
(c) Both the CleanSpace EX and the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPRs provide a constant flow of air inside the mask or helmet. This airflow provides respiratory protection and comfort in hot working conditions.
(d) Neither the 3M Versaflo TR-800 nor the CleanSpace EX PAPR is MSHA-approved as permissible.
(e) Neither the 3M nor the CleanSpace is pursuing MSHA approval.
(f) Tunnel Ridge currently makes available to all miners NIOSH-approved high efficiency 100 series respirators to protect the miners against potential exposure to respirable coal mine dust, including crystalline silica, during normal mining conditions. Tunnel Ridge desires to expand the miners' option in choosing a respirator that provides the greatest degree of protection as well as comfort while being worn. Powered PAPRs provide a constant flow of filtered air and serve that purpose.
(g) On April 18, 2024 (89 FR 28218), MSHA issued a final rule entitled
(h) Since the 3M Airstream Headgear-Mounted PAPR System has been discontinued by the manufacturer, there are no other MSHA-approved units available that can be used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces.
(i) The alternative method in the petition will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded to the miners by the standard.
The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:
(a) All miners who will be involved with or affected by the use of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX PAPRs shall receive training in accordance with 30 CFR 48.7 on the requirements of the Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) granted by MSHA and manufacturer guidelines. Such training shall be completed before any 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX PAPR can be used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces. The operator shall keep a record of such training and provide such record to MSHA upon request.
(b) The PAPRs, battery packs, all associated wiring and connections shall be inspected before use to determine if there is any damage to the units that would negatively impact intrinsic safety. If any defects are found, the PAPR shall be removed from service.
(c) A separate logbook shall be maintained for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs that will be kept with the equipment, or in a location with other mine record books, and shall be made available to MSHA upon request. The equipment shall be examined at least weekly by a qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.512-1 and the examination results shall be recorded in the logbook. Examination records shall be maintained for one year.
(d) All 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs to be used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces shall be physically examined prior to initial use and each unit shall be assigned a unique identification number. Each unit shall be examined by the person to operate the equipment prior to taking the equipment underground to ensure that the equipment is used according to the original equipment manufacturer's recommendations and is maintained in a safe operating condition. The examinations for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPRs shall include:
(1) Check the equipment for any physical damage and the integrity of the case.
(2) Remove the battery and inspect for corrosion.
(3) Inspect the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery.
(4) Reinsert the battery and power up and shut down to ensure proper connections.
(5) Check the battery compartment cover or battery attachment to ensure that it is securely fastened.
(6) For equipment utilizing lithium type cells, ensure that lithium cells and/
The CleanSpace EX PAPR does not have an accessible/removable battery. The internal battery and motor/blower assembly are both contained within the “power unit” assembly and the battery cannot be removed, reinserted or fastened. Therefore, examination of the CleanSpace EX PAPR shall include any indications of physical damage.
(e) All 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPR units shall be serviced according to the manufacturer's recommendations.
(f) Prior to energizing and during use of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or the CleanSpace EX PAPR within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces, procedures in accordance with 30 CFR 75.323 shall be followed.
(g) Only the 3M TR-830 Battery Pack, which meets lithium battery safety standard UL 1642 or IEC 62133, in the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR shall be used. Only the CleanSpace EX Power Unit, which meets lithium battery safety standard UL 1642 or IEC 62133, in the CleanSpace EX shall be used.
(h) If battery packs for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR are provided, all battery “change outs” shall occur in intake air outby the last open crosscut.
(i) The following maintenance and use conditions shall apply to equipment containing lithium type batteries:
(1) Neither the 3M TR-830 Battery Pack nor the CleanSpace EX Power Unit shall be disassembled nor modified by anyone other than permitted by the manufacturer of the equipment.
(2) The 3M TR-830 Battery Pack shall be charged only in an area free of combustible material and in intake air outby the last open crosscut. The 3M TR-830 Battery Pack shall be charged only by a manufacturer's recommended battery charger, such as:
(i) 3M Battery Charger Kit TR-641N, which includes one 3M Charger Cradle TR-640 and one 3M Power Supply TR-941N, or,
(ii) 3M 4-Station Battery Charger Kit TR-644N, which includes four 3M Charger Cradles TR-640 and one 3M 4-Station Battery Charger Base/Power Supply TR-944N.
(3) The CleanSpace EX internal battery, which is contained within the power unit assembly, shall be charged in areas located outby the last open crosscut in intake air and only the manufacturer's recommended battery chargers shall be used, such as the CleanSpace EX Battery Charger, Product Code PAF-0066.
(4) Neither the 3M TR-830 Battery Pack nor the CleanSpace EX power unit which contains the internal battery, shall be exposed to water, allowed to get wet or immersed in liquid. This does not preclude incidental exposure of the 3M TR-830 Battery Pack or the CleanSpace EX power unit assembly.
(5) Neither the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR nor the CleanSpace EX PAPR, including the internal battery, shall be used, charged or stored in locations where the manufacturer's recommended temperature limits are exceeded. Neither the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR nor the CleanSpace EX PAPR shall be placed in direct sunlight nor stored near a source of heat.
(j) Annual retraining shall be given to all miners who will be involved with or affected by the use of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX PAPRs in accordance with 30 CFR 48.8. Training of new miners on the requirements of the PDO granted by MSHA in accordance with 30 CFR 48.5, and training of experienced miners on the requirements of the PDO granted by MSHA in accordance with 30 CFR 48.6 shall be given. The operator shall keep a record of such training and provide such record to MSHA upon request.
(k) The miners at Tunnel Ridge, LLC, Tunnel Ridge Mine, are not represented by a labor organization and there are no representatives of miners at the mine. A copy of this petition has been posted on the bulletin board at Tunnel Ridge, LLC, Tunnel Ridge Mine, on October 4, 2024.
The petitioner asserts that the alternative method in the petition will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded to the miners by the standard.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice is a summary of a petition for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by ACI Tygart Valley.
All comments on the petition must be received by MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before December 16, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. MSHA-2024-0060 by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
S. Aromie Noe, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9440 (voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 44, govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, §§ 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.
The petitioner states that:
(a) Leer Mine has previously used the 3M Airstream Headgear-Mounted PAPR System to provide additional protection for its miners against exposure to respirable coal mine dust. There are clear long-term health benefits from using such technology. One of the benefits of PAPRs is that they provide a constant flow of air inside the headtop or helmet. This constant airflow helps to provide both respiratory protection and comfort in hot working environments.
(b) 3M elected to discontinue the 3M Airstream helmet, replacing it with the 3M Versaflo TR-800, which benefits from additional features and reduced weight. Because of its reduced weight, it provides significant ergonomic benefits.
(c) For more than 40 years the 3M Airstream has been used by many mine operators to help protect their workers. During those years there have been technological advancements in products and services for industrial applications. 3M indicated that they faced multiple key component supply disruptions for the Airstream product line that created issues with providing acceptable supply service levels. Because of those issues, 3M discontinued the Airstream in June 2020, and that discontinuation was global.
(d) 3M announced that February 2020 was the final time to place an order for systems and components and that June 2020 was the final date to purchase Airstream components.
(e) Currently there are no replacement 3M PAPRs that meet applicable MSHA standards for permissibility. Electronic equipment used in underground mines in potentially explosive atmospheres are required to be approved by MSHA in accordance with 30 CFR. 3M and other manufacturers offer alternative products for many other environments and applications.
(f) Following the discontinuation, mines that currently use the Airstream do not have an MSHA-approved, alternative PAPR to provide to miners.
(g) Application of the standard results in a diminution of safety at the mine.
(h) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 motor/blower and battery qualify as intrinsically safe in the U.S., Canada, and any other country accepting IECEx (International Electrotechnical Commission System for Certification to Standards Relating to Equipment for Use in Explosive Atmospheres) reports. The 3M Versaflo TR-800 has a blower that is UL-certified with an intrinsically safe (IS) rating of Division 1: IS Class I, II, III; Division 1 (includes Division 2) Groups C, D, E, F, G; T4, under the most current standard (UL 60079, 6th Edition, 2013). It is ATEX-certified with an IS rating of “ia.” (ATEX refers to European directives for controlling explosive 2 atmospheres.) It is rated and marked with Ex ia I Ma, Ex ia IIB T4 Ga, Ex ia IIIC 135 °C Da, −20 °C ≤ Ta ≤ +55 °C, under the current standard (IEC 60079).
(i) Leer Mine also seeks modification to permit the use of the CleanSpace EX powered respirator under the same conditions as it proposes with respect to the 3M Versaflo TR-800. It too has been determined to be intrinsically safe.
(j) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 is not MSHA approved as permissible, and 3M is not pursuing approval.
(k) The CleanSpace EX Power Unit is not MSHA approved as permissible, and CleanSpace is not pursuing approval.
(l) The standards for approval of these respirators are an acceptable alternative to MSHA's standards and provide an equivalent level of protection.
(m) The alternative method will guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.
The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:
(a) Affected mine employees shall be trained in the proper use and maintenance of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 and the CleanSpace EX in accordance with established manufacturer guidelines. This training shall alert the affected employee that neither the 3M Versaflo TR-800 nor the CleanSpace EX is approved under 30 CFR part 18 and shall be deenergized when 1.0 or more percent methane is detected. The training shall also include the proper method to deenergize these PAPRs. In addition to manufacturer guidelines, the petitioner shall require that mine employees be trained to inspect the units before use to determine if there is any damage to the units that would negatively impact intrinsic safety as well as all stipulations in the Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) granted by MSHA.
(b) The PAPRs, battery packs, and all associated wiring and connections shall be inspected before use to determine if there is any damage to the units that would negatively impact intrinsic safety. If any defects are found, the PAPR shall be removed from service.
(c) Leer Mine shall maintain a separate logbook for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs that shall be kept with the equipment or in a location with other mine record books, and shall be made available to MSHA upon request. The equipment shall be examined at least weekly by a qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.512-1 and the examination results recorded in the logbook. Since float coal dust is removed by the air filter prior to reaching the motor, the PAPR user shall conduct regular examinations of the filter and perform periodic testing for proper operation of the “high filter load alarm” on the 3M Versaflo TR-800 and the “blocked filter” alarm on the CleanSpace EX. Examination entries may be expunged after one year.
(d) All 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs to be used in the return air outby the last open crosscut shall be physically examined prior to initial use, and each unit shall be assigned a unique identification number. Each unit shall be examined by the person who will be operating the equipment prior to taking the equipment underground to ensure the equipment is being used according to the original equipment manufacturer's recommendations and maintained in a safe operating condition.
(e) The examination for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 shall include:
(1) Check the equipment for any physical damage and the integrity of the case;
(2) Remove the battery and inspect for corrosion;
(3) Inspect the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery;
(4) Reinsert the battery and power up and shut down to ensure proper connections;
(5) Check the battery compartment cover or battery attachment to ensure that it is securely fastened.
(6) For equipment utilizing lithium type cells, ensure that lithium cells and/or packs are not damaged or swelled in size.
(f) The CleanSpace EX does not have an accessible/removable battery. The battery and motor/blower assembly are both contained within the sealed four power pack assembly and cannot be removed, reinserted, or fastened. The pre-use examination is limited to inspecting the equipment for indications of physical damage.
(g) Leer Mine shall ensure that all 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs are serviced according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Dates
(h) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs that will be used in the return air outby the last open crosscut, or in areas where methane may enter the air current, shall not be put into service until MSHA has initially inspected the equipment and determined that it is in compliance with all the terms and conditions of the PDO granted by MSHA.
(i) Prior to energizing the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or the CleanSpace EX in the return air outby the last open crosscut, methane tests shall be made in accordance with 30 CFR 75.323(a).
(j) All hand-held methane detectors shall be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition as defined by 30 CFR 75.320. All methane detectors shall provide visual and audible warnings when methane is detected at or above 1.0 percent.
(k) A qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.151 shall continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX in the return air outby the last open crosscut or in areas where methane may enter the air current.
(l) Neither the 3M Versaflo TR-800 nor the CleanSpace EX shall be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent. When 1.0 percent or more of methane is detected while the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX is being used, the equipment shall be deenergized immediately and the equipment withdrawn outby the last open crosscut.
(m) Leer Mine shall use only the 3M TR-830 Battery Pack, which meets lithium battery safety standard UL 1642 or IEC 62133 in the 3M Versaflo TR-800. The petitioner shall use only the CleanSpace EX Power 5 Unit which meets lithium battery safety standard UL 1642 or IEC 62133 in the CleanSpace EX.
(n) The battery packs shall be “changed out” in intake air outby the last open crosscut. Before each shift when the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX is to be used, all batteries and power units for the equipment shall be charged sufficiently so that they are not expected to be replaced on that shift.
(o) The following maintenance and use conditions shall apply to equipment containing lithium-type batteries:
(1) Always correctly use and maintain the lithium-ion battery packs. Neither the 3M TR-830 Battery Pack nor the CleanSpace EX Power Unit may be disassembled or modified by anyone other than persons permitted by the manufacturer of the equipment.
(2) The 3M TR-830 Battery Pack shall only be charged in an area free of combustible material, readily monitored, and located on the surface of the mine. The 3M TR-830 Battery Pack is to be charged by either:
(i) 3M Battery Charger Kit TR-641N, which includes one 3M Charger Cradle TR-640 and one 3M Power Supply TR-941N, or
(ii) 3M 4-Station Battery Charger Kit TR-644N, which includes four 3M Charger Cradles TR-640 and one 3M 4-Station Battery Charger Base/Power Supply TR-944N.
(iii) The CleanSpace EX Power Unit is to be charged only by the CleanSpace Battery Charger EX, Product Code PAF-0066.
(iv) The batteries shall not be allowed to get wet. This does not preclude incidental exposure of sealed battery packs.
(v) The batteries shall not be used, charged, or stored in locations where the manufacturer's recommended temperature limits are exceeded. The batteries shall not be placed in direct sunlight or used or stored near a source of heat.
(p) Personnel engaged in the use of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs shall be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with the use of the equipment in areas where methane could be present. Additionally, personnel shall be trained regarding proper procedures for donning Self-Contained Self Rescuers (SCSRs) during a mine emergency while wearing the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX. The mine operator shall submit proposed revisions to update the Mine Emergency Evacuation and Firefighting Program of Instruction under 30 CFR 75.1502 to address this issue.
(q) Within 60 days after the PDO granted by MSHA becomes final, Leer Mine shall submit proposed revisions for its approved 30 CFR part 48 training plans to the Mine Safety and Health Enforcement District Manager. These proposed revisions shall specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions stated in the PDO granted by MSHA. When training is conducted on the terms and conditions in the PDO granted by MSHA, an MSHA Certificate of Training (Form 5000-23) shall be completed. Comments shall be included on the Certificate of Training indicating that the training received was for use of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX.
(r) All personnel who will be involved with or affected by the use of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX shall receive training in accordance with 30 CFR 48.7 on the requirements of the PDO granted by MSHA within 60 days of the date the PDO granted by MSHA becomes final. Such training shall be completed before any 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX can be used in return air outby the last open crosscut. The operator shall keep a record of such training and provide such record to MSHA upon request.
(s) Leer Mine shall provide annual retraining to all personnel who will be involved with or affected by the use of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX in accordance with 30 CFR 48.8. The operator shall train new miners on the requirements of the PDO granted by MSHA in accordance with 30 CFR 48.5 and shall train experienced miners on the requirements of the PDO granted by MSHA in accordance with 30 CFR 48.6. The operator shall keep a record of such training and provide such record to MSHA upon request.
(t) Leer Mine shall post the PDO granted by MSHA in unobstructed locations on the bulletin boards and/or in other conspicuous places where notices to miners are ordinarily posted for a period of not less than 60 consecutive days.
(u) There are no representatives of miners at ACI Tygart Vally, Leer Mine. A copy of this petition has been posted on the bulletin board as of September 4, 2024.
The petitioner asserts that the alternative method will guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice is a summary of a petition for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by Buchanan Minerals, LLC.
All comments on the petition must be received by MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before December 16, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. MSHA-2024-0059 by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
S. Aromie Noe, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9440 (voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 44, govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, §§ 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.
The petitioner states that:
(a) The petitioner is requesting to utilize the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR in addition to the utilization of the CleanSpace EX PAPR, which was approved through a previous Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) granted by MSHA (MSHA Docket Number M-2021-023-C).
(b) The 3M Airstream helmet has been used in mines for over 40 years. 3M has recently faced component disruptions for the Airstream product. This has caused 3M to discontinue, globally, the Airstream on June 1, 2020. The ability to order an Airstream system and components ended in February 2020, and components were available through June 2020. Currently, there are not any available replacement PAPRs that meet the MSHA standard for permissibility. PAPRs provide a constant flow of filtered air, which offers respiratory protection and comfort in hot working environments. Operators that were using the Airstream, do not have an alternative to provide to this type of protection to its miners.
(c) Buchanan Minerals, LLC, is seeking alternatives to the 3M Airstream helmet to provide miners with respirable protection against respirable coal mine and silica dust, a protection that can provide long-term health benefits.
(d) Both the CleanSpace EX and 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPRs provide a constant flow of filtered air inside the half-mask, full mask or helmet. The airflow provides respiratory protection and comfort in hot working conditions. Both PAPRs shall be equipped with the following: Particulate protection classified as 100 series under 42 CFR part 84; or Particulate protection classified as High Efficiency “HE” under 42 CFR part 84.
(e) Buchanan Minerals LLC, Buchanan No.1. Mine is seeking to continue the use of the CleanSpace EX PAPR and applying to utilize the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR within 150 feet of pillar workings and longwall faces.
(f) CleanSpace EX.
(1) The CleanSpace EX is certified by TestSafe Australia (TSA) according to the IEC 60079-0:2011 (General Requirements) and IEC 60079-11:2011 (Intrinsic Safety) standards. The certificate, issued to PAFtec Australia Pty Ltd (“PAFtec”), allows PAFtec to mark the device as “Ex ib IIB T4 Gb” and “Ex ia I Ma.” Due to legal and regulatory constraints, the TSA certificate is not accepted by MSHA as evidence that the PAPR is approved for use in US mines. The IEC certification marking that applies to mining, Ex ia I Ma, is discussed below:
(2) The CleanSpace EX is certified to be used in hazardous locations (“Ex”); meets the most onerous level of intrinsic safety protection (“ia”); the level of protection is acceptable for use in mining locations (“I”), and the Equipment Protection Level appropriate for mining equipment, that has a “very high” level of protection, with sufficient security that it is unlikely to become an ignition source in normal operation, during expected malfunctions or during rare malfunctions, even when left energized in the presence of an outbreak of gas (“Ma”).
(3) NIOSH researchers, in a paper titled “An Evaluation of the Relative Safety of U.S. Mining Explosion-Protected Equipment Approval Requirements versus those of International Standards”, have determined that equipment, which meets two-fault intrinsic safety as defined in the ANSI/UL 60079 standard, would provide at least an equivalent level of safety as that provided by equipment approved under MSHA criteria.
(4) The UL certification, TSA certification, and PAFtec listing material (drawings, certificate and text report) were found to support the conclusion that the CleanSpace EX meet the applicable “two fault” intrinsic safety requirements for mining equipment, as found in the ANSI/UL standard.
(5) The CleanSpace EX carries an ingress protection rating of IP66. This rating exceeds the minimum rating of IP54 required by the ANSI/UL and IEC standards for intrinsically safe mining equipment.
(6) This product is not MSHA-approved, and the manufacturer is not pursuing approval. The standards for the approval of this respirator are an accepted alternative to MSHA's standards and provide the same level of protection.
(g) 3M Versaflo TR-800.
(1) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR with motor/blower and battery qualifies as intrinsically safe, based on reports by the International Electrotechnical Commission Systems for Certification to Standards Relating to Equipment for Use in Explosive Atmospheres (IECEx). The blower is UL-certified with an intrinsically safe rating of Division 1: Class I, II, III; Division 1: Groups C, D, E, F, G; T4 under the current standard of UL 60079; ATEX-certified with a rating of “ia”. The 3M Versaflo TR-800 is rated and marked Ex ia I MA, Ex ia IIB T4 Ga, Ex ia IIIC 135oC Da; 120 °C≤TA≤+55 °C.
(2) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 carries an ingress protection rating of IP64. This rating exceeds the minimum rating of IP54 required by the ANSI/UL and IEC standards for intrinsically safe mining equipment.
(3) This product is not MSHA-approved, and the manufacturer is not pursuing approval. The standards for the approval of this respirator are an accepted alternative to MSHA's standards and provide the same level of protection.
(h) The alternative method will guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.
The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:
(a) Affected mine employees shall be trained in the proper use and maintenance of the PAPR(s) to be used at the mine, the 3M Versaflo TR-800 and/or the CleanSpace EX, in accordance with established manufacturer guidelines. This training shall alert the affected employee that neither the 3M Versaflo TR-800 nor the CleanSpace EX PAPR is approved under 30 CFR part 18 and therefore shall be de-energized when 1.0 or more percent methane is detected. The training shall also include the proper method to de-energize these PAPRs. In addition to manufacturer guidelines, MSHA shall require that mine employees be trained to inspect the units before use to determine if there is any damage to the units that would negatively impact intrinsic safety as well as all stipulations in the PDO granted by MSHA.
(b) The PAPRs, battery packs, and all associated wiring and connections shall be inspected before use to determine if there is any damage to the units that would negatively impact intrinsic safety. If any defects are found, the PAPR shall be removed from service.
(c) The operator shall maintain a separate logbook for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs that shall be kept with the equipment, or in a location with other mine record books and shall be made available to MSHA upon request. The equipment shall be examined at least weekly by a qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.512-1 and the examination results shall be recorded in the logbook. Since float coal dust is removed by the air filter prior to reaching the motor, the PAPR user shall conduct regular examinations of the filter and perform periodic testing for proper operation of the “high filter load alarm” on the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR, and the “blocked filter” alarm on the CleanSpace EX PAPR. Examination entries may be expunged after one year.
(d) All 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs to be used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces shall be physically examined prior to initial use and each unit shall be assigned a unique identification number. Each unit shall be examined by the person to operate the equipment prior to taking the equipment underground to ensure the equipment is used according to the original equipment manufacturer's recommendations and maintained in a safe operating condition. The examinations for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPRs shall include:
(1) Check the equipment for any physical damage and the integrity of the case,
(2) Remove the battery and inspect for corrosion,
(3) Inspect the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery,
(4) Reinsert the battery and power up and shut down to ensure proper connections,
(5) Check the battery compartment cover or battery attachment to ensure that it is securely fastened, and
(6) For equipment utilizing lithium type cells, ensure that lithium cells and/or packs are not damaged or swelled in size.
(e) All CleanSpace EX PAPRs to be used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces shall be physically examined prior to initial use and each unit shall be assigned a unique identification number. Each unit shall be examined by the person to operate the equipment prior to taking the equipment underground to ensure the equipment is used according to the original equipment manufacturer's recommendations and maintained in a safe operating condition. The CleanSpace EX PAPR does not have an accessible/removable battery. The internal battery and motor/blower assembly are both contained within the “power unit” assembly and the battery cannot be removed, reinserted or fastened. Therefore, examination of the CleanSpace EX PAPR should include any indications of physical damage.
(f) The operator shall ensure that all 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPR units are serviced according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Dates of service shall be recorded in the equipment's logbook and shall include a description of the work performed.
(g) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPR units that will be used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces shall not be put into service until MSHA has initially inspected the equipment and determined that it is in compliance with all the terms and conditions of the PDO granted by MSHA.
(h) Prior to energizing the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or the CleanSpace EX PAPR within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces, methane tests shall be made in accordance with 30 CFR 75.323(a).
(i) All hand-held methane detectors shall be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition as defined by 30 CFR 75.320. All methane detectors shall provide visual and audible warnings when methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent.
(j) A qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.151 shall continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX PAPR within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces.
(k) Neither the 3M Versaflo TR-800 nor the CleanSpace EX PAPR shall be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent. When 1.0 percent or more methane is detected while the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX PAPR is being used, the equipment shall be de-energized immediately and the equipment withdrawn outby the last open crosscut.
(l) The operation and location of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs during underground blasting operations shall be defined in accordance with 30 CFR 75.1312(e)(1) and 75.1313(b)(1) and individualized underground blasting permits approved by the District Manager.
(m) Only the 3M TR-830 Battery Pack shall be used, which meets lithium battery safety standard UL 1642 or IEC 62133, in the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR. Use only the CleanSpace EX Power Unit, which meets lithium battery safety standard UL 1642 or IEC 62133, in the CleanSpace EX PAPR.
(n) Before each shift when the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX PAPR is to be used, all batteries and power units for the equipment shall be
(o) The following maintenance and use conditions shall apply to equipment containing lithium-type batteries:
(1) Neither the 3M TR-830 Battery Pack nor the CleanSpace EX Power Unit may be disassembled nor modified by anyone other than permitted by the manufacturer of the equipment.
(2) The 3M TR-830 Battery Pack shall be charged only in an area free of combustible material, readily monitored and located on the surface of the mine. The 3M TR-830 Battery Pack shall be charged only by a manufacturer's recommended battery charger, such as:
(i) 3M Battery Charger Kit TR-641N, which includes one 3M Charger Cradle TR-640 and one 3M Power Supply TR-941N, or
(ii) 3M 4-Station Battery Charger Kit TR-644N, which includes four 3M Charger Cradles TR-640 and one 3M 4-Station Battery Charger Base/Power Supply TR-944N.
(3) The CleanSpace EX internal battery, which is contained within the power unit assembly, shall be charged in areas located outby the last open crosscut in intake air as per 30 CFR 75.340, or in an area free of combustible material, readily monitored and located on the surface of the mine, and only the manufacturer's recommended battery chargers may be used, such as the CleanSpace EX Battery Charger, Product Code PAF-0066.
(4) Neither the 3M TR-830 Battery Pack nor the CleanSpace EX power unit which contains the internal battery, shall be exposed to water, allowed to get wet or immersed in liquid. This does not preclude incidental exposure of the 3M TR-830 Battery Pack or the CleanSpace EX power unit assembly.
(5) Neither the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR nor the CleanSpace EX PAPR, including the internal battery, shall be used, charged or stored in locations where the manufacturer's recommended temperature limits are exceeded. Neither the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR nor the CleanSpace EX PAPR shall be placed in direct sunlight nor stored near a source of heat.
(6) Neither the 3M TR-830 Battery Pack nor the CleanSpace EX PAPR's internal battery shall be used at the end of its life cycle (
(p) Personnel engaged in the use of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs shall be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with the use of the equipment in areas where methane could be present. Additionally, personnel shall be trained regarding proper procedures for donning self-contained self rescuers (SCSRs) during a mine emergency while wearing the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX PAPR. The mine operator shall submit proposed revisions to update the Mine Emergency Evacuation and Firefighting Program of Instruction under 30 CFR 75.1502.
(q) Within 60 days after the PDO granted by MSHA becomes final, the operator shall submit proposed revisions for its approved 30 CFR part 48 training plans to the Mine Safety and Health Enforcement District Manager. These proposed revisions shall specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions stated in the PDO granted by MSHA. When training is conducted on the terms and conditions in the PDO granted by MSHA, an MSHA Certificate of Training (Form 5000-23) shall be completed. Comments shall be included on the Certificate of Training indicating that the training received was for use of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or the CleanSpace EX PAPR.
(r) All personnel who will be involved with or affected by the use of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX PAPRs shall receive training in accordance with 30 CFR 48.7 on the requirements of the PDO granted by MSHA within 60 days of the date the PDO granted by MSHA becomes final. Such training shall be completed before any 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX PAPR can be used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces. The operator shall keep a record of such training and provide such record to MSHA upon request.
(s) The operator shall provide annual retraining to all personnel who will be involved with or affected by the use of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX PAPRs in accordance with 30 CFR 48.8. The operator shall train new miners on the requirements of the PDO granted by MSHA in accordance with 30 CFR 48.5, and shall train experienced miners on the requirements of the PDO granted by MSHA, in accordance with 30 CFR 48.6. The operator shall keep a record of such training and provide such record to MSHA upon request.
(t) The operator shall post the PDO granted by MSHA in unobstructed locations on the bulletin boards and/or in other conspicuous places where notices to miners are ordinarily posted, for a period of not less than 60 consecutive days.
(u) There are no representatives of miners at Buchanan Minerals LLC, Buchanan No. 1 Mine. A copy of this petition has been posted on the bulletin board as of August 28, 2024.
The petitioner asserts that the alternative method will guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice is a summary of a petition for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by Tunnel Ridge, LLC.
All comments on the petition must be received by MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before December 16, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. MSHA-2024-0062 by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
S. Aromie Noe, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9440 (voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 44, govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, §§ 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.
The petitioner states that:
(a) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR with motor/blower and battery qualifies as intrinsically safe.
(b) The CleanSpace EX PAPR also qualifies as intrinsically safe.
(c) Both the CleanSpace EX and the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPRs provide a constant flow of air inside the mask or helmet. This airflow provides respiratory protection and comfort in hot working conditions.
(d) Neither the 3M Versaflo TR-800 nor the CleanSpace EX PAPR is MSHA-approved as permissible.
(e) Neither the 3M nor the CleanSpace is pursuing MSHA approval.
(f) Tunnel Ridge currently makes available to all miners NIOSH-approved high efficiency l00 series respirators to protect the miners against potential exposure to respirable coal mine dust, including crystalline silica, during normal mining conditions. Tunnel Ridge desires to expand the miners' option in choosing a respirator that provides the greatest degree of protection as well as comfort while being worn. Powered PAPRs provide a constant flow of filtered air and serve that purpose.
(g) On April 18, 2024, MSHA issued a final rule entitled
(h) Since the 3M Airstream Headgear-Mounted PAPR System has been discontinued by the manufacturer, there are no other MSHA-approved units available that can be taken into or used inby the last open crosscut or used in return air outby the last open crosscut.
(i) The alternative method in the petition will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded to the miners by the standard.
The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:
(a) All miners who will be involved with or affected by the use of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX PAPRs shall receive training in accordance with 30 CFR 48.7 on the requirements of the Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) granted by MSHA and manufacturer guidelines. Such training shall be completed before any 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX PAPR can be used inby the last open crosscut or in the return air outby the last open crosscut. The operator shall keep a record of such training and provide such record to MSHA upon request.
(b) The PAPRs, battery packs, all associated wiring and connections shall be inspected before use to determine if there is any damage to the units that would negatively impact intrinsic safety. If any defects are found, the PAPR shall be removed from service.
(c) A separate logbook shall be maintained for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs that will be kept with the equipment, or in a location with other mine record books, and shall be made available to MSHA upon request. The equipment shall be examined at least weekly by a qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.512-1 and the examination results recorded in the logbook. Examination records shall be maintained for one year.
(d) All 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs to be used inby the last open crosscut or in the return air outby the last open crosscut shall be physically examined prior to initial use and each unit shall be assigned a unique identification number. Each unit shall be examined by the person to operate the equipment prior to taking the equipment underground, to ensure that the equipment is used according to the original equipment manufacturer's recommendations and is maintained in a safe operating condition. The examinations for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPRs shall include:
(1) Check the equipment for any physical damage and the integrity of the case.
(2) Remove the battery and inspect for corrosion.
(3) Inspect the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery.
(4) Reinsert the battery and power up and shut down to ensure proper connections.
(5) Check the battery compartment cover or battery attachment to ensure that it is securely fastened.
(6) For equipment utilizing lithium type cells, ensure that lithium cells and/or packs are not damaged or swelled in size.
The CleanSpace EX PAPR does not have an accessible/removable battery. The internal battery and motor/blower assembly are both contained within the “power unit” assembly and the battery cannot be removed, reinserted or fastened. Therefore, examination of the CleanSpace EX PAPR shall include any indications of physical damage.
(e) All 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPR units shall be
(f) Prior to energizing and during use of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or the CleanSpace EX PAPR inby the last open crosscut or in the return air outby the last open crosscut, procedures in accordance with 30 CFR 75.323 shall be followed.
(g) Only the 3M TR-830 Battery Pack, which meets lithium battery safety standard UL 1642 or IEC 62133, in the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR shall be used. Only the CleanSpace EX Power Unit, which meets lithium battery safety standard UL 1642 or IEC 62133, in the CleanSpace EX shall be used.
(h) If battery packs for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR are provided, all battery “change outs” shall occur in intake air outby the last open crosscut.
(i) The following maintenance and use conditions shall apply to equipment containing lithium type batteries:
(1) Neither the 3M TR-830 Battery Pack nor the CleanSpace EX Power Unit shall be disassembled nor modified by anyone other than permitted by the manufacturer of the equipment.
(2) The 3M TR-830 Battery Pack shall be charged only in an area free of combustible material and in intake air outby the last open crosscut. The 3M TR-830 Battery Pack shall be charged only by a manufacturer's recommended battery charger, such as:
(i) 3M Battery Charger Kit TR-641N, which includes one 3M Charger Cradle TR-640 and one 3M Power Supply TR-941N, or,
(ii) 3M 4-Station Battery Charger Kit TR-644N, which includes four 3M Charger Cradles TR-640 and one 3M 4-Station Battery Charger Base/Power Supply TR-944N.
(3) The CleanSpace EX internal battery, which is contained within the power unit assembly, shall be charged in areas located outby the last open crosscut in intake air and only the manufacturer's recommended battery chargers shall be used, such as the CleanSpace EX Battery Charger, Product Code PAF-0066.
(4) Neither the 3M TR-830 Battery Pack nor the CleanSpace EX power unit which contains the internal battery, shall be exposed to water, allowed to get wet or immersed in liquid. This does not preclude incidental exposure of the 3M TR-830 Battery Pack or the CleanSpace EX power unit assembly.
(5) Neither the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR nor the CleanSpace EX PAPR, including the internal battery, shall be used, charged or stored in locations where the manufacturer's recommended temperature limits are exceeded. Neither the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR nor the CleanSpace EX PAPR shall be placed in direct sunlight nor stored near a source of heat.
(j) Annual retraining shall be given to all miners who will be involved with or affected by the use of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX PAPRs in accordance with 30 CFR 48.8. Training of new miners on the requirements of the PDO granted by MSHA in accordance with 30 CFR 48.5, and training of experienced miners on the requirements of the PDO granted by MSHA in accordance with 30 CFR 48.6 shall be given. The operator shall keep a record of such training and provide such record to MSHA upon request.
(k) The miners at Tunnel Ridge, LLC, Tunnel Ridge Mine, are not represented by a labor organization and there are no representatives of miners at the mine. A copy of this petition has been posted on the bulletin board at Tunnel Ridge, LLC, Tunnel Righe Mine, on October 4, 2024.
The petitioner asserts that the alternative method in the petition will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded to the miners by the standard.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice is a summary of a petition for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by Buchanan Minerals, LLC.
All comments on the petition must be received by MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before December 16, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. MSHA-2024-0057 by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
S. Aromie Noe, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9440 (voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 44, govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, §§ 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.
The petitioner states that:
(a) The petitioner is requesting to utilize the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR in addition to the utilization of the CleanSpace EX PAPR, which was approved through a previous Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) granted by MSHA (MSHA Docket Number M-2021-023-C).
(b) The 3M Airstream helmet has been used in mines for over 40 years. 3M has recently faced component disruptions for the Airstream product. This has caused 3M to discontinue, globally, the Airstream on June 1, 2020. The ability to order an Airstream system and components ended in February 2020, and components were available through June 2020. Currently, there are not any available replacement PAPRs that meet the MSHA standard for permissibility. PAPRs provide a constant flow of filtered air, which offers respiratory protection and comfort in hot working environments. Operators that were using the Airstream, do not have an alternative to provide to this type of protection to its miners.
(c) Buchanan Minerals, LLC, is seeking alternatives to the 3M Airstream helmet to provide miners with respirable protection against respirable coal mine and silica dust, a protection that can provide long-term health benefits.
(d) Both the CleanSpace EX and 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPRs provide a constant flow of filtered air inside the half-mask, full mask or helmet. The airflow provides respiratory protection and comfort in hot working conditions. Both PAPRs shall be equipped with the following: Particulate protection classified as 100 series under 42 CFR part 84; or Particulate protection classified as High Efficiency “HE” under 42 CFR part 84.
(e) Buchanan Minerals LLC, Buchanan No.1. Mine is seeking to continue the use of the CleanSpace EX PAPR and applying to utilize the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR in or inby the last open crosscut.
(f) CleanSpace EX
(1) The CleanSpace EX is certified by TestSafe Australia (TSA) according to the IEC 60079-0:2011 (General Requirements) and IEC 60079-11:2011 (Intrinsic Safety) standards. The certificate, issued to PAFtec Australia Pty Ltd (“PAFtec”), allows PAFtec to mark the device as “Ex ib IIB T4 Gb” and “Ex ia I Ma.” Due to legal and regulatory constraints, the TSA certificate is not accepted by MSHA as evidence that the PAPR is approved for use in US mines. The IEC certification marking that applies to mining, Ex ia I Ma, is discussed below:
(2) The CleanSpace EX is certified to be used in hazardous locations (“Ex”); meets the most onerous level of intrinsic safety protection (“ia”); the level of protection is acceptable for use in mining locations (“I”), and the Equipment Protection Level appropriate for mining equipment, that has a “very high” level of protection, with sufficient security that it is unlikely to become an ignition source in normal operation, during expected malfunctions or during rare malfunctions, even when left energized in the presence of an outbreak of gas (“Ma”).
(3) NIOSH researchers, in a paper titled “An Evaluation of the Relative Safety of U.S. Mining Explosion-Protected Equipment Approval Requirements versus those of International Standards”, have determined that equipment, which meets two-fault intrinsic safety as defined in the ANSI/UL 60079 standard, would provide at least an equivalent level of safety as that provided by equipment approved under MSHA criteria.
