Datasets:

storytracer

/

usgpo

like 0

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18108

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 66283-66285] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18108] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 211, 212, 223, 226, and 252 [Docket DARS-2024-0026] RIN 0750-AM21 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Sustainable Procurement (DFARS Case 2024-D024) AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to align the DFARS with changes made to the Federal Acquisition Regulation. DATES: Effective August 15, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Johnson, telephone 202-913-5764. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background This final rule revises the DFARS to align it with changes made to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). FAR Case 2022-006, published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2024, at 89 FR 30210, reorganized and updated FAR part 23. Changes included consolidation of content into particular subparts within part 23 and renaming part 23 along with some of its subparts. FAR Case 2022-006 also moved nonenvironmental matters, to include requirements for a drug-free workplace, from FAR part 23 to part 26. To align the DFARS with the FAR, this final rule implements corresponding changes to the DFARS. This rule changes the title of DFARS part 223 to ``Environment, Sustainable Acquisition, and Material Safety'' and the title of subpart 223.3 to ``Hazardous Material Identification, Material Safety Data, and Notice of Radioactive Materials.'' This rule adds subpart 223.1, Sustainable Products and Services, and moves the content from subparts 223.4 and 223.8 to the newly added subpart 223.1. It moves the content of subpart 223.5, Drug- Free Workplace, to newly added subpart 226.5, Drug-Free Workplace. Consequently, this rule also relocates the contract clause at DFARS 252.223-7004, Drug-Free Work Force, to DFARS 252.226-7003, Drug-Free Work Force. As a result of this reorganization, and to correspond to changes in the FAR, this rule renumbers or revises the headings of certain DFARS paragraphs. In addition, editorial changes are made in 252.226-7003, paragraph (a), to conform with drafting conventions for definitions. None of the changes in this rule affect the DFARS substantively. This rule does not alter policy or requirements stated in the DFARS. II. Publication of This Final Rule for Public Comment Is Not Required by Statute The statute that applies to the publication of the FAR is 41 U.S.C. 1707, Publication of Proposed Regulations. Subsection (a)(1) of the statute requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure, or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure, or form, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. This final rule is not required to be published for public comment because it only renames an existing DFARS part and existing subparts, and relocates DFARS subparts and paragraphs, to align the DFARS with changes made in the FAR. None of these changes to the DFARS are substantive. III. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT), for Commercial Products (Including Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf (COTS) Items), and for Commercial Services This final rule does not create any new solicitation provisions or contract clauses. It merely relocates an existing clause from DFARS 252.223-7004, Drug-Free Work Force, to DFARS 252.226-7003, Drug-Free Work Force, without substantive change. The rule does not impact the applicability of any existing solicitation provisions or contract clauses to contracts valued at or below the simplified acquisition threshold, for commercial products including COTS items, or for commercial services. IV. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as amended. V. Congressional Review Act As required by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808) before an interim or final rule takes effect, DoD will submit a copy of the interim or final rule with the form, Submission of Federal Rules under the Congressional Review Act, to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States. A major rule under the Congressional Review Act cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804. VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rule because this final rule does not constitute a significant DFARS revision within the meaning of FAR 1.501-1, and 41 U.S.C. 1707 does not require publication for public comment. [[Page 66284]] VII. Paperwork Reduction Act This final rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 211, 212, 223, 226, and 252 Government procurement. Jennifer D. Johnson, Editor/Publisher, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. Therefore, the Defense Acquisition Regulations System amends 48 CFR parts 211, 212, 223, 226, and 252 as follows: 0 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 211, 212, 223, 226, and 252 continues to read as follows: Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1. PART 211--DESCRIBING AGENCY NEEDS 211.271 [Amended] 0 2. Amend section 211.271 by removing ``subpart 223.8'' and adding ``223.107-4'' in its place. PART 212--ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES 0 3. Amend section 212.301 by revising the heading of paragraph (f)(ix) introductory text to read as follows: 212.301 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services. * * * * * (f) * * * (ix) Part 223--Environment, Sustainable Acquisition, and Material Safety. * * * * * * * * PART 223--ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABLE ACQUISITION, AND MATERIAL SAFETY 0 4. Revise the heading for part 223 to read as set forth above. 0 5. Add subpart 223.1 to read as follows: Subpart 223.1--Sustainable Products and Services Sec. 223.107-1 Products containing recovered materials. 223.107-4 Products that contain, use, or are manufactured with ozone-depleting substances or products that contain or use high global warming potential hydrofluorocarbons. Subpart 223.1--Sustainable Products and Services 223.107-1 Products containing recovered materials. (e) Procedures. Follow the procedures at PGI 223.107-1(e). 223.107-4 Products that contain, use, or are manufactured with ozone- depleting substances or products that contain or use high global warming potential hydrofluorocarbons. No DoD contract may include a specification or standard that requires the use of a class I ozone-depleting substance or that can be met only through the use of such a substance unless the inclusion of the specification or standard is specifically authorized at a level no lower than a general or flag officer or a member of the Senior Executive Service of the requiring activity in accordance with section 326, Public Law 102-484 (10 U.S.C. 3201 note prec.). This restriction is in addition to any imposed by the Clean Air Act and applies after June 1, 1993, to all DoD contracts, regardless of place of performance. 0 6. Revise the heading for subpart 223.3 to read as follows: Subpart 223.3--Hazardous Material Identification, Material Safety Data, and Notice of Radioactive Materials 0 7. Amend section 223.302 by revising the section heading to read as follows: 223.302 Hazardous material identification and notice of material safety data. * * * * * 223.303 [Redesignated as 223.304] 0 8. Redesignate section 223.303 as section 223.304. 223.304 [Amended] 0 9. Amend newly redesignated section 223.304 by revising the section heading to read as follows: 223.304 Contract clauses. * * * * * Subpart 223.4 [Removed and Reserved] 0 10. Remove and reserve subpart 223.4, consisting of section 223.405. Subpart 223.5 [Removed and Reserved] 0 11. Remove and reserve subpart 223.5, consisting of sections 223.570, 223.570-1, and 223.570-2. Subpart 223.8 [223 Removed] 0 12. Remove subpart 223.8, consisting of section 223.802. PART 226--OTHER SOCIOECONOMIC PROGRAMS 0 13. Add subpart 226.5 to read as follows: Subpart 226.5--Drug-Free Workplace Sec. 226.570 Drug-free work force. 226.570-1 Policy. 226.570-2 Contract clause. Subpart 226.5--Drug-Free Workplace 226.570 Drug-free work force. 226.570-1 Policy. DoD policy is to ensure that its contractors maintain a program for achieving a drug-free work force. 226.570-2 Contract clause. (a) Use the clause at 252.226-7003, Drug-Free Work Force, in all solicitations and contracts-- (1) That involve access to classified information; or (2) When the contracting officer determines that the clause is necessary for reasons of national security or for the purpose of protecting the health or safety of those using or affected by the product of, or performance of, the contract. (b) Do not use the clause in solicitations and contracts-- (1) For commercial products and commercial services; (2) When performance or partial performance will be outside the United States and its outlying areas, unless the contracting officer determines such inclusion to be in the best interest of the Government; or (3) When the value of the acquisition is at or below the simplified acquisition threshold. PART 252--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 252.223-7001 [Amended] 0 14. Amend section 252.223-7001 in the introductory text by removing ``223.303'' and adding ``223.304'' in its place. 252.223-7004 [Removed and Reserved] 0 15. Remove and reserve section 252.223-7004. 0 16. Add section 252.226-7003 to read as follows: 252.226-7003 Drug-Free Work Force. As prescribed in 226.570-2, use the following clause: Drug-Free Work Force (Aug 2024) (a) Definitions. As used in this clause-- [[Page 66285]] Employee in a sensitive position means an employee who has been granted access to classified information; or employees in other positions that the Contractor determines involve national security, health or safety, or functions other than the foregoing requiring a high degree of trust and confidence. Illegal drugs means controlled substances included in Schedules I and II, as defined by section 802(6) of title 21 of the United States Code, the possession of which is unlawful under chapter 13 of that title. The term ``illegal drugs'' does not mean the use of a controlled substance pursuant to a valid prescription or other uses authorized by law. (b) The Contractor agrees to institute and maintain a program for achieving the objective of a drug-free work force. While this clause defines criteria for such a program, contractors are encouraged to implement alternative approaches comparable to the criteria in paragraph (c) that are designed to achieve the objectives of this clause. (c) Contractor programs shall include the following, or appropriate alternatives: (1) Employee assistance programs emphasizing high level direction, education, counseling, rehabilitation, and coordination with available community resources; (2) Supervisory training to assist in identifying and addressing illegal drug use by Contractor employees; (3) Provision for self-referrals as well as supervisory referrals to treatment with maximum respect for individual confidentiality consistent with safety and security issues; (4) Provision for identifying illegal drug users, including testing on a controlled and carefully monitored basis. Employee drug testing programs shall be established taking account of the following: (i) The Contractor shall establish a program that provides for testing for the use of illegal drugs by employees in sensitive positions. The extent of and criteria for such testing shall be determined by the Contractor based on considerations that include the nature of the work being performed under the contract, the employee's duties, the efficient use of Contractor resources, and the risks to health, safety, or national security that could result from the failure of an employee adequately to discharge his or her position. (ii) In addition, the Contractor may establish a program for employee drug testing-- (A) When there is a reasonable suspicion that an employee uses illegal drugs; or (B) When an employee has been involved in an accident or unsafe practice; (C) As part of or as a follow-up to counseling or rehabilitation for illegal drug use; (D) As part of a voluntary employee drug testing program. (iii) The Contractor may establish a program to test applicants for employment for illegal drug use. (iv) For the purpose of administering this clause, testing for illegal drugs may be limited to those substances for which testing is prescribed by section 2.1 of subpart B of the ``Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs'' (53 FR 11980 (April 11 1988)), issued by the Department of Health and Human Services. (d) Contractors shall adopt appropriate personnel procedures to deal with employees who are found to be using drugs illegally. Contractors shall not allow any employee to remain on duty or perform in a sensitive position who is found to use illegal drugs until such times as the Contractor, in accordance with procedures established by the Contractor, determines that the employee may perform in such a position. (e) The provisions of this clause pertaining to drug testing program shall not apply to the extent they are inconsistent with state or local law, or with an existing collective bargaining agreement; provided that with respect to the latter, the Contractor agrees that those issues that are in conflict will be a subject of negotiation at the next collective bargaining session. (End of clause) [FR Doc. 2024-18108 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6001-FR-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:21.287526