(4) The UL certification, TSA certification, and PAFtec listing material (drawings, certificate and text report) were found to support the conclusion that the CleanSpace EX meet the applicable “two fault” intrinsic safety requirements for mining equipment as found in the ANSI/UL standard.
(5) The CleanSpace EX carries an ingress protection rating of IP66. This rating exceeds the minimum rating of IP54 required by the ANSI/UL and IEC standards, for intrinsically safe mining equipment.
(6) This product is not MSHA approved, and the manufacturer is not pursuing approval. The standards for the approval of this respirator are an accepted alternative to MSHA's standards and provide the same level of protection.
(g) 3M Versaflo TR-800
(1) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR with motor/blower and battery qualifies as intrinsically safe, based on reports by the International Electrotechnical Commission Systems for Certification to Standards Relating to Equipment for Use in Explosive Atmospheres (IECEx). The blower is UL-certified with an intrinsically safe rating of Division 1: Class I, II, III; Division 1: Groups C, D, E, F, G; T4 under the current standard of UL 60079; ATEX-certified with a rating of “ia”. The 3M Versaflo TR-800 is rated and marked Ex ia I MA, Ex ia IIB T4 Ga, Ex ia IIIC 135oC Da; 120 °C ≤ TA ≤ +55 °C.
(2) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 carries an ingress protection rating of IP64. This rating exceeds the minimum rating of IP54 required by the ANSI/UL and IEC standards for intrinsically safe mining equipment.
(3) This product is not MSHA approved, and the manufacturer is not pursuing approval. The standards for the approval of this respirator are an accepted alternative to MSHA's standards and provide the same level of protection.
(h) The alternative method will guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard.
The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:
(a) Affected mine employees shall be trained in the proper use and maintenance of the PAPR(s) to be used at the mine, the 3M Versaflo TR-800 and/or the CleanSpace EX, in accordance with established manufacturer guidelines. This training shall alert the affected employee that neither the 3M Versaflo TR-800 nor the CleanSpace EX PAPR is approved under 30 CFR part 18 and therefore shall be de-energized when 1.0 or more percent methane is detected. The training shall also include the proper method to de-energize these PAPRs. In addition to manufacturer guidelines, MSHA shall require that mine employees be trained to inspect the units before use to determine if there is any damage to the units that would negatively impact intrinsic safety as well as all stipulations in the PDO granted by MSHA.
(b) The PAPRs, battery packs, all associated wiring and connections shall be inspected before use to determine if there is any damage to the units that would negatively impact intrinsic safety. If any defects are found, the PAPR shall be removed from service.
(c) The operator shall maintain a separate logbook for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs that shall be kept with the equipment, or in a location with other mine record books and shall be made available to MSHA upon request. The equipment shall be examined at least weekly by a qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.512-1 and the examination results recorded in the logbook. Since float coal dust is removed by the air filter prior to reaching the motor, the PAPR user shall conduct regular examinations of the filter and perform periodic testing for proper operation of the “high filter load alarm” on the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR, and the “blocked filter” alarm on the CleanSpace EX PAPR. Examination entries may be expunged after one year.
(d) All 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs to be used in or inby the last open crosscut shall be physically examined prior to initial use and each unit shall be assigned a unique identification number. Each unit shall be examined by the person to operate the equipment prior to taking the equipment underground to ensure the equipment is used according to the original equipment manufacturer's recommendations and maintained in a safe operating condition. The examinations for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPRs shall include:
(1) Check the equipment for any physical damage and the integrity of the case,
(2) Remove the battery and inspect for corrosion,
(3) Inspect the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery,
(4) Reinsert the battery and power up and shut down to ensure proper connections,
(5) Check the battery compartment cover or battery attachment to ensure that it is securely fastened, and
(6) For equipment utilizing lithium type cells, ensure that lithium cells and/or packs are not damaged or swelled in size.
(e) All CleanSpace EX PAPRs to be used in or inby the last open crosscut shall be physically examined prior to initial use and each unit shall be assigned a unique identification number. Each unit shall be examined by the person to operate the equipment prior to taking the equipment underground to ensure the equipment is used according to the original equipment manufacturer's recommendations and maintained in a safe operating condition. The CleanSpace EX PAPR does not have an accessible/removable battery. The internal battery and motor/blower assembly are both contained within the “power unit” assembly and the battery cannot be removed, reinserted or fastened. Therefore, examination of the CleanSpace EX PAPR should include any indications of physical damage.
(f) The operator shall ensure that all 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPR units are serviced according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Dates of service shall be recorded in the equipment's logbook and shall include a description of the work performed.
(g) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPR units that will be used in or inby the last open crosscut shall not be put into service until MSHA has initially inspected the equipment and determined that it is in compliance with all the terms and conditions of the PDO granted by MSHA.
(h) Prior to energizing the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or the CleanSpace EX PAPR in or inby the last open crosscut, methane tests shall be made in accordance with 30 CFR 75.323(a).
(i) All hand-held methane detectors shall be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition as defined by 30 CFR 75.320. All methane detectors shall provide visual and audible warnings when methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent.
(j) A qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.151 shall continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX PAPR in or inby the last open crosscut.
(k) Neither the 3M Versaflo TR-800 nor the CleanSpace EX PAPR shall be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent. When 1.0 percent or more methane is detected while the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX PAPR is being used, the equipment shall be de-energized immediately and the equipment withdrawn outby the last open crosscut.
(l) The operation and location of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs during underground blasting operations shall be defined in accordance with 30 CFR 75.1312(e)(1) and 75.1313(b)(1) and individualized underground blasting permits approved by the District Manager.
(m) Only the 3M TR-830 Battery Pack shall be used, which meets lithium battery safety standard UL 1642 or IEC 62133, in the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR. Use only the CleanSpace EX Power Unit, which meets lithium battery safety standard UL 1642 or IEC 62133, in the CleanSpace EX PAPR.
(n) Before each shift when the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX PAPR is to be used, all batteries and power units for the equipment shall be charged sufficiently for the expected usage on that shift. If spare battery packs for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR are provided, all battery “change outs” shall occur in intake air outby the last open crosscut.
(o) The following maintenance and use conditions shall apply to equipment containing lithium-type batteries:
(1) Neither the 3M TR-830 Battery Pack nor the CleanSpace EX Power Unit may be disassembled nor modified by anyone other than permitted by the manufacturer of the equipment.
(2) The 3M TR-830 Battery Pack shall be charged only in an area free of combustible material, readily monitored and located on the surface of the mine. The 3M TR-830 Battery Pack shall be charged only by a manufacturer's recommended battery charger, such as:
(i) 3M Battery Charger Kit TR-641N, which includes one 3M Charger Cradle TR-640 and one 3M Power Supply TR-941N, or
(ii) 3M 4-Station Battery Charger Kit TR-644N, which includes four 3M Charger Cradles TR-640 and one 3M 4-Station Battery Charger Base/Power Supply TR-944N.
(3) The CleanSpace EX internal battery, which is contained within the power unit assembly, shall be charged in areas located outby the last open crosscut in intake air as per 30 CFR 75.340, or in an area free of combustible material, readily monitored and located on the surface of the mine, and only the manufacturer's recommended battery chargers may be used, such as the CleanSpace EX Battery Charger, Product Code PAF-0066.
(4) Neither the 3M TR-830 Battery Pack nor the CleanSpace EX power unit which contains the internal battery, shall be exposed to water, allowed to get wet or immersed in liquid. This does not preclude incidental exposure of the 3M TR-830 Battery Pack or the CleanSpace EX power unit assembly.
(5) Neither the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR nor the CleanSpace EX PAPR, including the internal battery, shall be used, charged or stored in locations where the manufacturer's recommended temperature limits are exceeded. Neither the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR nor the CleanSpace EX PAPR shall be placed in direct sunlight nor stored near a source of heat.
(6) Neither the 3M TR-830 Battery Pack nor the CleanSpace EX PAPR's internal battery shall be used at the end of its life cycle (
(p) Personnel engaged in the use of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs shall be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with the use of the equipment in areas where methane could be present. Additionally, personnel shall be trained regarding proper procedures for donning self-contained self rescuers (SCSRs) during a mine emergency while wearing the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX PAPR. The mine operator shall submit proposed revisions to update the Mine Emergency Evacuation and Firefighting Program of Instruction under 30 CFR 75.1502.
(q) Within 60 days after the PDO granted by MSHA becomes final, the operator shall submit proposed revisions for its approved 30 CFR part 48 training plans to the Mine Safety and Health Enforcement District Manager. These proposed revisions shall specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions stated in the PDO granted by MSHA. When training is conducted on the terms and conditions in the PDO granted by MSHA, an MSHA Certificate of Training (Form 5000-23) shall be completed. Comments shall be included on the Certificate of Training indicating that the training received was for use of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or the CleanSpace EX PAPR.
(r) All personnel who will be involved with or affected by the use of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX PAPRs shall receive training in accordance with 30 CFR 48.7 on the requirements of the PDO granted by MSHA within 60 days of the date the PDO granted by MSHA becomes final. Such training shall be completed before any 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX PAPR can be used in or inby the last open crosscut. The operator shall keep a record of such training and provide such record to MSHA upon request.
(s) The operator shall provide annual retraining to all personnel who will be involved with or affected by the use of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX PAPRs in accordance with 30 CFR 48.8. The operator shall train new miners on the requirements of the PDO granted by MSHA in accordance with 30 CFR 48.5 and shall train experienced miners on the requirements of the PDO granted by MSHA in accordance with 30 CFR 48.6. The operator shall keep a record of such training and provide such record to MSHA upon request.
(t) The operator shall post the PDO granted by MSHA in unobstructed locations on the bulletin boards and/or in other conspicuous places where notices to miners are ordinarily posted, for a period of not less than 60 consecutive days.
(u) There are no representatives of miners at Buchanan Minerals LLC, Buchanan No. 1 Mine. A copy of this petition has been posted on the bulletin board as of August 28, 2024.
The petitioner asserts that the alternative method will guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners under the mandatory standard
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice is a summary of a petition for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by Tunnel Ridge, LLC.
All comments on the petition must be received by MSHA's Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before December 16, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. MSHA-2024-0061 by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
S. Aromie Noe, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9440 (voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 44, govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:
1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
2. The application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, §§ 44.10 and 44.11 of 30 CFR establish the requirements for filing petitions for modification.
The petitioner states that:
(a) The 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR with motor/blower and battery qualifies as intrinsically safe.
(b) The CleanSpace EX PAPR also qualifies as intrinsically safe.
(c) Both the CleanSpace EX and the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPRs provide a constant flow of air inside the mask or helmet. This airflow provides respiratory protection and comfort in hot working conditions.
(d) Neither the 3M Versaflo TR-800 nor the CleanSpace EX PAPR is MSHA-approved as permissible.
(e) Neither the 3M nor the CleanSpace is pursuing MSHA approval.
(f) Tunnel Ridge currently makes available to all miners NIOSH-approved high efficiency l00 series respirators to protect the miners against potential exposure to respirable coal mine dust, including crystalline silica, during
(g) On April 18, 2024 (89 FR 28218), MSHA issued a final rule entitled
(h) Since the 3M Airstream Headgear-Mounted PAPR System has been discontinued by the manufacturer, there are no other MSHA-approved units available that can be taken into or used inby the last open crosscut.
(i) The alternative method in the petition will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded to the miners by the standard.
The petitioner proposes the following alternative method:
(a) All miners who will be involved with or affected by the use of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX PAPRs shall receive training in accordance with 30 CFR 48.7, on the requirements of the Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) granted by MSHA and manufacturer guidelines. Such training shall be completed before any 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX PAPR can be used inby the last open crosscut. The operator shall keep a record of such training and provide such record to MSHA upon request.
(b) The PAPRs, battery packs, and all associated wiring and connections shall be inspected before use to determine if there is any damage to the units that would negatively impact intrinsic safety. If any defects are found, the PAPR shall be removed from service.
(c) A separate logbook shall be maintained for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs that will be kept with the equipment, or in a location with other mine record books, and shall be made available to MSHA upon request. The equipment shall be examined at least weekly by a qualified person as defined in 30 CFR 75.512-1 and the examination results recorded in the logbook. Examination records shall be maintained for one year.
(d) All 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPRs to be used inby the last open crosscut shall be physically examined prior to initial use and each unit shall be assigned a unique identification number. Each unit shall be examined by the person to operate the equipment prior to taking the equipment underground to ensure the equipment is used according to the original equipment manufacturer's recommendations and maintained in a safe operating condition. The examinations for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPRs shall include:
(1) Check the equipment for any physical damage and the integrity of the case.
(2) Remove the battery and inspect for corrosion.
(3) Inspect the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery.
(4) Reinsert the battery and power up and shut down to ensure proper connections.
(5) Check the battery compartment cover or battery attachment to ensure that it is securely fastened.
(6) For equipment utilizing lithium type cells, ensure that lithium cells and/or packs are not damaged or swelled in size.
The CleanSpace EX PAPR does not have an accessible/removable battery. The internal battery and motor/blower assembly are both contained within the “power unit” assembly and the battery cannot be removed, reinserted or fastened. Therefore, examination of the CleanSpace EX PAPR shall include any indications of physical damage.
(e) All 3M Versaflo TR-800 and CleanSpace EX PAPR units shall be serviced according to the manufacturer's recommendations.
(f) Prior to energizing and during use of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or the CleanSpace EX PAPR inby the last open crosscut, procedures in accordance with 30 CFR 75.323 shall be followed.
(g) Only the 3M TR-830 Battery Pack, which meets lithium battery safety standard UL 1642 or IEC 62133, in the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR shall be used. Only the CleanSpace EX Power Unit, which meets lithium battery safety standard UL 1642 or IEC 62133, in the CleanSpace EX shall be used.
(h) If battery packs for the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR are provided, all battery “change outs” shall occur in intake air outby the last open crosscut.
(i) The following maintenance and use conditions shall apply to equipment containing lithium type batteries:
(1) Neither the 3M TR-830 Battery Pack nor the CleanSpace EX Power Unit shall be disassembled nor modified by anyone other than permitted by the manufacturer of the equipment.
(2) The 3M TR-830 Battery Pack shall be charged only in an area free of combustible material and in intake air outby the last open crosscut. The 3M TR-830 Battery Pack shall be charged only by a manufacturer's recommended battery charger, such as the:
(i) 3M Battery Charger Kit TR-641N, which includes one 3M Charger Cradle TR-640 and one 3M Power Supply TR-941N, or,
(ii) 3M 4-Station Battery Charger Kit TR-644N, which includes four 3M Charger Cradles TR-640 and one 3M 4-Station Battery Charger Base/Power Supply TR-944N.
(3) The CleanSpace EX internal battery, which is contained within the power unit assembly, shall be charged in areas located outby the last open crosscut in intake air and only the manufacturer's recommended battery chargers shall be used, such as the CleanSpace EX Battery Charger, Product Code PAF-0066.
(4) Neither the 3M TR-830 Battery Pack nor the CleanSpace EX power unit which contains the internal battery, shall be exposed to water, allowed to get wet or immersed in liquid. This does not preclude incidental exposure of the 3M TR-830 Battery Pack or the CleanSpace EX power unit assembly.
(5) Neither the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR nor the CleanSpace EX PAPR, including the internal battery, shall be used, charged or stored in locations where the manufacturer's recommended temperature limits are exceeded. Neither the 3M Versaflo TR-800 PAPR nor the CleanSpace EX PAPR shall be placed in direct sunlight nor stored near a source of heat.
(j) Annual retraining shall be given to all miners who will be involved with or affected by the use of the 3M Versaflo TR-800 or CleanSpace EX PAPRs in accordance with 30 CFR 48.8. Training of new miners on the requirements of the PDO granted by MSHA in accordance with 30 CFR 48.5, and training of experienced miners on the requirements of the PDO granted by MSHA in accordance with 30 CFR 48.6 shall be given. The operator shall keep a record of such training and provide such record to MSHA upon request.
(k) The miners at Tunnel Ridge, LLC, Tunnel Ridge Mine, are not represented
The petitioner asserts that the alternative method in the petition will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded to the miners by the standard.
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation (OWCP/DEEOIC), Labor.
Request for public comments.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This request helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format; reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized; collection instruments are clearly understood; and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the OWCP/DEEOIC is soliciting comments concerning the collection for Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act Forms (EE-1, EE-1-SPA EE-2, EE-2-SPA, EE-3, EE-3-SPA, EE-4, EE-4-SPA, Form EE-5, EE-7, EE-7-SPA, EE/EN-8, EE/EN-9, EE/EN-10, EE/EN-12, EE/EN-13, EE/EN-16, EE-17A, EE-17B AND EE/EN-20).
Consideration will be given to all written comments received on or before January 13, 2025.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered.
•
• If your comment includes confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission.
•
• OWCP will post your comment as well as any attachments, except for information submitted and marked as confidential, in the docket at
Ms. Anjanette Suggs, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, OWCP at
The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) is the primary agency responsible for the administration of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended (EEOICPA or Act), 42 U.S.C. 7384. The Act provides for timely payment of compensation to covered employees and, where applicable, survivors of such employees, who sustained either “occupational illnesses” or “covered illnesses” incurred in the performance of duty for the Department of Energy and certain of its contractors and subcontractors. The Act sets forth eligibility criteria for claimants for compensation under Part B and Part E of the Act and outlines the various elements of compensation payable from the Fund established by the Act. The information collections in this ICR collect demographic, factual and medical information needed to determine entitlement to benefits under the EEOICPA.
OWCP is soliciting comments concerning the information collection related to Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act Forms. OWCP is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of OWCP's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Background documents related to this information collection request are available at
This information collection request concerns Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act Forms EE-1, EE-1-SPA EE-2, EE-2-SPA, EE-3, EE-3-SPA, EE-4, EE-4-SPA, Form EE-5, EE-7, EE-7-SPA, EE/EN-8, EE/EN-9, EE/EN-10, EE/EN-12, EE/EN-13, EE/EN-16, EE-17A, EE-17B AND EE/EN-20.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the proposed information collection request; they will become a matter of public record and will be available at
The Legal Services Corporation Board of Directors will meet virtually on November 20, 2024. The meeting will commence at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time and will continue until the conclusion of the Board's agenda.
• To join the Zoom meeting by computer, please use this link.
Once connected to Zoom, please immediately mute your computer or telephone. Members of the public are asked to keep their computers or telephones muted to eliminate background noise. To avoid disrupting the meetings, please refrain from placing the call on hold if doing so will trigger recorded music or other sound.
From time to time, the Board Chair may solicit comments from the public. To participate in the meeting during public comment, use the `raise your hand' or `chat' functions in Zoom and wait to be recognized by the Chair before stating your questions and/or comments.
Open, except that, upon a vote of the Board of Directors, a portion of the meeting may be closed to the public to receive a briefing from LSC Management.
Jessica Wechter, Special Assistant to the President, at (202) 295-1626. Questions may also be sent by electronic mail to
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Aeronautics Committee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the aeronautics community and other persons, research and technical information relevant to program planning.
Wednesday, November 20, 2024, 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., ET.
Ms. Irma Rodriguez, Designated Federal Officer, Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546,
This meeting will be available to the public online. Dial-in audio teleconference and webcast details to watch the meeting remotely will be available on the NASA Advisory Council Aeronautics Committee website at
If dialing in, please “mute” your telephone.
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to the scheduling
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) Advisory Board.
Wednesday, December 4, 2024, 8:30 a.m.-6 p.m. and Thursday, December 5, 2024, 8:30 a.m.-1 p.m. All times are Pacific time.
Sonesta Redondo Beach & Marina; 300 N Harbor Dr, Redondo Beach, CA 90277.
Mr. James Joseph Miller, Designated Federal Officer, National Space-Based PNT Advisory Board, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, via email at
This meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the meeting room. In-person attendees will be requested to sign a register prior to entrance to the proceedings. Webcast details to watch the meeting remotely will be available on the National Space-Based PNT Advisory Board website (
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
It is imperative that the meeting be held on these days to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
For more information, please visit
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting cancellation.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces that the planned meeting on November 15, 2024, of the STEM Engagement Committee is cancelled.
This meeting was announced in the
Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), National Foundation of the Arts and the Humanities (NFAH).
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that the National Museum and Library Services Board will meet to advise the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) with respect to duties, powers, and authority of IMLS relating to museum, library, and information services, as well as coordination of activities for the improvement of these services.
The meeting will be held on December 10th, 2024, from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. or adjourned.
The meeting will convene in a hybrid format. Virtual meeting and audio conference technology will be used to connect virtual attendees with in-person attendees. Instructions for joining will be sent to all registrants. In-person attendees will meet at the Kellogg Conference Hotel Capitol Hill at Gallaudet University, 800 Florida Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20002-3695.
Katherine Maas, Chief of Staff and Alternate Designated Federal Officer, Institute of Museum and Library Services, Suite 4000, 955 L'Enfant Plaza North SW, Washington, DC 20024; (202) 653-4798;
The National Museum and Library Services Board is meeting pursuant to the National Museum and Library Service Act, 20 U.S.C. 9105a, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
The 50th Meeting of the National Museum and Library Services Board, which is open to the public, will convene at 9 a.m. Eastern Time on December 10, 2024.
The agenda for the 50th Meeting of the National Museum and Library Services Board will be as follows:
If you wish to attend the meeting, please inform IMLS as soon as possible, but no later than close of business on December 6th, 2024, by contacting the IMLS Office of the Director at
National Endowment for the Humanities; National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that the National Council on the Humanities will meet to advise the Chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) with respect to policies, programs and procedures for carrying out her functions; to review applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965 and make recommendations thereon to the Chair; and to consider gifts offered to NEH and make recommendations thereon to the Chair.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, November 21, 2024, from 10:00 a.m. until adjourned., and Friday, November 22, 2024, from 2:00 p.m. until adjourned.
The meeting will be held by videoconference originating at Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20506.
Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 400 7th Street SW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20506; (202) 606-8322;
The National Council on the Humanities is meeting pursuant to the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 951-960, as amended).
The National Council will then convene by videoconference on November 21, 2024, from 10:00 a.m. until 10:50 a.m. to discuss updates from Divisions and Offices.
The following Committees of the National Council on the Humanities will convene by videoconference on November 21, 2024, from 11:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m., to discuss specific grant applications and programs before the Council: Digital Humanities; Education Programs; Federal/State Partnership. Preservation and Access; Public Programs; and Research Programs.
The Challenge Programs Committee of the National Council on the Humanities will convene by videoconference on November 21, 2024, from 1:30 p.m. until 3:30 p.m., to discuss specific grant applications and programs before the Council.
The National Council will then convene in executive session by videoconference on November 21, 2024, from 3:30 p.m. until adjourned.
The plenary session of the National Council on the Humanities will convene by videoconference on November 22, 2024, from 2:00 p.m. until adjourned. The agenda for the plenary session will be as follows:
This meeting of the National Council on the Humanities will be closed to the public pursuant to sections 552b(c)(4), 552b(c)(6), and 552b(c)(9)(B) of Title 5 U.S.C., as amended, because it will include review of personal and/or proprietary financial and commercial information given in confidence to the agency by grant applicants, and discussion of certain information, the premature disclosure of which could significantly frustrate implementation of proposed agency action. I have made this determination pursuant to the authority granted me by the Chair's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings dated April 15, 2016.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
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, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation.”
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
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-2024-0052 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, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
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. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
None.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 31, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 1, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 1, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 31, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 31, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 31, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 1, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 31, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 1, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 31, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 31, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 29, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 4, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 1, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 4, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 31, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 31, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 31, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 31, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 31, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 29, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 29, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 4, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 1, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 31, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 1, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 31, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 31, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 31, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 31, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 1, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 29, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 31, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 31, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 1, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 31, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 31, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 31, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 1, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 1, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 1, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 2300 (Supervision) with certain changes by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) to FINRA Rule 3110 to permit eligible Members
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 harmonize Exchange Rule 2300 (Supervision) with certain changes by FINRA to FINRA Rule 3110 to permit eligible Members to participate in the FINRA Pilot Program and to adopt FINRA's RSL classification. The proposed rule change would harmonize the Exchange's office and other location inspection rules with those of FINRA and thus promote uniform inspection standards across the securities industry. Additionally, because proposed Interpretations and Policies .18 and .19 of Rule 2300 would be substantially similar to FINRA Rule 3110.18 and FINRA Rule 3110.19, respectively, this rule change enables Rule 2300 to continue to be incorporated into the agreement between the Exchange and FINRA to allocate regulatory responsibility for common rules (the “17d-2 Agreement”).
Exchange Rule 2300 is based on FINRA Rule 3110
As part of an overall supervisory system, Members must conduct inspections of each of their offices or locations on a designated frequency depending on the classification of the location or the nature of the activities that take place: an office of supervisory jurisdiction (“OSJ”) and supervisory branch offices must be inspected at least annually;
In 2023, recognizing how operations and business models within the financial services industry have evolved with changes in technology that were accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, including in particular the implementation by a large number of firms of a hybrid work environment during the public health crisis, FINRA adopted two amendments to FINRA Rule 3110. First, FINRA established a voluntary, three-year remote inspections pilot program to allow eligible members to fulfill their FINRA Rule 3110(c)(1) inspection obligation of qualified branch offices, including OSJs and non-branch locations remotely, without an on-site visit to such offices or locations subject to certain conditions and criteria.
The Exchange proposes to incorporate each of these amendments into Exchange Rule 2300, as follows.
The Exchange proposes, consistent with current FINRA Rule 3110, Supplementary Material .18, to adopt new Interpretations and Policies .18 of Exchange Rule 2300 in order to provide eligible Members that are also FINRA members
Proposed Interpretations and Policies .18(a) of Exchange Rule 2300 would establish the standards by which a Member that is also a FINRA member may participate in the FINRA Pilot Program.
Proposed Interpretations and Policies .18(a) of Exchange Rule 2300 would permit Members to avail themselves of the FINRA Pilot Program for the required inspection of OSJs, branch offices and non-branch locations pursuant to, as applicable, paragraphs (c)(1)(A), (B) and (C) of Rule 2300 for a period starting on the effective date of the proposed rule filing and expiring on June 30, 2027. If FINRA extends the pilot program and the proposed Interpretations and Policies .18 is not amended to allow continued participation by Members in the FINRA Pilot Program, Members would not be able to participate in the FINRA Pilot Program after the prescribed provisions under the proposed Interpretations and Policies .18 sunset.
With the exception of conforming and technical changes,
Proposed Interpretations and Policies .18(b) of Exchange Rule 2300 governing risk assessment would outline the need for Members to undertake a risk assessment in order to participate in the FINRA Pilot Program.
Proposed Interpretations and Policies .18(b) of Exchange Rule 2300 would set forth the applicable standard for review and would provide that a Member could elect to conduct the applicable inspection remotely, without an on-site visit for an office or location, when such Member reasonably determines that the purposes of the Interpretations and Policies .18 can be accomplished by conducting such required inspection remotely. The Member would be required to develop a reasonable risk-based approach to using remote inspections and conduct and document a risk assessment for an office or location prior to conducting a remote inspection. The risk assessment must document the factors considered, including, among other things, the factors set forth in current Rule Interpretations and Policies .12 of Exchange Rule 2300 such as a firm's size, organizational structure, scope of business activities, number and location of the firm's offices, the nature and complexity of the products and services offered by the firm, the volume of business done, the number of associated persons assigned to a location, the disciplinary history of registered representatives or associated persons, and any indicators of irregularities or misconduct (
Proposed Interpretations and Policies .18(b)(2) would address other risk assessment factors and would provide that when conducting the risk assessment of each office or location in accordance with proposed paragraph (b)(1) of Interpretations and Policies .18, a Member must consider, among other things, the following factors with respect to an office or location in making its risk assessment for remotely inspecting an office or location:
• the volume and nature of customer complaints;
• the volume and nature of outside business activities, particularly investment-related;
• the volume and complexity of products offered;
• the nature of the customer base, including vulnerable adult investors;
• whether associated persons are subject to heightened supervision;
• failures by associated persons to comply with the Member's written supervisory procedures;
• any recordkeeping violations.
Further, proposed Interpretations and Polices .18(b)(2) would prescribe that Members should conduct on-site inspections or make more frequent use of unannounced, on-site inspections for high-risk offices or locations or when there are red flags, and supervisory systems must take into consideration any red flags when determining whether to conduct a remote inspection of an office or location, consistent with Exchange Rule 2300(a).
With the exception of conforming and technical changes, proposed Interpretations and Policies .18(b) is substantially the same as FINRA Rule 3110.18(b).
Proposed Interpretations and Policies .18(c) would provide that, consistent with a Member's obligation under Exchange Rule 2300(b), a Member that elects to participate in the FINRA Pilot Program must establish, maintain, and enforce written supervisory procedures regarding remote inspections that are reasonably designed to detect and prevent violations of and achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations, and with applicable FINRA and Exchange rules.
As proposed, reasonably designed procedures for conducting remote inspections of offices or locations must address, among other things:
• the methodology, including technology, that may be used to conduct remote inspections;
• the factors considered in the risk assessment made for each applicable office or location pursuant to paragraph (b) of these Interpretations and Policies .18;
• the procedures specified in paragraph (h)(1)(G) and (h)(4) of FINRA Rule 3310.18;
• the use of other risk-based systems employed generally by the Member to identify and prioritize for review those areas that pose the greatest risk of potential violations of applicable
With the exception of conforming and technical changes and the addition of a reference to Exchange rules in proposed Interpretations and Policies .18(c)(4), proposed Interpretations and Policies .18(c) of Exchange Rule 2300 is substantially the same as FINRA Rule 3110.18(c).
Proposed Interpretations and Policies .18(d) would provide that the requirement to conduct inspections of offices and locations is one part of the Member's overall obligation to have an effective supervisory system and therefore the Member must maintain its ongoing review of the activities and functions occurring at all offices and locations, whether or not the Member conducts inspections remotely.
Further, a Member's use of a remote inspection of an office or location will be held to the same standards for review as set forth under Interpretations and Policies .12 of Exchange Rule 2300. Where a Member's remote inspection of an office or location identifies any “red flags,” the Member may need to impose additional supervisory procedures for that office or location or may need to provide for more frequent monitoring of that office or location, including potentially a subsequent on-site visit on an announced or unannounced basis.
With the exception of conforming and technical changes, proposed Interpretations and Policies .18(d) is substantially the same as FINRA Rule 3110.18(d).
Proposed Interpretations and Policies .18(e) would set forth documentation requirements for a Member's participating in the FINRA Pilot Program. In particular, Interpretations and Policies .18(e) would require Members to maintain and preserve a centralized record for each of the Pilot Years specified in this FINRA Pilot Program that separately identifies all offices or locations that were inspected remotely.
With the exception of conforming and technical changes, proposed Interpretations and Policies .18(e) is substantially the same as FINRA Rule 3110.18(e).
Proposed Interpretations and Policies .18(f)(1) would set forth certain firm level ineligibility conditions for further participation in the FINRA Pilot Program. As proposed, a Member would be ineligible to conduct remote inspections of any of its offices or locations under the FINRA Pilot Program if at any time during the Pilot Period that Member:
• is or becomes designated as a Restricted Firm under FINRA Rule 4111;
• is or become designated a taping firm under FINRA Rule 3170;
• receives a notice pursuant to FINRA Rule 9557 regarding capital compliance related matters under FINRA Rules 4110 (Capital Compliance), FINRA 4120 (Regulatory Notification and Business Curtailment) or FINRA Rule 4130 (Regulation of Activities of Section 15C Members Experiencing Financial and/or Operational Difficulties);
• is or becomes suspended from Exchange or FINRA membership;
• based on the date in the Central Registration Depository (CRD), had its FINRA membership become effective within the prior 12 months;
• is or has been found by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“the Commission”), FINRA or the Exchange to be in violation of office inspection obligations under FINRA or Exchange Rule 2300(c) within the past three years.
Proposed Interpretations and Polices .18(f)(2) would set forth the firm-level conditions a Member must satisfy as part of the requirements in Interpretations and Policies .18(b) to develop a reasonably designed risk-based approach to using remote inspections and to conduct and document a risk assessment for each office or location. Specifically, Members must have a recordkeeping system:
• to make and keep current, and preserve records required to be made and kept current, and preserved under applicable securities laws and regulations, Exchange rules, and the Member's own written supervisory procedures under Exchange Rule 2300;
• such records are not physically or electronically maintained and preserved at the office or location subject to the remote inspection;
• the Member has prompt access to such records.
In addition, Members must determine that the surveillance and technology tools are appropriate to supervise the types of risks presented by each such remotely supervised office or location. As proposed, these tools may include but are not limited to:
• firm-wide tools such as electronic recordkeeping systems; electronic surveillance of email and correspondence; electronic trade blotters; regular activity-based sampling reviews; and tools for visual inspections;
• tools specifically applied to such office or location based on the activities of associated persons, products offered, restrictions on the activity of the office or location (including holding out to customers and handling of customer funds or securities);
• system security tools such as secure network connections and effective cybersecurity protocols.
With the exception of conforming and technical changes and the addition of a reference to Exchange rules in proposed Interpretations and Policies .18(f)(2)(A)(i), proposed Interpretations and Policies .18(f)(1) and (2) are substantially the same as FINRA Rule 3110.18(f)(1) and (2).
Proposed Interpretations and Policies .18(g) would set forth the criteria under the FINRA Pilot Program that would render a particular office or location ineligible for remote office inspection. As proposed, Interpretations and Policies .18(g)(1), offices or locations would be ineligible for a remote office inspection if at any time during the FINRA Pilot Period:
• one or more associated persons at such office or location is or becomes subject to a mandatory heightened supervisory plan under the rules of the SEC, FINRA, the Exchange or a state regulatory agency;
• one or more associated persons at such office or location is or becomes statutorily disqualified, unless such disqualified person has been approved (or is otherwise permitted pursuant to FINRA or Exchange rules and the federal securities laws) to associate with a Member and is not subject to a mandatory heightened supervisory plan under paragraph (g)(1)(A) of Interpretations and Policies .18 or otherwise as a condition to approval or permission for such association;
• the firm is or becomes subject to FINRA Rule 1017(a)(7) as a result of one or more associated persons at such office or location;
• one or more associated persons at such office or location has an event in the prior three years that required a “yes” response to any item in Questions 14A(1)(a) and 2(a), 14B(1)(a) and 2(a), 14C, 14D and 14E on Form U4;
• one or more associated persons at such office or location is or becomes subject to a disciplinary action taken by the Member that is or was reportable under FINRA Rule 4530(a)(2);
• one or more associated persons at such office or location is engaged in proprietary trading, including the incidental crossing of customer orders, or the direct supervision of such activities;
• the office or location handles customer funds or securities.
In addition, as part of the requirement to develop a reasonably designed risk-based approach to using remote inspections, and the requirement to conduct and document a risk assessment, proposed Interpretations and Policies .18(g)(2) would require that a specific office or location satisfy the following conditions to be eligible for remote inspections under the Pilot Program:
• electronic communications (
• the associated person's correspondence and communications with the public are subject to the firm's supervision in accordance with Exchange Rule 2300;
• no books or records of the Member required to be made and kept current, and preserved under applicable securities laws and regulations, FINRA and Exchange rules and the Member's own written supervisory procedures under Exchange Rule 2300 are physically or electronically maintained and preserved at such office or location.
With the exception of conforming and technical changes and the inclusion of references to Exchange rules in proposed Interpretations and Policies .18(g)(2)(B) and (C), proposed Interpretations and Policies .18(g)(1) and (2) are substantially the same as FINRA Rule 3110.18(g)(1) and (2).
FINRA Rule 3110.18(h) outlines requirements for FINRA members that elect to participate in the Pilot Program to collect specific data and information as part of the FINRA Pilot Program. Specifically, FINRA Rule 3110.18(h) requires firms to collect specific data points and to provide such data and information to FINRA on a quarterly basis, in the manner and format determined by FINRA, including:
• the number of offices and locations with an inspection completed during each calendar quarter;
• the number of those offices or locations in each calendar quarter that were inspected remotely;
• the number of those offices or locations in each calendar quarter that were the subject of an on-site inspection, as well as the number of such inspections that were on-site because of a finding;
• the number of offices and locations for which a remote office inspection was conducted in the calendar quarter that identified a finding, the number of findings, a list of the significant findings;
• the number of locations for which an on-site inspection was conducted in the calendar quarter that identified a finding, the number of findings, and a list of the significant findings.
Moreover, FINRA members are required to provide FINRA with their written supervisory procedures for remote inspections that account for escalating significant findings; new hires; supervising brokers with a significant history of misconduct; and outside business activities and “doing business as” (or DBA) designations.
Proposed Interpretations and Policies .18(h) on data and information collection requirement would require Members to comply with the FINRA requirements with respect to the collection and submission of specified data and information, and in the manner and format required under the Pilot Program. In addition, proposed Interpretations and Policies .18(h) which substantially mirrors FINRA Rule
FINRA Rule 3110.18(i) specifies how a firm elects to participate in, or subsequently withdraws from, the FINRA Pilot Program. Specifically, FINRA Rule 3110.18(i) states that a firm must, at least five calendar days before the beginning of a Pilot Year, provide FINRA an “opt-in notice” in the manner and format determined by FINRA.
Proposed Interpretations and Policies .18(i) would govern elections to participate in the Pilot Program and would require Members electing to participate in the Pilot Program to make their election in the manner and format as prescribed, in accordance with FINRA Rule 3110.18(i). In addition, the proposed rule would require Members that elect to withdraw from the Pilot Program for subsequent years to provide such notice in the manner and format as prescribed in accordance with FINRA Rule 3110.18(i). These requirements will ensure that Members can properly elect to participate in, or subsequently withdraw from, the Pilot Program.
FINRA Rule 3110.18(j) governs failure to satisfy conditions and addresses situations in which a member fails to satisfy the requirements for participating in the FINRA Pilot Program. Specifically, FINRA Rule 3110.18(j) provides that FINRA members that fail to satisfy the conditions set forth to avail themselves of the FINRA Pilot Program, including the requirement to timely collect and submit the data and information to FINRA as set forth under FINRA Rule 3110.18(h), shall be ineligible to participate in the FINRA Pilot Program. Such FINRA members would be required to conduct on-site inspections of each office and location on the required cycle in accordance with FINRA Rule 3110(c) on internal inspections.
Consistent with FINRA Rule 3110.18(j), proposed Interpretations and Policies .18(j) on failure to satisfy conditions would specify that any Member that fails to satisfy the conditions of proposed Interpretations and Policies .18 and of FINRA Rule 3110.18, including the specified requirement to timely collect and submit data, would no longer be eligible to participate in the FINRA Pilot Program. Such Members would need to conduct on-site inspections of each office and location on the required cycle in accordance with Exchange Rule 2300(c).
FINRA Rule 3110.18(k) governs determinations of ineligibility and provides that FINRA may make a determination in the public interest and for the protection of investors that a FINRA member is no longer eligible to participate in the FINRA Pilot Program if the FINRA member fails to comply with the requirements of FINRA Rule 3110.18. In such instances, FINRA will provide written notice to the FINRA member of such determination and the member would no longer be eligible to participate in the FINRA Pilot Program and must conduct on-site inspections of required offices and locations in accordance with FINRA Rule 3110(c).
Consistent with FINRA Rule 3110.18(k), proposed Interpretations and Policies .18(k) would govern ineligibility determinations and provide that FINRA or the Exchange may make a determination in the public interest and for the protection of investors that a Member is no longer eligible to participate in the FINRA Pilot Program if the Member fails to comply with the requirements of FINRA or Interpretations and Policies .18 of Exchange Rule 2300. The proposed rule would further provide that, in such instances, FINRA or the Exchange will provide written notice to the Member of such determination and the Member would no longer be eligible to participate in the FINRA Pilot Program and must conduct on-site inspections of required offices and locations in accordance with FINRA or Exchange Rule 2300(c). With the exception of conforming and technical changes, proposed Interpretations and Policies .18(k) is substantially the same as FINRA Rule 3110.18(k).
The Exchange proposes to adopt FINRA Rule 3110.18(l) setting forth definitions applicable to Interpretations and Policies .18 verbatim. As proposed, Interpretations and Policies .18(l) would provide that for purposes of Interpretations and Policies .18, the term “Pilot Year” shall mean the following:
• Pilot Year 1 is the period beginning on July 1, 2024 and ending on December 31 of the same year;
• Pilot Year 2 means the calendar year period following Pilot Year 1, beginning on January 1 and ending on December 31;
• Pilot Year 3 means the calendar year period following Pilot Year 2, beginning on January 1 and ending on December 31; and
• If applicable, where Pilot Year 1 covers a period that is less than a full calendar year, then Pilot Year 4 means the period following Pilot Year 3, beginning on January 1 and ending on June 30, 2027.
Finally, FINRA also adopted FINRA Rule 3110.18(m) describing the sunset of FINRA Rule 3110.17, which the Exchange has not adopted. The Exchange accordingly does not propose to incorporate a provision similar to FINRA Rule 3110.18(m).
FINRA Rule 3110.19(a) lists the conditions for FINRA members to designate an office or location as an RSL. Proposed Interpretations and Policies .19(a) would set forth the conditions for designation as an RSL that would mirror the conditions set forth in FINRA Rule 3110.19(a) for Members to designate a location that is the associated person's private residence where specified supervisory activities are conducted as an RSL.
As proposed, Interpretations and Policies .19 would provide that, notwithstanding any other provisions of Exchange Rule 2300(f) and subject to paragraphs (b) through (d) of the proposed Interpretations and Policies .19, a location that is the associated person's private residence where supervisory activities are conducted, including those described in Exchange
• only one associated person, or multiple associated persons who reside at that location and are members of the same immediate family, conduct business at the location;
• the location is not held out to the public as an office;
• the associated person does not meet with customers or prospective customers at the location;
• any sales activity that takes place at the location complies with the conditions set forth under Exchange Rule 2300(f)(2)(B) or (C);
• neither customer funds nor securities are handled at that location;
• the associated person is assigned to a designated branch office, and such designated branch office is reflected on all business cards, stationery, retail communications and other communications to the public by such associated person;
• the associated persons correspondence and communications with the public are subject to the firm's supervision in accordance with this Rule;
• the associated persons electronic communications (
• the Member must have a recordkeeping system to make and keep current, and preserve records required to be made and kept current, and preserved under applicable securities laws and regulations, Exchange rules, and the Member's own written supervisory procedures under Exchange Rule 2300; (B) such records are not physically or electronically maintained and preserved at the office or location; and (C) the Member has prompt access to such records;
• the Member must determine that its surveillance and technology tools are appropriate to supervise the types of risks presented by each Residential Supervisory Location, and these tools may include but are not limited to: (A) firm-wide tools such as, electronic recordkeeping system; electronic surveillance of email and correspondence; electronic trade blotters; regular activity-based sampling reviews; and tools for visual inspections; (B) tools specific to the RSL based on the activities of associated person assigned to the location, products offered, restrictions on the activity of the RSL; and (C) system tools such as secure network connections and effective cybersecurity protocols.
With the exception of conforming and technical changes, proposed Interpretations and Policies .19(a) is substantially the same as FINRA Rule 3110.19(a).
FINRA Rule 3110.19(b) outlines the conditions that would render its members ineligible from designating an office as an RSL. As proposed, Interpretations and Policies .19(b) would mirror these criteria and provide that a Member is ineligible from designating an office or location as an RSL if the Member:
• is currently designated as a restricted firm under FINRA Rule 4111;
• is currently designated as a taping firm under FINRA Rule 3170;
• is currently undergoing, or is required to undergo, a review under FINRA Rule 1017(a)(7) as a result of one or more associated persons at such location;
• receives a notice pursuant to FINRA Rule 9557, regarding capital compliance related matters under FINRA Rules 4110, 4120 and 4130, unless the Exchange has otherwise permitted such activities in writing pursuant to such rule;
• is or becomes suspended by the Exchange or FINRA;
• based on the date in the Central Registration Depository (CRD), had its FINRA membership become effective within the prior 12 months;
• is or has been found to be in violation of office inspection obligations under Exchange Rule 2300(c) or FINRA Rule 3110(c) within the past three years.
With the exception of conforming and technical changes, proposed Interpretations and Policies .19(b) is substantially the same as FINRA Rule 3110.19(b).
FINRA Rule 3110.19(c) sets forth the criteria that would render a particular office or location that is an associated person's private residence where specified supervisory activities are conducted ineligible for an RSL designation. Proposed Interpretations and Policies .19(c) would mirror these criteria. As proposed, Interpretations and Policies .19(c) would make an office ineligible for the RSL designation if one or more associated persons at such office or location:
• is a designated supervisor who has less than one year of direct supervisory experience with the Member, or an affiliate or subsidiary of the Member that is registered as a broker-dealer or investment adviser;
• is functioning as a principal for a limited period in accordance with Interpretations and Policies .04 of Exchange Rule 3100;
• is subject to a mandatory heightened supervisory plan under the rules of the SEC, FINRA, the Exchange or state regulatory agency;
• is statutorily disqualified, unless such disqualified person has been approved (or is otherwise permitted pursuant to FINRA or Exchange rules and the federal securities laws) to associate with a Member and is not subject to a mandatory heightened supervisory plan under paragraph (c)(3) of Interpretations and Policies .19 or otherwise as a condition to approval or permission for such association;
• has an event in the prior three years that required a “yes” response to any item in Questions 14A(1)(a) and 2(a),
• has been notified in writing that such associated person is now subject to, any Investigation or Proceeding, as such terms are defined in the Explanation of Terms for the Form U4 (Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer), by the SEC, a self-regulatory organization, including the Exchange, or state securities commission (or agency or office performing like functions) (each, a “Regulator”) expressly alleging they have failed reasonably to supervise another person subject to their supervision, with a view to preventing the violation of any provision of the Securities Act, the Act, the Investment Advisers Act, the Investment Company Act, the Commodity Exchange Act, any state law pertaining to the regulation of securities or any rule or regulation under any of such Acts or laws, or any of the rules of the Exchange or other self- regulatory organization, including the Exchange; provided, however, such office or location may be designated or redesignated as an RSL subject to the requirements of Interpretations and Policies .19 upon the earlier of: (i) the Member's receipt of written notification from the applicable Regulator that such Investigation has concluded without further action; or (ii) one year from the date of the last communication from such Regulator relating to such Investigation.
With the exception of conforming and technical changes, proposed Interpretations and Policies .19(c) is substantially the same as FINRA Rule 3110.19(c).
Proposed Interpretations and Policies .19(d) setting forth the obligations to provide RSL list would fully mirror the provisions of FINRA Rule 3110.19(d) and would require Members electing to designate any office or location of that Member as an RSL to provide a current list of all offices or locations designated as RSLs by the 15th day of the month following each calendar quarter to FINRA in the manner and format as FINRA may prescribe.
With the exception of conforming and technical changes, proposed Interpretations and Policies .19(d) is substantially the same as FINRA Rule 3110.19(d).
FINRA Rule 3110.19(e) requires its members, prior to designating an office or location as an RSL, to develop a reasonable risk-based approach to designating such office or location as an RSL, and conduct and document a risk assessment for the associated person assigned to that office or location. Proposed Interpretations and Policies .19(e) would mirror the provisions of FINRA Rule 3110.19(e). Specifically, a Member would be required, prior to designating an office or location as an RSL, to develop a reasonable risk-based approach to designating such office or location as an RSL and conduct and document a risk assessment for the associated person(s) assigned to that office or location. In line with FINRA Rule 3110.19(e), the proposed rule would list certain factors, among others, that Members must consider in the risk assessment that include whether each associated person at such office or location is subject to:
• customer complaints, taking into account the volume and nature of the complaints;
• heightened supervision other than where such office or location is ineligible for RSL designation under paragraph (c)(3) of Interpretations and Policies .19;
• any failure to comply with the Member's written supervisory procedures;
• any recordkeeping violation;
• any regulatory communications from a Regulator, indicating that the associated person at such office or location failed reasonably to supervise another person subject to their supervision, including but not limited to, subpoenas, preliminary or routine regulatory inquiries or requests for information, deficiency letters, “blue sheet” requests or other trading questionnaires, or examinations. The Member must take into account any higher risk activities that take place or a higher risk associated person that is assigned to that office or location. Consistent with its obligation under Exchange Rule 2300(a), the Member's supervisory system must take into consideration any indicators of irregularities or misconduct (
With the exception of conforming and technical changes, proposed Interpretations and Policies .19(e) is substantially the same as FINRA Rule 3110.19(e).
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change furthers the objectives of the Act by permitting Members that are FINRA members to participate in the FINRA Pilot Program and for all Members to utilize the RSL designation in order to continue to meet the core regulatory obligation to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations and applicable Exchange rules that directly serve investor protection. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes, taken together, reasonably account for evolving work models while maintaining effective supervision. The Exchange believes that the proposed safeguards and controls built into both the remote inspection program and the RSL designation will, as FINRA noted,
As discussed in the Purpose section, because proposed Interpretations and Policies .18 and Interpretations of Exchange Rule 2300 and Policies .19 of Exchange Rule 2300 are substantially similar to FINRA Rule 3110.18 and FINRA Rule 3110.19, respectively, this rule change enables Exchange Rule 2300 to continue to be incorporated into the 17d-2 Agreement, resulting in less burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance. Specifically, the proposed change will conform the Exchange's rules to changes made to corresponding FINRA rules insofar as a Member's compliance with FINRA Rules 3110.18 and 3110.19 shall mean the Member is also in compliance with proposed Interpretations and Policies .18 and Interpretations of Exchange Rule 2300 and Policies .19 of Exchange Rule 2300, thus promoting the application of consistent regulatory standards with respect to rules that FINRA enforces pursuant to the 17d-2 Agreement. As previously noted, except for conforming and technical changes, the proposed text of proposed Interpretations and Policies .18 and.19 of Exchange Rule 2300 is substantially the same as the text of FINRA Supplementary Material .18 and .19, respectively, to FINRA Rule 3110. As such, the proposed rule change would facilitate rule harmonization among self-regulatory organizations with respect to inspection of Members and a consistent and uniform regulatory framework for which Members can avail themselves of the RSL designation, thereby fostering cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities and will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather is intended solely to reduce potential compliance burdens on Members by aligning Exchange Rule 2300 with FINRA Rule 3110, resulting in less burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance for common members and facilitating FINRA's performance under the 17d-2 Agreement.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
The Exchange stated that this proposed rule change is non-controversial because it does not present any new or novel issues. In particular, MIAX Pearl is harmonizing its supervision rules with those of FINRA, on which they are based and which have been previously approved by the Commission. By conforming the Exchange's rules to FINRA's, the proposed rule change would promote the application of consistent regulatory standards with respect to rules that FINRA enforces pursuant to the 17d-2 Agreement. As such, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities and would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system in accordance with Exchange Act Section 6(b)(5). Further, the Exchange stated that waiver of the operative delay should reduce any potential confusion that may otherwise occur on the part of joint members of the Exchange and FINRA as to the applicable rules governing inspections of branch offices and other locations. For these reasons, the Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay for this proposed rule change is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to modify its Fee Schedule, pursuant to IEX Rule 15.110(a) and (c), to introduce four new Displayed Liquidity Adding Rebate Tiers (and to modify the two current tiers) for executions priced at or above $1.00. The Exchange proposes to implement these changes effective November 1, 2024.
As reflected in the Transaction Fees section of the Fee Schedule, IEX currently offers two Displayed Liquidity Adding Rebate tiers. Specifically, Displayed Liquidity Adding Rebate Tier 1 provides the Exchange's base rebate of $0.0014 per share to all executions of displayed liquidity adding orders priced at or above $1.00 per share (“Added Displayed Liquidity”).
To further incentivize the posting of displayed liquidity on the Exchange, IEX proposes to modify the two current Displayed Liquidity Adding Rebate tiers and introduce four new tiers. Under this proposal, the fees/rebates the Exchange charges for adding displayed liquidity to the Exchange will be:
• Members that add less than 3,000,000 ADV of displayed liquidity will be charged a fee of FREE for their displayed liquidity adding executions (Tier 1).
• Members that trade at least 5,000,000 non-displayed ADV and less than 10,000,000 non-displayed ADV will receive a rebate of 10 mils per share for their displayed liquidity adding executions (Tier 2).
• Members that: (1) add at least 3,000,000 ADV of displayed liquidity and less than 10,000,000 ADV of displayed liquidity; or (2) trade at least 10,000,000 non-displayed ADV, will receive a rebate of 14 mils per share for their displayed liquidity adding executions (Tier 3).
• Members that add at least 10,000,000 ADV of displayed liquidity and less than 15,000,000 ADV of displayed liquidity will receive a rebate of 16 mils per share for their displayed liquidity adding executions (Tier 4).
• Members that add at least 15,000,000 ADV of displayed liquidity and less than 20,000,000 ADV of displayed liquidity will receive a rebate of 18 mils per share for their displayed liquidity adding executions (Tier 5).
• Members that add at least 20,000,000 ADV of displayed liquidity will receive a rebate of 20 mils per share for their displayed liquidity adding executions (Tier 6).
Proposed Displayed Liquidity Adding Rebate Tiers 2 and 3 are based on a Member's trading (both adding and removing) of non-displayed ADV on the Exchange.
• “non-displayed ADV” refers to executions with the following Fee Code Combinations: MI, MIB, TI, TIB, TIY, TIYB, TIR, TLW, TLWB, and MIA.
IEX notes that this model of offering volume-based rebates is consistent with the rebates offered by competitor exchanges.
Accordingly, IEX proposes to update its Fee Schedule to make several revisions to reflect the proposed amended rebate tiers. First, the Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule's Base Rates table to update the description and fees associated with Base Fee Code ML (“Add displayed liquidity”). As amended, the Base Rates table will list six base rates for Fee Code ML—the FREE execution applied if “Member adds less than 3,000,000 ADV of displayed liquidity”; the $0.0010 rebate applied if “Member trades at least 5,000,000 non-displayed ADV and less than 10,000,000 non-displayed ADV”; the $0.0014 rebate applied if “Member: (1) adds at least 3,000,000 ADV and less than 10,000,000 ADV of displayed liquidity; or (2) trades at least 10,000,000 non-displayed ADV”; the $0.0016 rebate applied if “Member adds at least 10,000,000 ADV and less than 15,000,000 ADV of displayed liquidity”; the $0.0018 rebate applied if “Member adds at least 15,000,000 and less than 20,000,000 ADV of displayed liquidity”; and the $0.0020 rebate applied if “Member adds at least 20,000,000 ADV of displayed liquidity.”
IEX also proposes to amend Footnote 4 to the Transaction Fees section, which is applicable to fee code ML in the Base Rates table, and to Fee Code Combinations ML, MLB, MLY, and MLYB in the Fee Code Combination and Associated Fees table. As proposed, Footnote 4 will be amended to reflect the six tiers proposed in this filing, including the required criteria for each rebate tier and the applicable rebate, as described above.
The Exchange believes the proposed amendments to the Displayed Liquidity Adding Rebate Tiers would provide an incremental incentive for Members to send more orders to the Exchange in an effort to qualify for the proposed enhanced rebates offered by Tiers 2-5 for executions of Added Displayed Volume. As such, the proposed Displayed Liquidity Adding Rebate Tiers are designed to encourage Members that provide liquidity on the Exchange to maintain or increase their order flow, thereby contributing to a deeper and more liquid market to the benefit of all market participants and enhancing the attractiveness of the Exchange as a trading venue.
As noted above, the Exchange is not proposing to change the fees applicable to executions of and with orders with an execution price below $1.00 per share, which would remain free for such orders that provide displayed liquidity and subject to a fee of 0.09% of the total dollar volume of the execution for orders that take displayed liquidity. IEX is also not proposing to make any changes to the fees applicable to the execution of Retail
IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. IEX has concluded that, in the context of current regulatory requirements governing access fees and rebates, it will be able to more effectively compete with other exchanges for order flow by offering more targeted rebate incentives. Based upon informal discussions with market participants, IEX believes that Members and other market participants may be more willing to send displayed orders to IEX if the proposed fee structure was adopted.
Accordingly, IEX has designed the proposed rebate tiers to attract and incentivize displayed orders as well as order flow seeking to trade with such displayed orders. Moreover, increases in displayed liquidity would contribute to the public price discovery process which would benefit all market participants and protect investors and the public interest. Additionally, as discussed in the Purpose section, IEX has designed Tiers 2 and 3, which provide a 10 mil rebate to Members that trade at least 5,000,000 non-displayed ADV (but less than 10,000,000 non-displayed ADV) and a 14 mil rebate to Members that trade at least 10,000,000 non-displayed ADV to allow Members additional ways to qualify for an incentive rebate tier.
The Exchange also believes that adding language to the ADV definition in the Fee Schedule to explain which
Thus, as discussed in the Purpose section, the Exchange believes that the proposed addition of new volume-based rebate tiers that pay progressively higher rebates to Members who add progressively more displayed liquidity (on a monthly average basis) is reasonable and consistent with the Act because it is designed to incentivize Members to send additional displayed orders to IEX. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the volume-based rebate tiers are reasonably designed to incentivize Members to add a meaningful volume of displayed liquidity by providing increasingly higher rebates for Members that qualify for increasingly higher average minimum volume thresholds. As noted in the Purpose section, other exchanges offer rebate tiers, and thus the Exchange does not believe that this aspect of the proposal raises any new or novel issues not already considered by the Commission. The Exchange also believes that setting tier thresholds based on each Member's own volume on the Exchange rather than based on consolidated market-wide volume will facilitate the ability of Members to control and predict the net fees that will apply to their transactions on the Exchange each month.
As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. Within that context, the proposed Displayed Liquidity Adding Rebate Tier structure is designed to keep IEX's displayed trading prices competitive with those of other exchanges. The proposed rebates for the six Displayed Liquidity Adding Rebate tiers are within the range offered by competing exchanges, and thus IEX does not believe that the proposal raises any new or novel issues not already considered by the Commission in the context of other exchanges' fees.
The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable and consistent with the Act not to modify its displayed fees for sub-dollar executions to synchronize those fees with the proposed fees for executions at or above $1.00 per share. The Exchange believes that the existing fee structure for such executions continues to be reasonably designed to incentivize displayed order flow (and orders seeking to trade with displayed order flow) in such securities.
Further, IEX believes that it is reasonable and consistent with the Act not to change the fees applicable to the execution of Retail orders that remove liquidity, which will continue to execute for free. In this regard, the Exchange believes that the existing fee structure continues to be reasonably designed to incentivize the entry of Retail orders, and notes that the Commission, in approving IEX's Retail Price Improvement Program, acknowledged the value of exchanges' offering incentives to attract both retail investor orders and orders specifically designated to execute only with retail orders.
Finally, to the extent this proposed fee change is successful in incentivizing the entry and execution of displayed orders on IEX, such greater liquidity will benefit all market participants by increasing price discovery and price formation as well as market quality and execution opportunities. And, as discussed above, IEX does not believe that any aspect of this proposal raises new or novel issues not already considered by the Commission.
IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if fee schedules at other venues are viewed as more favorable. Consequently, the Exchange believes that the degree to which IEX fees could impose any burden on competition is extremely limited and does not believe that such fees would burden competition between Members or competing venues. Moreover, as noted in the Statutory Basis section, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes raise any new or novel issues not already considered by the Commission.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, while different rebates and fees are assessed on Members, these rebate and fee tiers are not based on the type of Member entering the orders that match, but rather on the Member's own trading activity. Further, the proposed fee changes continue to be intended to encourage market participants to bring increased order flow to the Exchange, which benefits all market participants.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX Options”) 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 relating to physical connectivity fees.
By way of background, a physical port is utilized by a Member or non-Member to connect to the Exchange at the data centers where the Exchange's servers are located. The Exchange currently assesses the following physical connectivity fees for Members and non-Members on a monthly basis: $2,500 per physical port for a 1 gigabit (“Gb”) circuit and $7,500 per physical port for a 10 Gb circuit. The Exchange proposes to increase the monthly fee for 10 Gb physical ports from $7,500 to $8,500 per port. The Exchange notes the proposed fee change better enables it to continue to maintain and improve its market technology and services and also notes that the proposed fee amount, even as amended, continues to be in line with, or even lower than, amounts assessed by other exchanges for similar connections.
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
First, the Exchange believes its proposal is reasonable as it reflects a moderate increase in physical connectivity fees for 10 Gb physical ports and its offering, even as amended, continues to be more affordable as compared to analogous physical connectivity offerings at competitor exchanges.
The Exchange also believes the current fee does not properly reflect the quality of the service and product, as fees for 10 Gb physical ports have been static in nominal terms since 2018, and therefore falling in real terms due to inflation. As a general matter, the Producer Price Index (“PPI”) is a family of indexes that measures the average change over time in selling prices received by domestic producers of goods and services. PPI measures price change from the perspective of the seller. This contrasts with other metrics, such as the Consumer Price Index (CPI), that measure price change from the purchaser's perspective.
For purposes of this proposal, the relevant industry-specific PPI is the Data Processing and Related Services PPI (“Data PPI”), which is an industry net-output PPI that measures the average change in selling prices received by companies that provide data processing services.
The Data PPI was introduced in January 2002 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) as part of an ongoing effort to expand Producer Price Index coverage of the services sector of the U.S. economy and is identified as NAICS—518210 in the North American Industry Classification System.
The Exchange believes the Data PPI is an appropriate measure to be considered in the context of the proposed rule change to modify the 10 Gb physical port fee because the Exchange uses its “own computer systems” and “proprietary software,”
The Exchange further believes the Data PPI is an appropriate measure for purposes of the proposed rule change on the basis that it is a stable metric with limited volatility, unlike other consumer-side inflation metrics. In fact, the Data PPI has not experienced a greater than 2.16% increase for any one calendar year period since Data PPI was introduced into the PPI in January 2002. For example, the average calendar year change from January 2002 to December 2023 was .62%, with a cumulative increase of 15.67% over this 21-year period. The Exchange believes the Data PPI is considerably less volatile than other inflation metrics such as CPI, which has had individual calendar-year increases of more than 6.5%, and a cumulative increase of over 73% over the same period.
As noted above, the current 10 Gb physical port fee remained unchanged for six years, particularly since June 2018.
The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable to increase its fees to compensate for inflation because, over time, inflation has degraded the value of each dollar that the Exchange collects in
Next, the Exchange believes significant investments into, and enhanced performance of, the Exchange, in the years following the last 10 Gb physical port fee increase support the reasonableness of the proposed fee increase. These investments enhanced the quality of its services, as measured by, among other things, increased throughput and faster processing speeds. Customers have therefore greatly benefitted from these investments, while the Exchange's ability to recoup its investments has been hampered.
For example, the Exchange and its affiliated exchanges recently launched a multi-year initiative to improve Cboe Exchange Platform performance and capacity requirements to increase competitiveness, support growth and advance a consistent world class platform. The goal of the project, among other things, is to provide faster and more consistent order handling and matching performance for options, while ensuring quicker processing time and supporting increasing volumes and capacity needs. For example, the Exchange recently performed switch hardware upgrades. Particularly, the Exchange replaced existing customer access switches with newer models, which the Exchange believes resulted in increased determinism. The recent switch upgrades also increased the Exchange's capacity to accommodate more physical ports by nearly 50%. Network bandwidth was also increased nearly two-fold as a result of the upgrades, which among other things, can lead to reduce message queuing. The Exchange also believes these newer models result in less natural variance in the processing of messages. The Exchange notes that it incurred costs associated with purchasing and upgrading to these newer models, of which the Exchange has not otherwise passed through or offset.
As of April 1, 2024, market participants also having the option of connecting to a new data center (
The Exchange also has made various other improvements since the current physical port rates were adopted in 2018. For example, the Exchange has updated its customer portal to provide more transparency with respect to firms' respective connectivity subscriptions, enabling them to better monitor, evaluate and adjust their connections based on their evolving business needs. The Exchange also performs proactive audits on a weekly basis to ensure that all customer cross connects continue to fall within allowable tolerances for Latency Equalized connections. Accordingly, the Exchange expended, and will continue to expend, resources to innovate and modernize technology so that it may benefit its Members and continue to compete among other options markets. The ability to continue to innovate with technology and offer new products to market participants allows the Exchange to remain competitive in the equities space which currently has 18 registered options markets and potential new entrants. If the Exchange were not able to assess incrementally higher fees for its connectivity, it would effectively impact how the Exchange manages its technology and hamper the Exchange's ability to continue to invest in and fund access services in a manner that allows it to meet existing and anticipated access demands of market participants. Disapproval of fee changes such as the proposal herein, could also have the adverse effect of discouraging an exchange from improving its operations and implementing innovative technology to the benefit of market participants if it believes the Commission would later prevent that exchange from recouping costs and monetizing its operational enhancements, thus adversely impacting competition as well as the interests of market participants and investors.
Finally, the proposed fee is also the same as is concurrently being proposed for its Affiliate Exchanges. Further, Members are able to utilize a single port to connect to all of its Affiliate Exchanges and will only be charged one single fee (
The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee change is not unfairly discriminatory because it would be assessed uniformly across all market participants that purchase the physical ports. The Exchange believes increasing the fee for 10 Gb physical ports and charging a higher fee as compared to the 1 Gb physical port is equitable as the 1 Gb physical port is 1/10th the size of the 10 Gb physical port and therefore does not offer access to many of the products and services offered by the Exchange (
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed fee change will not impact intramarket competition because it will apply to all similarly situated Members equally (
The proposed fee change also does not impose a burden on competition or on other Self-Regulatory Organizations that is not necessary or appropriate. As described above, the Exchange evaluated its proposed fee change using objective and stable metric with limited volatility. Utilizing Data Processing PPI over a specified period of time is a reasonable means of recouping a portion of the Exchange's investment in maintaining and enhancing the connectivity service identified above. The Exchange believes utilizing Data Processing PPI, a tailored measure of inflation, to increase certain connectivity fees to recoup the Exchange's investment in maintaining and enhancing its services and products would not impose a burden on competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.4-O (Series of Options Open For Trading). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to amend Rule 6.4-O (Series of Options Open For Trading). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to allow for the interval between strike prices of series of options on shares of SPDR Gold Shares (“GLD”) to be $1 or greater, including where the strike price is greater than $200, and to expand the Short Term Option Series (“STOS”) Program to permit the listing of two Monday expirations for options on GLD, iShares Silver Trust (“SLV”), and iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (“TLT”). Both proposed changes are competitive and based on proposals submitted by Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“Nasdaq ISE”) and approved by the Commission.
First, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.4-O to allow for the interval between strike prices of series of options on GLD to be $1 or greater, including where the strike price is greater than $200, which would align Exchange rules with that of at least one of its competitors.
Currently, Commentary .05(a) provides that for series of options on Exchange-Traded Fund Shares, “the interval of strike prices may be $1 or greater where the strike price is $200 or less or $5 or greater where the strike price is over $200.”
Further, Commentary .05(d) provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of Rule 6.4-O regarding the interval of strike prices of series of options on Exchange-Traded Fund Shares, the interval of strike prices on options on SPDR® S&P 500® ETF (“SPY”), iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (“IVV”), PowerShares QQQ Trust (“QQQ”), iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund (“IWM”), and the SPDR® Dow Jones® Industrial Average ETF (“DIA”) will be $1 or greater.
The Exchange proposes to modify the interval setting regime to be $1 or greater for GLD options, which would align GLD with SPY, IVV, QQQ, IWM and DIA.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that offering a wider base of GLD options affords traders and investors important hedging and trading opportunities, particularly in the midst of current price trends. The Exchange believes that not having the proposed $1 strike price intervals above $200 in GLD significantly constricts investors' hedging and trading possibilities. The Exchange therefore believes that by having smaller strike intervals in GLD, investors would have more efficient hedging and trading opportunities due to the lower $1 interval ascension. The proposed $1 interval above the $200 strike price, will result in having at-the-money series based upon the underlying Exchange-Traded Fund Share moving less than 1%. The Exchange believes that the proposed strike setting regime is in line with the slower movements of broad-based indices. Given that $1 intervals already exist below the $200 price point and that GLD have consistently inclined in price toward the $200 level, the Exchange believes that continuing to maintain the current $200 level (above which intervals increase 500% to $5), may have a negative effect on investing, trading and hedging opportunities, and volume. The Exchange believes that the investing, trading, and hedging opportunities available with GLD options far outweighs any potential negative impact of allowing GLD options to trade in more finely tailored intervals above the $200 price point.
The proposed strike setting regime would permit strikes to be set to more closely reflect the increasing value in the underlying and allows investors and traders to roll open positions from a lower strike to a higher strike in conjunction with the price movements of the underlying ETF. Under the current rule, where the next higher available series would be $5 away above a $200 strike price, the ability to roll such positions would be impaired. Accordingly, to move a position from a $200 strike to a $205 strike under the current rule, an investor would need for the underlying product to move 2.5% and would not be able to execute a roll up until such a large movement occurred. The Exchange believes that with the proposed rule change, the investor would be in a significantly safer position of being able to roll his open options position from a $200 to a $201 strike price, which is only a 0.5% move for the underlying. As a result, the proposed rule change will allow the Exchange to better respond to customer demand for GLD strike price more precisely aligned with the smaller, longer-term incremental increases in the underlying ETF. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, like the other strike price programs currently offered by the Exchange, will benefit investors by providing investors the flexibility to more closely tailor their
Moreover, by allowing series of GLD options to be listed in $1 intervals between strike prices over $200, the proposal will moderately augment the potential total number of options series available on the Exchange. However, the Exchange believes it and the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) have the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with this proposed rule change. The Exchange also believes that market participants will not have a capacity issue due to the proposed rule change. In addition, the Exchange represents that it does not believe that this expansion will cause fragmentation of liquidity, but rather, believes that finer strike intervals will serve to increase liquidity available as well as price efficiency by providing more trading opportunities for all market participants.
The Exchange proposes to expand the Short Term Option Daily Expirations to permit the listing of two Monday expirations of options on GLD, SLV, and TLT (collectively “Exchange Traded Products” or “ETPs”),
Currently, as set forth in Rule 6.4-O, Commentary .07, after an option class has been approved for listing and trading on the Exchange, the Exchange may open for trading on any Thursday or Friday that is a business day (“Short Term Option Opening Date”) series of options on that class that expire at the close of business on each of the next five Fridays that are business days and are not Fridays on which standard expiration options series, Monthly Options Series, or Quarterly Options Series expire (“Friday Short Term Option Expiration Dates”). The Exchange may have no more than a total of five Short Term Option Expiration Dates. Further, if the Exchange is not open for business on the respective Thursday or Friday, the Short Term Option Opening Date for Short Term Option Weekly Expirations will be the first business day immediately prior to that respective Thursday or Friday. Similarly, if the Exchange is not open for business on a Friday, the Short Term Option Expiration Date for Short Term Option Weekly Expirations will be the first business day immediately prior to that Friday.
Additionally, the Exchange may open for trading series of options on the symbols provided in Table 1 of Commentary .07(g) to Rule 6.4-O (“Table 1”) that expire at the close of business on each of the next two Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, respectively, that are business days and are not business days in which monthly options series or Quarterly Options Series expire (“Short Term Option Daily Expirations”).
At this time, the Exchange proposes to expand the Short Term Option Daily Expirations to permit the listing and trading of options on GLD, SLV, and TLT expiring on Mondays. The Exchange proposes to permit two Short Term Option Expiration Dates beyond the current week for each Monday expiration at one time, and would update Table 1 for each of those symbols accordingly.
The proposed Monday GLD, SLV, and TLT expirations will be similar to the current Monday SPY, QQQ, and IWM Short Term Option Daily Expirations set forth in Rule 6.4-O, such that the Exchange may open for trading on any Friday or Monday that is a business day (beyond the current week) series of options on GLD, SLV, and TLT to expire on any Monday of the month that is a business day and is not a Monday on which standard expiration options series, Monthly Options Series, or Quarterly Options Series expire, provided that Monday expirations that are listed on a Friday must be listed at least one business week and one business day prior to the expiration (“Monday GLD Expirations,” “Monday SLV Expirations,” and “Monday TLT Expirations”) (collectively, “Monday ETP Expirations”).
The interval between strike prices for the proposed Monday ETP Expirations will be the same as those currently applicable in the STOS Program.
Pursuant to Commentary .07(g) to Rule 6.4-O, with respect to the STOS Program, if a Monday is not a business day, the series will expire on the first business day immediately following that Monday.
Currently, for each option class eligible for participation in the STOS Program, the Exchange is limited to opening thirty (30) series for each expiration date for the specific class.
With this proposal, Monday ETP Expirations would be treated similarly to existing Monday SPY, QQQ, and IWM Expirations. With respect to standard expiration options series, Short Term Option Daily Expirations will be
Further, as with Monday SPY, QQQ, and IWM Expirations, the Exchange would not permit Monday ETP Expirations to expire on a business day in which standard expiration options series, Monthly Options Series, or Quarterly Options Series expire.
The Exchange does not believe that any market disruptions will be encountered with the introduction of Monday ETP Expirations. The Exchange currently trades P.M.-settled Short Term Option Series that expire on Monday for SPY, QQQ, and IWM and has not experienced any market disruptions nor issues with capacity. In addition, the Exchange has not experienced any market disruptions or issues with capacity in expanding the five ETPs to the Wednesday expirations.
Because the Exchange proposes to limit the number of Monday Expirations for options on GLD, SLV, and TLT to two expirations beyond the current week, the Exchange believes that the addition of these Monday ETP Expirations should encourage Market-Makers to continue to deploy capital more efficiently and improve displayed market quality. Similar to SPY, QQQ and IWM Monday Expirations, the introduction of Monday ETP Expirations will, among other things, expand hedging tools available to market participants and allow for a reduced premium cost of buying portfolio protection. The Exchange believes that Monday ETP Expirations will allow market participants to hedge their portfolios with options on commodities (gold and silver) as well as treasury securities, and tailor their investment and hedging needs more effectively.
The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposal to expand $1 strike intervals for GLD to include where the strike price is greater than $200 is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act and will promote just and equitable principles of trade because it will allow investors to use GLD options more easily, regardless of the strike price.
The proposal will allow investors to better trade and hedge positions in GLD options where the strike price is greater than $200, thus ensuring that investors in both options are not at a disadvantage simply because of the strike price. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act, which provides that the Exchange be organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, like other strike price programs currently offered by the Exchange, will benefit investors by giving them increased flexibility to more closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions. By way of example, GLD is a leading product in its asset class and it trades within a “complex” where, in addition to the underlying security, there are multiple instruments available for hedging such as, COMEX Gold Futures; Gold Daily Futures; iShares GOLD Trust; SPDR GOLD Minishares Trust; Aberdeen Physical Gold Trust; and GraniteShares Gold Shares.
With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the Exchange believes it and OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with this proposed rule change. The Exchange believes that its TPHs will not have a capacity issue as a result of this proposal. Further, the Exchange does not believe the proposal does not unfairly discriminate among market participants, as all market participants will be treated in the same manner under this proposal.
Finally, the Exchange notes the proposed rule change is substantively identical to an approved Nasdaq ISE rule.