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18109

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 66285] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18109] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 212 and 252 [Docket DARS-2024-0001] Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Technical Amendments AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: DoD is amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to make needed editorial changes. DATES: Effective August 15, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jennifer D. Johnson, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, telephone 703-717-8226. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule amends the DFARS to make needed editorial changes to correct mistakes regarding commercial services in DFARS 212.207; the mistakes were part of DFARS Case 2018- D066, Definition of ``Commercial Item.'' This final rule also corrects a typographical error in a solicitation provision. List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 212 and 252 Government procurement. Jennifer D. Johnson, Editor/Publisher, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. Therefore, the Defense Acquisition Regulations System amends 48 CFR part 252 as follows: 0 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 252 continues to read as follows: Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1. PART 212--ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES 212.207 [Amended] 0 2. Amend section 212.207-- 0 a. In paragraph (b) introductory text by removing ``commercial products and''; and 0 b. In paragraph (b)(iii)(A) by removing ``paragraph (1)'' and adding ``paragraph (2)'' in its place. PART 252--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 0 3. Amend section 252.215-7010 in Alternate I-- 0 a. By revising the provision date; and 0 b. In paragraph (d)(1) by removing ``237.7002(e)'' and adding ``234.7002(e)'' in its place. The revision reads as follows: 252.215-7010 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data. * * * * * Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data--Alternate I (Aug 2024) * * * * * [FR Doc. 2024-18109 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6001-FR-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:21.341940

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18107

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 66286] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18107] [[Page 66286]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Part 225 [Docket DARS-2024-0024] RIN 0750-AL87 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act Reform (DFARS Case 2023-D014) AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 that revises the name of the Strategic Materials Protection Board. DATES: Effective August 15, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly Bass, telephone 703-717-3446. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background This final rule revises the DFARS to implement section 1411 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 (Pub. L. 117-263). Section 1411 repeals 10 U.S.C. 187, which established the Strategic Materials Protection Board, and amends section 10 of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98h-1) to establish the Strategic and Critical Materials Board of Directors. Therefore, this final rule removes the name ``Strategic Materials Protection Board'' and inserts the new name ``Strategic and Critical Materials Board of Directors'' in the DFARS. II. Publication of This Final Rule for Public Comment Is Not Required by Statute The statute that applies to the publication of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is 41 U.S.C. 1707, Publication of Proposed Regulations. Subsection (a)(1) of the statute requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure, or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure, or form, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. This final rule is not required to be published for public comment, because the rule only revises all references to the Strategic Materials Protection Board in the DFARS, with no impact on contractors or offerors. III. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT), for Commercial Products (Including Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf (COTS) Items), and for Commercial Services This final rule does not create any new solicitation provisions or contract clauses. It does not impact any existing solicitation provisions or contract clauses or their applicability to contracts valued at or below the simplified acquisition threshold, for commercial products including COTS items, or for commercial services. IV. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as amended. V. Congressional Review Act As required by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808) before an interim or final rule takes effect, DoD will submit a copy of the interim or final rule with the form, Submission of Federal Rules under the Congressional Review Act, to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States. A major rule under the Congressional Review Act cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804. VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rule because this final rule does not constitute a significant DFARS revision within the meaning of FAR 1.501-1, and 41 U.S.C. 1707 does not require publication for public comment. VII. Paperwork Reduction Act This final rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 225 Government procurement. Jennifer D. Johnson, Editor/Publisher, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. Therefore, the Defense Acquisition Regulations System amends 48 CFR part 225 as follows: 0 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 225 continues to read as follows: Authority: 41 U.S.C 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1. PART 225--FOREIGN ACQUISITION 0 2. Amend section 225.7003-3 by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows: 225.7003-3 Exceptions. * * * * * (b) * * * (1) Electronic components, unless the Secretary of Defense, upon the recommendation of the Strategic and Critical Materials Board of Directors pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 98h-1, determines that the domestic availability of a particular electronic component is critical to national security. * * * * * 0 3. Amend section 225.7018-3 by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows: 225.7018-3 Exceptions. * * * * * (c) * * * (2) An electronic device, unless the Secretary of Defense, upon the recommendation of the Strategic and Critical Materials Board of Directors pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 98h-1 determines that the domestic availability of a particular electronic device is critical to national security (but see PGI 225.7018-3(c)(2) with regard to samarium-cobalt magnets used in electronic components); or * * * * * [FR Doc. 2024-18107 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6001-FR-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:21.403528