Similar to Monday expirations in SPY, QQQ, and IWM, the proposal to permit Monday ETP Expirations, subject to the proposed limitation of two expirations beyond the current week, would protect investors and the public interest by providing the investing public and other market participants
The Exchange represents that it has an adequate surveillance program in place to detect manipulative trading in the proposed option expirations, in the same way that it monitors trading in the current Short Term Option Series for Monday SPY, QQQ and IWM expirations. The Exchange also represents that it has the necessary system capacity to support the new expirations. Finally, the Exchange does not believe that any market disruptions will be encountered with the introduction of these option expirations. As discussed above, the Exchange believes that its proposal is a modest expansion of weekly expiration dates for GLD, SLV, and TLT given that it will be limited to two Monday expirations beyond the current week.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act as the proposal would overall add a small number of Monday ETP Expirations by limiting the addition of two Wednesday expirations beyond the current week. The addition of Monday ETP Expirations would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by encouraging Market Makers to continue to deploy capital more efficiently and improve market quality. The Exchange believes that the proposal will allow market participants to expand hedging tools and tailor their investment and hedging needs more effectively in GLD, SLV, and TLT as these funds are most likely to be utilized by market participants to hedge the underlying asset classes. The ETPs currently trade within “complexes” where, in addition to the underlying security, there are multiple instruments available for hedging. Given the multi-asset class nature of these products and available hedges in highly correlated instruments, the Exchange believes that its proposal to add Monday expirations on these products will provide market participants with additional useful hedging tools for the underlying asset classes.
Similar to Monday SPY, QQQ, and IWM expirations, the introduction of Monday ETP Expirations is consistent with the Act as it will, among other things, expand hedging tools available to market participants and allow for a reduced premium cost of buying portfolio protection. The Exchange believes that Monday ETP Expirations will allow market participants to purchase options on GLD, SLV, and TLT based on their timing as needed and allow them to tailor their investment and hedging needs more effectively, thus allowing them to better manage their risk exposure. Today, the Exchange lists Monday SPY, QQQ, and IWM Expirations.
There are no material differences in the treatment of Monday SPY, QQQ, and IWM expirations compared to the proposed Monday ETP Expirations. Given the similarities between Monday SPY, QQQ, and IWM expirations and the proposed Monday ETP Expirations, the Exchange believes that applying the provisions in Commentary .10(g) to Rule 6.4-O, that currently apply to Monday SPY, QQQ, and IWM expirations is justified. For example, the Exchange believes that allowing Monday ETP Expirations and monthly ETP expirations in the same week will benefit investors and minimize investor confusion by providing Monday ETP Expirations in a continuous and uniform manner.
Finally, the Exchange notes the proposed rule change is substantively identical to an approved Nasdaq ISE rule.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will result in additional investment options and opportunities to achieve the investment and trading objectives of market participants seeking efficient trading and hedging vehicles, to the benefit of investors, market participants, and the marketplace in general. Specifically, the Exchange believes that GLD options investors and traders will significantly benefit from the availability of finer strike price intervals above a $200 price point. In addition, the interval setting regime the Exchange proposes to apply to GLD options is currently applied to SPY, IVV, QQQ, IWM and DIA options, which are similarly popular and widely traded ETF products and track indexes at similarly high price levels. Thus, the proposed strike setting regime for GLD options will allow options on this actively traded ETF with index levels at corresponding price levels to trade pursuant to the same strike setting regime. This will permit investors to employ similar investment and hedging strategies for each of these options.
The Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on intermarket competition, as nothing prevents other options exchanges from proposing similar rules to make a finer strike price intervals above a $200 price point available for GLD options. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is not a novel proposal, as the Commission recently approved a substantively identical proposal of another exchange.
While the proposal will expand the Short Term Options Expirations to allow Monday ETP Expirations to be listed on the Exchange, the Exchange believes that this limited expansion for Monday expirations for options on GLD, SLV, and TLT will not impose an undue burden on competition; rather, it will meet customer demand. The Exchange believes that market participants will continue to be able to expand hedging tools and tailor their investment and hedging needs more effectively in GLD, SLV, and TLT.
Similar to Monday SPY, QQQ, and IWM expirations, the introduction of Monday ETP Expirations does not impose an undue burden on competition. The Exchange believes that it will, among other things, expand hedging tools available to market participants and allow for a reduced premium cost of buying portfolio protection. The Exchange believes that Monday ETP Expirations will allow market participants to purchase options on GLD, SLV, and TLT based on their timing as needed and allow them to
The Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on inter-market competition, as nothing prevents the other options exchanges from proposing similar rules to list and trade Monday ETP Expirations. As noted above, the Commission recently approved a substantively identical proposal of another exchange.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 27, 2024, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-FICC-2024-003 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Commission received comment letters on the Proposed Rule Change.
FICC proposes to add a new Minimum Margin Amount (“MMA”) calculation to the GSD margin methodology to ensure that FICC collects sufficient margin amounts from its members during sudden periods of extreme market volatility. Recently, FICC faced increased risk exposure to its members during two periods of extreme market volatility,
FICC proposes to add the MMA calculation to the Value-at-Risk charge (“VaR Charge”) component of the GSD margin methodology. Whereas the current VaR Charge is determined as the greater of two separate calculations, FICC proposes to add the MMA as a third calculation so that the VaR Charge would be the greater of three separate calculations. FICC specifically designed the MMA calculation to be more responsive to volatile market conditions than the two existing VaR Charge calculations. As described more fully below, the MMA calculation uses a filtered historical simulation (“FHS”) approach, which takes historical price data, removes the historical volatility estimates, and replaces them with volatility estimates that reflect current market conditions. The FHS approach also incorporates parameters that would give more weight to recent market events, such that when market volatility spikes, the MMA calculation would generate higher amounts and be more likely to exceed the other two VaR Charge calculations. Conversely, when market volatility subsides, the MMA calculation would generate lower amounts and be less likely to exceed the other two VaR Charge calculations.
FICC conducted a 2-year impact study to analyze, among other things, the actual daily member-level margin amounts and backtesting results in comparison to the margin amounts and backtesting results had the MMA calculation been in place. The impact study indicates that if FICC used the MMA calculation during the 2-year period of analysis, FICC's margin collections and backtesting coverage would have significantly improved and enabled FICC to meet its 99 percent backtesting performance targets.
FICC, through its Government Securities Division (“GSD”),
A member's Required Fund Deposit consists of a number of components,
FICC's first calculation uses a sensitivity-based VaR methodology to estimate the possible losses for a given portfolio based on: (1) confidence level, (2) a time horizon, and (3) historical market volatility. The sensitivity VaR methodology is intended to capture the market price risks that are associated with the securities positions in a member's margin portfolio,
FICC recognizes that the sensitivity VaR methodology might not generate margin amounts sufficient to cover its exposure to its members consistent with its regulatory obligations when applied to certain types of member portfolios.
FICC regularly assesses whether its margin methodologies generate margin levels commensurate with the particular risk attributes of each relevant product, portfolio, and market. For example, FICC employs daily backtesting
FICC believes that its current VaR model has performed well in low to moderate volatility markets,
Accordingly, in the Proposed Rule Change, FICC proposes changes to the VaR model that FICC believes would mitigate the risk of potential underperformance of the VaR model during periods of extreme market volatility.
In the Proposed Rule Change, FICC proposes to introduce a new minimum margin amount (
FICC would calculate the MMA for each portfolio using historical price returns to represent risk.
After constructing historical price returns, FICC would estimate a market volatility associated with each historical price return by applying an EWMA to the historical price returns. FICC would “devolatilize” the historical price returns (
FICC proposes to use the FHS method to improve the responsiveness of the VaR model to periods of extreme market volatility because historical returns are scaled to current market volatility.
The decay factor generally affects (1) whether and how the MMA would be invoked (
Specifically, FICC would use a haircut method for MBS pools that are not TBA securities eligible, floating rate notes, and U.S. Treasury/agency securities with remaining time to maturities of less than or equal to one year. FICC would also use a haircut method to account for the basis risk between an agency security and the mapped U.S. Treasury index to supplement the historical market price moves generated by the FHS method for agency securities to reflect any residual risks between agency securities and the mapped fixed income securities benchmarks (
The Impact Study indicates that if the proposed MMA had been in place, the VaR model backtesting coverage would have increased from approximately 98.86 percent to 99.46 percent during the period of the Impact Study and the number of VaR model backtesting deficiencies would have been reduced by 441 (from 843 to 402, or approximately 52 percent). The Impact Study also indicates that if the proposed MMA had been in place: (1) overall margin backtesting coverage would have increased from approximately 98.87 percent to 99.33 percent, (2) the number of overall margin backtesting deficiencies would have been reduced by 280 (from 685 to 405, or approximately 41 percent), and (3) the overall margin backtesting coverage for 94 members (approximately 72 percent of the GSD membership) would have improved, with 36 members who were below 99 percent coverage brought back to above 99 percent.
On average, at the member-level, the proposed MMA would have increased the SOD VaR Charge by approximately $22.43 million, or 17.56 percent, and the noon VaR Charge by approximately $23.25 million, or 17.43 percent, over the period of the Impact Study. The largest average percentage increase in SOD VaR Charge for any member would have been approximately 66.88 percent, or $97,051 (0.21percent of the member's average Net Capital),
As mentioned above in Section I.B., the Margin Proxy methodology is currently invoked as an alternative volatility calculation if the requisite vendor data used for the sensitivity VaR calculation is unavailable for an extended period of time.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
As described above in Section I.C., FICC proposes to introduce the MMA into its margin methodology to help ensure that FICC collects sufficient margin to manage its potential loss exposure during periods of extreme market volatility. Specifically, the extreme market volatilities during recent stressful market periods led to market price changes that exceeded the current VaR model's projections, generating margin amounts that were not sufficient to mitigate FICC's credit exposure to its members' portfolios at a 99 percent confidence level. FICC's proposed incorporation of the MMA calculation into the GSD margin methodology would result in margin levels that better reflect the risks and particular attributes of member portfolios during periods of extreme market volatility.
Implementing the MMA would enable FICC to collect additional margin when the market price volatility implied by the current sensitivity VaR calculation and VaR Floor calculation is lower than the market price volatility implied by the proposed MMA calculation. In its consideration of the proposed MMA, the Commission reviewed and analyzed the: (1) Proposed Rule Change, including the supporting exhibits that provided confidential information on the proposed MMA calculation, Impact Study (including detailed information regarding the impact of the proposed changes on the portfolios of each FICC member over various time periods),
Based on the Commission's review of the Impact Study, had the proposed
The proposed MMA methodology would be more likely to apply as the VaR Charge during periods of extreme market volatility because the MMA methodology is more responsive to spikes in market volatility than the sensitivity VaR calculation. As described above in Section I.C.1., the MMA calculation relies, in part, on the FHS method, which takes historical price data, removes the historical volatility estimates, and replaces them with volatility estimates that reflect current market conditions. Additionally, as described above in Section I.C.1., the decay factor used in the FHS method affects: (1) whether and how the MMA would apply to determine a member's VaR Charge; (2) the peak level of margin increase or the degree of procyclicality; and (3) how quickly the margin would fall back to pre-stress levels. A faster decay (
The Impact Study supports this analysis. If the proposed MMA calculation had been in place during the period of the Impact Study, the MMA would have applied primarily during the recent extreme market volatility events (
Additionally, FICC proposes to clarify that if the Margin Proxy, when invoked, is lower than the VaR Floor, then the VaR Floor would be utilized as the VaR Charge with respect to a member's portfolio. Although Margin Proxy was not invoked during the period of the Impact Study, had the proposed changes been in place during that period, the VaR model backtesting coverage would have increased from approximately 98.17 percent to 99.38 percent and the VaR model backtesting deficiencies would have been reduced by 899 (from 1,358 to 459). The Commission agrees that ensuring the VaR Floor operates as a floor for the Margin Proxy would be more effective at mitigating risks under extreme market volatility because as proposed, the VaR Floor would include the MMA calculation.
By helping to ensure that FICC collects margin amounts sufficient to manage the risk associated with its members' portfolios during periods of extreme market volatility, the proposed MMA changes and Margin Proxy clarifications would help limit FICC's exposure in a member default scenario. These proposed changes would generally provide FICC with additional resources to manage potential losses arising out of a member default. Such an increase in FICC's available financial resources would decrease the likelihood that losses arising out of a member default would exceed FICC's prefunded resources resulting in a disruption of FICC's operation of its critical clearance and settlement services. Accordingly, the MMA should help FICC to continue providing prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions in the event of a member default, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
In addition, as described above in Section I.B., FICC would access the mutualized Clearing Fund should a defaulted member's own margin be insufficient to satisfy losses to FICC caused by the liquidation of that member's portfolio. The MMA should help ensure that FICC has collected sufficient margin from members, thereby limiting non-defaulting members' exposure to mutualized losses. By helping to limit the exposure of FICC's non-defaulting members to mutualized losses, the MMA should help FICC assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in its custody or control, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
The Proposed Rule Change should also help protect investors and the public interest by mitigating some of the risks presented by FICC as a CCP. Because a defaulting member could place stresses on FICC with respect to FICC's ability to meet its clearance and settlement obligations upon which the broader financial system relies, it is important for FICC to maintain a robust margin methodology to limit FICC's credit risk exposure in the event of a member default. As described above in Section I.C.1., the proposed MMA likely would function as the VaR Charge during periods of extreme market volatility. When applicable, the MMA would increase FICC's margin collection during such periods of extreme market volatility. Therefore, implementing the MMA should help improve FICC's ability to collect sufficient margin amounts that are commensurate with the risks associated with its members' portfolios during periods of extreme market volatility. By better enabling FICC to collect margin that more accurately reflects the risk characteristics of its members' portfolios during volatile markets, FICC would be in a better position to absorb and contain the spread of any losses that might arise from a member default. Therefore, the MMA should reduce the possibility that FICC would need to utilize resources from non-defaulting members due to a member default, which could cause liquidity stress to non-defaulting members and inhibit their ability to facilitate securities transactions. Accordingly, because the MMA should help mitigate some of the risks presented by FICC as a CCP, the Proposed Rule Change is designed to protect investors and the public interest,
One commenter states that implementation of the MMA would increase costs for market participants, leading to negative effects on the broader U.S. Treasury markets.
As stated above in Section I.B., during the period of the Impact Study, the actual GSD VaR model backtesting coverage and overall margin backtesting coverage both fell below the 99 percent confidence level. These shortfalls are specifically attributable to the periods of extreme market volatility of March 2020 and commencing in March 2022. The Impact Study demonstrates that had the proposed MMA calculation been in place during that period, margin amounts would have exceeded the 99 percent backtesting coverage levels. Thus, implementing the MMA calculation would have better enabled FICC to calculate and collect margin amounts sufficient to mitigate the risks presented by its members' portfolios during periods of extreme market volatility.
The Commission acknowledges that implementing the proposed MMA would increase margin requirements during periods of extreme market volatility. However, as detailed above in Section I.C.1., the Impact Study demonstrates that the increased margin requirements attributable to the MMA at the member-level would represent relatively small percentages (
The Commission also acknowledges the possibility that, as a result of the Proposed Rule Change, some members might pass along some of the costs related to margin requirements such that these costs ultimately are borne, to some degree, by their customers. However, a non-defaulting member's exposure to mutualized losses resulting from a member default, and any consequent disruptions to clearance and settlement absent the Proposed Rule Change, might also increase costs to a member's customers and potentially adversely impact market participation, liquidity, and access to capital. The Proposed Rule Change, by helping to reduce counterparty default risk, would allow the corresponding portion of transaction costs to be allocated to more productive uses by members and their customers who otherwise would bear those costs.
One commenter states that the proposed MMA would negatively affect markets by having a detrimental effect on certain trading strategies that rely on margin offsets across maturity buckets.
Another commenter states that FICC's Proposed Rule Change did not adequately address the procyclicality risk
The Commission disagrees with the comment that FICC's proposed MMA calculation does not adequately address procyclicality risk. The decay factor affects, among other things, the speed of the MMA calculation's responsiveness to spikes in extreme market volatility, as well as the speed with which the MMA calculation would generate lower numbers after such volatility subsides. FICC chose to initially set the decay factor at 0.97—a relatively fast decay factor—to respond to market volatility relatively quickly.
Accordingly, the potential impacts of the Proposed Rule Change are justified by the potential benefits to members and the resulting overall improved risk management at FICC described above (
For the reasons discussed above, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act requires that the rules of a clearing agency, such as FICC, do not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act.
One commenter states that the MMA's increased margin requirements would be disproportionately burdensome when compared to the MMA's benefits.
The Commission acknowledges that the Proposed Rule Change would entail increased margin charges in certain circumstances. However, increased margin requirements do not present an undue burden on competition if they are necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act. As stated above, the Commission has reviewed FICC's backtesting data, and the Commission agrees that it indicates that had the MMA been in place during the Impact Study period, it would have generated margin levels that better reflect the risks and particular attributes of the member portfolios and help FICC achieve backtesting coverage above FICC's targeted confidence level. In turn, the Proposed Rule Change would improve FICC's ability to maintain sufficient financial resources to cover its credit exposures to each member in full with a high degree of confidence. Specifically, as described above, the MMA would better enable FICC to calculate the VaR Charge based on the risks presented by the securities positions in each member's portfolio during periods of extreme market volatility. To the extent a member's VaR Charge would increase under the Proposed Rule Change, that increase would be based on the securities held by the member and FICC's requirement to collect margin to appropriately address the associated risk. By helping FICC to better manage its credit exposure, the MMA's increased margin requirements would improve FICC's ability to mitigate the potential losses to FICC and its members associated with liquidating a member's portfolio in the event of a member default.
One commenter states that the MMA's increased margin requirements would unfairly burden smaller FICC members. The commenter further suggests that the MMA should be applied to either the largest FICC members only, or to FICC members in proportion to the risk posed by different segments of the market.
In response, FICC refers to its analysis in the Notice regarding whether the Proposed Rule Change would impose a burden on competition.
Furthermore, FICC states that the methodology for computing the MMA does not take into consideration the member's size or overall mix of business relative to other members.
As stated above, the Commission acknowledges that the Proposed Rule Change would entail increased margin charges in certain circumstances. In considering the costs and benefits of the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6), the Commission expressly acknowledged that “since risk-based initial margin requirements may cause market participants to internalize some of the costs borne by the CCP as a result of large or risky positions, ensuring that margin models are well-specified and correctly calibrated with respect to economic conditions will help ensure that they continue to align the incentives of clearing members with the goal of financial stability.”
In addition, as discussed above, the Commission acknowledges that the impact of a higher margin requirement may present higher costs on some members relative to others due to a number of factors, such as access to liquidity resources, cost of capital, business model, and applicable regulatory requirements. These higher relative burdens may weaken certain members' competitive positions relative to other members.
Additionally, as discussed above, the Commission has reviewed FICC's backtesting data and agrees that it indicates that had the MMA been in place during the Impact Study period, it would have generated margin levels that better reflect the risks and particular attributes of the member portfolios and help FICC achieve backtesting coverage closer to FICC's targeted confidence level. In turn, the Proposed Rule Change would improve FICC's ability to maintain sufficient financial resources to cover its credit exposures to each member in full with a high degree of confidence. By helping FICC to better manage its credit exposure, the Proposed Rule Change would improve FICC's ability to (1) mitigate the potential losses to FICC and its members associated with liquidating a member's portfolio in the event of a member default, in furtherance of FICC's obligations under Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,
Commenters also expressed concerns about the cumulative burdens of the Proposed Rule Change in conjunction with recent changes to the GSD Rules regarding margin requirements, including an announced special charge that FICC collects in connection with certain volatile market events (“VME Special Charge”).
In response, FICC states that each of the GSD margin components is specifically designed to mitigate a different risk and limit FICC's exposures.
FICC also describes a number of other recent changes to the GSD margin model, although commenters did not specify any other recent changes to the GSD Rules beyond the VME Special Charge. Specifically, FICC states that in July 2023, FICC revised the stressed period used to calculate the VaR Charge in order to provide better risk coverage on the short-end of the curve.
As stated above in Section I.A., each member's Required Fund Deposit consists of a number of components, which are calculated to address specific risks faced by FICC.
The Portfolio Differential Charge is designed to mitigate the risks attributable to intraday margin fluctuations in certain member portfolios as those members execute trades throughout the day.
Additionally, not all margin components are cumulative to one another. For example, in addition to the Portfolio Differential Charge discussed above, one of the margin components recently changed relates to FICC's Stressed Period Order,
One commenter states that the Commission's approval of the Proposed Rule Change should be delayed until after conducting further analysis, including analyses that incorporate expected increases in cleared volumes and the totality of changes to margin requirements associated with FICC's upcoming implementation of its requirement to facilitate access to clearance and settlement services of all eligible secondary market transactions in U.S. Treasury securities.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Act requires that FICC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures to participants and those arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement processes, including by maintaining sufficient financial resources to cover its credit exposure to each participant fully with a high degree of confidence.
The Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Exchange Act.
Additionally, FICC proposes to clarify that if the Margin Proxy, when invoked, is lower than the VaR Floor, then the VaR Floor would be utilized as the VaR Charge with respect to a member's portfolio. Although Margin Proxy was not invoked during the period of the Impact Study, had the proposed changes been in place during that period, the VaR model backtesting coverage would have been increased to exceed the 99 percent backtesting coverage level. Therefore, the proposed clarifications regarding the applicability of the VaR Floor when Margin Proxy is invoked would help ensure FICC's ability to manage its credit exposures to members by maintaining sufficient financial resources to cover such exposures fully with a high degree of confidence.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, the proposed MMA changes and Margin Proxy clarifications are reasonably designed to enable FICC to effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposure to participants, consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(4)(i).
Rules 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) requires that FICC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a minimum, considers, and produces margin levels commensurate with, the risks and particular attributes of each relevant product, portfolio, and market, and calculates margin sufficient to cover its potential future exposure to participants.
The Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(6)(i). As described above in Section I.C., the Impact Study demonstrates that the current VaR model generated margin deficiencies during periods of extreme market volatility, whereas implementing the proposed MMA changes and Margin Proxy clarifications would result in VaR Charges that reflect the risks of member portfolios during such periods better than the current GSD VaR model. Moreover, FICC's inclusion of the decay factor in the MMA calculation appropriately limits invoking the MMA as the VaR Charge to periods of extreme market volatility. The decay factor affects, among other things, the peak level of margin increase or the degree of procyclicality and how quickly the margin would fall back to pre-stress levels. FICC chose to initially set the decay factor at 0.97—a relatively fast decay factor—to be quickly responsive to market volatility.
Several commenters addressed FICC's Impact Study. Specifically, one commenter states that the Impact Study is too limited, providing backtesting data with extremely uneven daily impacts, thereby rendering it impossible to properly assess the MMA's impacts.
In response to these comments, FICC states that due to confidentiality restrictions on releasing member-level data, the public-facing Proposed Rule Change filing narrative analyzed the Impact Study using anonymized data and averages of maximum dollar and percentage changes.
In considering the comments critical of the Impact Study and FICC's analyses thereof, the Commission considered the Proposed Rule Change (including the Impact Study
The purpose of the Impact Study and FICC's analyses thereof in the publicly available Proposed Rule Change filing materials is to highlight comparisons of the GSD VaR model's performance with and without incorporating the MMA and to highlight the Proposed Rule Change's general impacts on members using anonymized data and averages of maximum dollar and percentage changes. FICC did not state that its public discussion of the Impact Study was the sole source of data for the Commission and the public to utilize in evaluating the Proposed Rule Change. Rather, FICC provided additional detailed member-level data confidentially, both to members and the Commission, to more fully evaluate the impacts of the Proposed Rule Change.
Regarding the comments that FICC's analysis of the Impact Study data presented an inaccurate picture of the MMA's impacts,
One commenter also states that FICC should expand the Impact Study to cover the March 2020 period of stress in light of FICC's statements that the Proposed Rule Change was driven, in part, by the VaR model's underperformance during that
Accordingly, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(6)(i) because the new MMA margin calculation and Margin Proxy clarifications should better enable FICC to establish a risk-based margin system that considers and produces relevant margin levels commensurate with the risks associated with liquidating participant portfolios in a default scenario during periods of extreme market volatility.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii) requires that FICC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide sufficient information to enable participants to identify and evaluate the risks, fees, and other material costs they incur by participating in FICC.
One commenter states that the Proposed Rule Change lacks transparency, quick implementation, and tools and resources to support market preparedness to identify risks and costs associated with how FICC calculates margin amounts.
In response, FICC states that it provides tools and resources to enable members to determine their margin requirements and the impact of FICC's proposals.
The extensive tools and resources that FICC makes available to members should enable members to obtain individualized information to determine their Clearing Fund requirements, margin component details, and assess the impact of FICC's proposals. Additionally, FICC's multiple member outreach efforts (before and after development of the Proposed Rule Change) provided members with relevant individualized impact analyses with which to evaluate the Proposed Rule Change. Accordingly, FICC has provided tools and resources sufficient for its members to evaluate their daily VaR and other margin-related calculations, rendering a phased implementation of the proposed MMA unwarranted.
Based on the foregoing, FICC has provided sufficient information, tools, and resources to enable members to identify and evaluate the relevant risks and costs associated with the Proposed Rule Change, consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(23)(ii).
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
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 proposes to amend Phlx's Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 6D, Options Regulatory Fee.
While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the Exchange
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.
Phlx proposes to amend its current ORF in several respects. In summary, first, Phlx proposes to reduce its ORF from $0.0034 to $0.0022 per contract side from November 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. Second, as of January 1, 2025, Phlx proposes to amend its methodology of collection to: (1) specify that it is including options transactions in Phlx proprietary products; and (2) assess ORF in all clearing ranges except market makers who clear as “M” at The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”). Additionally, Phlx will assess a different rate for trades executed on Phlx (“Local ORF Rate”) and trades executed on non-Phlx exchanges (“Away ORF Rate”). Each change will be described below in greater detail.
Today, Phlx assesses its ORF for each Customer
Today, in the case where a member organization both executes a transaction and clears the transaction, the ORF will be assessed to and collected from that member organization. Today, in the case where a member organization executes a transaction and a different member organization clears the transaction, the ORF will be assessed to and collected from the member organization who clears the transaction and not the member organization who executes the transaction. Today, in the case where a non-member organization executes a transaction at an away market and a member organization clears the transaction, the ORF will be assessed to and collected from the member organization who clears the transaction. Today, in the case where a member organization executes a transaction on Phlx and a non-member organization clears the transaction, the ORF will be assessed to the member organization that executed the transaction on Phlx and collected from the non-member organization who cleared the transaction. Today, in the case where a member organization executes a transaction at an away market and a non-member organization ultimately clears the transaction, the ORF will not be assessed to the member organization who executed the transaction or collected from the non-member organization who cleared the transaction because the Exchange does not have access to the data to make absolutely certain that ORF should apply. Further, the data does not allow the Exchange to identify the member organization executing the trade at an away market.
Today, the Exchange monitors the amount of revenue collected from the ORF (“ORF Regulatory Revenue”) to ensure that it, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed Options Regulatory Costs.
ORF Regulatory Revenue, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, is designed to recover a material portion of the Options Regulatory Costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of member Customer options business including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. Options Regulatory Costs include direct regulatory expenses and certain indirect expenses in support of the regulatory function. The direct expenses include in-house and third-party service provider costs to support the day-to-day regulatory work such as surveillances, investigations and examinations. The indirect expenses are only those
The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the Options Regulatory Costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of its member organizations, including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities.
Based on Phlx's most recent review of its ORF Regulatory Revenues as compared to its ORF Regulatory Costs in light of recent fines, Phlx proposes to reduce the amount of ORF that will be collected by the Exchange from $0.0034 to $0.0022 per contract side from November 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. The Exchange issued an Options Trader Alert on September 16, 2024, that specified the proposed rate change for November 1, 2024.
Phlx notes that there can be no assurance that the Options Regulatory Costs for the remainder of 2024 will not differ materially from these expectations and prior practice, nor can the Exchange predict with certainty whether options volume will remain at the current level going forward. The Exchange notes however, that when combined with regulatory fees and fines, the Options Regulatory Revenue that may be generated utilizing an ORF rate of $0.0034 per contract side may result in Options Regulatory Revenue which exceeds the Exchange's estimated Options Regulatory Costs for 2024 as a result of fines. The Exchange therefore proposes to reduce its ORF to $0.0022 per contract side to ensure that Options Regulatory Revenue does not exceed the Exchange's estimated Options Regulatory Costs in 2024. Particularly, the Exchange believes that reducing the ORF when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, would allow the Exchange to continue covering a material portion of its Options Regulatory Costs, while lessening the potential for generating excess revenue that may otherwise occur using the rate of $0.0034 per contract side.
The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of Options Regulatory Revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that Options Regulatory Revenue, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed Options Regulatory Costs. If the Exchange determines Options Regulatory Revenue exceed Options Regulatory Costs, the Exchange will adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission and notifying
Phlx has been reviewing it methodologies for the assessment and collection of ORF. As a result of this review, Phlx proposes to revamp the current process of assessing and collecting ORF in various ways.
Effective January 1, 2025, Phlx proposes to assess ORF to each Phlx member organization for multi-listed options transactions and options transactions in Phlx proprietary products,
The ORF would be collected by OCC on behalf of Phlx from (1) Phlx clearing members for all Customer, Professional, Firm and Broker-Dealer transactions they clear or (2) non-members for all Customer, Professional, Firm and Broker-Dealer transactions they clear that were executed on Phlx. This model collects ORF where there is a nexus with Phlx and does not collect ORF from a non-member organization where the transaction takes place away from the Exchange.
Further, effective January 1, 2025, the Exchange proposes to establish a different ORF for trades executed on Phlx (“Local ORF Rate”) and trades executed on non-Phlx exchanges (“Away ORF Rate”) by market participants. For Customer, Professional, and broker-dealer (not affiliated with a clearing member) transactions that clear in the “C” range at OCC (collectively “Customers”) the Exchange proposes to assess a Local ORF Rate of $0.0187 per contract and an Away ORF Rate of $0.00 per contract. For Firm and Broker-Dealer transactions that clear in the “F” range at OCC (collectively “Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions”) the Exchange proposes to assess a Local ORF Rate of $0.000107 per contract and an Away ORF Rate of $0.000107 per contract. The combined amount of Local ORF and Away ORF collected may not exceed 88% of Options Regulatory Cost. Phlx will ensure that ORF Regulatory Revenue does not exceed Options Regulatory Cost. As is the case today, the Exchange will notify member organizations via an Options Trader Alert of these changes at
The Exchange utilized historical and current data from its affiliated options exchanges to create a new regression model that would tie expenses attributable to regulation to a respective source.
The results of this modelling indicated a high correlation and intercept for the baseline cost of regulating the options market as a whole. Specifically, the regression model indicated that (1) the marginal cost of regulation is easily measurable, and significantly attributable to Customer activity; and (2) the fixed cost of setting up a regulatory regime should arguably be dispersed across the industry so that all options exchanges have substantially similar revenue streams to satisfy the “intercept” element of cost. When seeking to offset the “set-up” cost of regulation, the Exchange attempted several levels of attribution. The most successful attribution was related to industry wide Firm and Broker-Dealer Transaction volume. Of note, through analysis of the results of this regression model, there was no positive correlation that could be established between Customer away volume and regulatory expense. This led the Exchange to utilize a model with a two-factor regression on a quarterly basis for the last four quarters of volumes relative to the pool of expense data for the six Nasdaq affiliated options exchanges. Once again, standard spreadsheet functionality (including the Data Analysis Packet) was used to determine the mathematics for this model. The results of this two-factor model, which resulted in the attribution of Customer Local ORF and Firm and Broker-Dealer Transaction Local and Away ORF, typically increased the R-Squared (goodness of fit) to >97% across multiple historical periods.
Utilizing the new regression model, and assumptions in the proposal, the model demonstrates that Customer volumes are directly attributable to marginal cost, and also shows that Firm and Broker-Dealer Transaction volumes industry-wide are a valid method (given the goodness of fit) to offset the fixed cost of regulation. Applying the regression coefficient values historically, the Exchange established a “normalization” by per options exchange. This “normalization” encompassed idiosyncratic exchange expense-volume relationships which served to tighten the attributions further while not deviating by more than 30% from the mean for any single options exchange in the model. The primary driver of this need for “normalization” are negotiated regulatory contracts that were negotiated at different points in time, yielding some differences in per contract regulatory costs by exchange. Normalization is therefore the average of a given exchange's historical (prior 4 quarters) ratio of regulatory expense to revenue when using the regressed values (for Customer Local ORF and Firm and Broker-Dealer Transaction Local and Away ORF) that yields an effective rate by exchange. The “normalization” was then multiplied to a “targeted collection rate” of approximately 88% to arrive at ORF rates for Customer, Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions. Of note, when comparing the ORF rates generated from this method, historically, there appears to be a very tight relationship between the estimated modeled collection and actual expense and the regulatory expenses for that same period. In
One other important aspect of this modeling is the input of Options Regulatory Costs. The Exchange notes that in defining Options Regulatory Costs it accounts for the nexus between the expense and options regulation. By way of example, the Exchange excludes certain indirect expenses such as payroll expenses, accounts receivable, accounts payable, marketing, executive level expenses and corporate systems.
The Exchange would continue to monitor the amount of Options Regulatory Revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed Options Regulatory Costs. In determining whether an expense is considered an Options Regulatory Cost, the Exchange would continue to review all costs and makes determinations if there is a nexus between the expense and a regulatory function. The Exchange notes that fines collected by the Exchange in connection with a disciplinary matter will continue to offset Options Regulatory Cost. Members will continue to be provided with 30 calendar day notice of any change to ORF.
As is the case today, ORF Regulatory Revenue, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, is designed to recover a material portion of the Options Regulatory Costs to the Exchange for the supervision and regulation of member organizations' transactions, including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. As discussed above, Options Regulatory Costs include direct regulatory expenses
Finally, the Exchange notes that this proposal will be sunset on July 1, 2025, at which point the Exchange would revert back to the ORF methodology and rate ($0.0034 per contract side) that was in effect prior to this rule change.
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 proposed reduction of ORF is reasonable because it would help ensure that ORF Regulatory Revenue does not exceed a material portion of the Exchange's ORF Regulatory Costs. As noted above, the ORF is designed to recover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's ORF Regulatory Costs. Further, the Exchange believes the proposed fee change is reasonable because Customer transactions will be subject to a lower ORF than the rate that would otherwise be in effect on November 1, 2024.
The Exchange had designed the ORF to generate ORF Regulatory Revenue that would be less than the amount of the Exchange's ORF Regulatory Costs to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed ORF Regulatory Costs, which is consistent with the view of the Commission that regulatory fees be used for regulatory purposes and not to support the Exchange's business operations. As discussed above, however, after review of its ORF Regulatory Costs and ORF Regulatory Revenue which includes revenues from ORF and other regulatory fees and fines, the Exchange determined that absent a reduction in ORF, it may collect ORF Regulatory Revenue which would exceed its ORF Regulatory Costs. Indeed, the Exchange notes that when taking into account the potential that recent options volume persists, it estimates the ORF may generate ORF Regulatory Revenue that would cover more than the approximated Exchange's projected ORF Regulatory Costs due to fines. As such, the Exchange believes it's reasonable and appropriate to reduce the ORF amount from $0.0034 to $0.0022 per contract side.
The Exchange also believes the proposed fee change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in that it is charged to all member organizations on all their transactions that clear in the Customer range at OCC.
The Exchange believes the proposed ORF to be assessed on January 1, 2025, is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for various reasons. First, as of January 1, 2025, the Exchange would expand the collection of ORF to all clearing ranges, except Market Makers, provided the transaction was executed by an Phlx member organization or cleared by an Phlx member organization. With this amendment, Phlx would begin to assess Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions an ORF, provided the transactions were executed by a Phlx member organization or cleared by a Phlx member organization. Additionally, the Exchange would assess an ORF for options transactions in Phlx proprietary products. Second, as of January 1, 2025, the Exchange would assess different rates to Customer transactions for the Local ORF Rate and Away ORF Rate as compared to Firms and Broker-Dealer Transactions. Third, as of January 1, 2025, the combined amount of Local ORF and Away ORF collected would not exceed 88% of Options Regulatory Cost as all member organizations, except Market Makers, would be assessed ORF.
The Exchange believes that assessing all member organizations, except Market Makers, an ORF is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. While the Exchange acknowledges that there is a cost to regulate Market Makers, unlike other market participants, Market Makers have various regulatory requirements with respect to quoting as provided for in Options 2, Section 4. Specifically, Market Makers have certain quoting requirements with respect to their assigned options series as provided in Options 2, Section 5. Lead Market Makers are obligated to quote in the Opening Process and intra-day.
The Exchange believes including options transactions in Phlx proprietary products is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Phlx lists various proprietary products for which the Exchange incurs Options Regulatory Costs. The Exchange believes that only exchanges that list proprietary products should be able to collect a Local ORF on their products. Phlx notes that there are a small number of Phlx proprietary products transacted as compared to multi-list options. Also, Phlx would only collect an ORF for proprietary products transacted on its market. As such, the Exchange believes that only a Local ORF should be applied to a Phlx proprietary product.
The Exchange believes that assessing different rates to Customer transactions for the Local ORF Rate and Away ORF Rate as compared to Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions and collecting no more than 88% of Options Regulatory Cost is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Customer transactions account for a material portion of Phlx's Options Regulatory Cost.
In contrast, the Options Regulatory Cost of regulating Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions is materially less than the Options Regulatory Costs of regulating Customer transactions, as explained above. The below chart derived from OCC data reflects the percentage of transactions by market participant.
With this model, the addition of Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions to the collection of ORF does not entail significant volume when compared to Customer transactions. As these market participants are more sophisticated, the Exchange notes that there are not the same protections in place for Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions as compared to Customer transactions. Therefore, with the proposed model, the regulation of Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions is less resource intensive than the regulation of Customer transactions. However, the Exchange notes that it appears from the new regression model and assumptions in the proposal, that unlike Customer transactions, the regulation of Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions occurs both on the Exchange and across options markets. To that end, the Exchange proposes to assess Firm Range Transactions both a Local ORF and an Away ORF in contrast to Customer transactions that would only be assessed a Local ORF. The Exchange believes that not assessing Market Maker transactions an ORF permits these market participants to utilize their resources to quote tighter in the market. Tighter quotes benefits Customers as well as other market participants who interact with that liquidity.
The Exchange's proposal to establish both a Local ORF Rate and an Away ORF Rate and allocate the portion of Options Regulatory Cost differently between the two separate rates, by market participant, ensures that the Local ORF Rate and Away ORF Rate reflect the amount of Options Regulatory Costs associated with different types of surveillances and are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange is responsible for regulating activity on its market as well as activity that may occur across options markets. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess only Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions an Away ORF. With this model, while the regulation of Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions is less resource intensive than the regulation of Customer transactions, it occurs both on the Exchange and across options markets.
Capping the combined amount of Local ORF and Away ORF collected at 88% of Options Regulatory Cost commencing January 1, 2025, is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as given these factors. The Exchange will review the ORF Regulatory Revenue at the end of January 2025 and would amend the ORF if it finds that its ORF Regulatory Revenue exceeds its projections.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intra-market competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The proposed changes to ORF do not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition because ORF is a regulatory fee that supports regulation in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes, however, the proposed change is not designed to address any competitive issues. The Exchange is obligated to ensure that the amount of ORF Regulatory Revenue, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed ORF Regulatory Cost.
The Exchange's proposal to reduce its ORF from $0.0034 to $0.0022 per contract side from November 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024, does not create an unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intra-market competition because the ORF applies to all Customer activity, thereby raising regulatory revenue to offset regulatory expenses. It also supplements the regulatory revenue derived from non-customer activity.
Excluding Market Makers does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because, unlike other market participants, Market Makers have various regulatory requirements with respect to quoting as provided for in Options 2, Section 4. Specifically, Market Makers have certain quoting requirements with respect to their assigned options series as provided in Options 2, Section 5. Lead Market Makers are obligated to quote in the Opening Process and intra-day.
Uniformly including options transactions in Phlx proprietary products in ORF for all Phlx member organizations does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition. The Exchange believes that only exchanges that list proprietary products should be able to collect a Local ORF on their products. Phlx notes that there are a small number of Phlx proprietary products transacted as compared to multi-list options. Also, Phlx would only collect an ORF for proprietary products transacted on its market.
The Exchange's proposal to expand the clearing ranges to specifically include Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions, in addition to Customer and Professional transactions, as of January 1, 2025, does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition as Customer transactions account for a material portion of Phlx's
The Exchange believes that assessing Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions a different ORF and assessing both a Local ORF and an Away ORF to these transactions does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the regulation of Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions is less resource intensive than the regulation of Customer transactions. With this model, the addition of Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions to the collection of ORF does not entail significant volume when compared to Customer transactions. Unlike Customer transactions, the regulation of Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions occurs both on the Exchange and across options markets. To that end, the Exchange proposes to assess Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions both a Local ORF and an Away ORF.
The Exchange's proposal to allocate the portion of costs differently between the Local ORF and Away ORF does not create an undue burden on intra-market competition. The Exchange believes that each rate reflects the amount of Options Regulatory Costs associated with different types of surveillances and does not create an undue burden on competition as Phlx member organizations, excluding except Market Makers, would be uniformly assessed either a Local ORF Rate or an Away ORF Rate depending on where the transaction occurred and whether the transaction was executed or cleared by an Phlx member organization. Also, the Exchange would uniformly assess the Local ORF Rate and an Away ORF Rate by market participant. The Exchange is responsible for regulating activity on its market as well as activity that may occur across options markets.
The Exchange believes that assessing only Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions an Away ORF does not create an undue burden on intra-market competition because while the regulation of Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions is less resource intensive than the regulation of Customer transactions, the regulation of Firm and Broker-Dealer transactions occurs both on the Exchange and across options markets.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 13606 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes (“Industry Code”) to provide that the Director (“Director”) of FINRA Dispute Resolution Services (“DRS”) will provide a copy of the official record of an expungement hearing held pursuant to Rule 13805, and any transcription if the recording is transcribed, to any customers, upon request, who attend and participate in the expungement hearing, or who provide their position on the expungement request in writing. The proposed rule change would also amend Rule 12606 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (“Customer Code” and together with the Industry Code, “Codes”) and Rule 13606 to remove references to “tape” as a form of media that is used to record arbitration proceedings in the DRS arbitration forum.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's website at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Rule 13606 provides that the Director of DRS will make a tape, digital, or other recording of every hearing
Rule 13606 also provides that any party may make a stenographic record of a hearing.
Effective October 16, 2023, FINRA amended the Codes to modify the process relating to the expungement of customer dispute information.
If a customer chooses to attend and participate in the expungement hearing, the customer or the customer's representative must be allowed to: (1) introduce evidence; (2) testify and call witnesses to testify; (3) state objections to evidence and cross-examine the party requesting expungement and any other witnesses called by the party requesting expungement; and (4) present opening and closing arguments if any party is permitted to do so.
If a customer attends and participates in an expungement hearing, or provides their position on the expungement request in writing, FINRA believes that the customer should also be able to obtain a copy of the official record of the hearing, and any transcription if the recording is transcribed. Allowing customers to obtain a copy of the official record or any transcription could provide such customers with greater assurance that the panel has considered all issues raised and enhance their understanding of the panel's decision, which may increase confidence in the expungement process.
Accordingly, FINRA is proposing to add new paragraph (c) to Rule 13606 to provide that the Director will provide a copy of the official record of an expungement hearing held pursuant to Rule 13805, and any transcription if the recording is transcribed, to any customers, upon request, who attend and participate in the expungement hearing, or who provide their position on the expungement request in writing.
FINRA is also proposing amendments to Rules 12606 and 13606 of the Codes to remove references to “tape.”
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. The implementation date will be 30 days after the date of filing.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change will protect investors and the public interest because it will allow customers who determine to attend and participate in expungement hearings, or provide their position in writing, under Rule 13805, to obtain a copy of the official record of the hearing, and any transcription if the recording is transcribed, upon request. Although a non-party to the straight-in request, a customer may determine to attend and participate in the expungement hearing or submit their position on the expungement request in writing pursuant to Rule 13805(c)(3)(A). Thus, customers who attend and participate in the hearing, like the parties to the proceeding, have an interest in the proceeding and should be able to obtain a copy of the official record of the
In addition, the proposed rule change will protect investors and the public interest by updating the Codes to more accurately reflect DRS' current practice of making digital or other recordings to record hearings in the DRS arbitration forum.
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change would allow customers who attend and participate in expungement hearings, or provide their position in writing, under Rule 13805, to obtain a copy of the official record of the hearing that is required to be made under Rule 13606. The proposed rule change provides to non-party customers the potential benefits of having a copy of the official record that are currently available to parties to the dispute. These benefits may include greater assurance that arbitrators have considered all issues raised and enhance their understanding of the decision, which may increase confidence in the expungement process. FINRA does not anticipate an impact on its member firms or their associated persons.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2024-018 and should be submitted on or before December 5, 2024.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On July 23, 2024, NYSE American LLC (“NYSE American” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
On September 24, 2024, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,
As described more fully in the Notice,
The Exchange states that Ether ETPs will trade in the same manner as options on other ETFs and will be subject to the same rules as options on other ETFs, including, for example, rules that govern listing criteria, expirations, exercise prices, minimum increments, position and exercise limits, margin requirements, customer accounts and trading halt procedures.
The Exchange states that options on Ether ETPs listed pursuant to proposed Exchange Rule 915, Commentary .10 would be physically settled contracts with American-style exercise and would be subject to Exchange rules and procedures that currently govern the trading of securities on the Exchange, including Exchange rules governing the trading of equity options.
The Exchange states that position and exercise limits for options on the proposed Ether ETP options will be determined pursuant to Exchange Rules 904 and 905, respectively.
The Exchange states that options on Ether ETPs would not be available for trading until The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) represents to the Exchange that it is fully able to clear and settle such options.
The Exchange states that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system. The Exchange believes that the proposal to list and trade options on Ether ETPs will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors because offering options on Ether ETPs will provide investors with a greater opportunity to realize the benefits of utilizing options on an ETF based on spot ether, including cost efficiencies and increased hedging strategies.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the “burden to demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the self-regulatory organization that proposed the rule change.”
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, 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 proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved by December 5, 2024. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by December 19, 2024.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGA”) proposes to amend its Fee Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to introduce the New Member Program (the “Program”), which offers discounted membership fees and logical port fees for up to 12 months, effective beginning November 1, 2024.
The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues that do not have similar self-regulatory responsibilities under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), to which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information, no single registered equities exchange has more than 16% of the market share.
The purpose of this filing is to broadly encourage new market participants that are not currently members of the Exchange to become members by discounting certain fixed costs associated with Exchange membership. By way of background, the Exchange currently charges member organizations certain fixed costs related to Exchange membership, including for example membership fees and logical port fees, both of which are filed with the Commission and set forth in the Exchange's Fee Schedule. Also, by way of background, the Exchange recently adopted the “Maker-Taker” model whereby it pays rebates to members that add liquidity and assesses fees to those that remove liquidity.
As stated previously, the Exchange recently adopted the Maker-Taker model. Both the proposal of the Program and the Exchange's adoption of the Maker-Taker Model are intended to drive liquidity for the Exchange for the benefit of market participants. Specifically, the Exchange notes that the market share of taker-maker exchanges has been steadily declining in recent years. The Exchange analyzed its internal data and found that in particular, the market share of inverted markets has dropped from approximately 8% in April 2020 to 2.6% in July 2024. Similarly, the average monthly notional volume of taker-maker exchanges has declined from approximately $528.0 billion in 2021 to an average monthly notional volume of $267.4 billion in 2024 (year-to-date). The Exchange believes that both the Program and the adoption of the Maker-Taker Model will increase the Exchange's market share and bring additional liquidity to the Exchange for the benefit all participants.
Therefore, in addition to the Exchange's adoption of the Maker-Taker model, the Exchange proposes to introduce the Program, which would offer discounts for up to 12 months following approval as a new member on membership fees and logical port fees for new member organizations, subject to specific restrictions. These discounts would be available to all eligible new members for the duration of the Program. The Exchange believes that the proposed Program would make membership easier for a greater number of market participants and provide increased incentives for firms that are not currently Exchange members to apply for Exchange membership. The Exchange believes that having more members trading on the Exchange would benefit investors through the additional display of liquidity and increased execution opportunities on the Exchange.
The Exchange proposes to codify the Program as a new paragraph under the Membership Fees section of the Fee Schedule. The Exchange also notes that the Program is similar to a program adopted by an affiliated equities exchange that similarly provides discounts on membership and for new members for the similar purpose of encouraging new market participants to become members of the exchange.
To be eligible to participate in the Program, a new member organization must not have been approved as an Exchange member organization within the eighteen (18) months prior to approval of its new membership (“New Member”). Eligibility for discounts begins in the month that a new membership application is approved. A New Member is only eligible to enroll in the Program once. A New Member that is, or becomes, an “affiliate” of an existing member organization, defined as having at least 75% common ownership between the two entities as reflected on each entity's Form BD, is ineligible to participate in the Program. The Program would automatically terminate after the 12th month of membership in the Program and the discounted fees discussed below will be charged to that member at the regular rate set forth in the Exchange's fee schedule, as applicable, from that point forward.
The Exchange currently assesses a yearly Membership Fee of $2,500, which is generally assessed at the end of each year for membership in the following calendar year. For any month in which a firm is approved for membership with the Exchange after the renewal period, the Firm Membership Fee is pro-rated beginning on the date on which membership is approved. The pro-rated fee is calculated based on the remaining trading days in that year and assessed in the month following membership approval. The fee is also non-refundable in the event that the firm ceases to be a Member following the date on which fees are assessed.
The Program would next provide discounts on its logical port fees. Currently, EDGA market participants may utilize a variety of logical connectivity ports. A logical port provides users with the ability within the Exchange's system to accomplish a specific function through a connection, such as order entry, data receipt, or access to information. Currently, the Exchange assesses $550 per Logical Port per month.
The Exchange proposes to waive the cost of one order entry (FIX or BOE) Logical Port (excluding Purge Port, Multicast PITCH Spin Server Port, GRP Port, and Certification Logical Port) per month for New Members for its first 12 months as a Member.
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 operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can and do move order flow or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of products, in response to fee changes. As previously discussed, the overall market share of exchanges offering a taker-maker pricing model has significantly declined and the Exchange is seeking to bring back market share to the Exchange. Moreover, in the current competitive market environment, market participants also have a choice of where to become members. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to offer discounted membership and certain logical port fees for up to 12 months for New Members in order to provide an incentive for new firms to apply for Exchange membership. The Exchange believes that providing an incentive for firms that are not currently Exchange members to apply for membership would encourage market participants to become members of the Exchange and bring additional liquidity to a public market (along with the Exchange's adoption of the Maker-Taker model).
The Exchange believes that the proposal is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. In the prevailing competitive environment,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes would increase competition by reducing the cost of becoming an Exchange member. The Exchange believes that additional members on the Exchange will enhance market quality through the submission of additional liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities for all members. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes further the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition among orders, which promotes “more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.”
The Exchange believes the proposed rule changes do not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes would continue to incentivize market participants to become Exchange members and direct order flow to the Exchange. As discussed above, greater liquidity benefits all market participants on the Exchange by encouraging market participants to become Exchange members and send orders to the Exchange, thereby providing more trading opportunities and contributing to robust levels of liquidity on the Exchange, which benefits all market participants. The proposed fee waivers would be available to all similarly situated market participants, and, as such, the proposed change would not impose a disparate burden on competition among market participants on the Exchange. As noted, the proposal would apply to all similarly situated New Members on the same and equal terms, who would benefit from the changes on the same basis. Greater overall order flow, trading opportunities, and pricing transparency benefits all market participants on the Exchange by enhancing market quality and continuing to encourage Members to send orders, thereby contributing towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem.
Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule changes do not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on and direct their order flow, including other equities exchanges, off-exchange venues, and alternative trading systems. Additionally, the Exchange represents a small percentage of the overall market. Based on publicly available information, no single equities exchange has more than 16% of the market share.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
• 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 Commission a proposed rule change to amend the Exchange's fee schedule applicable to Members
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Fee Schedule to: (i) modify the required criteria under Liquidity Provision Tier 2; and (ii) modify the Cross Asset Tiers by eliminating Cross Asset Tiers 1 and 2 and renaming the current Cross Asset Tier 3 as Cross Asset Tier 1, as further described below.
The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues, to which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information, no single registered equities exchange currently has more than approximately 14% of the total market share of executed volume of equities trading.
The Exchange currently provides a standard rebate of $0.0015 per share for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share that add displayed liquidity to the Exchange (such orders, “Added Displayed Volume”).
The Exchange currently provides an enhanced rebate of $0.0032 per share for executions of Added Displayed Volume for Members that qualify for Liquidity Provision Tier 2 by achieving (1) an ADAV
The tiered pricing structure for executions of Added Displayed Volume under the Liquidity Provision Tiers provides an incremental incentive for Members to strive for higher volume thresholds to receive higher enhanced rebates for such executions and, as such, is intended to encourage Members to maintain or increase their order flow, primarily in the form of liquidity-adding volume, to the Exchange, thereby contributing to a deeper and more liquid market to the benefit of all Members and market participants. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Liquidity Provision Tier 2 reflect a reasonable and competitive pricing structure that is right-sized and consistent with the Exchange's overall pricing philosophy of encouraging added and/or displayed liquidity. Specifically, the Exchange believes that, after giving effect to the proposed changes described above, the rebate for executions of Added Displayed Volume provided under Liquidity Provision Tier 2 remains commensurate with the corresponding required criteria under each such tier and is reasonably related to the market quality benefits that such tier is designed to achieve.
The Exchange currently offers Cross Asset Tiers 1-3 under which a Member may receive an enhanced rebate for executions of Added Displayed Volume in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share by achieving the corresponding required volume criteria for such tier on the Exchange's equity options platform, MEMX Options. The Exchange now proposes to modify the Cross Asset Tiers by eliminating Cross Asset Tiers 1 and 2 and renaming the current Cross Asset Tier 3 to become Cross Asset Tier 1.
With respect to the current Cross Asset Tiers 1 and 2, under Cross Asset Tier 1, the Exchange provides an enhanced rebate of $0.0033 per share for executions of Added Displayed Volume for Members that qualify for such tier by achieving an Options ADAV
With respect to the current Cross Asset Tier 3, the Exchange currently provides an enhanced rebate of $0.0026 per share for executions of Added Displayed Volume for Members that qualify for such tier by achieving an Options ADAV in the Customer
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of section 6 of the Act,
As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented and competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient, and the Exchange represents only a small percentage of the overall market. 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, 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 believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of products, in response to new or different pricing structures being introduced into the market. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees and rebates, and market participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable. The Exchange believes the proposal reflects a reasonable and competitive pricing structure designed to encourage market participants to strive for higher volume on the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would promote price discovery and enhance liquidity and market quality on the Exchange to the benefit of all Members and market participants.
The Exchange notes that volume-based incentives (such as Liquidity Provision Tiers and Cross Asset Tiers) have been widely adopted by exchanges (including the Exchange), and are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because they are open to all members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discount that are reasonably related to the value to an exchange's market quality associated with higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns, and the introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery process. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the required criteria under Liquidity Provision Tier 2 are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because, as described above, such changes are available to all Members on an equal basis, and, are designed to encourage Members to maintain or increase their order flow, including in the form of displayed, liquidity-adding, orders to the Exchange in order to qualify for an enhanced rebate, as applicable, thereby contributing to a deeper, more liquid and well balanced market ecosystem on the Exchange to the benefit of all Members and market participants.
The Exchange believes the proposed change to eliminate Cross Asset Tiers 1 and 2 and renumber the existing Cross Asset Tier 3 to Cross Asset Tier 1 is reasonable because, as noted above, the Exchange is not required to maintain such tiers and the opportunity to qualify for the former Cross Asset Tier 3, now Cross Asset Tier 1, continues to be equally available to all Members, and continues to provide Members with an incremental incentive to achieve certain volume thresholds on the Exchange and on MEMX Options, thereby contributing to a deeper, more liquid and well balanced market ecosystem on the Exchange to the benefit of all Members and market participants.
For the reasons discussed above, the Exchange submits that the proposal satisfies the requirements of sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the proposal is intended to incentivize market participants to direct additional order flow to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would promote price discovery and enhance liquidity and market quality on the Exchange to the benefit of all Members and market participants. As a result, the Exchange believes the proposal would enhance its competitiveness as a market that attracts actionable orders, thereby making it a more desirable destination venue for its customers. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition among orders, which promotes “more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.”
As discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposal would maintain a tiered pricing structure that is still consistent with the Exchange's overall pricing philosophy of encouraging added and/or displayed liquidity and would incentivize market participants to direct additional order flow to the Exchange through volume-based tiers, thereby enhancing liquidity and market quality on the Exchange to the benefit of all Members, as well as enhancing the attractiveness of the Exchange as a trading venue, which the Exchange believes, in turn, would continue to encourage market participants to direct additional order flow to the Exchange. Greater liquidity benefits all Members by providing more trading opportunities and encourages Members to send additional orders to the Exchange, thereby contributing to robust levels of liquidity, which benefits all market participants.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes would impose any burden on intramarket competition because such changes will incentivize members to submit additional order flow, thereby contributing to a more robust and well-balanced market ecosystem on the Exchange to the benefit of all Members as well as enhancing the attractiveness of the Exchange as a trading venue, which the Exchange believes, in turn, would continue to encourage market participants to direct additional order flow to the Exchange. Greater liquidity benefits all Members by providing more trading opportunities and encourages Members to send additional orders to
As noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on and direct their order flow to, including 15 other equities exchanges and numerous alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues. As noted above, no single registered equities exchange currently has more than approximately 14% of the total market share of executed volume of equities trading. Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly competitive market, no single equities exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order flow. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of products, in response to new or different pricing structures being introduced into the market. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees and rebates and market participants can readily choose to send their orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. As described above, the proposed changes represent a competitive proposal through which the Exchange is seeking to incentivize market participants to direct additional order flow to the Exchange through volume-based tiers, which have been widely adopted by exchanges, including the Exchange. Accordingly, the Exchange believes the proposal would not burden, but rather promote, intermarket competition by enabling it to better compete with other exchanges that offer similar pricing structures and incentives to market participants.
Additionally, 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)(ii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to adopt temporary Rule 7.34-E(T) and revise Rules 1.1 and 7.34-E to permit the Exchange to lengthen the current extended trading sessions. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to adopt temporary Rule 7.34-E(T) and revise Rules 1.1 (Definitions) and 7.34-E (Trading Sessions) to permit the Exchange to lengthen current extended trading hours for NMS stocks to 22 hours a day, 5 days a week. The Exchange also proposes certain technical, conforming changes to Rule 5.1-E(a) (General Provisions and Unlisted Trading Privileges) and Commentary .08 to Rule 9.5320-E (Prohibition Against Trading Ahead of Customer Orders).
The Exchange currently offers three trading sessions each day the Exchange is open for business unless the Exchange determines otherwise, as follows.
First, the Exchange's Early Trading Session begins at 4:00 a.m. Eastern Time (“E.T.”) and concludes at the commencement of the Core Trading Session.
In order to facilitate the trading of NMS securities on the Exchange for 22 hours a day, 5 days a week, as recently announced,
Further, the Exchange would add the following legend to current Rule 7.34-E (new text italicized):
The Exchange would also revise current Rule 1.1 to add a definition of Extended Hours Trading to mean trading during the Early Trading Session and the Late Trading Session. The term is used without capitalization in current Rule 7.34-E(d) describing required customer disclosures. The Exchange proposes to use the proposed definition in proposed Rule 7.34-E(T)(d) and current Rule 7.34-E(d), with the exception of subsection (d)(4) of the current and proposed temporary rules, which use the phrase generically. The Exchange believes the proposal would add transparency and clarity to the Exchange's rules.
The Exchange would also make certain technical, conforming changes to Rule 5.1-E(a) and Commentary .08 to Rule 9.5320-E.
First, the Exchange would replace obsolete references to the “Opening session” and “Late Trading Session” and the associated session start and end times in Pacific Time in Rule 5.1-E(a)(2)(i) with the defined term “Extended Hours Trading.” The Exchange would also delete a stray period at the end of the rule heading. The proposed changes would add transparency and clarity to the Exchange's rules.
Finally, the Exchange would replace the obsolete reference to “6:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time” in Commentary .08 to Rule 9.5320-E with “the Core Trading Session.” The proposed change would also add transparency and clarity to the Exchange's rules.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
Generally, the Exchange believes that the proposal, including the proposed temporary rule to support longer extended hours trading, would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by providing a rules framework to support the Exchange's introduction of trading on the Exchange for 22 hours a day, 5 days a week, which the Exchange believes will increase market accessibility, promote capital formation, and facilitate portfolio management. Further, the Exchange believes that adopting a temporary rule that would only be operative upon transition to the new proposed Extended Trading Hours, which may depend on the effectiveness of additional, related rule filings as well as market infrastructure changes, and adding a legend to the current version of Rule 7.34-E specifying that the current rule will remain operative until that time, would promote transparency in Exchange rules and add clarity as to which rules are operative and when, thereby reducing potential confusion, and making the Exchange's rules easier to navigate.
The Exchange believes that adding a definition of Extended Hours Trading to Rule 1.1 would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system by adding clarity to the Exchange's rules through the introduction of a definition that can be utilized immediately and that would not need to be updated once the Exchange migrates to 22 hour trading, 5 days a week. The Exchange further believes that eliminating obsolete legacy material from Rule 5.1-E(a) and Commentary .08 to Rule 9.5320-E similarly removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by removing confusion that may result from having obsolete material in the Exchange's rulebook. The Exchange believes that eliminating such obsolete material would not be inconsistent with the public interest and the protection of investors because investors will not be harmed and in fact would benefit from increased transparency, thereby reducing potential confusion.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is designed to propose rule changes to support trading on the Exchange for 22 hours a day, 5 days a week. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment in which unaffiliated exchange competitors and new entrants could compete to offer extended hours trading of similar duration, and the proposal would therefore enable the Exchange to compete on a more level playing field with these competitors.
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 such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 27, 2024, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) advance notice SR-FICC-2024-801 pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act entitled the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (“Clearing Supervision Act”)
On April 5, 2024, FICC filed Partial Amendment No. 1 to the advance notice to correct errors FICC discovered regarding the impact analysis filed as Exhibit 3 and discussed in the filing narrative, as well as correct a typo in the methodology formula in Exhibit 5b.
On August 13, 2024, the Commission made a second request for additional information from FICC pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(D) of the Clearing Supervision Act, which tolled the Commission's period of review of the advance notice until 120 days from the date the information requested by the Commission was received by the Commission.
The Commission has received comments regarding the substance of the changes proposed in the Advance Notice.
FICC proposes to add a new Minimum Margin Amount (“MMA”) calculation to the GSD margin methodology to ensure that FICC collects sufficient margin amounts from its members during sudden periods of extreme market volatility. Recently, FICC faced increased risk exposure to its members during two periods of extreme market volatility,
FICC proposes to add the MMA calculation to the Value-at-Risk charge (“VaR Charge”) component of the GSD margin methodology. Whereas the current VaR Charge is determined as the greater of two separate calculations, FICC proposes to add the MMA as a third calculation so that the VaR Charge would be the greater of three separate calculations. FICC specifically designed the MMA calculation to be more responsive to volatile market conditions than the two existing VaR Charge calculations. As described more fully below, the MMA calculation uses a filtered historical simulation (“FHS”) approach, which takes historical price data, removes the historical volatility estimates, and replaces them with volatility estimates that reflect current market conditions. The FHS approach also incorporates parameters that would give more weight to recent market events, such that when market volatility spikes, the MMA calculation would generate higher amounts and be more likely to exceed the other two VaR Charge calculations. Conversely, when market volatility subsides, the MMA calculation would generate lower amounts and be less likely to exceed the other two VaR Charge calculations.
FICC conducted a 2-year impact study to analyze, among other things, the actual daily member-level margin amounts and backtesting results in comparison to the margin amounts and backtesting results had the MMA calculation been in place. The impact study indicates that if FICC used the MMA calculation during the 2-year period of analysis, FICC's margin collections and backtesting coverage would have significantly improved and enabled FICC to meet its 99 percent backtesting performance targets.
FICC, through its Government Securities Division (“GSD”),
A member's Required Fund Deposit consists of a number of components, each of which is calculated to address specific risks faced by FICC.
FICC's first calculation uses a sensitivity-based VaR methodology to estimate the possible losses for a given portfolio based on: (1) confidence level, (2) a time horizon, and (3) historical market volatility. The sensitivity VaR methodology is intended to capture the market price risks that are associated with the securities positions in a member's margin portfolio,
FICC recognizes that the sensitivity VaR methodology might not generate margin amounts sufficient to cover its exposure to its members consistent with its regulatory obligations when applied to certain types of member portfolios.
FICC regularly assesses whether its margin methodologies generate margin levels commensurate with the particular risk attributes of each relevant product, portfolio, and market. For example, FICC employs daily backtesting
FICC believes that its current VaR model has performed well in low to moderate volatility markets,
Accordingly, in the Advance Notice, FICC proposes changes to the VaR model that FICC believes would mitigate the risk of potential underperformance of the VaR model during periods of extreme market volatility.
In the Advance Notice, FICC proposes to introduce a new minimum margin amount (
FICC would calculate the MMA for each portfolio using historical price returns to represent risk.
After constructing historical price returns, FICC would estimate a market volatility associated with each historical price return by applying an EWMA to the historical price returns. FICC would “devolatilize” the historical price returns (
FICC proposes to use the FHS method to improve the responsiveness of the VaR model to periods of extreme market volatility because historical returns are scaled to current market volatility.
The decay factor generally affects (1) whether and how the MMA would be invoked (
Specifically, FICC would use a haircut method for MBS pools that are not TBA securities eligible, floating rate notes, and U.S. Treasury/agency securities with remaining time to maturities of less than or equal to one year. FICC would also use a haircut method to account for the basis risk between an agency security and the mapped U.S. Treasury index to supplement the historical market price moves generated by the FHS method for agency securities to reflect any residual risks between agency securities and the mapped fixed income securities benchmarks (
The Impact Study indicates that if the proposed MMA had been in place, the VaR model backtesting coverage would have increased from approximately 98.86 percent to 99.46 percent during the period of the Impact Study and the number of VaR model backtesting deficiencies would have been reduced by 441 (from 843 to 402, or approximately 52 percent). The Impact Study also indicates that if the proposed MMA had been in place: (1) overall margin backtesting coverage would have increased from approximately 98.87 percent to 99.33 percent, (2) the number of overall margin backtesting deficiencies would have been reduced by 280 (from 685 to 405, or approximately 41 percent), and (3) the overall margin backtesting coverage for 94 members (approximately 72 percent of the GSD membership) would have improved, with 36 members who were below 99 percent coverage brought back to above 99 percent.
On average, at the member-level, the proposed MMA would have increased the SOD VaR Charge by approximately $22.43 million, or 17.56 percent, and the noon VaR Charge by approximately $23.25 million, or 17.43 percent, over the period of the Impact Study. The largest average percentage increase in SOD VaR Charge for any member would have been approximately 66.88 percent, or $97,051 (0.21percent of the member's average Net Capital),
As mentioned above in Section I.B., the Margin Proxy methodology is currently invoked as an alternative volatility calculation if the requisite vendor data used for the sensitivity VaR calculation is unavailable for an extended period of time.
Although the Clearing Supervision Act does not specify a standard of review for an advance notice, the stated purpose of the Clearing Supervision Act is instructive: to mitigate systemic risk in the financial system and promote financial stability by, among other things, promoting uniform risk management standards for systemically important financial market utilities (SIFMUs) and strengthening the liquidity of SIFMUs.
Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act authorizes the Commission to prescribe regulations containing risk management standards for the payment, clearing, and settlement activities of designated clearing entities engaged in designated activities for which the Commission is the supervisory agency.
• to promote robust risk management;
• to promote safety and soundness;
• to reduce systemic risks; and
• to support the stability of the broader financial system.
Section 805(c) provides, in addition, that the Commission's risk management standards may address such areas as risk management and default policies and procedures, among other areas.
The Commission has adopted risk management standards under Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act and Section 17A of the Exchange Act (the “Clearing Agency Rules”).
The proposals in the Advance Notice are consistent with the stated objectives and principles of Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.
Incorporating the proposed MMA into the GSD margin methodology would be consistent with the promotion of robust risk management and safety and soundness at FICC. As described above in Section I.B., the extreme market volatilities during recent stressful market periods led to market price changes that exceeded the current VaR model's projections, generating margin amounts that were not sufficient to mitigate FICC's credit exposure to its members' portfolios at a 99 percent confidence level. FICC's proposed incorporation of the MMA calculation into the GSD margin methodology would result in margin levels that better reflect the risks and particular attributes of member portfolios during periods of extreme market volatility, which is consistent with promoting robust risk management.
Implementing the MMA would enable FICC to collect additional margin when the market price volatility implied by the current sensitivity VaR calculation and VaR Floor calculation is lower than the market price volatility implied by the proposed MMA calculation. In its consideration of the proposed MMA, the Commission reviewed and analyzed the: (1) Advance Notice, including the supporting exhibits that provided confidential information on the proposed MMA calculation, Impact Study (including detailed information regarding the impact of the proposed changes on the portfolios of each FICC member over various time periods), and backtesting coverage results, (2) FICC's response to the Commission's requests for additional information;
Based on the Commission's review of the Impact Study, had the proposed MMA been in place, both the VaR model backtesting coverage and the overall margin backtesting coverage would have risen above the 99 percent confidence level to 99.46 percent and 99.33 percent, respectively, over the time period covered by the Impact Study.
The proposed MMA methodology would be more likely to apply as the VaR Charge during periods of extreme market volatility because the MMA methodology is more responsive to spikes in market volatility than the sensitivity VaR calculation. As described above in Section I.C.1., the MMA calculation relies, in part, on the FHS method, which takes historical price data, removes the historical volatility estimates, and replaces them with volatility estimates that reflect current market conditions. Additionally, as described above in Section I.C.1., the decay factor used in the FHS method affects (1) whether and how the MMA would apply to determine a member's VaR Charge; (2) the peak level of margin increase or the degree of procyclicality; and (3) how quickly the margin would fall back to pre-stress levels. A faster decay (
The Impact Study supports this analysis. If the proposed MMA calculation had been in place during the period of the Impact Study, the MMA would have applied primarily during the recent extreme market volatility events (
Implementing the proposed MMA should enable FICC to better manage its exposure to its members during periods of extreme market volatility by generating margin levels that meet FICC's 99 percent backtesting coverage targets. Accordingly, the proposal is consistent with promoting robust risk management because the MMA would enable FICC to better manage the relevant risks presented by the securities it clears in volatile market conditions.
Additionally, FICC proposes to clarify that if the Margin Proxy, when invoked, is lower than the VaR Floor, then the VaR Floor would be utilized as the VaR Charge with respect to a member's portfolio. Although Margin Proxy was not invoked during the period of the Impact Study, had the proposed changes been in place during that period, the VaR model backtesting coverage would have increased from approximately 98.17 percent to 99.38 percent and the VaR model backtesting deficiencies would have been reduced by 899 (from 1,358 to 459). The Commission agrees that ensuring the VaR Floor operates as a floor for the Margin Proxy would be more effective at mitigating risks under extreme market volatility because as proposed, the VaR Floor would include the MMA calculation. Accordingly, the proposal is consistent with promoting robust risk management because the enhanced VaR Floor would enable FICC to better manage the relevant risks, regardless of whether the sensitivity VaR calculation or Margin Proxy are invoked.
Further, by helping to ensure that FICC collects margin amounts sufficient to manage the risk associated with its members' portfolios during periods of extreme market volatility, the proposed MMA changes and Margin Proxy clarifications would help limit FICC's exposure in a member default scenario. These proposed changes would generally provide FICC with additional resources to manage potential losses arising out of a member default. Such an increase in FICC's available financial resources would decrease the likelihood that losses arising out of a member default would exceed FICC's prefunded resources and threaten the safety and soundness of FICC's ongoing operations. Accordingly, the proposals are also consistent with promoting safety and soundness at FICC.
Consistent with the objectives and principles of the Clearing Supervision Act, the Commission also considers whether the proposals in the Advance Notice would reduce systemic risks and support the stability of the broader financial system.
The proposed MMA changes and Margin Proxy clarifications are consistent with reducing systemic risks and supporting the stability of the broader financial system. As discussed above in Section I.B., FICC would access its Clearing Fund should a defaulted member's own margin be insufficient to satisfy losses to FICC caused by the liquidation of the member's portfolio. FICC proposes to add the MMA calculation to the GSD margin methodology to collect additional margin from members during periods of extreme market volatility to cover such costs, and thereby better manage the potential costs of liquidating a defaulted member's portfolio. Similarly, FICC's proposal to clarify the application of the VaR Floor to include Margin Proxy would ensure FICC's ability to collect additional margin from members if the Margin Proxy, when invoked, is lower than the VaR Floor. These changes and clarifications to the GSD margin methodology could reduce the possibility that FICC would need to mutualize among the non-defaulting members a loss arising out of the close-out process. Reducing the potential for loss mutualization could, in turn, reduce the potential resultant effects on non-defaulting members, their customers, and the broader market arising out of a member default.
One commenter states that FICC's implementation of the proposed MMA would increase costs for market participants, leading to negative effects on the broader U.S. Treasury markets.
In considering the comments opposing FICC's implementation of the MMA calculation as proposed, the Commission considered the Advance Notice filing materials including the Impact Study, comment letters, FICC's response letter, and the Commission's own understanding of the GSD margin methodology based on the Commission's general supervision of FICC. As stated above in Section II.A.1., during the period of the Impact Study, the actual GSD VaR model backtesting coverage and overall margin backtesting coverage both fell below the 99 percent confidence level. These shortfalls are specifically attributable to the periods of extreme market volatility of March 2020 and commencing in March 2022. The Impact Study demonstrates that had the proposed MMA calculation been in place during that period, margin amounts would have exceeded the 99 percent backtesting coverage levels. Thus, implementing the MMA calculation would have better enabled FICC to calculate and collect margin amounts sufficient to mitigate the risks presented by its members' portfolios during periods of extreme market volatility.
The Commission acknowledges that implementing the proposed MMA would increase margin requirements during periods of extreme market volatility. However, as detailed above in Section I.C.1., the Impact Study demonstrates that the increased margin requirements attributable to the MMA at the member-level would represent relatively small percentages (
One commenter states that the proposed MMA would negatively affect markets by having a detrimental effect on certain trading strategies that rely on margin offsets across maturity buckets.
Another commenter states that FICC's proposal did not adequately address the procyclicality risk
The Commission disagrees with the comment that FICC's proposed MMA calculation does not adequately address procyclicality risk. The decay factor affects, among other things, the speed of the MMA calculation's responsiveness to spikes in extreme market volatility, as well as the speed with which the MMA calculation would generate lower numbers after such volatility subsides. FICC chose to initially set the decay factor at 0.97—a relatively fast decay factor—to respond to market volatility relatively quickly.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that FICC's adoption of the proposed MMA and changes to the Margin Proxy would be consistent with the reduction of systemic risk and supporting the stability of the broader financial system.
For the reasons stated above, the changes proposed in the Advance Notice are consistent with Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.
Rule 17ad-22(e)(4)(i) requires that FICC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures to participants and those arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement processes, including by maintaining sufficient financial resources to cover its credit exposure to each participant fully with a high degree of confidence.
The proposals in the Advance Notice are consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Exchange Act.
Additionally, FICC proposes to clarify that if the Margin Proxy, when invoked, is lower than the VaR Floor, then the VaR Floor would be utilized as the VaR Charge with respect to a member's portfolio. Although Margin Proxy was not invoked during the period of the Impact Study, had the proposed changes been in place during that period, the VaR model backtesting coverage would have been increased to exceed the 99 percent backtesting coverage level.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, the proposed MMA changes and Margin Proxy clarifications are reasonably designed to enable FICC to effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposure to participants, consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(4)(i).