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18282

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 66287-66289] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18282] [[Page 66287]] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Transportation Security Administration 49 CFR Part 1540 Air Cargo Security Threat Assessments; Technical Amendment AGENCY: Transportation Security Administration, DHS. ACTION: Final rule, technical amendment. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is issuing this technical amendment to the air cargo security threat assessment procedures to correct a technical oversight that limited the type of immigration information noncitizens may submit as part of the immigration vetting process. DATES: This rule is effective as of August 15, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronoy Varghese, Policy Analyst, Air Cargo, Policy, Plans and Engagement, Transportation Security Administration, 6595 Springfield Center Drive, Springfield, VA 20598; telephone: (571) 227-2230; email: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You can find an electronic copy of this rule using the internet by accessing the Government Publishing Office's web page at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/FR to view the daily published Federal Register edition or by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's web page at https://www.federalregister.gov. Copies are also available by contacting the individual identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Small Entity Inquiries The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires TSA to comply with small entity requests for information and advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within TSA's jurisdiction. Any small entity that has a question regarding this document may contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Persons can obtain further information regarding SBREFA on the Small Business Administration's web page at https://advocacy.sba.gov/resources/reference-library/sbrefa/. I. Discussion of the Rule This technical amendment revises 49 CFR 1540.203(c)(8) to correct a technical oversight that limited the type of information prospective noncitizen \1\ air cargo workers and other individuals with access to cargo could submit when applying for a security threat assessment (STA). As described in the Air Cargo Screening Interim Final Rule, 74 FR 47672 (Sept. 16, 2009), the procedures for the STA are codified in 49 CFR part 1540, subpart C. Section 1540.203 requires all applicants to submit certain biographic information to TSA to conduct the STA.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ For purposes of this discussion, TSA uses the term ``noncitizen'' to be synonymous with the term ``alien'' as it is used in the Immigration and Nationality Act (``INA'' or ``Act''). See INA 101(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3); Barton v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1442, 1446 n.2 (2020). \2\ This information is used to conduct multiple checks as part of the STA process, including intelligence-related checks and confirming an applicant's identity. See 49 CFR 1540.205. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paragraph 1540.203(c)(8) requires noncitizens to submit an Alien Registration Number (ARN) that TSA uses to access the pertinent immigration databases. TSA must have this information, or other appropriate identifying documents and information, to complete the immigration portion of the STA. Because there are other documents and information in addition to an ARN that noncitizens may possess that TSA can use to complete the vetting process, it is unnecessary to limit the acceptable documents to the ARN. For example, applicants may use the Form I-551, Permanent Resident Card; a foreign passport containing a Form I-551 stamp; and certain categories of Form I-766, Employment Authorization Document. Also, applicants may have Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Form I-94 Arrival/Departure Record information that TSA can use to access the database. Note that noncitizens in the U.S. no longer need to complete a paper CBP Form I-94, but can access their Form I-94 online and provide it to employers, schools/universities, or government agencies as needed. (CBP encourages travelers to retrieve their arrival/ departure information automatically from the CBP I-94 website, available at https://i94.cbp.dhs.gov/I94/#/home.) Limiting the information noncitizens may submit to only an ARN prevents individuals who possess other appropriate documents and information from applying for the STA. This was an oversight in the rule drafting phase that TSA now corrects through this technical amendment. This technical amendment does not alter the immigration standard established under part 1540.203, but rather allows eligible individuals to submit other official and legitimate documents and information to complete the STA. TSA is amending the application form to clarify the documents and information that an applicant may submit to TSA to complete the immigration portion of the STA. TSA will maintain a list of documents on its website that noncitizen applicants may submit as part of the vetting process to facilitate an immigration check. II. Good Cause and Procedural Rule Exceptions From Notice and Comment and Delayed Effective Date TSA is issuing this final rule change as a technical amendment without a notice of proposed rulemaking or delayed effective date. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes agencies to forgo the notice and comment requirements if it ``for good cause finds . . . that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B); see also 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) (allowing agency to forgo a delayed effective date for a substantive rule upon a finding of good cause). TSA believes notice and comment concerning the submission of additional immigration documents is unnecessary as it is a limited, insubstantial amendment meant to correct a drafting oversight. It is unnecessary to seek notice and comment on the rule changes because the new language imposes no new substantive burden and corrects an oversight in drafting. Further, it is unnecessary for the rule to have a delayed effective date as the amendment merely expands the types of documents and information an applicant may provide when applying for an STA and is not a substantive change to the rule. For these reasons, TSA believes that bypassing the ordinary notice and comment procedure and the delayed effected date requirement is justified in the totality of the circumstances. In addition, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) permits agencies to forgo notice and comment when issuing ``rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice,'' i.e., a procedural rule. ``A useful articulation of the exemption's critical feature is that it covers agency actions that do not themselves alter the rights or interests of parties, although it may alter the manner in which the parties present themselves or their viewpoints to the agency.'' \3\ The exemption ``preserve[s] agency flexibility when dealing with limited situations where substantive [[Page 66288]] rights are not at stake.'' \4\ Here, TSA is correcting an oversight in drafting that relates solely to forms of evidence before the agency. As a matter of agency procedure and practice, TSA is allowing noncitizens to submit additional available and acceptable records in their possession that TSA can use in the vetting process to facilitate an immigration check. In addition, the delayed effective date requirements under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) do not apply to procedural rules. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ Batterton v. Marshall, 648 F.2d 694, 707 (D.C. Cir. 1980). \4\ American Hospital Ass'n v. Bowen, 834 F.2d 1037, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1987). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Regulatory Analyses A. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), requires that TSA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public, and under the provisions of 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information it conducts, sponsors, or requires through regulations. This rule does not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. B. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 Assessment Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review), and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) 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 (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this technical amendment a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed this regulatory action. This technical amendment reduces the regulatory burden on noncitizens by revising 49 CFR 1540.203(c)(8) to consider additional information and documents that STA applicants can submit to TSA to conduct its immigration check. This technical amendment does not create or change any substantive requirements. C. Regulatory Flexibility Assessment The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \5\ requires that agencies consider the impacts of their rules on small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, not-for- profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Individuals and States are not included in the definition of a small entity. The RFA's regulatory flexibility analysis requirements apply only to those rules for which an agency is required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law. See 5 U.S.C. 604(a). As discussed previously, DHS did not issue a notice of proposed rulemaking for this action as exempted by 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for this rule. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Public Law 96-354 (94 Stat. 1164, Sept. 19, 1980), codified at 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-38, UMRA) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed rule or final rule for which the agency published a proposed rule, which includes any Federal mandate that may result in a $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. Regulations are only reviewable under UMRA when an agency has published a notice of proposed rulemaking as defined by 5 U.S.C. 553(b).\6\ This rule is exempted from notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). TSA did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking; thus, this rule is exempt from UMRA's requirements pertaining to the preparation of a written statement. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ See 2 U.S.C. 658(10); 5 U.S.C. 601(2). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E. Executive Order 13132 Under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), agencies must consider whether a rule has federalism implications. TSA has determined that this rule does not have federalism implications because it does not create a substantial direct effect on states, on the relationship between the national government and states, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. F. International Trade Impact Assessment The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. The Trade Agreement Act does not consider legitimate domestic objectives, such as essential security, as unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires that international standards be considered, and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. This technical amendment will not have an adverse impact on international trade. G. Energy Impact Analysis TSA assessed the energy impact of this action in accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA),\7\ and determined that this technical amendment is not a major regulatory action under the provisions of the EPCA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ As codified at 42 U.S.C. 6362. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- H. Environmental Analysis TSA has reviewed this technical amendment for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) \8\ and has determined that this action will not have a significant effect on the human environment. This action is covered by categorical exclusion numbers A3(a) (for actions of a strictly administrative or procedural nature) and (b) (that implement, without substantive change, statutory or regulatory requirements) in DHS Management Directive 023-01 (formerly Management Directive 5100.1), Environmental Planning Program, and Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1, which guides TSA compliance with NEPA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ As codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. The Congressional Review Act Before a rule can take effect, 5 U.S.C. 801, the Congressional Review Act, requires agencies to submit the rule and a report indicating whether it is a major rule to Congress and the Comptroller General. Under 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C), rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties are not considered to be a rule for the purposes of the Congressional Review Act. This technical amendment is a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice that will not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties, thus is not required to be submitted for review under the CRA. [[Page 66289]] List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1540 Air carriers, Airports, Aviation safety, Security measures. For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Transportation Security Administration amends 49 CFR part 1540 as follows: PART 1540--CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY: GENERAL RULES 0 1. The general authority citation for part 1540 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114, 5103, 40113, 44901-44907, 44913- 44914, 44916-44918, 44925, 44935-44936, 44942, 46105. 0 2. Amend Sec. 1540.203 by revising paragraph (c)(8) to read as follows: Sec. 1540.203 Security threat assessment. * * * * * (c) * * * (8) If the applicant is not a U.S. citizen, the applicant's Alien Registration Number; a Form I-94 Arrival and Departure record containing an I-94 number; or other document as authorized by TSA and listed on the TSA website as permissible for this purpose. * * * * * Dated: August 8, 2024. David P. Pekoske, Administrator. [FR Doc. 2024-18282 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-05-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:21.442318

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-17896

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 66290-66291] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-17896] ======================================================================== Proposed Rules Federal Register ________________________________________________________________________ This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. ======================================================================== Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 158 / Thursday, August 15, 2024 / Proposed Rules [[Page 66290]] DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2023-1624; Airspace Docket No. 24-ACE-7] RIN 2120-AA66 Establishment of Class E Airspace; Rose Hill, KS AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Rose Hill, KS. The FAA is proposing this action to support new instrument procedures at this airport. DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 30, 2024. ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2023-1624 and Airspace Docket No. 24-ACE-7 using any of the following methods: * Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov and follow the online instruction for sending your comments electronically. * Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001. * Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. * Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at (202) 493-2251. Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. You may also contact the Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267- 8783. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raul Garza Jr., Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5874. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface Class E surface airspace at Cook Airfield, Rose Hill, KS, to support instrument flight rule (IFR) operations at this airport. Comments Invited The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing. The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or dely. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives. Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT post these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy. Availability of Rulemaking Documents An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address, phone number, and hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177. Incorporation by Reference Class E airspace is published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective [[Page 66291]] September 15, 2023. These updates would be published subsequently in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points. The Proposal The FAA is proposing to amend 14 CFR part 71 by: Establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Cook Airfield, Rose Hill, KS. This action is to support new instrument procedures and IFR operations at this airport. Regulatory Notices and Analyses The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Environmental Review This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air). The Proposed Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 0 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. Sec. 71.1 [Amended] 0 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth * * * * * ACE KS E5 Rose Hill, KS [Establish] Cook Airfield, KS (Lat. 37[deg]33'55'' N, long. 097[deg]10'28'' W) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Cook Airfield. * * * * * Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 6, 2024. Steven Phillips, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center. [FR Doc. 2024-17896 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:21.461076