Rule 17ad-22(e)(6)(i) requires that FICC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a minimum, considers, and produces margin levels commensurate with, the risks and particular attributes of each relevant product, portfolio, and market, and calculates margin sufficient to cover its potential future exposure to participants.
The proposals in the Advance Notice are consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(6)(i). As described above in Section II.A.1., the Impact Study demonstrates that the current VaR model generated margin deficiencies during periods of extreme market volatility, whereas implementing the proposed MMA changes and Margin Proxy clarifications would result in VaR Charges that reflect the risks of member portfolios during such periods better than the current GSD VaR model. Moreover, FICC's inclusion of the decay factor in the MMA calculation appropriately limits invoking the MMA as the VaR Charge to periods of extreme market volatility. As described above in Section II.A.1., the decay factor affects, among other things, the peak level of margin increase or the degree of procyclicality and how quickly the margin would fall back to pre-stress levels. FICC chose to initially set the decay factor at 0.97—a relatively fast decay factor—to be quickly responsive to market volatility.
Several commenters addressed FICC's Impact Study. Specifically, one commenter states that the Impact Study is too limited, providing backtesting data with extremely uneven daily impacts, thereby rendering it impossible to properly assess the MMA's impacts.
In response to these comments, FICC states that due to confidentiality restrictions on releasing member-level data, the public-facing Advance Notice filing narrative analyzed the Impact Study using anonymized data and averages of maximum dollar and percentage changes.
In considering the comments critical of the Impact Study and FICC's analyses thereof, the Commission considered the Advance Notice (including the Impact Study
The purpose of the Impact Study and FICC's analyses thereof in the publicly available Advance Notice filing materials is to highlight comparisons of the GSD VaR model's performance with and without incorporating the MMA and to highlight the proposal's general impacts on members using anonymized data and averages of maximum dollar and percentage changes. FICC did not state that its public discussion of the Impact Study was the sole source of data for the Commission and the public to utilize in evaluating the proposals in the Advance Notice. Rather, FICC provided additional detailed member-level data confidentially, both to members and the Commission, to more fully evaluate the impacts of the proposals in the Advance Notice. Regarding the comments that FICC's analysis of the Impact Study data presented an inaccurate picture of the MMA's impacts,
One commenter also states that FICC should expand the Impact Study to cover the March 2020 period of stress in light of FICC's statements that the MMA proposal was driven, in part, by the VaR model's underperformance during that period.
Accordingly, the proposals in the Advance Notice are consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(6)(i) because the new MMA margin calculation and Margin Proxy clarifications should better enable FICC to establish a risk-based margin system that considers and produces relevant margin levels commensurate with the risks associated with liquidating participant portfolios in a default scenario during periods of extreme market volatility.
Rule 17ad-22(e)(23)(ii) requires that FICC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide sufficient information to enable participants to identify and evaluate the risks, fees, and other material costs they incur by participating in FICC.
One commenter states that FICC's proposals in the Advance Notice lack transparency, quick implementation, and tools and resources to support market preparedness to identify risks and costs associated with how FICC calculates margin amounts.
In response, FICC states that it provides tools and resources to enable members to determine their margin requirements and the impact of FICC's proposals.
The extensive tools and resources that FICC makes available to members should enable members to obtain individualized information to determine their Clearing Fund requirements, margin component details, and assess the impact of FICC's proposals. Additionally, FICC's multiple member outreach efforts (before and after development of the proposals in the Advance Notice) provided members with relevant individualized impact analyses with which to evaluate the proposals in the Advance Notice. Accordingly, FICC has provided tools and resources sufficient for its members to evaluate their daily VaR and other margin-related calculations, rendering a phased implementation of the proposed MMA unwarranted.
Based on the foregoing, FICC has provided sufficient information, tools, and resources to enable members to identify and evaluate the relevant risks and costs associated with the changes proposed in the Advance Notice, consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(23)(ii).
By the Commission.
On July 25, 2024, the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change SR-OCC-2024-010 pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
On September 4, 2024, OCC amended the proposed rule change to include as Exhibit 2 an information memorandum OCC published on its website informing OCC's membership of the details of the margin add-on charge.
OCC is a central counterparty (“CCP”), which means that as part of its function as a clearing agency, it interposes itself as the buyer to every seller and the seller to every buyer for certain financial transactions. As the CCP for the listed options markets in the United States,
At the start of each business day, OCC collects the required margin for each marginable account calculated by OCC's proprietary System for Theoretical Analysis and Numerical Simulation (“STANS”) based on the account's end-of-day positions from the previous business day. OCC also has broad authority to require additional margin deposits and to make intraday margin calls if, for example, the value of securities deposited as margin collateral does not accurately address changes in a Clearing Member's account during the business day,
Since these margin collection processes were established, OCC observed a significant increase in the volume of contracts it clears, particularly of short-dated option (“SDO”) contracts, including those traded on the day of their expiration (“zero-days-to-expiration” or “0DTE” options).
The proliferation of SDOs and 0DTE options has increased OCC's exposure to risks from its Clearing Members' intraday and ETH trading activity. OCC collects margin at the start of each business day using the STANS margin calculation, which is based on end-of-day positions from the previous trading session. This margin collection does not account for overnight trading activity. Nor does it encompass intraday trading activity, including any possible increases in the clearance of SDOs or 0DTE options. Although OCC's current portfolio revaluation process captures changes related to price movements, it does not capture the intraday credit risk related to position changes that exists between the point of margin collection at the beginning of each business day and the point of margin collection at the beginning of the next business day, resulting in a margin requirement that may not be sufficient to cover any additional risk arising from intraday trading activity during the trading session. Such intraday credit risk could be a result of Clearing Member(s) trading in and out of SDOs and 0DTE options, exercising these options positions, or the options expiring by the end of the day.
To help address such credit risk exposure, OCC proposes to implement (1) a margin add-on charge (the “Intraday Risk Charge”); and (2) monitoring and escalation criteria to facilitate margin calls for any Clearing Member whose intraday activity exceeds certain thresholds relative to its Intraday Risk Charge (“Intraday Risk Charge Monitoring Thresholds”). The monitoring, escalation, and calculation of the Intraday Risk Charge would be conducted through OCC's current Watch Level surveillance system, which is governed by OCC's Third-Party Risk Management Framework.
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,
• Section 17A(b)(3)(E) of the Exchange Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of a clearing agency do not impose any schedule of prices, or fix rates or other fees, for services rendered by its participants;
• Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of a clearing agency are designed to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible;
• Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) of the Exchange Act, which requires, among other things, that a covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for governance arrangements that specify clear and direct lines of responsibility;
• Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4) of the Exchange Act, which requires, among other things, that a covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures to participants and those arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement processes, including by maintaining sufficient financial resources to cover its credit exposure to each participant fully with a high degree of confidence.
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the Proposed Rule Change. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Sections 17A(b)(3)(E) and 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the Proposed Rule Change should be approved or disapproved by November 29, 2024. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by December 13, 2024.
The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of OCC's statements in support of the Proposed Rule Change, which are set forth in the Notice of Filing,
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-OCC-2024-010 and should be submitted on or before November 29, 2024. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by December 13, 2024.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend ISE's Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 9C regarding the Options Regulatory Fee.
While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the amendments to be operative on January 1, 2025.
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.
ISE proposes to amend its current ORF in several respects. ISE proposes to amend its methodology of collection to: (1) specify that it is including options transactions in ISE proprietary products; and (2) assess ORF in all clearing ranges except market makers who clear as “M” at The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”). Additionally, ISE will assess a different rate for trades executed on ISE (“Local ORF Rate”) and trades executed on non-ISE exchanges (“Away ORF Rate”).
Today, ISE assesses its ORF for each Customer
Today, in the case where a Member both executes a transaction and clears the transaction, the ORF will be assessed to and collected from that Member. Today, in the case where a Member executes a transaction and a different Member clears the transaction, the ORF will be assessed to and collected from the Member who clears the transaction and not the Member who executes the transaction. Today, in the case where a non-Member executes a transaction at an away market and a Member clears the transaction, the ORF will be assessed to and collected from the Member who clears the transaction. Today, in the case where a Member executes a transaction on ISE and a non-Member clears the transaction, the ORF will be assessed to the Member that executed the transaction on ISE and collected from the non-Member who cleared the transaction. Today, in the case where a Member executes a transaction at an away market and a non-Member ultimately clears the transaction, the ORF will not be assessed to the Member who executed the transaction or collected from the non-Member who cleared the transaction because the Exchange does not have access to the data to make absolutely certain that ORF should apply. Further, the data does not allow the Exchange to identify the Member executing the trade at an away market.
Today, the Exchange monitors the amount of revenue collected from the ORF (“ORF Regulatory Revenue”) to ensure that it, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed Options Regulatory Costs.
ORF Regulatory Revenue, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, is designed to recover a material portion of the Options Regulatory Costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of member Customer options business including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. Options Regulatory Costs include direct regulatory expenses and certain indirect expenses in support of the regulatory function. The direct expenses include in-house and third-party service provider costs to support the day-to-day regulatory work such as surveillances, investigations and examinations. The indirect expenses are only those expenses that are in support of the regulatory functions, such areas include Office of the General Counsel, technology, finance, and internal audit. Indirect expenses will not exceed 35% of the total Options Regulatory Costs. Thus, direct expenses would be 65% of total Options Regulatory Costs for 2024.
The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the Options Regulatory Costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of its Members, including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities.
ISE has been reviewing it methodologies for the assessment and collection of ORF. As a result of this review, ISE proposes to revamp the current process of assessing and collecting ORF in various ways. Below ISE will explain the modelling it performed and the outcomes of the modelling which have led the Exchange to propose the below changes.
Effective January 1, 2025, ISE proposes to assess ORF to each ISE Member for multi-listed options transactions, including options transactions in ISE proprietary products,
The ORF would be collected by OCC on behalf of ISE from (1) ISE clearing members for all Priority Customer, Professional Customer, Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer transactions they clear or (2) non-members for all Priority Customer, Professional Customer, Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer transactions they clear that were executed on ISE. This model collects ORF where there is a nexus with ISE and does not collect ORF from a non-Member where the transaction takes place away from the Exchange.
Further, effective January 1, 2025, the Exchange proposes to establish a different ORF for trades executed on ISE (“Local ORF Rate”) and trades executed on non-ISE exchanges (“Away ORF Rate”) by market participants. For Priority Customer, Professional Customer, and broker-dealer (not affiliated with a clearing member) transactions that clear in the “C” range at OCC transactions (collectively “Customers”) the Exchange proposes to assess a Local ORF Rate of $0.01169 per contract and an Away ORF Rate of $0.00 per contract. For Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer transactions that clear in the “F” range at OCC (collectively “Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions”) the Exchange proposes to assess a Local ORF Rate of $0.000067 per contract and an Away ORF Rate of $0.000067 per contract. The combined amount of Local ORF and Away ORF collected may not exceed 88% of Options Regulatory Cost. ISE will ensure that ORF Regulatory Revenue does not exceed Options Regulatory Cost. As is the case today, the Exchange will notify Members via an Options Trader Alert of these changes at least 30 calendar days prior to January 1, 2025.
The Exchange utilized historical and current data from its affiliated options exchanges to create a new regression model that would tie expenses attributable to regulation to a respective source.
The results of this modelling indicated a high correlation and intercept for the baseline cost of regulating the options market as a whole. Specifically, the regression model indicated that (1) the marginal cost of regulation is easily measurable, and significantly attributable to Customer activity; and (2) the fixed cost of setting up a regulatory regime should arguably be dispersed across the industry so that all options exchanges have substantially similar revenue streams to satisfy the “intercept” element of cost. When seeking to offset the “set-up” cost of regulation, the Exchange attempted several levels of attribution. The most successful attribution was related to industry wide Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transaction volume. Of note, through analysis of the results of this regression model, there was no positive correlation that could be established between Customer away volume and regulatory expense. This led the Exchange to utilize a model with a two-factor regression on a quarterly basis for the last four quarters of volumes relative to the pool of expense data for the six Nasdaq affiliated options exchanges. Once again, standard spreadsheet functionality (including the Data Analysis Packet) was used to determine the mathematics for this model. The results of this two-factor model, which resulted in the attribution of Customer Local ORF and Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transaction Local and Away ORF, typically increased the R-Squared (goodness of fit) to >97% across multiple historical periods.
Utilizing the new regression model, and assumptions in the proposal, the model demonstrates that Customer volumes are directly attributable to marginal cost, and also shows that Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transaction volumes industry-wide are a valid method (given the goodness of fit) to offset the fixed cost of regulation. Applying the regression coefficient values historically, the Exchange established a “normalization” by per options exchange. This “normalization” encompassed idiosyncratic exchange expense-volume relationships which served to tighten the attributions further while not deviating by more than 30% from the mean for any single options exchange in the model. The primary driver of this need for “normalization” are negotiated regulatory contracts that were negotiated at different points in time, yielding some differences in per contract regulatory costs by exchange. Normalization is therefore the average of a given exchange's historical (prior 4 quarters) ratio of regulatory expense to revenue when using the regressed values (for Customer Local ORF and Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transaction Local and Away ORF) that yields an effective rate by exchange. The “normalization” was then multiplied to a “targeted collection rate” of approximately 88% to arrive at ORF rates for Customer, Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions. Of note, when comparing the ORF rates generated from this method, historically, there appears to be a very tight relationship between the estimated modeled collection and actual expense and the regulatory expenses for that same period. In summary, the model does not appear to increase marginal returns.
One other important aspect of this modeling is the input of Options Regulatory Costs. The Exchange notes that in defining Options Regulatory Costs it accounts for the nexus between the expense and options regulation. By way of example, the Exchange excludes certain indirect expenses such as payroll expenses, accounts receivable, accounts payable, marketing, executive level expenses and corporate systems.
The Exchange would continue to monitor the amount of Options Regulatory Revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed Options Regulatory Costs. In determining whether an expense is considered an Options Regulatory Cost, the Exchange would continue to review all costs and makes determinations if there is a nexus between the expense and a regulatory function. The Exchange notes that fines collected by the Exchange in connection with a disciplinary matter will continue to offset Options Regulatory Cost. Members will continue to be provided with 30 calendar day notice of any change to ORF.
As is the case today, ORF Regulatory Revenue, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, is designed to recover a material portion of the Options Regulatory Costs to the Exchange for the supervision and regulation of Members' transactions, including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. As discussed above, Options Regulatory Costs include
Finally, the Exchange notes that this proposal will sunset on July 1, 2025, at which point the Exchange would revert back to the ORF methodology and rate ($0.0013 per contract side) that was in effect prior to this rule change.
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 proposed ORF to be assessed on January 1, 2025, is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for various reasons. First, as of January 1, 2025, the Exchange would expand the collection of ORF to all clearing ranges, except Market Makers, provided the transaction was executed by an ISE Member or cleared by an ISE Member. With this amendment, ISE would begin to assess Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions an ORF, provided the transactions were executed by an ISE Member or cleared by an ISE Member, including options transactions in proprietary products. Second, as of January 1, 2025, the Exchange would assess different rates to Customer transactions for the Local ORF Rate and Away ORF Rate as compared to Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions. Third, as of January 1, 2025, the combined amount of Local ORF and Away ORF collected would not exceed 88% of Options Regulatory Cost as all Members, except Market Makers, would be assessed ORF.
The Exchange believes that assessing all Members, except Market Makers, an ORF is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. While the Exchange acknowledges that there is a cost to regulate Market Makers, unlike other market participants, Market Makers have various regulatory requirements with respect to quoting as provided for in Options 2, Section 4. Specifically, Market Makers have certain quoting requirements with respect to their assigned options series as provided in Options 2, Section 5. Primary Market Makers are obligated to quote in the Opening Process and intra-day.
The Exchange believes including options transactions in ISE proprietary products is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because ISE lists various proprietary products for which the Exchange incurs Options Regulatory Costs. The Exchange believes that only exchanges that list proprietary products should be able to collect a Local ORF on their products. ISE notes that there are a small number of ISE proprietary products transacted as compared to multi-list options. Also, ISE would only collect an ORF for proprietary products transacted on its market. As such, the Exchange believes that only a Local ORF should be applied to an ISE proprietary product.
The Exchange believes that assessing different rates to Customer transactions for the Local ORF Rate and Away ORF Rate as compared to Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions and collecting no more than 88% of Options Regulatory Cost is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Customer transactions account for a material portion of ISE's Options Regulatory Cost.
In contrast, the Options Regulatory Cost of regulating Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions is materially less than the Options Regulatory Costs of regulating Customer transactions, as explained above. The below chart derived from OCC data reflects the percentage of transactions by market participant.
With this model, the addition of Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions to the collection of ORF does not entail significant volume when compared to Customer transactions. As these market participants are more sophisticated, the Exchange notes that there are not the same protections in place for Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions as compared to Customer transactions. Therefore, with the proposed model, the regulation of Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions is less resource intensive than the regulation of Customer transactions. However, the Exchange notes that it appears from the new regression model and assumptions in the proposal, that unlike Customer transactions, the regulation of Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions occurs both on the Exchange and across options markets. To that end, the Exchange proposes to assess Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions both a Local ORF and an Away ORF in contrast to
The Exchange's proposal to establish both a Local ORF Rate and an Away ORF Rate and allocate the portion of Options Regulatory Cost differently between the two separate rates, by market participant, ensures that the Local ORF Rate and Away ORF Rate reflect the amount of Options Regulatory Costs associated with different types of surveillances and are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange is responsible for regulating activity on its market as well as activity that may occur across options markets. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess only Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions an Away ORF. With this model, while the regulation of Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions is less resource intensive than the regulation of Customer transactions, it occurs both on the Exchange and across options markets.
Capping the combined amount of Local ORF and Away ORF collected at 88% of Options Regulatory Cost commencing January 1, 2025, is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as given these factors. The Exchange will review the ORF Regulatory Revenue at the end of January 2025 and would amend the ORF if it finds that its ORF Regulatory Revenue exceeds its projections.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intra-market competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The proposed changes to ORF do not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition because ORF is a regulatory fee that supports regulation in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes, however, the proposed change is not designed to address any competitive issues. The Exchange is obligated to ensure that the amount of ORF Regulatory Revenue, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed ORF Regulatory Cost.
Excluding Market Makers does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because, unlike other market participants, Market Makers have various regulatory requirements with respect to quoting as provided for in Options 2, Section 4. Specifically, Market Makers have certain quoting requirements with respect to their assigned options series as provided in Options 2, Section 5. Primary Market Makers are obligated to quote in the Opening Process and intra-day.
Uniformly including options transactions in ISE proprietary products in ORF for all ISE Members does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition. The Exchange believes that only exchanges that list proprietary products should be able to collect a Local ORF on their products. ISE notes that there are a small number of ISE proprietary products transacted as compared to multi-list options. Also, ISE would only collect an ORF for proprietary products transacted on its market.
The Exchange's proposal to expand the clearing ranges to specifically include Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions, in addition to Priority Customer and Professional Customer transactions, as of January 1, 2025, does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition as Customer transactions account for a material portion of ISE's Options Regulatory Cost.
The Exchange believes that assessing Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions a different ORF and assessing both a Local ORF and an Away ORF to these transactions does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the regulation of Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions is less resource intensive than the regulation of Customer transactions. With this model, the addition of Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions to the collection of ORF does not entail significant volume when compared to Customer transactions. Unlike Customer transactions, the regulation of Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions occurs both on the Exchange and across options markets. To that end, the Exchange proposes to assess Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions both a Local ORF and an Away ORF.
The Exchange's proposal to allocate the portion of costs differently between the Local ORF and Away ORF does not create an undue burden on intra-market competition. The Exchange believes that each rate reflects the amount of Options Regulatory Costs associated with different types of surveillances and does not create an undue burden on competition as ISE Members, excluding except Market Makers, would be uniformly assessed either a Local ORF Rate or an Away ORF Rate depending on where the transaction occurred and whether the transaction was executed or cleared by an ISE Member. Also, the Exchange would uniformly assess the Local ORF Rate and an Away ORF Rate by market participant. The Exchange is responsible for regulating activity on its market as well as activity that may occur across options markets.
The Exchange believes that assessing only Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions an Away ORF does not create an undue burden on intra-market competition because while the regulation of Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions is less resource intensive than the regulation of Customer transactions, the regulation of Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions occurs both on the Exchange and across options 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 necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 5, Options Regulatory Fee.
While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the amendments to be operative on January 1, 2025.
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.
BX proposes to amend its current ORF in several respects. BX proposes to amend its methodology of collection to: (1) exclude options transactions in proprietary products; and (2) assess ORF in all clearing ranges except market makers who clear as “M” at The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”). Additionally, BX will assess a different rate for trades executed on BX (“Local ORF Rate”) and trades executed on non-BX exchanges (“Away ORF Rate”).
Today, BX assesses its ORF for each Customer
Today, in the case where a Participant both executes a transaction and clears the transaction, the ORF will be assessed to and collected from that Participant. Today, in the case where a Participant executes a transaction and a different Participant clears the transaction, the ORF will be assessed to and collected from the Participant who clears the transaction and not the Participant who executes the transaction. Today, in the case where a non-member executes a transaction at an away market and a Participant clears the transaction, the ORF will be assessed to and collected from the Participant who clears the transaction. Today, in the case where a Participant executes a transaction on BX and a non-member clears the transaction, the ORF will be assessed to the Participant that executed the transaction on BX and collected from the non-member who cleared the transaction. Today, in the case where a Participant executes a transaction at an away market and a non-member ultimately clears the transaction, the ORF will not be assessed to the Participant who executed the transaction or collected from the non-member who cleared the transaction because the Exchange does not have access to the data to make absolutely certain that ORF should apply. Further, the data does not allow the Exchange to identify the Participant executing the trade at an away market.
Today, the Exchange monitors the amount of revenue collected from the ORF (“ORF Regulatory Revenue”) to ensure that it, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed Options Regulatory Costs.
ORF Regulatory Revenue, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, is designed to recover a material portion of the Options Regulatory Costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of member Customer options business including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. Options Regulatory Costs include direct regulatory expenses and certain indirect expenses in support of the regulatory function. The direct expenses include in-house and third-party service provider costs to support the day-to-day regulatory work such as surveillances, investigations and examinations. The indirect expenses are only those expenses that are in support of the regulatory functions, such areas include Office of the General Counsel, technology, finance, and internal audit. Indirect expenses will not exceed 35% of the total Options Regulatory Costs. Thus, direct expenses would be 65% of total Options Regulatory Costs for 2024.
The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the Options Regulatory Costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of its Participants, including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities.
BX has been reviewing it methodologies for the assessment and collection of ORF. As a result of this review, BX proposes to revamp the current process of assessing and collecting ORF in various ways. Below BX will explain the modelling it performed and the outcomes of the modelling which have led the Exchange to propose the below changes.
Effective January 1, 2025, BX proposes to assess ORF to each BX Participant for multi-listed options transactions, excluding options transactions in proprietary products,
The ORF would be collected by OCC on behalf of BX from (1) BX clearing members for all Customer, Professional, Firm and Broker-Dealer transactions they clear or (2) non-members for all Customer, Professional, Firm and Broker-Dealer transactions they clear that were executed on BX. This model collects ORF where there is a nexus with BX and does not collect ORF from a non-member where the transaction takes place away from the Exchange.
Further, effective January 1, 2025, the Exchange proposes to establish a different ORF for trades executed on BX (“Local ORF Rate”) and trades executed on non-BX exchanges (“Away ORF Rate”) by market participants. For Customer, Professional, and broker-dealer (not affiliated with a clearing member) transactions that clear in the “C” range at OCC (collectively “Customers”) the Exchange proposes to assess a Local ORF Rate of $0.0198 per contract and an Away ORF Rate of $0.00 per contract. For Firm and Broker-Dealer transactions that clear in the “F” range at OCC (collectively “Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions”) the Exchange proposes to assess a Local ORF Rate of $0.000113 per contract and an Away ORF Rate of $0.000113 per contract. The combined amount of Local ORF and Away ORF collected may not exceed 88% of Options Regulatory Cost. BX will ensure that ORF Regulatory Revenue does not exceed Options Regulatory Cost. As is the case today, the Exchange will notify Participants via an Options Trader Alert of these changes at least 30 calendar days prior to January 1, 2025.
The Exchange utilized historical and current data from its affiliated options exchanges to create a new regression model that would tie expenses attributable to regulation to a respective source.
The results of this modelling indicated a high correlation and intercept for the baseline cost of regulating the options market as a whole. Specifically, the regression model indicated that (1) the marginal cost of regulation is easily measurable, and significantly attributable to Customer activity; and (2) the fixed cost of setting up a regulatory regime should arguably be dispersed across the industry so that all options exchanges have substantially similar revenue streams to satisfy the “intercept” element of cost. When seeking to offset the “set-up” cost of regulation, the Exchange attempted several levels of attribution. The most successful attribution was related to industry wide Firm and Broker-Dealer Transaction volume. Of note, through analysis of the
Utilizing the new regression model, and assumptions in the proposal, the model demonstrates that Customer volumes are directly attributable to marginal cost, and also shows that Firm and Broker-Dealer Transaction volumes industry-wide are a valid method (given the goodness of fit) to offset the fixed cost of regulation. Applying the regression coefficient values historically, the Exchange established a “normalization” by per options exchange. This “normalization” encompassed idiosyncratic exchange expense-volume relationships which served to tighten the attributions further while not deviating by more than 30% from the mean for any single options exchange in the model. The primary driver of this need for “normalization” are negotiated regulatory contracts that were negotiated at different points in time, yielding some differences in per contract regulatory costs by exchange. Normalization is therefore the average of a given exchange's historical (prior 4 quarters) ratio of regulatory expense to revenue when using the regressed values (for Customer Local ORF and Firm and Broker-Dealer Transaction Local and Away ORF) that yields an effective rate by exchange. The “normalization” was then multiplied to a “targeted collection rate” of approximately 88% to arrive at ORF rates for Customer, Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions. Of note, when comparing the ORF rates generated from this method, historically, there appears to be a very tight relationship between the estimated modeled collection and actual expense and the regulatory expenses for that same period. In summary, the model does not appear to increase marginal returns.
One other important aspect of this modeling is the input of Options Regulatory Costs. The Exchange notes that in defining Options Regulatory Costs it accounts for the nexus between the expense and options regulation. By way of example, the Exchange excludes certain indirect expenses such as payroll expenses, accounts receivable, accounts payable, marketing, executive level expenses and corporate systems.
The Exchange would continue to monitor the amount of Options Regulatory Revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed Options Regulatory Costs. In determining whether an expense is considered an Options Regulatory Cost, the Exchange would continue to review all costs and makes determinations if there is a nexus between the expense and a regulatory function. The Exchange notes that fines collected by the Exchange in connection with a disciplinary matter will continue to offset Options Regulatory Cost. Participants will continue to be provided with 30 calendar day notice of any change to ORF.
As is the case today, ORF Regulatory Revenue, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, is designed to recover a material portion of the Options Regulatory Costs to the Exchange for the supervision and regulation of Participants' transactions, including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. As discussed above, Options Regulatory Costs include direct regulatory expenses
Finally, the Exchange notes that this proposal will be sunset on July 1, 2025, at which point the Exchange would revert back to the ORF methodology and rate ($0.0005 per contract side) that was in effect prior to this rule change.
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 proposed ORF to be assessed on January 1, 2025, is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for various reasons. First, as of January 1, 2025, the Exchange would expand the collection of ORF to all clearing ranges, except Market Makers, provided the transaction was executed by an BX Participant or cleared by an BX Participant. With this amendment, BX would begin to assess Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions an ORF, provided the transactions were executed by a BX Participant or cleared by a BX Participant, except transactions in proprietary products. Second, as of January 1, 2025, the Exchange would assess different rates to Customer transactions for the Local ORF Rate and Away ORF Rate as compared to Firms and Broker-Dealer Transactions. Third, as of January 1, 2025, the combined amount of Local ORF and Away ORF collected would not exceed 88% of Options Regulatory Cost as all Participants, except Market Makers, would be assessed ORF.
The Exchange believes that assessing all Participants, except Market Makers, an ORF is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. While the Exchange acknowledges that there is a cost to regulate Market Makers, unlike other market participants, Market Makers have various regulatory requirements with respect to quoting as provided for in Options 2, Section 4. Specifically, Market Makers have certain quoting requirements with respect to their assigned options series as provided in Options 2, Section 5. Lead Market Makers are obligated to quote intra-day.
The Exchange believes excluding options transactions in proprietary products is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because BX does not list any proprietary products. The Exchange believes that only exchanges that list proprietary products should be able to collect a Local ORF for those products. BX notes that there are a small number of proprietary products transacted as compared to multi-list options. BX's focus is on surveillance related to multi-listed options. Should BX list a proprietary product in the future, BX would amend its ORF to collect a Local ORF on that proprietary product.
The Exchange believes that assessing different rates to Customer transactions for the Local ORF Rate and Away ORF Rate as compared to Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions and collecting no more than 88% of Options Regulatory Cost is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Customer transactions account for a material portion of BX's Options Regulatory Cost.
In contrast, the Options Regulatory Cost of regulating Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions is materially less than the Options Regulatory Costs of regulating Customer transactions, as explained above. The below chart derived from OCC data reflects the percentage of transactions by market participant.
With this model, the addition of Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions to the collection of ORF does not entail significant volume when compared to Customer transactions. As these market participants are more sophisticated, the Exchange notes that there are not the same protections in place for Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions as compared to Customer transactions. Therefore, with the proposed model, the regulation of Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions is less resource intensive than the regulation of Customer transactions. However, the Exchange notes that it appears from the new regression model and assumptions in the proposal, that unlike Customer transactions, the regulation of Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions occurs both on the Exchange and across options markets. To that end, the Exchange proposes to assess Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions both a Local ORF and an Away ORF in contrast to Customer transactions that would only be assessed a Local ORF. The Exchange believes that not assessing Market Maker transactions an ORF permits these market participants to utilize their resources to quote tighter in the market. Tighter quotes benefits Customers as well as other market participants who interact with that liquidity.
The Exchange's proposal to establish both a Local ORF Rate and an Away ORF Rate and allocate the portion of Options Regulatory Cost differently between the two separate rates, by market participant, ensures that the Local ORF Rate and Away ORF Rate reflect the amount of Options Regulatory Costs associated with different types of surveillances and are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange is responsible for regulating activity on its market as well as activity that may occur across options markets. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess only Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions an Away ORF. With this model, while the regulation of Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions is less resource intensive than the regulation of Customer transactions, it occurs both on the Exchange and across options markets.
Capping the combined amount of Local ORF and Away ORF collected at 88% of Options Regulatory Cost commencing January 1, 2025, is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as given these factors. The Exchange will review the ORF Regulatory Revenue at the end of January 2025 and would amend the ORF if it finds that its ORF Regulatory Revenue exceeds its projections.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intra-market competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The proposed changes to ORF do not impose an undue burden on inter-
Excluding Market Makers does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because, unlike other market participants, Market Makers have various regulatory requirements with respect to quoting as provided for in Options 2, Section 4. Specifically, Market Makers have certain quoting requirements with respect to their assigned options series as provided in Options 2, Section 5. Lead Market Makers are obligated to quote intra-day.
Uniformly excluding options transactions in proprietary products from ORF for all BX Participants does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition. The Exchange believes that only exchanges that list proprietary products should be able to collect a Local ORF for those products. There are a small number of proprietary products transacted as compared to multi-list options. Also, proprietary products are transacted on a limited number of options exchanges and would require a de minimis amount of cross market surveillance, for these reasons the Exchange believes that only a Local ORF should be applied to the extent that BX were to list a proprietary product. BX's focus is on surveillance related to multi-listed options. Should BX list a proprietary product in the future, BX would amend its ORF to collect a Local ORF on that proprietary product.
The Exchange's proposal to expand the clearing ranges to specifically include Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions, in addition to Customer and Professional transactions, as of January 1, 2025, does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition as Customer transactions account for a material portion of BX's Options Regulatory Cost.
The Exchange believes that assessing Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions a different ORF and assessing both a Local ORF and an Away ORF to these transactions does not impose an undue
The Exchange's proposal to allocate the portion of costs differently between the Local ORF and Away ORF does not create an undue burden on intra-market competition. The Exchange believes that each rate reflects the amount of Options Regulatory Costs associated with different types of surveillances and does not create an undue burden on competition as BX Participants, excluding except Market Makers, would be uniformly assessed either a Local ORF Rate or an Away ORF Rate depending on where the transaction occurred and whether the transaction was executed or cleared by an BX Participant. Also, the Exchange would uniformly assess the Local ORF Rate and an Away ORF Rate by market participant. The Exchange is responsible for regulating activity on its market as well as activity that may occur across options markets.
The Exchange believes that assessing only Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions an Away ORF does not create an undue burden on intra-market competition because while the regulation of Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions is less resource intensive than the regulation of Customer transactions, the regulation of Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions occurs both on the Exchange and across options 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 necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend GEMX's Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 5 regarding the Options Regulatory Fee.
While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the amendments to be operative on January 1, 2025.
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.
GEMX proposes to amend its current ORF in several respects. GEMX proposes to amend its methodology of collection to: (1) specify that it is including options transactions in GEMX proprietary products; and (2) assess ORF in all clearing ranges except market makers who clear as “M” at The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”). Additionally, GEMX will assess a different rate for trades executed on GEMX (“Local ORF Rate”) and trades executed on non-GEMX exchanges (“Away ORF Rate”).
Today, GEMX assesses its ORF for each Customer
Today, in the case where a Member both executes a transaction and clears the transaction, the ORF will be assessed to and collected from that Member. Today, in the case where a Member executes a transaction and a different Member clears the transaction, the ORF will be assessed to and collected from the Member who clears the transaction and not the Member who executes the transaction. Today, in the case where a non-Member executes a transaction at an away market and a Member clears the transaction, the ORF will be assessed to and collected from the Member who clears the transaction. Today, in the case where a Member executes a transaction on GEMX and a non-Member clears the transaction, the ORF will be assessed to the Member that executed the transaction on GEMX and collected from the non-Member who cleared the transaction. Today, in the case where a Member executes a transaction at an away market and a non-Member ultimately clears the transaction, the ORF will not be assessed to the Member who executed the transaction or collected from the non-Member who cleared the transaction because the Exchange does not have access to the data to make absolutely certain that ORF should apply. Further, the data does not allow the Exchange to identify the Member executing the trade at an away market.
Today, the Exchange monitors the amount of revenue collected from the ORF (“ORF Regulatory Revenue”) to ensure that it, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed Options Regulatory Costs.
ORF Regulatory Revenue, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, is designed to recover a material portion of the Options Regulatory Costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of member Customer options business including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. Options Regulatory Costs include direct regulatory expenses and certain indirect expenses in support of the regulatory function. The direct expenses include in-house and third-party service provider costs to support the day-to-day regulatory work such as surveillances, investigations and examinations. The indirect expenses are only those expenses that are in support of the regulatory functions, such areas include Office of the General Counsel, technology, finance, and internal audit. Indirect expenses will not exceed 35% of the total Options Regulatory Costs. Thus, direct expenses would be 65% of total Options Regulatory Costs for 2024.
The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the Options Regulatory Costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of its Members, including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities.
GEMX has been reviewing it methodologies for the assessment and collection of ORF. As a result of this review, GEMX proposes to revamp the current process of assessing and collecting ORF in various ways. Below GEMX will explain the modelling it performed and the outcomes of the modelling which have led the Exchange to propose the below changes.
Effective January 1, 2025, GEMX proposes to assess ORF to each GEMX Member for multi-listed options transactions, including options transactions in GEMX proprietary products,
The ORF would be collected by OCC on behalf of GEMX from (1) GEMX clearing members for all Priority Customer, Professional Customer, Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer transactions they clear or (2) non-members for all Priority Customer, Professional Customer, Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer transactions they clear that were executed on GEMX. This model collects ORF where there is a nexus with GEMX and does not collect ORF from a non-Member where the transaction takes place away from the Exchange.
Further, effective January 1, 2025, the Exchange proposes to establish a different ORF for trades executed on GEMX (“Local ORF Rate”) and trades executed on non-GEMX exchanges (“Away ORF Rate”) by market participants. For Priority Customer, Professional Customer, and broker-dealer (not affiliated with a clearing member) transactions that clear in the “C” range at OCC transactions (collectively “Customers”) the Exchange proposes to assess a Local ORF Rate of $0.01688 per contract and an Away ORF Rate of $0.00 per contract. For Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer transactions that clear in the “F” range at OCC (collectively “Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions”) the Exchange proposes to assess a Local ORF Rate of $0.000096 per contract and an Away ORF Rate of $0.000096 per contract. The combined amount of Local ORF and Away ORF collected may not exceed 88% of Options Regulatory Cost. GEMX will ensure that ORF Regulatory Revenue does not exceed Options Regulatory Cost. As is the case today, the Exchange will notify Members via an Options Trader Alert of these changes at least 30 calendar days prior to January 1, 2025.
The Exchange utilized historical and current data from its affiliated options exchanges to create a new regression model that would tie expenses attributable to regulation to a respective source.
The results of this modelling indicated a high correlation and intercept for the baseline cost of regulating the options market as a whole. Specifically, the regression model indicated that (1) the marginal cost of regulation is easily measurable, and significantly attributable to Customer activity; and (2) the fixed cost of setting up a regulatory regime should arguably be dispersed across the industry so that all options exchanges have substantially similar revenue streams to satisfy the “intercept” element of cost. When seeking to offset the “set-up” cost of regulation, the Exchange attempted several levels of attribution. The most successful attribution was related to industry wide Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transaction volume. Of note, through analysis of the results of this regression model, there was no positive correlation that could be established between Customer away volume and regulatory expense. This led the Exchange to utilize a model with a two-factor regression on a quarterly basis for the last four quarters of volumes relative to the pool of expense data for the six Nasdaq affiliated options exchanges. Once again, standard spreadsheet functionality (including the Data Analysis Packet) was used to determine the mathematics for this model. The results of this two-factor model, which resulted in the attribution of Customer Local ORF and Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transaction Local and Away ORF, typically increased the R-Squared (goodness of fit) to >97% across multiple historical periods.
Utilizing the new regression model, and assumptions in the proposal, the model demonstrates that Customer volumes are directly attributable to marginal cost, and also shows that Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transaction volumes industry-wide are a valid method (given the goodness of fit) to offset the fixed cost of regulation. Applying the regression coefficient values historically, the Exchange established a “normalization” by per options exchange. This “normalization” encompassed idiosyncratic exchange expense-volume relationships which served to tighten the attributions further while not deviating by more than 30% from the mean for any single options exchange in the model. The primary driver of this need for “normalization” are negotiated regulatory contracts that were negotiated at different points in time, yielding some differences in per contract regulatory costs by exchange. Normalization is therefore the average of a given exchange's historical (prior 4 quarters) ratio of regulatory expense to revenue when using the regressed values (for Customer Local ORF and Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transaction Local and Away ORF) that yields an effective rate by exchange. The “normalization” was then multiplied to a “targeted collection rate” of approximately 88% to arrive at ORF rates for Customer, Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions. Of note, when comparing the ORF rates generated from this method, historically, there appears to be a very tight relationship between the estimated modeled collection and actual expense and the regulatory expenses for that same period. In summary, the model does not appear to increase marginal returns.
One other important aspect of this modeling is the input of Options Regulatory Costs. The Exchange notes that in defining Options Regulatory Costs it accounts for the nexus between the expense and options regulation. By way of example, the Exchange excludes certain indirect expenses such as payroll expenses, accounts receivable, accounts payable, marketing, executive level expenses and corporate systems.
The Exchange would continue to monitor the amount of Options Regulatory Revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed Options Regulatory Costs. In determining whether an expense is considered an Options Regulatory Cost, the Exchange would continue to review all costs and makes determinations if there is a nexus between the expense and a regulatory function. The Exchange notes that fines collected by the Exchange in connection with a disciplinary matter will continue to offset Options Regulatory Cost. Members will continue to be provided with 30 calendar day notice of any change to ORF.
As is the case today, ORF Regulatory Revenue, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, is designed to recover a material portion of the Options Regulatory Costs to the Exchange for the supervision and regulation of Members' transactions, including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. As discussed above, Options Regulatory Costs include direct regulatory expenses
Finally, the Exchange notes that this proposal will sunset on July 1, 2025, at which point the Exchange would revert back to the ORF methodology and rate ($0.0012 per contract side) that was in effect prior to this rule change.
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 proposed ORF to be assessed on January 1, 2025, is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for various reasons. First, as of January 1, 2025, the Exchange would expand the collection of ORF to all clearing ranges, except Market Makers, provided the transaction was executed by an GEMX Member or cleared by an GEMX Member. With this amendment, GEMX would begin to assess Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions an ORF, provided the transactions were executed by an GEMX Member or cleared by an GEMX Member, including options transactions in proprietary products. Second, as of January 1, 2025, the Exchange would assess different rates to Customer transactions for the Local ORF Rate and Away ORF Rate as compared to Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions. Third, as of January 1, 2025, the combined amount of Local ORF and Away ORF collected would not exceed 88% of Options Regulatory Cost as all Members, except Market Makers, would be assessed ORF.
The Exchange believes that assessing all Members, except Market Makers, an ORF is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. While the Exchange acknowledges that there is a cost to regulate Market Makers, unlike other market participants, Market Makers have various regulatory requirements with respect to quoting as provided for in Options 2, Section 4. Specifically, Market Makers have certain quoting requirements with respect to their assigned options series as provided in Options 2, Section 5. Primary Market Makers are obligated to quote in the Opening Process and intra-day.
The Exchange believes including options transactions in GEMX proprietary products is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because GEMX lists various proprietary products for which the Exchange incurs Options Regulatory Costs. The Exchange believes that only exchanges that list proprietary products should be able to collect a Local ORF on their products. GEMX notes that there are a small number of GEMX proprietary products transacted as compared to multi-list options. Also, GEMX would only collect an ORF for proprietary products transacted on its market. As such, the Exchange believes that only a Local ORF should be applied to a GEMX proprietary product.
The Exchange believes that assessing different rates to Customer transactions for the Local ORF Rate and Away ORF Rate as compared to Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions and collecting no more than 88% of Options Regulatory Cost is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Customer transactions account for a material portion of GEMX's Options Regulatory Cost.
In contrast, the Options Regulatory Cost of regulating Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions is materially less than the Options Regulatory Costs of regulating Customer transactions, as explained above. The below chart derived from OCC data reflects the percentage of transactions by market participant.
With this model, the addition of Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions to the collection of ORF does not entail significant volume when compared to Customer transactions. As these market participants are more sophisticated, the Exchange notes that there are not the same protections in place for Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions as compared to Customer transactions. Therefore, with the proposed model, the regulation of Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions is less resource intensive than the regulation of Customer transactions. However, the Exchange notes that it appears from the new regression model and assumptions in the proposal, that unlike Customer transactions, the regulation of Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions occurs both on the Exchange and across options markets. To that end, the Exchange proposes to
The Exchange's proposal to establish both a Local ORF Rate and an Away ORF Rate and allocate the portion of Options Regulatory Cost differently between the two separate rates, by market participant, ensures that the Local ORF Rate and Away ORF Rate reflect the amount of Options Regulatory Costs associated with different types of surveillances and are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange is responsible for regulating activity on its market as well as activity that may occur across options markets. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess only Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions an Away ORF. With this model, while the regulation of Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions is less resource intensive than the regulation of Customer transactions, it occurs both on the Exchange and across options markets.
Capping the combined amount of Local ORF and Away ORF collected at 88% of Options Regulatory Cost commencing January 1, 2025, is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as given these factors. The Exchange will review the ORF Regulatory Revenue at the end of January 2025 and would amend the ORF if it finds that its ORF Regulatory Revenue exceeds its projections.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intra-market competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The proposed changes to ORF do not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition because ORF is a regulatory fee that supports regulation in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes, however, the proposed change is not designed to address any competitive issues. The Exchange is obligated to ensure that the amount of ORF Regulatory Revenue, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed ORF Regulatory Cost.
Excluding Market Makers does not impose an undue burden intra-market competition because, unlike other market participants, Market Makers have various regulatory requirements with respect to quoting as provided for in Options 2, Section 4. Specifically, Market Makers have certain quoting requirements with respect to their assigned options series as provided in Options 2, Section 5. Primary Market Makers are obligated to quote in the Opening Process and intra-day.
Uniformly including options transactions in GEMX proprietary products in ORF for all GEMX Members does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition. The Exchange believes that only exchanges that list proprietary products should be able to collect a Local ORF on their products. GEMX notes that there are a small number of GEMX proprietary products transacted as compared to multi-list options. Also, GEMX would only collect an ORF for proprietary products transacted on its market.
The Exchange's proposal to expand the clearing ranges to specifically include Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions, in addition to Priority Customer and Professional Customer transactions, as of January 1, 2025, does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition as Customer transactions account for a material portion of GEMX's Options Regulatory Cost.
The Exchange believes that assessing Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions a different ORF and assessing both a Local ORF and an Away ORF to these transactions does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the regulation of Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions is less resource intensive than the regulation of Customer transactions. With this model, the addition of Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions to the collection of ORF does not entail significant volume when compared to Customer transactions. Unlike Customer transactions, the regulation of Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions occurs both on the Exchange and across options markets. To that end, the Exchange proposes to assess Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions both a Local ORF and an Away ORF.
The Exchange's proposal to allocate the portion of costs differently between the Local ORF and Away ORF does not create an undue burden on intra-market competition. The Exchange believes that each rate reflects the amount of Options Regulatory Costs associated with different types of surveillances and does not create an undue burden on competition as GEMX Members, excluding except Market Makers, would be uniformly assessed either a Local ORF Rate or an Away ORF Rate depending on where the transaction occurred and whether the transaction was executed or cleared by an GEMX Member. Also, the Exchange would uniformly assess the Local ORF Rate and an Away ORF Rate by market participant. The Exchange is responsible for regulating activity on its market as well as activity that may occur across options markets.
The Exchange believes that assessing only Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions an Away ORF does not create an undue burden on intra-market competition because while the regulation of Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions is less resource intensive than the regulation of Customer transactions, the regulation of Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions occurs both on the Exchange and across options 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 necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend MRX's Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 5C, Options Regulatory Fee.
While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the amendments to be operative on January 1, 2025.
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
MRX proposes to amend its current ORF in several respects. MRX proposes to amend its methodology of collection to: (1) exclude options transactions in proprietary products; and (2) assess ORF in all clearing ranges except market makers who clear as “M” at The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”). Additionally, MRX will assess a different rate for trades executed on MRX (“Local ORF Rate”) and trades executed on non-MRX exchanges (“Away ORF Rate”).
Today, MRX assesses its ORF for each Customer
Today, in the case where a Member both executes a transaction and clears the transaction, the ORF will be assessed to and collected from that Member. Today, in the case where a Member executes a transaction and a different Member clears the transaction, the ORF will be assessed to and collected from the Member who clears the transaction and not the Member who executes the transaction. Today, in the case where a non-Member executes a transaction at an away market and a Member clears the transaction, the ORF will be assessed to and collected from the Member who clears the transaction. Today, in the case where a Member executes a transaction on MRX and a non-Member clears the transaction, the ORF will be assessed to the Member that executed the transaction on MRX and collected from the non-Member who cleared the transaction. Today, in the case where a Member executes a transaction at an away market and a non-Member ultimately clears the transaction, the ORF will not be assessed to the Member who executed the transaction or collected from the non-Member who cleared the transaction because the Exchange does not have access to the data to make absolutely certain that ORF should apply. Further, the data does not allow the Exchange to identify the Member executing the trade at an away market.
Today, the Exchange monitors the amount of revenue collected from the ORF (“ORF Regulatory Revenue”) to ensure that it, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed Options Regulatory Costs.
ORF Regulatory Revenue, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, is designed to recover a material portion of the Options Regulatory Costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of member Customer options business including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. Options Regulatory Costs include direct regulatory expenses and certain indirect expenses in support of the regulatory function. The direct expenses include in-house and third-party service provider costs to support the day-to-day regulatory work such as surveillances, investigations and examinations. The indirect expenses are only those expenses that are in support of the regulatory functions, such areas include Office of the General Counsel, technology, finance, and internal audit. Indirect expenses will not exceed 35% of the total Options Regulatory Costs. Thus, direct expenses would be 65% of total Options Regulatory Costs for 2024.
The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the Options Regulatory Costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of its Members, including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities.
MRX has been reviewing it methodologies for the assessment and collection of ORF. As a result of this review, MRX proposes to revamp the current process of assessing and collecting ORF in various ways. Below MRX will explain the modelling it performed and the outcomes of the modelling which have led the Exchange to propose the below changes.
Effective January 1, 2025, MRX proposes to assess ORF to each MRX Member for multi-listed options transactions, excluding options transactions in proprietary products,
The ORF would be collected by OCC on behalf of MRX from (1) MRX clearing members for all Priority Customer, Professional Customer, Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer transactions they clear or (2) non-members for all Priority Customer, Professional Customer, Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer transactions they clear that were executed on MRX. This model collects ORF where there is a nexus with MRX and does not collect ORF from a non-Member where the transaction takes place away from the Exchange.
Further, effective January 1, 2025, the Exchange proposes to establish a different ORF for trades executed on MRX (“Local ORF Rate”) and trades executed on non-MRX exchanges (“Away ORF Rate”) by market participants. For Priority Customer, Professional Customer, and broker-dealer (not affiliated with a clearing member) transactions that clear in the “C” range at OCC (collectively “Customers”) the Exchange proposes to assess a Local ORF Rate of $0.01612 per contract and an Away ORF Rate of $0.00 per contract. For Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer transactions that clear in the “F” range at OCC (collectively “Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions”) the Exchange proposes to assess a Local ORF Rate of $0.000092 per contract and an Away ORF Rate of $0.000092 per contract. The combined amount of Local ORF and Away ORF collected may not exceed 88% of Options Regulatory Cost. MRX will ensure that ORF Regulatory Revenue does not exceed Options Regulatory Cost. As is the case today, the Exchange will notify Members via an Options Trader Alert of these changes at least 30 calendar days prior to January 1, 2025.
The Exchange utilized historical and current data from its affiliated options exchanges to create a new regression model that would tie expenses attributable to regulation to a respective source.
The results of this modelling indicated a high correlation and intercept for the baseline cost of regulating the options market as a whole. Specifically, the regression model indicated that (1) the marginal cost of regulation is easily measurable, and significantly attributable to Customer activity; and (2) the fixed cost of setting up a regulatory regime should arguably be dispersed across the industry so that all options exchanges have substantially similar revenue streams to satisfy the “intercept” element of cost. When seeking to offset the “set-up” cost of regulation, the Exchange attempted several levels of attribution. The most successful attribution was related to industry wide Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transaction volume. Of note, through analysis of the results of this regression model, there was no positive correlation that could be established between
Utilizing the new regression model, and assumptions in the proposal, the model demonstrates that Customer volumes are directly attributable to marginal cost, and also shows that Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transaction volumes industry-wide are a valid method (given the goodness of fit) to offset the fixed cost of regulation. Applying the regression coefficient values historically, the Exchange established a “normalization” by per options exchange. This “normalization” encompassed idiosyncratic exchange expense-volume relationships which served to tighten the attributions further while not deviating by more than 30% from the mean for any single options exchange in the model. The primary driver of this need for “normalization” are negotiated regulatory contracts that were negotiated at different points in time, yielding some differences in per contract regulatory costs by exchange. Normalization is therefore the average of a given exchange's historical (prior 4 quarters) ratio of regulatory expense to revenue when using the regressed values (for Customer Local ORF and Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transaction Local and Away ORF) that yields an effective rate by exchange. The “normalization” was then multiplied to a “targeted collection rate” of approximately 88% to arrive at ORF rates for Customer, Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions. Of note, when comparing the ORF rates generated from this method, historically, there appears to be a very tight relationship between the estimated modeled collection and actual expense and the regulatory expenses for that same period. In summary, the model does not appear to increase marginal returns.
One other important aspect of this modeling is the input of Options Regulatory Costs. The Exchange notes that in defining Options Regulatory Costs it accounts for the nexus between the expense and options regulation. By way of example, the Exchange excludes certain indirect expenses such as payroll expenses, accounts receivable, accounts payable, marketing, executive level expenses and corporate systems.
The Exchange would continue to monitor the amount of Options Regulatory Revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed Options Regulatory Costs. In determining whether an expense is considered an Options Regulatory Cost, the Exchange would continue to review all costs and makes determinations if there is a nexus between the expense and a regulatory function. The Exchange notes that fines collected by the Exchange in connection with a disciplinary matter will continue to offset Options Regulatory Cost. Members will continue to be provided with 30 calendar day notice of any change to ORF.
As is the case today, ORF Regulatory Revenue, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, is designed to recover a material portion of the Options Regulatory Costs to the Exchange for the supervision and regulation of Members' transactions, including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. As discussed above, Options Regulatory Costs include direct regulatory expenses
Finally, the Exchange notes that this proposal will sunset on July 1, 2025, at which point the Exchange would revert back to the ORF methodology and rate ($0.0004 per contract side) that was in effect prior to this rule change.
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 proposed ORF to be assessed on January 1, 2025, is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for various reasons. First, as of January 1, 2025, the Exchange would expand the collection of ORF to all clearing ranges, except Market Makers, provided the transaction was executed by an MRX Member or cleared by an MRX Member. With this amendment, MRX would begin to assess Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions an ORF, provided the transactions were executed by an MRX Member or cleared by an MRX Member, except transactions in proprietary products. Second, as of January 1, 2025, the Exchange would assess different rates to Customer transactions for the Local ORF Rate and Away ORF Rate as compared to Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions. Third, as of January 1, 2025, the combined amount of Local ORF and Away ORF collected would not exceed 88% of Options Regulatory Cost as all Members, except Market Makers, would be assessed ORF.
The Exchange believes that assessing all Members, except Market Makers, an ORF is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. While the Exchange acknowledges that there is a cost to regulate Market Makers, unlike other market participants, Market Makers have various regulatory requirements with respect to quoting as provided for in Options 2, Section 4. Specifically, Market Makers have certain quoting requirements with respect to their assigned options series as provided in Options 2, Section 5. Primary Market Makers are obligated to quote in the Opening Process and intra-
The Exchange believes excluding options transactions in proprietary products is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because MRX does not list any proprietary products. The Exchange believes that only exchanges that list proprietary products should be able to collect a Local ORF for those products. MRX notes that there are a small number of proprietary products transacted as compared to multi-list options. MRX's focus is on surveillance related to multi-listed options. Should MRX list a proprietary product in the future, MRX would amend its ORF to collect a Local ORF on that proprietary product.
The Exchange believes that assessing different rates to Customer transactions for the Local ORF Rate and Away ORF Rate as compared to Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions and collecting no more than 88% of Options Regulatory Cost is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Customer transactions account for a material portion of MRX's Options Regulatory Cost.
In contrast, the Options Regulatory Cost of regulating Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions is materially less than the Options Regulatory Costs of regulating Customer transactions, as explained above. The below chart derived from OCC data reflects the percentage of transactions by market participant.
With this model, the addition of Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions to the collection of ORF does not entail significant volume when compared to Customer transactions. As these market participants are more sophisticated, the Exchange notes that there are not the same protections in place for Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions as compared to Customer transactions. Therefore, with the proposed model, the regulation of Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions is less resource intensive than the regulation of Customer transactions. However, the Exchange notes that it appears from the new regression model and assumptions in the proposal, that unlike Customer transactions, the regulation of Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions occurs both on the Exchange and across options markets. To that end, the Exchange proposes to assess Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions both a Local ORF and an Away ORF in contrast to Customer transactions that would only be assessed a Local ORF. The Exchange believes that not assessing Market Maker transactions an ORF permits these market participants to utilize their resources to quote tighter in the market. Tighter quotes benefits Customers as well as other market participants who interact with that liquidity.
The Exchange's proposal to establish both a Local ORF Rate and an Away ORF Rate and allocate the portion of Options Regulatory Cost differently between the two separate rates, by market participant, ensures that the Local ORF Rate and Away ORF Rate reflect the amount of Options Regulatory Costs associated with different types of surveillances and are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange is responsible for regulating activity on its market as well as activity that may occur across options markets. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess only Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions an Away ORF. With this model, while the regulation of Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions is less resource intensive than the regulation of Customer transactions, it occurs both on the Exchange and across options markets.
Capping the combined amount of Local ORF and Away ORF collected at 88% of Options Regulatory Cost commencing January 1, 2025, is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as given these factors. The Exchange will review the ORF Regulatory Revenue at the end of January 2025 and would amend the ORF if it finds that its ORF Regulatory Revenue exceeds its projections.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intra-market competition
The proposed changes to ORF do not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition because ORF is a regulatory fee that supports regulation in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes, however, the proposed change is not designed to address any competitive issues. The Exchange is obligated to ensure that the amount of ORF Regulatory Revenue, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed ORF Regulatory Cost.
Excluding Market Makers does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because, unlike other market participants, Market Makers have various regulatory requirements with respect to quoting as provided for in Options 2, Section 4. Specifically, Market Makers have certain quoting requirements with respect to their assigned options series as provided in Options 2, Section 5. Primary Market Makers are obligated to quote in the Opening Process and intra-day.
Uniformly excluding options transactions in proprietary products from ORF for all MRX Members does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition. The Exchange believes that only exchanges that list proprietary products should be able to collect a Local ORF for those products. There are a small number of proprietary products transacted as compared to multi-list options. Also, proprietary products are transacted on a limited number of options exchanges and would require a de minimis amount of cross market surveillance, for these reasons the Exchange believes that only a Local ORF should be applied to the extent that MRX were to list a proprietary product. MRX's focus is on surveillance related to multi-listed options. Should MRX list a proprietary product in the future, MRX would amend its ORF to collect a Local ORF on that proprietary product.
The Exchange's proposal to expand the clearing ranges to specifically include Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions, in addition to Priority Customer and Professional Customer transactions, as of January 1, 2025, does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition as Customer transactions account for a material portion of MRX's Options Regulatory Cost.
The Exchange believes that assessing Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions a different ORF and assessing both a Local ORF and an Away ORF to these transactions does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the regulation of Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions is less resource intensive than the regulation of Customer transactions. With this model, the addition of Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions to the collection of ORF does not entail significant volume when compared to Customer transactions. Unlike Customer transactions, the regulation of Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions occurs both on the Exchange and across options markets. To that end, the Exchange proposes to assess Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions both a Local ORF and an Away ORF.
The Exchange's proposal to allocate the portion of costs differently between the Local ORF and Away ORF does not create an undue burden on intra-market competition. The Exchange believes that each rate reflects the amount of Options Regulatory Costs associated with different types of surveillances and does not create an undue burden on competition as MRX Members, excluding except Market Makers, would be uniformly assessed either a Local ORF Rate or an Away ORF Rate depending on where the transaction occurred and whether the transaction was executed or cleared by an MRX Member. Also, the Exchange would uniformly assess the Local ORF Rate and an Away ORF Rate by market participant. The Exchange is responsible for regulating activity on its market as well as activity that may occur across options markets.
The Exchange believes that assessing only Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions an Away ORF does not create an undue burden on intra-market competition because while the regulation of Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions is less resource intensive than the regulation of Customer transactions, the regulation of Firm Proprietary and Broker-Dealer Transactions occurs both on the Exchange and across options 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 necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend The Nasdaq Options Market LLC (“NOM”) Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 5, Options Regulatory Fee.
While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated certain amendments to be operative on November 1, 2024, and other amendments to be operative on January 1, 2025, as noted in the Exhibit 5 and herein.
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.
NOM proposes to amend its current ORF in several respects. In summary, first, NOM proposes to reduce its ORF from $0.0016 to $0.0014 per contract side from November 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. Second, as of January 1, 2025, NOM proposes to amend its methodology of collection to: (1) exclude options transactions in proprietary products; and (2) assess ORF in all clearing ranges except market makers who clear as “M” at The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”). Additionally, NOM will assess a different rate for trades executed on NOM (“Local ORF Rate”) and trades executed on non-NOM exchanges (“Away ORF Rate”). Each change will be described below in greater detail.
Today, NOM assesses its ORF for each Customer
Today, in the case where a Participant both executes a transaction and clears the transaction, the ORF will be assessed to and collected from that Participant. Today, in the case where a Participant executes a transaction and a different Participant clears the transaction, the ORF will be assessed to and collected from the Participant who clears the transaction and not the Participant who executes the transaction. Today, in the case where a non-member executes a transaction at an away market and a Participant clears the transaction, the ORF will be assessed to and collected from the Participant who clears the transaction. Today, in the case where a Participant executes a transaction on NOM and a non-member clears the transaction, the ORF will be assessed to the Participant that executed the transaction on NOM
Today, the Exchange monitors the amount of revenue collected from the ORF (“ORF Regulatory Revenue”) to ensure that it, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed Options Regulatory Costs.
ORF Regulatory Revenue, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, is designed to recover a material portion of the Options Regulatory Costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of member Customer options business including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. Options Regulatory Costs include direct regulatory expenses and certain indirect expenses in support of the regulatory function. The direct expenses include in-house and third-party service provider costs to support the day-to-day regulatory work such as surveillances, investigations and examinations. The indirect expenses are only those expenses that are in support of the regulatory functions, such areas include Office of the General Counsel, technology, finance, and internal audit. Indirect expenses will not exceed 35% of the total Options Regulatory Costs. Thus, direct expenses would be 65% of total Options Regulatory Costs for 2024.
The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the Options Regulatory Costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of its Participants, including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities.
Based on NOM's most recent review of its ORF Regulatory Revenues as compared to its ORF Regulatory Costs in light of recent fines, NOM proposes to reduce the amount of ORF that will be collected by the Exchange from $0.0016 to $0.0014 per contract side from November 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. The Exchange issued an Options Trader Alert on September 16, 2024, that specified the proposed rate change for November 1, 2024.
NOM notes that there can be no assurance that the Options Regulatory Costs for the remainder of 2024 will not differ materially from these expectations and prior practice, nor can the Exchange predict with certainty whether options volume will remain at the current level going forward. The Exchange notes however, that when combined with regulatory fees and fines, the Options Regulatory Revenue that may be generated utilizing an ORF rate of $0.0016 per contract side may result in Options Regulatory Revenue which exceeds the Exchange's estimated Options Regulatory Costs for 2024 as a result of fines. The Exchange therefore proposes to reduce its ORF to $0.0014 per contract side to ensure that Options Regulatory Revenue does not exceed the Exchange's estimated Options Regulatory Costs in 2024. Particularly, the Exchange believes that reducing the ORF when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, would allow the Exchange to continue covering a material portion of its Options Regulatory Costs, while lessening the potential for generating excess revenue that may otherwise occur using the rate of $0.0016 per contract side.
The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of Options Regulatory Revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that Options Regulatory Revenue, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed Options Regulatory Costs. If the Exchange determines Options Regulatory Revenue exceed Options Regulatory Costs, the Exchange will adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission and notifying
NOM has been reviewing it methodologies for the assessment and collection of ORF. As a result of this review, NOM proposes to revamp the current process of assessing and collecting ORF in various ways.
Effective January 1, 2025, NOM proposes to assess ORF to each NOM Participant for multi-listed options transactions, excluding options transactions in proprietary products,
The ORF would be collected by OCC on behalf of NOM from (1) NOM clearing members for all Customer, Professional, Firm and Broker-Dealer transactions they clear or (2) non-members for all Customer, Professional, Firm and Broker-Dealer transactions they clear that were executed on NOM. This model collects ORF where there is a nexus with NOM and does not collect ORF from a non-member where the transaction takes place away from the Exchange.
Further, effective January 1, 2025, the Exchange proposes to establish a different ORF for trades executed on NOM (“Local ORF Rate”) and trades executed on non-NOM exchanges (“Away ORF Rate”) by market participants.
The Exchange utilized historical and current data from its affiliated options exchanges to create a new regression model that would tie expenses attributable to regulation to a respective source.
The results of this modelling indicated a high correlation and intercept for the baseline cost of regulating the options market as a whole. Specifically, the regression model indicated that (1) the marginal cost of regulation is easily measurable, and significantly attributable to Customer activity; and (2) the fixed cost of setting up a regulatory regime should arguably be dispersed across the industry so that all options exchanges have substantially similar revenue streams to satisfy the “intercept” element of cost. When seeking to offset
Utilizing the new regression model, and assumptions in the proposal, the model demonstrates that Customer volumes are directly attributable to marginal cost, and also shows that Firm and Broker-Dealer Transaction volumes industry-wide are a valid method (given the goodness of fit) to offset the fixed cost of regulation. Applying the regression coefficient values historically, the Exchange established a “normalization” by per options exchange. This “normalization” encompassed idiosyncratic exchange expense-volume relationships which served to tighten the attributions further while not deviating by more than 30% from the mean for any single options exchange in the model. The primary driver of this need for “normalization” are negotiated regulatory contracts that were negotiated at different points in time, yielding some differences in per contract regulatory costs by exchange. Normalization is therefore the average of a given exchange's historical (prior 4 quarters) ratio of regulatory expense to revenue when using the regressed values (for Customer Local ORF and Firm and Broker-Dealer Transaction Local and Away ORF) that yields an effective rate by exchange. The “normalization” was then multiplied to a “targeted collection rate” of approximately 88% to arrive at ORF rates for Customer, Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions. Of note, when comparing the ORF rates generated from this method, historically, there appears to be a very tight relationship between the estimated modeled collection and actual expense and the regulatory expenses for that same period. In summary, the model does not appear to increase marginal returns.
One other important aspect of this modeling is the input of Options Regulatory Costs. The Exchange notes that in defining Options Regulatory Costs it accounts for the nexus between the expense and options regulation. By way of example, the Exchange excludes certain indirect expenses such as payroll expenses, accounts receivable, accounts payable, marketing, executive level expenses and corporate systems.
The Exchange would continue to monitor the amount of Options Regulatory Revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed Options Regulatory Costs. In determining whether an expense is considered an Options Regulatory Cost, the Exchange would continue to review all costs and makes determinations if there is a nexus between the expense and a regulatory function. The Exchange notes that fines collected by the Exchange in connection with a disciplinary matter will continue to offset Options Regulatory Cost. Participants will continue to be provided with 30 calendar day notice of any change to ORF.
As is the case today, ORF Regulatory Revenue, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, is designed to recover a material portion of the Options Regulatory Costs to the Exchange for the supervision and regulation of Participants' transactions, including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. As discussed above, Options Regulatory Costs include direct regulatory expenses
Finally, the Exchange notes that this proposal will be sunset on July 1, 2025, at which point the Exchange would revert back to the ORF methodology and rate ($0.0016 per contract side) that was in effect prior to this rule change.
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 proposed reduction of ORF is reasonable because it would help ensure that ORF Regulatory Revenue does not exceed a material portion of the Exchange's ORF Regulatory Costs. As noted above, the ORF is designed to recover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's ORF Regulatory Costs. Further, the Exchange believes the proposed fee change is reasonable because Customer transactions will be subject to a lower ORF than the rate that would otherwise be in effect on November 1, 2024.
The Exchange had designed the ORF to generate ORF Regulatory Revenue that would be less than the amount of the Exchange's ORF Regulatory Costs to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed ORF Regulatory Costs, which is consistent with the view of the Commission that regulatory fees be used for regulatory purposes and not to support the Exchange's business operations. As discussed above, however, after review of its ORF Regulatory Costs and ORF Regulatory Revenue which includes revenues from ORF and other regulatory fees and fines, the Exchange determined that absent a reduction in ORF, it may collect ORF Regulatory Revenue which would exceed its ORF Regulatory Costs. Indeed, the Exchange notes that when taking into account the potential that recent options volume persists, it estimates the ORF may generate ORF
The Exchange also believes the proposed fee change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in that it is charged to all Participants on all their transactions that clear in the Customer range at OCC.
The Exchange believes the proposed ORF to be assessed on January 1, 2025, is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for various reasons. First, as of January 1, 2025, the Exchange would expand the collection of ORF to all clearing ranges, except Market Makers, provided the transaction was executed by an NOM Participant or cleared by an NOM Participant. With this amendment, NOM would begin to assess Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions an ORF, provided the transactions were executed by a NOM Participant or cleared by a NOM Participant, except transactions in proprietary products. Second, as of January 1, 2025, the Exchange would assess different rates to Customer transactions for the Local ORF Rate and Away ORF Rate as compared to Firms and Broker-Dealer Transactions. Third, as of January 1, 2025, the combined amount of Local ORF and Away ORF collected would not exceed 88% of Options Regulatory Cost as all Participants, except Market Makers, would be assessed ORF.
The Exchange believes that assessing all Participants, except Market Makers, an ORF is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. While the Exchange acknowledges that there is a cost to regulate Market Makers, unlike other market participants, Market Makers have various regulatory requirements with respect to quoting as provided for in Options 2, Section 4. Specifically, Market Makers have certain quoting requirements with respect to their assigned options series as provided in Options 2, Section 5. Market Makers are required to quote intra-day.
The Exchange believes excluding options transactions in proprietary products is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because NOM does not list any proprietary products. The Exchange believes that only exchanges that list proprietary products should be able to collect a Local ORF for those products. NOM notes that there are a small number of proprietary products transacted as compared to multi-list options. NOM's focus is on surveillance related to multi-listed options. Should NOM list a proprietary product in the future, NOM would amend its ORF to collect a Local ORF on that proprietary product.
The Exchange believes that assessing different rates to Customer transactions for the Local ORF Rate and Away ORF Rate as compared to Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions and collecting no more than 88% of Options Regulatory Cost is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Customer transactions account for a material portion of NOM's Options Regulatory Cost.
In contrast, the Options Regulatory Cost of regulating Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions is materially less than the Options Regulatory Costs of regulating Customer transactions, as explained above. The below chart derived from OCC data reflects the percentage of transactions by market participant.
With this model, the addition of Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions to the collection of ORF does not entail significant volume when compared to Customer transactions. As these market participants are more sophisticated, the Exchange notes that there are not the same protections in place for Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions as compared to Customer transactions. Therefore, with the proposed model, the regulation of Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions is less resource intensive than the regulation of Customer transactions. However, the Exchange notes that it appears from the new regression model and assumptions in the proposal, that unlike Customer transactions, the regulation of Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions occurs both on the Exchange and across options markets.
The Exchange's proposal to establish both a Local ORF Rate and an Away ORF Rate and allocate the portion of Options Regulatory Cost differently between the two separate rates, by market participant, ensures that the Local ORF Rate and Away ORF Rate reflect the amount of Options Regulatory Costs associated with different types of surveillances and are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange is responsible for regulating activity on its market as well as activity that may occur across options markets. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess only Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions an Away ORF. With this model, while the regulation of Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions is less resource intensive than the regulation of Customer transactions, it occurs both on the Exchange and across options markets.
Capping the combined amount of Local ORF and Away ORF collected at 88% of Options Regulatory Cost commencing January 1, 2025, is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as given these factors. The Exchange will review the ORF Regulatory Revenue at the end of January 2025 and would amend the ORF if it finds that its ORF Regulatory Revenue exceeds its projections.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intra-market competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The proposed changes to ORF do not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition because ORF is a regulatory fee that supports regulation in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes, however, the proposed change is not designed to address any competitive issues. The Exchange is obligated to ensure that the amount of ORF Regulatory Revenue, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed ORF Regulatory Cost.
The Exchange's proposal to reduce its ORF from $0.0016 to $0.0014 per contract side from November 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024, does not create an unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intra-market competition because the ORF applies to all Customer activity, thereby raising regulatory revenue to offset regulatory expenses. It also supplements the regulatory revenue derived from non-customer activity.
Excluding Market Makers does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because, unlike other market participants, Market Makers have various regulatory requirements with respect to quoting as provided for in Options 2, Section 4. Specifically, Market Makers have certain quoting requirements with respect to their assigned options series as provided in Options 2, Section 5. Market Makers are required to quote intra-day.
Uniformly excluding options transactions in proprietary products from ORF for all NOM Participants does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition. The Exchange believes that only exchanges that list proprietary products should be able to collect a Local ORF for those products. There are a small number of proprietary products transacted as compared to multi-list options. Also, proprietary products are transacted on a limited number of options exchanges and would require a de minimis amount of cross market surveillance, for these reasons the Exchange believes that only a Local ORF should be applied to the extent that NOM were to list a proprietary product. NOM's focus is on surveillance related to multi-listed options. Should NOM list a proprietary product in the future, NOM would amend its ORF to collect a Local ORF on that proprietary product.
The Exchange's proposal to expand the clearing ranges to specifically include Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions, in addition to Customer and Professional transactions, as of January 1, 2025, does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition as Customer transactions account for a material portion of NOM's Options Regulatory Cost.
The Exchange believes that assessing Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions a different ORF and assessing both a Local ORF and an Away ORF to these transactions does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the regulation of Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions is less resource intensive than the regulation of Customer transactions. With this model, the addition of Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions to the collection of ORF does not entail significant volume when compared to Customer transactions. Unlike Customer transactions, the regulation of Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions occurs both on the Exchange and across options markets. To that end, the Exchange proposes to assess Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions both a Local ORF and an Away ORF.
The Exchange's proposal to allocate the portion of costs differently between the Local ORF and Away ORF does not create an undue burden on intra-market competition. The Exchange believes that each rate reflects the amount of Options Regulatory Costs associated with different types of surveillances and does not create an undue burden on competition as NOM Participants, excluding except Market Makers, would be uniformly assessed either a Local ORF Rate or an Away ORF Rate depending on where the transaction occurred and whether the transaction was executed or cleared by an NOM Participant. Also, the Exchange would uniformly assess the Local ORF Rate and an Away ORF Rate by market participant. The Exchange is responsible for regulating activity on its market as well as activity that may occur across options markets.
The Exchange believes that assessing only Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions an Away ORF does not create an undue burden on intra-market competition because while the regulation of Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions is less resource intensive than the regulation of Customer transactions, the regulation of Firm and Broker-Dealer Transactions occurs both on the Exchange and across options 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 necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 903 (Series of Options Open For Trading). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to amend Rule 903 (Series of Options Open For Trading). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to allow for the interval between strike prices of series of options on shares of SPDR Gold Shares (“GLD”) to be $1 or greater, including where the strike price is greater than $200, and to expand the Short Term Option Series (“STOS”) Program to permit the listing of two Monday expirations for options on GLD, iShares Silver Trust (“SLV”), and iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (“TLT”). Both proposed changes are competitive and based on proposals submitted by Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“Nasdaq ISE”) and approved by the Commission.
First, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 903 to allow for the interval between strike prices of series of options on GLD to be $1 or greater, including where the strike price is greater than $200, which would align Exchange rules with that of at least one of its competitors.
Currently, Commentary .05(a) provides that for series of options on Exchange-Traded Fund Shares, “the interval of strike prices may be $1 or greater where the strike price is $200 or less or $5 or greater where the strike price is over $200.”
Further, Commentary .05(d) provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of Rule 903 regarding the interval of strike prices of series of options on Exchange-Traded Fund Shares, the interval of strike prices on options on SPDR® S&P 500® ETF (“SPY”), iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (“IVV”), PowerShares QQQ Trust (“QQQ”), iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund (“IWM”), and the SPDR® Dow Jones® Industrial Average ETF (“DIA”) will be $1 or greater.