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-17573

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 66291-66295] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-17573] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0327; FRL-12106-01-R9] Finding of Failure To Attain the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standards; California; Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to determine that the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin (``South Coast'') ozone nonattainment area failed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard by its June 15, 2024 ``Extreme'' area attainment date. This proposed determination is based on quality- assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data from 2021 through 2023. DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 16, 2024. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09- OAR-2024-0327 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a language other than English or if you are a person with a disability who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, ARD-2, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105: telephone number: (415) 972- 3964; email address: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the EPA. Table of Contents I. Background A. Regulatory Context B. History of the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS in the South Coast II. EPA Analysis A. Applicable Statutory and Regulatory Provisions B. Monitoring Network Considerations C. Data Considerations III. Public Comment and Proposed Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background A. Regulatory Context Ground-level ozone pollution is formed from the reaction of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in the presence of sunlight.\1\ These two pollutants, referred [[Page 66292]] to as ozone precursors, are emitted by many types of sources, including on- and off-road motor vehicles and engines, power plants and industrial facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden equipment and paints. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The State of California refers to reactive organic gases (ROG) rather than VOC in some of its ozone-related SIP submissions. As a practical matter, ROG and VOC refer to the same set of chemical constituents, and for the sake of simplicity, we refer to this set of gases as VOC in this proposed rule. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public health effects occur following exposure to ozone, particularly in children and adults with lung disease. Breathing air containing ozone can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which can increase respiratory symptoms and aggravate asthma or other lung diseases.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ EPA, Health Effects of Ozone Pollution, available at https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/health-effects-ozone-pollution. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Under section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), the EPA promulgates national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') for pervasive air pollutants, such as ozone. The NAAQS are concentration levels whose attainment and maintenance the EPA has determined to be requisite to protect public health and welfare. In 1979, under section 109 of the CAA, the EPA established primary and secondary standards for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm) averaged over a 1-hour period.\3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On July 18, 1997, the EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to set the acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period.\4\ The EPA set the 1997 8- hour ozone NAAQS based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health effects at lower concentrations and over longer periods of time than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone standards were set. The EPA determined that the 8-hour standard would be more protective of human health, especially for children and for adults who are active outdoors, and for individuals with a preexisting respiratory disease, such as asthma. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997). Primary standards provide public health protection, including protecting the health of ``sensitive'' populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards provide public welfare protection, including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. Since the primary and secondary standards established in 1997 are set at the same level, we refer to them herein using the singular ``1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS'' or ``1997 8-hour ozone standard.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In March 2008, the EPA completed another review of the primary and secondary ozone standards and tightened them further by lowering the level for both to 0.075 ppm.\5\ The EPA revoked the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS effective April 6, 2015; \6\ however, to comply with anti- backsliding requirements of the Act, areas designated nonattainment at the time that the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS was revoked remain subject to certain requirements based on their classification at the time of revocation, including requirements related to nonattainment contingency measures under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and, for ``Severe'' and ``Extreme'' areas, major source fee programs under CAA section 185.\7\ The EPA's determination that an area failed to attain by its attainment date, which is made under CAA section 301 and consistent with section 181(b)(2), triggers these anti-backsliding requirements. See South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 882 F.3d 1138, 1147 (D.C. Cir. 2018). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). \6\ 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015). \7\ 40 CFR 51.1100(o). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The South Coast ozone nonattainment area, excluding areas of Indian country,\8\ lies within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD or ``District''). Under California law, SCAQMD is responsible for adopting and implementing stationary source rules in the South Coast, such as the fee program rules required under CAA section 185, while the California Air Resource Board (CARB) adopts and implements consumer products and mobile source rules subject to the requirements of CAA section 209. CARB submits the District and State rules to the EPA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ ``Indian country'' as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151 refers to: ``(a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights- of-way running through the same.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- An area is considered to have attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard if there are no violations of the standard, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.9, based on three consecutive years of complete, quality-assured, and certified monitoring data. A violation occurs when the ambient ozone air quality monitoring data show that the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations at an ozone monitor is greater than 0.08 ppm.\9\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ 40 CFR 50.10. As explained in section II.A of this document, due to rounding and truncation conventions the computed 3-year average ozone concentration of 0.085 ppm is the smallest value that is greater than 0.08 ppm. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. History of the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS in the South Coast The South Coast ozone nonattainment area consists of Orange County, the southwestern two-thirds of Los Angeles County, southwestern San Bernardino County, and western Riverside County. It encompasses an area of approximately 6,600 square miles and is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto mountains to the north and east.\10\ The population of the South Coast region is over 17 million people.\11\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ For a precise definition of the boundaries of the South Coast 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305. \11\ 2022 AQMP, Figure 1-3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is required by the CAA to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. On April 15, 2004, the EPA designated the South Coast as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and classified it as ``Severe-17'' under CAA section 181(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.903(a), table 1.\12\ This designation and classification became effective on June 15, 2004. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ 69 FR 23858, 23882-84 (April 30, 2004) and 40 CFR 81.305. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In 2007, California requested that the EPA reclassify the South Coast ozone nonattainment area from Severe-17 to Extreme nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard under CAA section 181(b)(3). On May 5, 2010, we granted California's request and reclassified the area to Extreme effective June 4, 2010, with an attainment date of no later than June 15, 2024.\13\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ 75 FR 24409. This reclassification excluded Indian country pertaining to the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and the Pechanga Band of Luise[ntilde]o Mission Indians. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. EPA Analysis A. Applicable Statutory and Regulatory Provisions For the revoked 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the EPA is required to determine whether an ozone nonattainment area attained the ozone standard by the area's attainment date solely for purposes of triggering any applicable anti-backsliding requirements. For Extreme areas, applicable requirements triggered upon a finding that an area failed to attain by the attainment date are nonattainment contingency measures and CAA section [[Page 66293]] 185 fee programs.\14\ A determination of whether an area's air quality meets the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is generally based on three years of complete, quality-assured, and certified air quality monitoring data gathered at established State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (``SLAMS'') in the nonattainment area and entered into the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database.\15\ Data from ambient air monitors operated by State/local agencies in compliance with EPA monitoring requirements must be submitted to the AQS database. Monitoring agencies annually certify that these data are accurate to the best of their knowledge. Accordingly, the EPA relies primarily on data in its AQS database when determining the attainment status of an area.\16\ All data are reviewed to determine the area's air quality status in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix I. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ 40 CFR 51.1105(d)(2)(iii). \15\ Generally, a ``complete'' data set for determining attainment of the ozone is one that includes three years of data. There are less stringent data requirements for showing that a monitor has failed an attainment test and thus has recorded a violation of the standard. \16\ 40 CFR 50.10; 40 CFR part 50, appendix I; 40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR part 58, appendices A, C, D, and E. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.10, the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth- highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations at an ozone monitor is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding, based on the truncating conventions in 40 CFR part 50, appendix I). This 3-year average is referred to as the ``design value.'' When the design value is greater than 0.084 ppm at any monitor within the area, then the area is violating the NAAQS. The data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than or equal to 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data completeness, as determined under appendix I of 40 CFR part 50. The EPA is proposing to determine that the South Coast failed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by its applicable attainment date; that is, that the average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration was above 0.08 ppm in the period prior to the applicable attainment date, i.e., 2021-2023. This proposed determination is based on three years of quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data in AQS for the 2021-2023 monitoring period. B. Monitoring Network Considerations Section 110(a)(2)(B)(i) of the CAA requires States to establish and operate air monitoring networks to compile data on ambient air quality for all criteria pollutants. In the South Coast, SCAQMD is responsible for assuring that the area meets air quality monitoring requirements. The District's annual network plans describe the air monitoring network as required under 40 CFR 58.10. The EPA reviews these annual network plans for compliance with specific requirements in 40 CFR part 58. With respect to ozone, we have found that the annual network plans submitted by SCAQMD meet the minimum monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 58. While the EPA has identified some requirements that are not met in these annual network plans, these unmet requirements do not preclude us from determining that the South Coast has failed to attain the 1997 8- hour ozone NAAQS.\17\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ We have included copies of SCAQMD's annual network plans for 2021-2023 in the docket for this rulemaking, along with our reviews of these plans and our associated transmittal correspondence. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the EPA conducts regular Technical Systems Audits (TSAs) where we review and inspect State and local ambient air monitoring programs to assess compliance with applicable regulations concerning the collection, analysis, validation, and reporting of ambient air quality data. For the purposes of this proposal, we reviewed the findings from the EPA's most recent TSA of SCAQMD's ambient air monitoring program.\18\ The results of this TSA do not preclude the EPA from determining that the South Coast ozone nonattainment area has failed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ See letter from Elizabeth Adams, Director, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Dr. Matt Miyasato, Executive Officer, SCAQMD, dated March 18, 2021, and enclosure titled, ``Technical Systems Audit Report, SCAQMD, June 1-June 5, 2020.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C. Data Considerations In accordance with 40 CFR 58.15, SCAQMD certifies annually that the previous year's ambient concentration and quality assurance data are completely submitted to AQS and that the ambient concentration data are accurate, taking into consideration the quality assurance findings.\19\ There were 27 ozone monitoring sites located throughout the South Coast in calendar years 2021 through 2023: 13 within Los Angeles County, three within Orange County, six within Riverside County, and five within San Bernardino County. Table 1 of this document summarizes the ozone monitoring data from the various monitoring sites in the South Coast ozone nonattainment area by showing the annual 4th highest daily maximum concentrations and design values over the 2021-2023 period. The data summarized in table 1 of this document are considered complete for the purposes of determining if the standard is met.\20\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ We have included SCAQMD's annual data certifications for 2020, 2021, and 2022 in the docket for this rulemaking. \20\ The criteria for data completeness are met at most of the ozone monitors over the 2021-2023 period, but are not met for the ozone monitors at the Azusa, LAX Hastings, Mission Viejo, Perris, and Upland stations. However, the failure of these five monitors to meet the completeness criteria does not bear on the question of whether the area is violating because several other monitors within the area are violating the NAAQS. Table 1--South Coast Ozone Nonattainment Area Fourth High 8-Hour Ozone Average Concentrations and Design Values (ppm) for 2021-2023 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4th Highest daily maximum General location Site name (AQS ------------------------------------------------ Design value ID) 2021 2022 2023 (2021-2023) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Los Angeles County: East San Gabriel Valley... Azusa (06-037- 0.077 \a\ N/A \a\ N/A \b\ Invalid 0002). East San Gabriel Valley... Glendora (06-037- 0.090 0.094 0.102 0.095 0016). Northwest Coastal LA West Los Angeles 0.059 0.058 0.064 0.060 County. (06-037-0113). Central Los Angeles....... Los Angeles-- 0.068 0.073 0.075 0.072 North Main Street (06-037- 1103). West San Fernando Valley.. Reseda (06-037- 0.080 0.078 0.087 0.081 1201). [[Page 66294]] South Central Los Angeles Compton (06-037- 0.062 0.064 0.068 0.081 County. 1302). South San Gabriel Valley.. Pico Rivera #2 0.068 0.070 0.075 0.071 (06-037-1602). Pomona/Walnut Valley...... Pomona (06-037- 0.089 0.088 0.095 0.090 1701). West San Gabriel Valley... Pasadena (06-037- 0.081 0.081 0.086 0.082 2005). South Coastal LA County... Signal Hill (06- 0.060 0.058 0.062 0.060 037-4009). East San Fernando Valley.. North Hollywood 0.079 0.082 0.085 0.082 (06-037-4010). Southwest Coastal LA LAX Hastings (06- \a\ N/A \a\ N/A \a\ N/A \b\ Invalid County. 037-5005). Santa Clarita Valley...... Santa Clarita 0.097 0.095 0.103 0.098 (06-037-6012). Orange County: Central Orange County..... Anaheim (06-059- 0.063 0.060 0.064 0.062 0007). Saddleback Valley......... Mission Viejo 0.078 \a\ N/A \a\ N/A \b\ Invalid (06-059-2022). North Orange County....... La Habra (06-059- 0.070 0.070 0.077 0.072 5001). Riverside County: Banning................... Banning Airport 0.102 0.093 0.095 0.096 (06-065-0012). Temecula Valley........... Temecula (06-065- 0.078 0.070 0.069 0.072 0016). Perris Valley............. Perris (06-065- 0.091 \a\ N/A \a\ N/A \b\ Invalid 6001). Metropolitan Riverside Rubidoux (06-065- 0.091 0.092 0.097 0.093 County. 8001). Mira Loma................. Mira Loma (Van 0.093 0.087 0.095 0.091 Buren) (06-065- 8005). Lake Elsinore............. Lake Elsinore 0.090 0.086 0.086 0.087 (06-065-9001). San Bernardino County: Central San Bernardino Crestline (06- 0.107 0.105 0.106 0.106 Mountains. 071-0005). Northwest San Bernardino Upland (06-071- 0.097 0.098 \a\ N/A \b\ Invalid Valley. 1004). Central San Bernardino Fontana (06-071- 0.099 0.095 0.105 0.099 Valley. 2002). East San Bernardino Valley Redlands (06-071- 0.112 0.103 0.105 0.106 4003). Central San Bernardino San Bernardino 0.105 0.103 0.107 0.105 Valley. (06-071-9004). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \a\ The required annual 75 percent completeness criterion was not met, therefore the annual 4th highest daily maximum values were not provided. \b\ The design values for the Azusa, LAX Hastings, Mission Viejo, Perris, and Upland sites are invalid due to temporary or permanent closures of the sites. All other design values are valid. Source: EPA, AQS Design Value (AMP480), Report Request ID: 2200476, July 10, 2024. Also see Memorandum dated July 19, 2024, from Jennifer Williams and Ben Wells, EPA, to Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0327, Subject: ``Correction to Design Values for the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS in Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA Nonattainment Area.'' Generally, the highest ozone concentrations in the South Coast occur in the northern and eastern portions of the area. As shown in table 1 of this document, the highest 8-hour design value at any site in the South Coast ozone nonattainment area for 2021-2023 is 0.106 ppm at both the Crestline site in the Central San Bernardino Mountains and the Redlands site in the East San Bernardino Valley. The design value of 0.106 ppm represents a violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.\21\ Table 1 of this document also shows that, while the highest design values occur in the East and Central San Bernardino Valley, violations occur throughout Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \21\ For more information, please see ``National 8-hour primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for ozone'' (40 CFR 50.10) and ``Interpretation of the 8-Hour Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone'' (40 CFR part 50, appendix I). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Taking into account the extent and reliability of the applicable ozone monitoring network, and the data collected therefrom and summarized in table 1 of this document, we propose to determine that the South Coast ozone nonattainment area failed to attain the 1997 8- hour ozone standard (as defined in 40 CFR part 50, appendix I) by the applicable attainment date (i.e., June 15, 2024). III. Public Comment and Proposed Action We are proposing to determine that the South Coast failed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by its June 15, 2024 attainment date, based on quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data from 2021 through 2023. The EPA is determining whether this area failed to attain by the applicable attainment date solely for purposes of triggering applicable anti-backsliding requirements. For Extreme areas, applicable requirements triggered upon a finding that an area failed to attain by the attainment date are nonattainment contingency measures and CAA section 185 fee programs. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until September 16, 2024. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders. A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This proposed action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA not already approved by the OMB. [[Page 66295]] C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not impose any enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.'' This proposed action does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP obligations discussed herein do not apply to Indian Tribes and thus this proposed action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. Nonetheless, the EPA has notified the Tribes within the South Coast ozone nonattainment area of the proposed action. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population Executive Order 12898 establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. There is no information in the record indicating that this action is inconsistent with the stated goals of Executive Order 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low- income populations, and indigenous peoples. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: August 2, 2024. Martha Guzman Aceves, Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. 2024-17573 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:21.526412