The Exchange proposes to modify the interval setting regime to be $1 or greater for GLD options, which would align GLD with SPY, IVV, QQQ, IWM and DIA.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that offering a wider base of GLD options affords traders and investors important hedging and trading opportunities, particularly in the midst of current price trends. The Exchange believes that not having the proposed $1 strike price intervals above $200 in GLD significantly constricts investors' hedging and trading possibilities. The Exchange therefore believes that by having smaller strike intervals in GLD, investors would have more efficient hedging and trading opportunities due to the lower $1 interval ascension. The proposed $1 interval above the $200 strike price, will result in having at-the-money series based upon the underlying Exchange-Traded Fund Share moving less than 1%. The Exchange believes that the proposed strike setting regime is in line with the slower movements of broad-based indices. Given that $1 intervals already exist below the $200 price point and that GLD have consistently inclined in price toward the $200 level, the Exchange believes that continuing to maintain the current $200 level (above which intervals increase 500% to $5), may have a negative effect on investing, trading and hedging opportunities, and volume. The Exchange believes that the investing, trading, and hedging opportunities available with GLD options far outweighs any potential negative impact of allowing GLD options to trade in more finely tailored intervals above the $200 price point.
The proposed strike setting regime would permit strikes to be set to more closely reflect the increasing value in the underlying and allows investors and traders to roll open positions from a lower strike to a higher strike in conjunction with the price movements of the underlying ETF. Under the current rule, where the next higher available series would be $5 away above a $200 strike price, the ability to roll such positions would be impaired. Accordingly, to move a position from a $200 strike to a $205 strike under the current rule, an investor would need for the underlying product to move 2.5% and would not be able to execute a roll up until such a large movement occurred. The Exchange believes that with the proposed rule change, the investor would be in a significantly safer position of being able to roll his open options position from a $200 to a $201 strike price, which is only a 0.5% move for the underlying. As a result, the proposed rule change will allow the Exchange to better respond to customer demand for GLD strike price more precisely aligned with the smaller, longer-term incremental increases in the underlying ETF. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, like the other strike price programs currently offered by the Exchange, will benefit investors by providing investors the flexibility to more closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions using GLD options.
Moreover, by allowing series of GLD options to be listed in $1 intervals between strike prices over $200, the proposal will moderately augment the potential total number of options series available on the Exchange. However, the Exchange believes it and the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) have the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with this proposed rule change. The Exchange also believes that market participants will not have a capacity issue due to the proposed rule change. In addition, the Exchange represents that it does not believe that this expansion will cause fragmentation of liquidity, but rather, believes that finer strike intervals will serve to increase liquidity available as well as price efficiency by providing more trading opportunities for all market participants.
The Exchange proposes to expand the Short Term Option Daily Expirations to permit the listing of two Monday
Currently, as set forth in Rule 903(h), after an option class has been approved for listing and trading on the Exchange, the Exchange may open for trading on any Thursday or Friday that is a business day (“Short Term Option Opening Date”) series of options on that class that expire at the close of business on each of the next five Fridays that are business days and are not Fridays on which standard expiration options series, Monthly Options Series, or Quarterly Options Series expire (“Friday Short Term Option Expiration Dates”). The Exchange may have no more than a total of five Short Term Option Expiration Dates. Further, if the Exchange is not open for business on the respective Thursday or Friday, the Short Term Option Opening Date for Short Term Option Weekly Expirations will be the first business day immediately prior to that respective Thursday or Friday. Similarly, if the Exchange is not open for business on a Friday, the Short Term Option Expiration Date for Short Term Option Weekly Expirations will be the first business day immediately prior to that Friday.
Additionally, the Exchange may open for trading series of options on the symbols provided in Table 1 of Commentary .10(f) to Rule 903 (“Table 1”) that expire at the close of business on each of the next two Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, respectively, that are business days and are not business days in which monthly options series or Quarterly Options Series expire (“Short Term Option Daily Expirations”).
At this time, the Exchange proposes to expand the Short Term Option Daily Expirations to permit the listing and trading of options on GLD, SLV, and TLT expiring on Mondays. The Exchange proposes to permit two Short Term Option Expiration Dates beyond the current week for each Monday expiration at one time, and would update Table 1 for each of those symbols accordingly.
The proposed Monday GLD, SLV, and TLT expirations will be similar to the current Monday SPY, QQQ, and IWM Short Term Option Daily Expirations set forth in Rule 903(h), such that the Exchange may open for trading on any Friday or Monday that is a business day (beyond the current week) series of options on GLD, SLV, and TLT to expire on any Monday of the month that is a business day and is not a Monday on which standard expiration options series, Monthly Options Series, or Quarterly Options Series expire, provided that Monday expirations that are listed on a Friday must be listed at least one business week and one business day prior to the expiration (“Monday GLD Expirations,” “Monday SLV Expirations,” and “Monday TLT Expirations”) (collectively, “Monday ETP Expirations”).
The interval between strike prices for the proposed Monday ETP Expirations will be the same as those currently applicable the STOS Program.
Pursuant to Rule 903(h), with respect to the STOS Program, if a Monday is not a business day, the series will expire on the first business day immediately following that Monday.
Currently, for each option class eligible for participation in the STOS Program, the Exchange is limited to opening thirty (30) series for each expiration date for the specific class.
With this proposal, Monday ETP Expirations would be treated similarly to existing Monday SPY, QQQ, and IWM Expirations. With respect to standard expiration options series, Short Term Option Daily Expirations will be permitted to expire in the same week in which Monthly Option Series on the same class expire. Not listing Short Term Option Daily Expirations for one week every month because there was a monthly on that same class on the Friday of that week would create investor confusion.
Further, as with Monday SPY, QQQ, and IWM Expirations, the Exchange would not permit Monday ETP Expirations to expire on a business day in which standard expiration options series, Monthly Options Series, or Quarterly Options Series expire.
The Exchange does not believe that any market disruptions will be encountered with the introduction of Monday ETP Expirations. The Exchange currently trades P.M.-settled Short Term Option Series that expire on Monday for SPY, QQQ, and IWM and has not experienced any market disruptions nor issues with capacity. In addition, the Exchange has not experienced any market disruptions or issues with capacity in expanding the five ETPs to the Wednesday expirations.
Because the Exchange proposes to limit the number of Monday Expirations for options on GLD, SLV, and TLT to two expirations beyond the current week, the Exchange believes that the addition of these Monday ETP Expirations should encourage Market-Makers to continue to deploy capital more efficiently and improve displayed market quality. Similar to SPY, QQQ and IWM Monday Expirations, the introduction of Monday ETP Expirations will, among other things, expand hedging tools available to market participants and allow for a reduced premium cost of buying portfolio protection. The Exchange believes that Monday ETP Expirations will allow market participants to hedge their portfolios with options on commodities (gold and silver) as well as treasury securities, and tailor their investment and hedging needs more effectively.
The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposal to expand $1 strike intervals for GLD to include where the strike price is greater than $200 is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act and will promote just and equitable principles of trade because it will allow investors to use GLD options more easily, regardless of the strike price. The proposal will allow investors to better trade and hedge positions in GLD options where the strike price is greater than $200, thus ensuring that investors in both options are not at a disadvantage simply because of the strike price.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act, which provides that the Exchange be organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, like other strike price programs currently offered by the Exchange, will benefit investors by giving them increased flexibility to more closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions. By way of example, GLD is a leading product in its asset class and it trades within a “complex” where, in addition to the underlying security, there are multiple instruments available for hedging such as, COMEX Gold Futures; Gold Daily Futures; iShares GOLD Trust; SPDR GOLD Minishares Trust; Aberdeen Physical Gold Trust; and GraniteShares Gold Shares.
With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the Exchange believes it and OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with this proposed rule change. The Exchange believes that its TPHs will not have a capacity issue as a result of this proposal. Further, the Exchange does not believe the proposal does not unfairly discriminate among market participants, as all market participants will be treated in the same manner under this proposal.
Finally, the Exchange notes the proposed rule change is substantively identical to an approved Nasdaq ISE rule.
Similar to Monday expirations in SPY, QQQ, and IWM, the proposal to permit Monday ETP Expirations, subject to the proposed limitation of two expirations beyond the current week, would protect investors and the public interest by providing the investing public and other market participants more choice and flexibility to closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions in these options and allow for a reduced premium cost of buying portfolio protection, thus allowing them to better manage their risk exposure. The Exchange believes that there is general demand for alternative expirations in these symbols.
The Exchange represents that it has an adequate surveillance program in place to detect manipulative trading in the proposed option expirations, in the same way that it monitors trading in the current Short Term Option Series for Monday SPY, QQQ and IWM expirations. The Exchange also represents that it has the necessary system capacity to support the new expirations. Finally, the Exchange does not believe that any market disruptions will be encountered with the introduction of these option expirations. As discussed above, the Exchange believes that its proposal is a modest expansion of weekly expiration dates for GLD, SLV, and TLT given that it will be limited to two Monday expirations beyond the current week.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act as
Similar to Monday SPY, QQQ, and IWM expirations, the introduction of Monday ETP Expirations is consistent with the Act as it will, among other things, expand hedging tools available to market participants and allow for a reduced premium cost of buying portfolio protection. The Exchange believes that Monday ETP Expirations will allow market participants to purchase options on GLD, SLV, and TLT based on their timing as needed and allow them to tailor their investment and hedging needs more effectively, thus allowing them to better manage their risk exposure. Today, the Exchange lists Monday SPY, QQQ, and IWM Expirations.
There are no material differences in the treatment of Monday SPY, QQQ, and IWM expirations compared to the proposed Monday ETP Expirations. Given the similarities between Monday SPY, QQQ, and IWM expirations and the proposed Monday ETP Expirations, the Exchange believes that applying the provisions in Commentary .10(f) to Rule 903, that currently apply to Monday SPY, QQQ, and IWM expirations is justified. For example, the Exchange believes that allowing Monday ETP Expirations and monthly ETP expirations in the same week will benefit investors and minimize investor confusion by providing Monday ETP Expirations in a continuous and uniform manner.
Finally, the Exchange notes the proposed rule change is substantively identical to an approved Nasdaq ISE rule.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will result in additional investment options and opportunities to achieve the investment and trading objectives of market participants seeking efficient trading and hedging vehicles, to the benefit of investors, market participants, and the marketplace in general. Specifically, the Exchange believes that GLD options investors and traders will significantly benefit from the availability of finer strike price intervals above a $200 price point. In addition, the interval setting regime the Exchange proposes to apply to GLD options is currently applied to SPY, IVV, QQQ, IWM and DIA options, which are similarly popular and widely traded ETF products and track indexes at similarly high price levels. Thus, the proposed strike setting regime for GLD options will allow options on this actively traded ETF with index levels at corresponding price levels to trade pursuant to the same strike setting regime. This will permit investors to employ similar investment and hedging strategies for each of these options.
The Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on intermarket competition, as nothing prevents other options exchanges from proposing similar rules to make a finer strike price intervals above a $200 price point available for GLD options. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is not a novel proposal, as the Commission recently approved a substantively identical proposal of another exchange.
While the proposal will expand the Short Term Options Expirations to allow Monday ETP Expirations to be listed on the Exchange, the Exchange believes that this limited expansion for Monday expirations for options on GLD, SLV, and TLT will not impose an undue burden on competition; rather, it will meet customer demand. The Exchange believes that market participants will continue to be able to expand hedging tools and tailor their investment and hedging needs more effectively in GLD, SLV, and TLT.
Similar to Monday SPY, QQQ, and IWM expirations, the introduction of Monday ETP Expirations does not impose an undue burden on competition. The Exchange believes that it will, among other things, expand hedging tools available to market participants and allow for a reduced premium cost of buying portfolio protection. The Exchange believes that Monday ETP Expirations will allow market participants to purchase options on GLD, SLV, and TLT based on their timing as needed and allow them to tailor their investment and hedging needs more effectively.
The Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on inter-market competition, as nothing prevents the other options exchanges from proposing similar rules to list and trade Monday ETP Expirations. As noted above, the Commission recently approved a substantively identical proposal of another exchange.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
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 Fee Schedule relating to BOX Connectivity Fees and Port Fees on the BOX Options Market LLC (“BOX”) options facility. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to increase Connectivity Fees for 10 gigabit (“Gb”) Connections, Non-10 Gb Connections, Financial Information Exchange (“FIX”) Ports, SOLA® Access Information Language (“SAIL”) Ports, Drop Copy Ports, and High Speed Vendor Feed (“HSVF”) Ports (collectively “Connectivity and Ports”).
By way of background, a physical connection is utilized by a Participant or non-Participant to connect to BOX at the datacenters where BOX's servers are located. BOX currently assesses the following physical connectivity fees for Participants and non-Participants on a monthly basis: $1,000 per connection for a Non-10 Gb Connection and $5,000 per connection for a 10 Gb Connection. The Exchange proposes to increase, on a one-time basis, the monthly fee for Non-10 Gb Connections from $1,000 to $1,080 per connection and from $5,000 to $5,400 monthly fee for each 10 Gb Connection. The Exchange notes the proposed fee changes better enable BOX to continue to maintain and improve its market technology and services.
Further, BOX currently provides four types of ports, including: (i) the FIX Port, which allows Participants to electronically send orders in all products traded on BOX; (ii) the SAIL Port, which allows Market Makers to submit electronic quotes and orders and other Participants to submit orders to BOX; (iii) the Drop Copy Port, which provides a real-time feed containing trade execution, trade correction, trade cancellation and trade allocation for regular and complex orders on BOX for Participants; and (iv) the HSVF Port, which provides a BOX market data feed for both Participants and non-Participants. The Exchange notes that Participants must connect to a minimum of one port via FIX or SAIL and that there is no minimum or maximum number of ports required for the Drop Copy Port or the HSVF Port.
Current FIX Port fees are as follows:
Current SAIL Port fees are as follows:
The Exchange proposes to increase FIX Port fees on a one-time basis as follows:
The Exchange proposes to increase SAIL Port fees on a one-time basis as follows:
The Exchange also proposes to increase Drop Copy Ports on a one-time basis, currently $500 per port per month, to $540 per port per month for each month a Participant is credentialed to use a Drop Copy Port. Drop Copy Port fees will remain capped at $2,000 per month.
The Exchange proposes lastly to increase HSVF Port fees on a one-time basis, currently $1,500 per month, to $1,620 per month for each month a Participant or non-Participant is credentialed to use the HSVF Port.
The Exchange notes that BOX continuously invests in improvements that enhance the value of its Connectivity and Ports services. BOX has expended, and will continue to expend, resources to innovate and modernize technology so that it may benefit its Participants and continue to compete among other options markets. BOX regularly invests in efforts to support and optimize its systems to support system capacity, reliability, and performance. Yet the Exchange has not adjusted any of the fees included in this proposal since 2018, to even partially offset the costs of maintaining and enhancing its Connectivity and Ports services.
As discussed below, the Exchange proposes to adjust Connectivity and Ports fees by an industry- and product-specific inflationary measure. It is reasonable and consistent with the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) for BOX to recoup its investments, at least in part, by adjusting its fees. Continuing to operate at fees frozen at 2018 levels impacts BOX's ability to enhance its services and the interests of market participants. The proposed fee increases are based on an industry-specific Producer Price Index (PPI), which is a tailored measure of inflation.
For the period from July 2018 to August 2024, the Data PPI had a starting value of 107 in July 2018 and an ending value of 116.022 in August 2024, an 8.43% increase.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the “Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
This belief is based on two factors. First, the current fees do not properly reflect the quality of the services and products, as the fees for the services and products in question have been static in nominal terms, and therefore falling in real terms due to inflation. Second, the Exchange believes that investments made in enhancing the capacity and speed of BOX systems increase the performance of the services and products.
As noted above, the Exchange has not increased any of the fees included in the proposal since 2018. However, in the years following the last fee increase BOX has made significant investments in upgrades to BOX systems, enhancing the quality of its services, as measured by, among other things, increased throughput and faster processing speeds. In other words, BOX customers have greatly benefitted, while the BOX's ability to recoup its investments has been hampered. Between 2018 and 2024, the inflation rate is 3.86% per year, on average, producing a
The Exchange believes the proposed fee increase is reasonable in light of BOX's continued expenditure in maintaining a robust technology ecosystem. Furthermore, BOX continues to invest in maintaining and enhancing its Connectivity and Ports services—for the benefit and often at the behest of its Participants. Specifically, BOX has recently replaced trading servers and added additional servers to increase performance and capacity, to increase competitiveness, and to support growth. For example, the rapid growth of trading volumes from 2020 has increased the number of servers, network devices, and telecommunications lines required to keep pace with the growth of trade, order, and quote data. As part of another recent change, BOX deployed additional low latency network switches and increased its datacenter space. As a result of these initiatives, BOX increased its overall hardware footprint at the datacenters which directly results in increased support costs at the datacenter as well.
The goal of the initiatives discussed above, among other things, is to provide faster and more consistent order handling and matching performance for options, while ensuring quicker processing time and supporting increasing volumes. Accordingly, BOX continuously invests in improvements that enhance the value of its Connectivity and Ports services. As discussed above, BOX expended, and will continue to expend, resources to innovate and modernize technology so that it may benefit its Participants and continue to compete among other options markets. BOX regularly invests in efforts to support and optimize its systems to support system capacity, reliability, and performance.
Further, the Exchange notes that Participants and non-Participants will continue to choose the method of connectivity based on their specific needs and no broker-dealer is required to become a Participant of, let alone connect directly to, BOX. Moreover, direct connectivity is not a requirement to participate on BOX. Participants may choose to connect indirectly to BOX via a third-party reseller of connectivity. This indirect connectivity is a viable alternative for market participants to consume market data from BOX without connecting directly to BOX (and thus not pay BOX's connectivity fees), which alternative is already being used by both Participants and non-Participants.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes are equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because the fee increase would be applied uniformly across all market participants that voluntarily subscribe to or purchase connectivity or ports. The Exchange also believes that the proposal represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges because Exchange fees have fallen in real terms during the relevant period. Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes are not unfairly discriminatory because the fees would be assessed uniformly across all market participants, that voluntarily purchase connectivity or ports, in the same manner they are today. The Exchange also notes that its Connectivity and Ports services remain available for purchase by all market participants.
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. The proposed fee changes will not impact intramarket competition because it will apply to all similarly situated Participants and non-Participants equally (
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees do not impose a burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate. In determining the proposed fees, the Exchange utilized an objective and stable metric with limited volatility. Utilizing Data PPI over a specified period of time is a reasonable means of recouping BOX's investment in maintaining and enhancing its Connectivity and Ports services. The Exchange believes utilizing Data PPI, a tailored measure of inflation, to increase certain fees for BOX connectivity to recoup BOX's investment in maintaining and enhancing its Connectivity and Ports services would not impose a burden on intermarket competition.
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 Exchange 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.
• 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 July 22, 2024, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
On September 30, 2024, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,
As described more fully in the Notice,
The Exchange states that options on the Trust will trade in the same manner as options on other ETFs on the Exchange, and that Exchange rules that currently apply to the listing and trading of all options on ETFs on the Exchange, including, for example, rules that govern listing criteria, expirations, exercise prices, minimum increments, position and exercise limits, margin requirements, customer accounts and trading halt procedures, will apply to the listing and trading of options on the
The Exchange states that options on the Trust will also be subject to the Exchange's continued listing standards for options on in Options 4, Section 4(g).
(1) in the case of options covering Exchange-Traded Fund Shares approved pursuant to Options 4, Section 3(h)(A)(i), in accordance with the terms of subparagraphs (b)(1), (2), (3) and (4) of Options 4, Section 4;
(2) in the case of options covering Fund Shares approved pursuant to Options 4, Section 3(h)(A)(ii), following the initial twelve-month period beginning upon the commencement of trading, there were fewer than 50 record and/or beneficial holders of such Exchange-Traded Fund Shares for 30 or more consecutive trading days;
(3) the value of the index or portfolio of securities or non-U.S. currency, portfolio of commodities including commodity futures contracts, options on commodity futures contracts, swaps, forward contracts, options on physical commodities and/or Financial Instruments and Money Market Instruments on which the Exchange-Traded Fund Shares are based is no longer calculated or available; or
(4) such other event occurs or condition exists that in the opinion of the Exchange makes further dealing in such options on the Exchange inadvisable.
The Exchange states that options on the Trust will be physically settled contracts with American-style exercise.
The Exchange states that position and exercise limits for options on ETFs, including options on the Trust, will be determined pursuant to Options 9, Sections 13 and 15, respectively.
The Exchange represents that the same surveillance procedures applicable to other options on other ETFs currently listed and traded on the Exchange will apply to options on the Trust.
The Exchange states that it has analyzed its capacity and represents that it believes that the Exchange and the Options Price Reporting Authority have the necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic associated with the listing of new series that may result from the introduction of options on the Trust up to the number of expirations currently permissible under the Exchange's rules.
The Exchange states that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, in general,
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the “burden to demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the self-regulatory organization that proposed the rule change.”
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, 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 proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved by December 5, 2024. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by December 19, 2024.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice of Appointees to the Performance Review Board.
Federal Law requires each agency to publish notification of the appointment of individuals who will serve as members of that agency's Performance Review Board (PRB). The following individuals have been designated to serve on the PRB for the U.S. Small Business Administration.
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice Tentatively Approving and Authorizing Finance Transaction.
Patrick O. Regan (Applicant) filed an application seeking authority to acquire control of Faribault Transportation Service, Inc. (FTS), through a corporate reorganization in which Applicant would become the majority shareholder in MNC Holding Company, a new entity created to serve as a holding company for FTS and other motor carriers and noncarrier entities. Applicant also seeks after-the-fact authority for several already-consummated transactions that ultimately resulted in Applicant's acquisition of control of six passenger motor carriers: Minnesota Coaches, Inc., Marschall Line, Inc., Rehbein Transit Co., Inc., Minn-Dakota Coaches, Inc., Voyageur Bus Company, Inc., and Ready Bus Company, Inc. (collectively, Affiliated Carriers). The Board is tentatively approving and authorizing these transactions. If no opposing comments are timely filed, this notice will be the final Board action.
Comments must be filed by December 30, 2024. If any comments are filed, Applicant may file a reply by January 13, 2025. If no opposing comments are filed by December 30, 2024, this notice shall be effective on December 31, 2024.
Comments, referring to Docket No. MCF 21123, may be filed with the Board either via e-filing on the Board's website or in writing addressed to: Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, send one copy of comments to Applicant's representative: Edward Fishman, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Columbia Square, 555 Thirteenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20004.
Brian O'Boyle at (202) 245-0364. If you require an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, please call (202) 245-0245.
According to the application,
Applicant states that FTS has its principal place of business in Faribault, Minn., and provides student transportation service, including general and special education transportation, to and from school on a regular schedule, as well as school bus charter service for extracurricular activities and other special trips. (
Applicant also seeks after-the-fact authorization for his acquisition of control of six motor carriers through six previously consummated transactions. Applicant states that, if approval is granted, each of these carriers would be brought under control of MNC Holding Company, with Applicant as the majority shareholder and other minority shareholders of the carriers becoming minority shareholders of MNC Holding Company. (
Family Bus purchased 100% ownership of Minnesota Coaches from RECO, Inc., a corporation owned by Applicant and his siblings (though the date of the transaction is not given). (
In 1994, Family Bus became the sole shareholder of Marschall Line, which was founded in 1971 by the Marschall family. (
In 2012, Family Bus acquired the assets of Rehbein Transit, Inc., from the Rehbein family and formed the subsidiary, Rehbein. (
According to Applicant, Ready Bus, whose primary place of business is in Rochester, Minn., provides school transportation service that includes general and special education transportation to and from school on a regular schedule, and school charter service for extracurricular activities and special trips. (
Under 49 U.S.C. 14303(b), the Board must approve and authorize a transaction that it finds consistent with the public interest, taking into consideration at least (1) the effect of the proposed transaction on the adequacy of transportation to the public, (2) the total fixed charges resulting from the proposed transaction, and (3) the interest of affected carrier employees. Applicant has submitted the information required by 49 CFR 1182.2, including information demonstrating that the proposed transaction is consistent with the public interest under 49 U.S.C. 14303(b),
Applicant asserts that there would be no negative impact on competition as a result of his acquisition of FTS. Applicant states that FTS is exclusively a school bus service provider that only occasionally crosses state lines. (
Applicant states that his acquisition of control of FTS would not affect fixed charges, as he would obtain control of FTS through a corporate reorganization that would not involve any external financing. (Appl. 24; Suppl. 17.) Applicant asserts that there would be no material effect on employee or labor conditions at FTS, as there are no plans for employee layoffs or reductions in staff at FTS as a result of the proposed restructuring transaction, nor plans for adverse changes to existing FTS employee benefits. (Appl. 25; Suppl. 18.)
Applicant argues that there has been no negative impact on competition, as these Affiliated Carriers do not compete with each other today and generally did not compete directly with each other at the time of the respective acquisitions by Applicant, due to the nature of the services they each provide in their respective service areas. (
Applicant asserts that, while limited debt financing was used to acquire some of the Affiliated Carriers, the historical acquisitions did not result in fixed charges that adversely affected the
Applicant states that the historical acquisitions of control of the Affiliated Carriers have not had any material adverse effect on employee or labor conditions. Applicant asserts that, since those acquisitions, there have not been any mass layoffs or substantial employee restructurings, and no adverse changes to wage and benefit arrangements have been implemented. (Suppl. 20.)
Based on Applicant's representations, the Board finds that the acquisition of FTS is consistent with the public interest and should be tentatively approved and authorized. The Board also finds that the historical acquisitions of control of the Affiliated Carriers are consistent with the public interest and should be tentatively approved and authorized after the fact. If any opposing comments are timely filed, these findings will be deemed vacated and, unless a final decision can be made on the record as developed, a procedural schedule will be adopted to reconsider the application.
This action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c).
Board decisions and notices are available at
It is ordered:
1. The proposed acquisition of FTS is approved and authorized, subject to the filing of opposing comments.
2. The acquisitions of the Affiliated Carriers are approved and authorized after the fact, subject to the filing of opposing comments.
3. If opposing comments are timely filed, the findings made in this notice will be deemed vacated.
4. This notice will be effective December 31, 2024, unless opposing comments are filed by December 30, 2024. If any comments are filed, Applicants may file a reply by January 13, 2025.
5. A copy of this notice will be served on: (1) the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; (2) the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 10th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530; and (3) the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the General Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, Primus, and Schultz.
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 December 16, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Toni Main-Valentin by email at:
In compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), all of our data collection will be 100% electronic using an online form; Applicants will be asked to complete the survey just before they exit the system. The AVIATOR Customer Satisfaction Survey is designed to identify potential problems with FAA's automated staffing solutions as well as to evaluate customer satisfaction with the on-line application process. The information is not gathered by any other collection. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to improve the AVIATOR system's overall performance and customer satisfaction without utilizing
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of correction; reopening of comment period.
FMCSA corrects its August 7, 2024, notice requesting comments on its decision to renew exemptions for seven individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV” to correctly list the docket number that one individual was included in. The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. The Agency also reopens the public comment period for that notice.
The comment period for the notice published August 7, 2024, at 89 FR 64532, is reopened. Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2024.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4001,
On August 7, 2024, FMCSA published a notice of renewal of exemptions (89 FR 64532), which FMCSA announced its decision to renew exemptions for seven individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The notice inadvertently published the incorrect docket number for the renewal applicant, Raymond Lobo (NJ). Through this notice, FMCSA corrects the August 7, 2024, notice of renewal of exemptions by correctly indicating the complete docket number.
In FR Doc. 2024-17422, starting on page 64532 in the
FMCSA corrects the notice and reopens the comment period to ensure that interested parties have sufficient time to review and comment on the renewal of exemptions.
Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal Transit Administration (FTA).
Notice of Buy America waiver.
This notice provides information regarding FTA's finding that it is appropriate to grant a Buy America nonavailability waiver to the Detroit Transportation Corporation (DTC) for the procurement of special trackwork turnout switch components needed for the DTC's People Mover that are not manufactured in the United States. Specifically, this waiver covers one pair of EN60E1A1 switch point rails and all appurtenances associated with its installation.
The waiver is applicable November 14, 2024.
Jason Luebbers, FTA Attorney-Advisor, at (202) 366-8864 or
With certain exceptions, FTA's Buy America requirements prevent FTA from obligating an amount that may be appropriated to carry out its program for a project unless “the steel, iron, and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United States.” 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(1). A manufactured product is considered produced in the United States if (1) all of the manufacturing processes for the product take place in the United States and (2) all of the components of the product are of U.S. origin. A component is considered of U.S. origin if it is manufactured in the United States, regardless of the origin of its subcomponents. 49 CFR 661.5(d).
FTA may waive Buy America requirements for a product if, among other reasons, a compliant version of the product is not produced in a sufficient and reasonably available amount or is not of satisfactory quality. 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(2)(B). FTA cannot deny a request for a nonavailability waiver unless it can provide the waiver applicant with a written certification that the item is produced in the United States in a sufficient and reasonably available amount; the item produced in the United States is of a satisfactory quality; and includes a list of known manufacturers in the United States from which the item can be obtained. 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(6).
DTC is the owner and operator of the Detroit People Mover, which is the largest municipal rail system in Michigan. It is an automated light rail system that operates twelve rail cars on an elevated single track in a 2.9-mile loop with thirteen passenger stations in Detroit's central business district.
The existing switches were installed as original equipment in 1987 and designed to European standards, using AREMA 115RE rail throughout the
On January 19, 2023, DTC issued a request for proposals (RFP) (No. 1-19-2023, for DTC Sub-Package 7), which includes the special track switch described above, and received two responses. Both bidders certified that the switches they could provide would not comply with the FTA Buy America requirements. Following the RFP, DTC submitted a nonavailability waiver request to FTA for the non-compliant switch components. 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(2) and 49 CFR 661.7(c)(2).
The product that requires a waiver is one pair of EN60E1A1 switch point rails and all appurtenances associated with its installation; four transition head machined rails for connection to frog and turnout rails; and one set of switch point rods consisting of two drive rods and two detector rods. FTA estimates the total cost of goods subject to this proposed waiver is less than $300,000.
On September 9, 2024, FTA published a Notice of Proposed Buy America Waiver and Request for Comment, (89 FR 73185) for the special trackwork switches DTC seeks to procure under Sub-Package 7. The proposed waiver would apply only to the switch described above. The waiver would not apply to any other products or any other projects besides Sub-Package 7.
FTA received no comments in response to its proposed waiver.
For the reasons stated above, FTA is granting the waiver as proposed.
FTA waives one pair of EN60E1A1 switch point rails and all appurtenances associated with its installation; four transition head machined rails for connection to frog and turnout rails; and one set of switch point rods consisting of two drive rods and two detector rods to be procured under Sub-Package 7. The waiver is effective from the effective date of this notice through the period of performance and closeout of FTA's financial assistance for the project, which is estimated to be March 30, 2030.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein.
Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2024.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Chief, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety General Approvals and Permits Branch, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC.
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of actions on special permit applications.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein.
Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2024.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Chief, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety General Approvals and Permits Branch, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC.
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for modification of special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein.
Comments must be received on or before November 29, 2024.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Chief, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety General Approvals and Permits Branch, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Department of Transportation.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for an extension of a currently approved collection. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden.
Written comments should be submitted by December 16, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Lei Tang, Office of Airline Information, RTS-42, Room E34-413, OST-R, BTS, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, telephone number (202) 941-6652, or email
The
OMB Approval No. 2138-0013.
The Department of Transportation sets and updates mainline Alaska mail rates based on carrier aircraft operating expense, traffic and operational data. Form 41 cost data, especially fuel costs, terminal expenses, and line haul expenses are used in arriving at rate levels. DOT revises the established rates
As a party to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the United States is obligated to provide the International Civil Aviation Organization with financial and statistical data on operations of U.S. air carriers. Over 99 percent of the data filed with ICAO is extracted from the carriers' Form 41 reports.
Fitness determinations are made for both new entrants and established U.S. carriers proposing a substantial change in operations. A portion of these applications consists of an operating plan for the first year (14 CFR part 204) and an associated projection of revenues and expenses. The carrier's operating costs, included in these projections, are compared against the cost data in Form 41 for a carrier or carriers with the same aircraft type and similar operating characteristics. Such a review validates the reasonableness of the carrier's operating plan.
Form 41 reports, particularly balance sheet reports and cash flow statements, play a major role in the identification of vulnerable carriers. Data comparisons are made between current and past periods in order to assess the current financial position of the carrier. Financial trend lines are extended into the future to analyze the continued viability of the carrier. DOT reviews three areas of a carrier's operation: (1) the qualifications of its management team, (2) its disposition to comply with laws and regulations, and (3) its financial posture. DOT must determine whether or not a carrier has sufficient financial resources to conduct its operations without imposing undue risk on the traveling public. Moreover, once a carrier is operating, DOT is required to monitor its continuing fitness.
Senior DOT officials must be kept fully informed as to all current and developing economic issues affecting the airline industry. In preparing financial conditions reports or status reports on a particular airline, financial and traffic data are analyzed. Briefing papers may use the same information.
The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note) requires a statistical agency to clearly identify information it collects for non-statistical purposes. BTS hereby notifies the respondents and the public that BTS uses the information it collects under this OMB approval for non-statistical purposes including, but not limited to, publication of both Respondent's identity and its data, submission of the information to agencies outside BTS for review, analysis and possible use in regulatory and other administrative matters.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled, “Release of Non-Public Information.”
Comments must be received by December 16, 2024.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Instructions: You must include “OCC” as the agency name and “1557-0200” in your comment. In general, the OCC will publish comments on
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should also be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this information collection following the close of the 30-day comment period for this notice by the method set forth in the next bullet.
•
• For assistance in navigating
Shaquita Merritt, Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of the Comptroller of the
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
The information requirements in 12 CFR part 4, subpart C, are as follows:
• 12 CFR 4.33: Request for non-public OCC records or testimony;
• 12 CFR 4.35(b)(3): Third parties requesting testimony;
• 12 CFR 4.37(a)(2): OCC former employee notifying the OCC of subpoena;
• 12 CFR 4.37(a) and (b): Prohibition on dissemination of released information;
• 12 CFR 4.38(a) and (b): Restrictions on dissemination of released information; and
• 12 CFR 4.39(d): Request for authenticated records or certificate of nonexistence of records.
The OCC uses the information to process requests for non-public OCC information and to determine if sufficient grounds exist for the OCC to release the requested information or provide testimony that would include a discussion of non-public information. This information collection facilitates the processing of requests and expedites the OCC's release of non-public information and testimony to the requester, as appropriate.
Comments continue to be invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, 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 within 30 days of publication of this notice by clicking on the following link
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
(a) I have determined that imports of fine denier PSF that are the product of Australia are not a substantial cause of the serious injury found by the USITC, and I have therefore determined to exclude such imports that are the product of Australia from the action I am taking under section 203 of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2253), pursuant to section 331(b) of the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Public Law 108-286, 118 Stat. 919, 949 (2004)) (19 U.S.C. 3805 note);
(b) In light of the USITC's finding that imports of fine denier PSF that are the product of each CAFTA-DR country individually are not a substantial cause of serious injury or threat thereof, I have determined to exclude such imports that are the product of each of the CAFTA-DR countries from the action I am taking under section 203 of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2253), pursuant to section 331(b) of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (the “CAFTA-DR Act”) (Public Law 109-53, 119 Stat. 462, 495 (2005)) (19 U.S.C. 4101(b));
(c) In light of the USITC's finding that imports of fine denier PSF that are the product of Colombia are not a substantial cause of serious injury or threat thereof, I have determined to exclude such imports that are the product of Colombia from the action I am taking under section 203 of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2253), pursuant to section 331(b) of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act (Public Law 112-42, 125 Stat. 462, 493-94 (2011)) (19 U.S.C. 3805 note);
(d) In light of the USITC's finding that the serious injury substantially caused by imports to the domestic industry producing a like or directly competitive article does not result from the reduction or elimination of any duty provided for under the United States-Israel Free Trade Agreement, I have determined, as part of the action I am taking under section 203 of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2253), not to suspend the reduction or elimination of any duty on imports of fine denier PSF that are the product of Israel, pursuant to section 403 of the Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 (19 U.S.C. 2112 note);
(e) In light of the USITC's finding that imports of fine denier PSF that are the product of Panama are not a substantial cause of serious injury or threat thereof, I have determined to exclude such imports that are the product of Panama from the action I am taking under section 203 of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2253), pursuant to section 331(b) of the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act (Public Law 112-43, 125 Stat. 497, 529 (2011)) (19 U.S.C. 3805 note);
(f) In light of the USITC's finding that imports of fine denier PSF that are the product of Peru are not a substantial cause of serious injury or threat thereof, I have determined to exclude such imports that are the product of Peru from the action I am taking under section 203 of the
(g) I have determined that imports of fine denier PSF that are the product of Singapore are not a substantial cause of the serious injury found by the USITC, and I have therefore determined to exclude such imports that are the product of Singapore from the action I am taking under section 203 of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2253), pursuant to section 331(b) of the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Public Law 108-78, 117 Stat. 948, 970 (2003)) (19 U.S.C. 3805 note); and
(h) In light of the USITC's finding that the serious injury substantially caused by imports to the domestic industry producing a like or directly competitive article does not result from duty-free treatment provided for under the CBERA provisions of the Caribbean Basin Initiative trade program, I have determined, as part of the action I am taking under section 203 of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2253), not to suspend duty-free treatment pursuant to subsection 1 of 19 U.S.C. 2703(e), with respect to imports of fine denier PSF that are the product of any CBERA beneficiary country or territory.
(a) the share of total imports of the product of a country listed in subdivision (b)(iii) of Note 32 in the Annex to this proclamation, based on imports during a recent representative period, exceeds 3 percent;
(b) imports of the product from all listed countries with less than 3 percent import share collectively account for more than 9 percent of total imports of the product; or
(c) a country listed in subdivision (b)(iii) of Note 32 in the Annex to this proclamation is no longer a developing country for purposes of this proclamation;