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18173

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 66295-66305] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18173] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2024-0016; FRL-12094-01-R3] Air Plan Approval; Delaware; Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve three State implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Delaware to amend Delaware's motor vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs, Statewide. Delaware has made several State regulatory amendments to its prior SIP-approved I/M program regulations, to both improve the program and to harmonize its two State I/M program regulations so that the entire State is subject to similar I/M requirements. These SIP revisions apply to both the federally mandated enhanced I/M program applicable to Kent and New Castle Counties that comprise Delaware's portion of the Philadelphia- Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE ozone nonattainment area, and also to the Sussex County program, where I/M is not federally required but where Delaware has a prior approved, SIP strengthening I/M program (similar in design to a basic I/M program). The amendments to Delaware's I/M programs include: a change in program coverage to expand exemptions for new vehicles to seven years; addition of vehicle on- board diagnostic (OBD) testing requirements in the Sussex County program; expanded vehicle coverage to include vehicles weighing between 8,501 to 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), for those vehicles model year 2008-and-newer; harmonization of I/M test requirements applicable to older vehicles to include curb idle exhaust and gas cap pressure tests for vehicles 1995-and-older (replacing existing two-speed idle tests on those vehicles previously performed in Kent and New Castle Counties); phase-in of increased minimum repair cost thresholds for obtaining a repair waiver in Sussex County; and the [[Page 66296]] addition of a Statewide prohibition on tampering-related repairs in qualifying for an emissions repair waiver. EPA's proposed action is in compliance with the Clean Air Act (CAA) because these SIP revisions comply with applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations, and because this proposed revision of the SIP will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The intended effect of this action is to update the approved Delaware SIP to maintain consistency between the State-adopted I/M program rules and the federally approved SIP. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 16, 2024. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03- OAR-2024-0016 at www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Rehn, Planning & Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-2176. Mr. Rehn can also be reached via electronic mail at [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background A. Clean Air Act Requirements for I/M Programs B. Background on the History of the Ozone NAAQS and Resulting Delaware Area Ozone Nonattainment Designations and I/M Program Requirements 1. Delaware Nonattainment Area Designations and I/M Program Requirements Under the 1979 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS 2. Delaware Nonattainment Area Designations and I/M Program Requirements Under the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 3. Delaware Nonattainment Area Designations and I/M Program Requirements Under the 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 4. Delaware Nonattainment Area Designations and I/M Program Requirements Under the 2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS II. Summary of Delaware's March 2023 I/M SIP Revisions and EPA's Analysis A. Overview of Delaware's March 13, 2023 SIP Submissions B. Review of Delaware's March 2023 SIP Revisions for Compliance With EPA Requirements 1. Compliance With EPA's Enhanced I/M Performance Standard Requirements 2. Demonstrating Noninterference of the Revised SIP Under CAA Section 110(l) With Attainment, Reasonable Further Progress, or Any Other CAA Applicable Requirement C. EPA's Evaluation of Delaware's SIP Revisions III. Proposed Action IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 13, 2023, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) submitted three SIP revisions to EPA to amend its prior SIP-approved motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs applicable to all counties in Delaware. I. Background This section provides background for EPA's proposed actions on Delaware's three March 2023 I/M program-related SIP revisions. To provide context, herein we also provide background on the ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS, or ``standard'') and on Delaware area designations under the ozone NAAQS, which are the pretext for the Federal mandate for CAA I/M program requirements. Finally, we discuss herein EPA requirements for I/M programs for affected ozone nonattainment areas. A. Clean Air Act Requirements for I/M Programs As a control measure to reduce air pollutant emissions from in-use motor vehicles, the CAA requires states with areas designated as moderate, serious, severe, or extreme ozone nonattainment areas, or those lying within an ozone transport region (OTR) (and having a population exceeding designated population thresholds), to establish a motor vehicle I/M program, to inspect motor vehicles' emissions and, if necessary, to require maintenance or repairs to reduce in-use emissions from vehicles that fail such testing.\1\ This emissions testing ensures that vehicles are well-maintained and operate as designed and that they do not exceed established vehicle pollutant limits. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See CAA sections 182(b)(4), (c)(3). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Under the CAA, a ``basic'' I/M program is required for any area classified as a moderate ozone nonattainment area and having a 1990 Census-defined urbanized area with a population exceeding 200,000 persons.\2\ A more stringent, ``enhanced'' I/M program is required in the Census-defined urbanized area of any ozone nonattainment area classified as serious or worse, where the 1980 Census-defined urbanized area population exceeds 200,000.\3\ Additionally, in order to prevent transport of air pollution, states or areas within a CAA-defined OTR shall implement ``enhanced'' I/M within any metropolitan statistical area (MSA) where the 1990 population exceeds 100,000 persons-- regardless of the area's nonattainment designation or classification.\4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ See CAA 182(b)(4) and 40 CFR 51.350(a)(4) and (6). \3\ See CAA 182(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.350(a)(2) and (7). \4\ See CAA 184(b)(1) and 40 CFR 51.350(a)(1). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Background on the History of the Ozone NAAQS and Resulting Delaware Area Ozone Nonattainment Designations and I/M Program Requirements In 1970, Congress enacted the CAA and authorized the EPA to establish NAAQS for criteria pollutants shown to threaten human health, welfare, and the environment--including ozone. In January 1983, Delaware implemented its first I/M program under Title 7 Natural Resources & Environmental Control of the Delaware Administrative Code, Regulation 26 (7 DE Admin. Code 26) applicable to New Castle County, as a control measure in its SIP. Delaware later recodified this regulatory chapter to Regulation 1126.\5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Delaware's Regulation 1126 applies to the Sussex County SIP- strengthening I/M program, which is not required by the CAA, but is substantially similar to an EPA-defined basic I/M program-- strengthening the SIP and harmonizing I/M testing across Delaware. Regulation 1131 (then Regulation 31) is a CAA-required, low-enhanced I/M program applicable to the New Castle and Kent Counties, --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 66297]] 1. Delaware Nonattainment Area Designation and I/M Program Requirements Under the 1979 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS In 1990, Congress amended the CAA, by adding specific requirements for areas in nonattainment of a NAAQS. In 1991, EPA classified the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, PA-DE-NJ area as severe ozone nonattainment for the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS, triggering a requirement for Delaware to establish an enhanced I/M program (as discussed in the section below summarizing I/M requirements) for its portion of that multi-State nonattainment area--comprised of Kent and New Castle Counties.\6\ As the Wilmington, Delaware, area also lies in the Northeast OTR, as defined under CAA section 184, Delaware's portion of the Census-defined Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton metropolitan statistical area (MSA) having population exceeding 100,000 persons is also subject to enhanced I/M (i.e., Kent and New Castle Counties). Sussex County, Delaware, was not part of the Philadelphia-Wilmington- Trenton nonattainment area (and thus not subject to enhanced I/M), and neither did it meet the MSA/population threshold criteria to subject the area to enhanced I/M under CAA section 184 requirements applicable to ozone transport areas. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ On November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56994), EPA designated and classified the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City consolidated metropolitan area (CMSA) as Severe-15 ozone nonattainment. This includes Kent and New Castle Counties in the Wilmington, Delaware, portion of that CMSA. CAA section 107(d)(1)(C) provides that each area designated nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable for the ozone NAAQS immediately before the date of enactment of the CAA ``is designated, by operation of law,'' as a nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable area, respectively, and CAA section 107(d)(2)(A) required EPA to publish a Federal Register notification with respect to this designation, which EPA did with the November 6, 1991 document effective November 15, 1990. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In 1995 and 1998, Delaware submitted several SIP revisions to EPA, requesting approval of its enhanced I/M SIP revision to satisfy the 1990 CAA requirements for an enhanced I/M program for the Delaware portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. Delaware availed itself of flexibility in EPA's I/M rule at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 51, subpart S, that allows an enhanced I/M subject area to adopt an enhanced I/M program that meets an alternate ``low enhanced'' I/M performance standard if the area: (1) has an approved SIP pursuant to CAA requirements for Reasonable Further Progress (for the period from 1990-1996); (2) does not have a disapproved plan for Reasonable Further Progress for the period after 1996; and (3) does not have a disapproved plan for attainment of the air quality standards for ozone.\7\ EPA refers to this program hereafter as the ``low enhanced'' I/M program. Delaware's low enhanced I/M program (applicable to the Kent and New Castle Counties of the Wilmington area) was codified at Delaware Code Title 7, Regulation 31. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ See 40 CFR 51.351(g). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I/M was not required by the 1990 CAA amendments in Sussex County, as it was designated marginal nonattainment and the Seaford area was not large enough to trigger the MSA-based CAA population threshold for OTR areas or ozone nonattainment-related CAA I/M applicability requirements.\8\ However, Delaware opted to enact I/M in the Sussex County area and submitted to EPA a SIP-strengthening I/M program for Sussex County as part of its 1995 and 1998 I/M SIP submissions to EPA. This SIP-strengthening program, similar in design to a basic I/M program, was codified under Title 7, Regulation 26 of the Delaware Code. The purpose of this Sussex County program was to maintain a Statewide I/M program and to provide additional emission benefits for the neighboring Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ Section 107(d)(1)(C) provides that each ozone and CO area designated nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable immediately before the date of enactment of the CAAA was ``designated, by operation of law,'' as a nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable area, respectively. Section 107(d)(2)(A) requires EPA to publish a Federal Register notification with respect to this designation, as well as the area's classification and boundary. EPA published these designations for the 1979 1-hr ozone NAAQS in the November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694) Federal Register--listing Sussex County, Delaware as a marginal nonattainment area. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Through a series of actions culminating in a final approval on September 30, 1999, EPA approved several 1995 and 1998 Delaware SIP revisions submitted to satisfy applicable 1990 CAA I/M requirements.\9\ EPA's September 1999 final rule approved Delaware's new Regulation 31 ``low enhanced'' I/M program applicable to Kent and New Castle Counties, while retaining Regulation 26 to apply a ``SIP strengthening'' I/M program (akin to ``basic'' I/M) in Sussex County. Additional information on EPA's prior approval of Delaware's enhanced I/M program in the Delaware portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington- Trenton ozone nonattainment area (as well as the SIP-strengthening I/M program for Sussex County) can be found in EPA's final approval actions taken upon those SIP revisions, as referenced in footnote 7 of this action. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ On May 19, 1997 (62 FR 27195), EPA conditionally approved Delaware's ``low enhanced'' inspection and maintenance program, submitted by DNREC on February 17, 1995 and supplemented on November 30, 1995. On September 30, 1999 (64 FR 52657), EPA converted its conditional approval of 1995 and 1998 Delaware's I/M SIP to full approval, on the basis of supplemental SIP revisions submitted by DNREC on June 16, 1998 and May 24, 1999. In an August 10, 2010 final rule (75 FR 48566), EPA approved administrative, non-substantive edits made by Delaware to some of rules codified under title 7, resulting in recodification of the Sussex County I/M Regulation 26 and its retitling to Regulation 1126. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Delaware Nonattainment Area Designations and I/M Program Requirements Under the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS In July 1997, EPA revised the ozone NAAQS, replacing the 1979 1- hour primary standard with a more stringent, 8-hour standard.\10\ EPA designated the entirety of Delaware as Moderate nonattainment under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as part of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE area.\11\ This 1997 Moderate ozone NAAQS classification subjected the area to basic I/M, for those areas also meeting the CAA urbanized area population threshold. The inclusion of Sussex County in the expanded nonattainment area boundary did not result in the expansion of the I/M program for the Philadelphia- Wilmington-Atlantic City nonattainment area, as Sussex County was not part of the census defined urbanized area in 1990 and thus did not trigger the requirement for a basic I/M program in Sussex County under the applicability thresholds under EPA's I/M rule.\12\ Rather than be subject to basic I/M, the remainder of the Philadelphia- [[Page 66298]] Wilmington-Atlantic City 1997 ozone NAAQS nonattainment area (including Kent and New Castle Counties in Delaware) remained subject to more stringent enhanced I/M requirements (under the CAA section 184 OTR I/M provision and the area's continued Severe nonattainment classification under the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA revised the ozone NAAQS, replacing the 1979 primary 1-hour primary standard with an 8- hour standard, based on an ambient air monitoring site's 3-year average of the annual third-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. \11\ Original 8-Hour Ozone (1997) areas were designated July 15, 2004. On June 8, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals vacated the subpart 1 portion of the Phase 1 Rule. The Former subpart 1 nonattainment areas were classified under subpart 2 on May 14, 2012 (77 FR 28424), effective June 13, 2012. \12\ See 40 CFR 51.350(a)(4) and (6). Any area classified as moderate ozone nonattainment, and not required to implement enhanced I/M under paragraph (a)(1) of the section, shall implement basic I/M in any 1990 Census-defined urbanized area with a population of 200,000 or more. Sussex County's population did not exceed the urbanized area population threshold for a basic I/M program, the county continued not to be subject to I/M and instead remained an optional, SIP-strengthening program, not bound by CAA I/M requirements. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City 1997 ozone nonattainment area was eventually granted an attainment date extension and later determined to have attained the 1997 standard by its statutory attainment date.\13\ However, the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City area was never redesignated to attainment of the 1997 NAAQS, and as such remained subject to I/M requirements under that NAAQS. In March 2015, EPA revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS in favor of a more stringent ozone NAAQS issued in March 2008. However, due to anti-backsliding requirements, the enhanced I/M program requirement in Kent and New Castle Counties remained in place for the revoked NAAQS.\14\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ On January 21, 2011 (76 FR 3840), EPA granted the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City area a 1-year extension of its 1997 ozone attainment date (to June 2011). On March 26, 2012 (77 FR 17341), EPA determined that the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City area attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. \14\ EPA revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS (March 6, 2015; 80 FR12264), following promulgation of a more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS on March 12, 2008. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Delaware Nonattainment Area Designations and I/M Program Requirements Under the 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\15\ EPA designated the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE (with Delaware's portion of the nonattainment area limited to New Castle County) and Seaford, Delaware as two, separate marginal ozone nonattainment areas for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS on April 30, 2012 (effective July 20, 2012).\16\ This marginal designation did not add new I/M applicability requirements, allowing the existing SIP-approved I/M program to remain in place unchanged. The Delaware portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City area (New Castle and Kent Counties) continued to be subject to enhanced I/M requirements under anti-backsliding provisions applicable to the prior 1979 ozone NAAQS and under the OTR requirements of CAA section 184. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). \16\ 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2021). Note that Kent County, Delaware was not included in either the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City or the Seaford ozone nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, but Kent County was instead designated by EPA as unclassifiable/ attainment. Under EPA's anti-backsliding rules, Kent and New Castle County continued to remain subject to enhanced I/M under prior NAAQS and under CAA section 184 OTR I/M program requirements. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On May 4, 2016, EPA issued the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City area a 1-year attainment date extension to July 20, 2016, and determined that the Seaford nonattainment area attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the attainment date.\17\ On November 2, 2017, EPA determined that the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City area attained the 2008 NAAQS by the July 2016 attainment date.\18\ Neither area has been subsequently redesignated to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA. While the Seaford area did not exceed the classification/population thresholds to be subject to I/M, the area continued to operate the prior SIP-approved program for anti- backsliding purposes. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ 81 FR 26697. \18\ 82 FR 50814. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Delaware Nonattainment Area Designations and I/M Program Requirements Under the 2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS On October 1, 2015, EPA again revised the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\19\ EPA designated the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE area (with Delaware's portion of the nonattainment area limited to New Castle County) as a marginal ozone nonattainment area for the 2015 8- hour ozone NAAQS on April 30, 2018 (effective August 3, 2018).\20\ As a result, under EPA's initial designations for the 2015 NAAQS, Delaware faced no new I/M obligation, but Kent and New Castle Counties continued to be subject to enhanced I/M requirements under the anti-backsliding requirements of the prior 1979 ozone NAAQS and under the OTR requirements of CAA section 184. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ See 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). \20\ See 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018). For the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the Delaware portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City 2015 ozone nonattainment area includes Kent and New Castle Counties in Delaware. In the same action, EPA designated the Seaford area (Sussex County) as attainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In October 2022, EPA determined that the Philadelphia-Wilmington- Atlantic City 2015 ozone nonattainment area failed to attain by its attainment date (August 3, 2021) and reclassified the area from marginal to moderate nonattainment.\21\ EPA established in that failure to attain/reclassification determination, that a basic vehicle I/M SIP is required (due by January 1, 2023) for urbanized Moderate areas under the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Existing I/M program areas classified as moderate or worse nonattainment (including areas with a basic or enhanced I/M program implemented under a prior NAAQS) were required to submit a certification SIP demonstrating that the existing program continues to meet applicable CAA requirements for the new ozone NAAQS classification.\22\ Delaware submitted a SIP revision on March 4, 2024, for the purpose of demonstrating that the existing enhanced I/M SIP for the Delaware portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City area meets all applicable requirements for a basic I/M program required by the 2015 ozone NAAQS. However, that SIP revision relies upon updates to the enhanced I/M SIP submitted to EPA as SIP revisions in March 2023 (that we propose to approve as part of this action). So, EPA intends to defer action on the March 4, 2024 I/M certification SIP submission until after we finalize the pre-requisite action on Delaware's March 2023 enhanced I/M update SIP submissions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \21\ See 87 FR 60897 (October 7, 2022). \22\ Id. See Section II.E of the October 7, 2022 final rule (87 FR 60897, 60906) and the April 13, 2022 proposal (87 FR 21842). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Summary of Delaware's March 2023 I/M SIP Revisions and EPA's Analysis A. Overview of Delaware's March 13, 2023 SIP Submissions Delaware submitted three SIP revisions on March 13, 2023, serving to update the State's existing, SIP-approved I/M programs. These March 2023 SIP revisions pertain to both of Delaware's two I/M programs--the enhanced I/M program applicable to Kent and New Castle Counties and the SIP-strengthening (akin to basic) I/M program in Sussex County. The first of these SIP revisions is an amendment to 7 DE Admin. Code 1131, pertaining to the low enhanced I/M program operated in Kent and New Castle Counties (referred to hereafter as the ``Wilmington I/M program,'' the ``low enhanced I/M program,'' or the ``Regulation 1131'' I/M program). The second of the March 2023 SIP submittals amends 7 DE Admin. Code 1126 pertaining to the SIP-strengthening I/M program applicable to Sussex County (referred to as the ``Sussex County'' or ``Regulation 1126'' program). DNREC revised Regulations 1126 and 1131 to optimize the I/M program and to harmonize the requirements of the two programs, as well as to align Delaware's regulations with a change in State law (i.e., House Bill 246 of the [[Page 66299]] 2017 Delaware General Assembly legislative session), which altered subject vehicle applicability of the program by changing the exemption for new vehicles from five to seven years.\23\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \23\ See 21 Delaware Code 2143. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Delaware's third SIP submittal of March 2023 serves to correct an error made by the State in a 2012 State regulatory action, which inadvertently incorporated Delaware's Plan for Implementation (PFI) for 7 DE Admin Code 1126 and 7 DE Admin. Code 1131 into Regulation 31. Delaware never requested that EPA incorporate the 2012 version of Regulation 1131 into the SIP, so that error did not translate to the SIP. However, Delaware's March 2023 SIP revision requests that EPA incorporate the now non-regulatory Plan for Implementation as additional supporting materials for inclusion into the SIP, for the purpose of meeting Federal I/M requirements at 40 CFR part 51, subpart S, not addressed by the revised Regulations 1126 and 1131. These regulatory updates to Regulation 1131 serve to update the rules to reflect changes made by Delaware to revise its low-enhanced I/ M program as described (i.e., to increase new vehicle I/M program exemptions to seven years, to expand vehicle coverage to include medium-duty vehicles; to change idle testing requirements to curb idle testing, etc.). Additionally, the version of Regulation 1131 being incorporated by reference updates the prior SIP-approved Regulation 31 program to reflect a State regulatory format change made since EPA last approved the SIP, essentially recodifying that program. The proposed revised Regulation 1131 being incorporated by reference includes the State-adopted January 1, 2023 revised Regulation 1131 (State effective January 11, 2023). The January 1, 2023 sections of Regulation 1131 being adopted include sections 1.0, 2.0 (including 2.1 through 2.6), 3.0 (including revised definitions), 4.0 (including 4.1 through 4.5), 5.0 (including 5.1 through 5.4), 6.0 (including 6.1), 7.0 (including 7.1 and 7.2), 8.0 (including 8.1 through 8.4), and 9.0 (including 9.1 through 9.3). Sections 10 through 13 of Regulation 31 are being removed from the SIP, as are Appendices 1(d), 3(a)(7), 3(c)(2), 4(a), 5(a), 5(f), 6(a), 6(a)(5), 6(a)(8), 6(a)(9), 7(a), 8(a), and 9(a)--as revised by the State on May 15, 2012 (with the State effective date of June 11, 2012). In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Delaware's revised Title 7, Regulation 1126 entitled ``Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program--Sussex County,'' as published as a final rule in the Delaware Register on January 1, 2023 (effective January 11, 2023). The amended sections of Regulation 1126 being incorporated by reference include Sections 1.0 (including 1.1 through 1.6), 2.0 (including revised definitions), 4.0 (including 4.1 through 4.5), 5.0 (including 5.1 through 5.4), 6.0 (including 6.1), 7.0 (including 7.1 and 7.2), 8.0 (including 8.1 through 8.4), and 9.0 (including 9.1 through 9.3). Section 3.0 of Regulation 1126 and Technical Memorandum 1 and 2 to Regulation 1126 are removed and reserved, based on the January 1, 2023 State rule revisions. In an August 11, 2010 action, EPA approved into the SIP Delaware's administrative recodification of 7 DE Code 1126.\24\ Delaware subsequently finalized a State administrative recodification of 7 DE Admin Code 1131 but did not then submit that administrative change as a SIP revision to EPA. As a result, EPA did not at that time approve into the SIP the State's recodification of Regulation 1131. Delaware's March 2023 SIP revision contains a January 2023 State regulation amendment to Regulation 1131, which is based on a prior 2012 revision of that rule that Delaware had not previously requested be approved as part of the SIP. The relevant regulation in the SIP was most recently approved by EPA in October 2001, when it was still Regulation 31 in the Delaware Code. The 2023 SIP revision serves to incorporate by reference the 2023 version of the State rule revision into the Delaware SIP. The effect of doing so will be to incorporate the latest 2023 State rule amendments, as well as the 2012 State amendments. The effect of approving the PFI SIP would be to remove from Regulations 1126 and 1131 some oversight and administrative provisions formerly contained in regulatory addendums and appendices to Regulation 1126 and 1131 and instead to include them in the SIP as additional State supporting materials. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \24\ See 75 FR 48566. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Review of Delaware's March 2023 SIP Revisions for Compliance With EPA Requirements 1. Compliance With EPA's Enhanced I/M Performance Standard Requirements [[Page 66300]] As part of its rule specifying I/M requirements, codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart S, EPA established a ``model'' program for areas required to implement either basic or enhanced I/M programs.\25\ A state compares its own I/M program design choice with EPA's applicable model program design. The EPA model program serves as a benchmark, or ``performance standard,'' the emissions results of which serve as means to compare the resultant emission benefits. The performance standard provides a gauge by which the state and EPA can evaluate the effectiveness of each state's basic or enhanced I/M program, from the perspective of ozone precursor emissions reductions. As such, states are required to demonstrate that their enhanced or basic I/M programs achieve applicable areawide emission levels that are equal to, or lower than, those which would be realized by the implementation of EPA's respective model I/M program. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \25\ See 40 CFR 51.351 and 51.352. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- With respect to the enhanced I/M performance standard, EPA originally designed a single enhanced performance standard option under the 1992 version of its I/M requirements rule.\26\ However, on September 18, 1995, EPA promulgated the ``low enhanced'' performance standard described in the Background portion of this action.\27\ The low enhanced performance standard is a less stringent enhanced I/M performance standard established to avail areas having an approved SIP for Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) for 1996, and that do not have a disapproved post-1996 RFP plan, or a disapproved plan for attainment of the ozone NAAQS. Delaware has demonstrated compliance with CAA requirements for RFP and attainment planning for the Delaware portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City area--and thus has used the ``low enhanced'' performance standard in its prior approved I/M SIP and can continue to do so for updates to its currently approved I/M SIP. The revised performance standard modeling included as part of Delaware's 2023 SIP submittal is designed to demonstrate compliance with this ``low enhanced'' performance standard. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \26\ See original version of EPA's I/M Requirements Rule (note this version has since been superseded by multiple rule updates), at 57 FR 52950 (November 5, 1992). The enhanced performance standard is specified at 40 CFR 51.351 (57 FR 52950, 52988). \27\ See ``EPA's Inspection and Maintenance Flexibility Amendments'' Final Rule, at 60 FR 48029 (September 18, 1995). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- States seeking to amend an I/M program for an area with an existing CAA-mandated, SIP-approved I/M program (e.g., exemption of additional model years of vehicles from their program) must demonstrate that that the program continues to meet the applicable performance standard. This might entail upgrading the program in some other way (e.g., by increasing vehicle type or weight class coverage subject to the program) in order to demonstrate the applicable performance standard is still being met. In addition to the performance standard, per CAA section 110(l) the revised program must be shown not to interfere with an area's ability to attain the NAAQS in a timely manner.\28\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \28\ See EPA's Performance Standard Modeling for New and Existing Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Programs Using the MOVES Mobile Source Emissions Model [EPA-420-B-22-034 October 2022], p. 4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 1, in this document, compares EPA's low enhanced I/M performance standard with Delaware's latest program for the March 2023 SIP revisions amending the Wilmington area low enhanced I/M program SIP. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \29\ See 40 CFR 51.351(g) for the Alternate Low Enhanced Performance Standard. \30\ Delaware is newly extending applicability to include 1996 MDVs (up to 14,000 lbs GVWR), subject to OBD testing, with 1970 and newer MDVs subject to curb idle tailpipe testing. Delaware exempts all pre-1996 model year, diesel-powered vehicles from the I/M program. \31\ Except for OBDII equipped vehicles, which instead receive an OBDII check in lieu of idle testing. EPA's position on the use of OBD testing, in lieu of idle tailpipe testing, is detailed in EPA's Amendments to I/M Program Requirements Incorporating OBD Checks final rule (66 FR 18156; April 5, 2001). \32\ See appendix B to 40 CFR part 51, subpart S. \33\ EPA's MOVES model no longer models the impacts of all enhanced I/M performance standard parameters listed under EPA's I/M requirements rule, at 40 CFR 51.351, including certain emission control device inspections and pre-1981 test stringency rate. \34\ Delaware is newly extending applicability to include MDVs (up to 14,000 lbs GVWR), subject to OBD testing. \35\ Excluding exempted new vehicles, up to 7 model years old. \36\ EPA's enhanced performance standard requirements at 40 CFR 51.351(g) require that the state's program be shown to obtain the same or lower emission levels (relevant to the subject NAAQS) as the model program by January 1, 2002, to within 0.02 gpm, through their attainment deadline for the applicable NAAQS. \37\ For revisions to a SIP-approved I/M program, the performance standard modeling analysis year is the evaluation date is the date of implementation of the revised I/M program. See EPA's Performance Standard Modeling for New and Existing Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Programs Using the MOVES Mobile Source Emissions Model [EPA-420-B-22-034 October 2022], p. 10. For revisions to an I/M program currently approved into the SIP, the PSM analysis year would be the evaluation date used in the approved SIP or the date of implementation of the revised I/M program, whichever is later. Table 1--Low Enhanced Performance Standard Comparison for the Delaware portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington- Atlantic City Ozone Nonattainment Area (Kent and New Castle Counties) \29\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I/M program element EPA low enhanced performance standard Delaware's low enhanced I/M program ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Network Type................ Centralized............................. Centralized. Program Start Date.......... Existing programs--1983; Newly subject New Castle County--1995; Kent County-- areas--1995. 1991. Test Frequency.............. Annual.................................. Biennial. Model Year Coverage......... 1968 and newer.......................... 1968 and newer (7 newest model years exempt). Vehicle Type Coverage....... Light-duty gasoline vehicles (LDGVs) and 1968 and newer LDGVs and LDGTs, up to light-duty gasoline trucks (LDGTs), up 8,500 lbs GVWR; and 1970 and newer to 8,500 lbs gross vehicle weight Medium Duty Gasoline Vehicles (MDVs), rating (GVWR). up to 14,000 lbs GVWR. \30\ Exhaust Emission Test \31\.. Idle Test, (1968-1995 model years) \32\. Curb Idle test (1968-1995 LDVs and LDTs; and 1970-1995). Emission Standards.......... 1981 and newer--1.2% CO. 1981 and newer-- 1981 and newer--1.2% CO. 1981 and newer-- 220 ppm HC. 220 ppm HC. Emission Control Device 1968-71 PCV valve; 1972 and newer EGR 1981 and newer Catalytic converter. Visual Inspection\33\. valve. On-board Diagnostics II 1996 and newer LDGVs and LDGTs.......... 1996 and newer LDGVs and LDGTs, up to (OBDII) Inspection. 8,500 lbs GVWR; and 1997 and later LDDVs (light-duty diesel vehicles), up to 8,500 lbs GVWR; and 2008 and newer MDVs (gasoline or diesel), up to 14,000 lbs GVWR.\34\ \35\ [[Page 66301]] Evaporative system function None.................................... Gas Cap Pressure Test, for 1975-1995 check. vehicles. Waiver Rate (for cost- 3%...................................... 3%. limited I/M repair expenditures). Motorist Compliance Rate.... 96%..................................... See Delaware SIP Appendix A of the Delaware Plan for Implementation for program compliance rate. Evaluation Date \36\ \37\... January 2002............................ January 2023. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Though Delaware is not required to demonstrate compliance with a performance standard in the Sussex County area, as I/M there was adopted as a SIP strengthening program (as described in section I. of this action), the State elected to demonstrate that the Sussex County program meets EPA's basic I/M performance standard in order to rely upon the benefits from this program to meet CAA noninterference requirements under section 110(l). Additionally, the Sussex County program provides additional reductions to offset impacts to the Wilmington area program from the changes to that program. Table 2, in this document, shows the I/M program parameters of the Sussex County program compared to those of EPA's basic I/M performance standard, to show the assumptions used to model the benefits of the Sussex County program and to demonstrate that the revised program does not backslide from that in the approved SIP. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \38\ See 40 CFR 51.352 Basic I/M Performance Standard. \39\ Delaware exempts all pre-1996 model year, diesel-powered vehicles from the I/M program. \40\ Except for OBDII equipped vehicles, which instead receive an OBDII check in lieu of idle testing. EPA's position on the use of OBD testing, in lieu of idle tailpipe testing, is detailed in EPA's Amendments to I/M Program Requirements Incorporating OBD Checks final rule (66 FR 18156; April 5, 2001). \41\ See appendix B to 40 CFR part 51, subpart S. \42\ EPA's MOVES model no longer models the impacts of all enhanced I/M performance standard parameters listed under EPA's I/M requirements rule, at 40 CFR 51.351, including certain emission control device inspections and pre-1981 test stringency rate. \43\ Delaware is newly extending applicability to include MDVs (up to 14,000 lbs GVWR), subject to OBD testing. \44\ Excludes exempted new vehicles, up to 7 model years old. \45\ EPA's basic I/M performance standard at 40 CFR 51.352 requires that the state's program be shown to obtain the same or lower emission levels as the model program by 1997 for the ozone NAAQS. \46\ For revisions to a SIP-approved I/M program, the performance standard modeling analysis year is the evaluation date is the date of implementation of the revised I/M program. See EPA's ``Performance Standard Modeling for New and Existing Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Programs Using the MOVES Mobile Source Emissions Model'' [EPA-420-B-22-034 October 2022], p. 10. For revisions to an I/M program currently approved into the SIP, the PSM analysis year would be the evaluation date used in the approved SIP or the date of implementation of the revised I/M program, whichever is later. Table 2--Basic I/M Performance Standard Comparison for Sussex County SIP Strengthening Program \38\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I/M program element EPA basic performance standard Delaware's SIP-strengthening I/M program ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Network Type................ Centralized............................. Centralized. Program Start Date.......... Existing programs--1983; Newly subject Sussex County--1983. areas--1994. Test Frequency.............. Annual.................................. Biennial. Model Year Coverage......... 1968 and newer.......................... 1968 and newer (7 newest model years exempt). Vehicle Type Coverage....... LDGVs................................... LDVs and LDTs (up to 8,500 lbs GVWR); MDVs, up to 14,000 lbs GVWR. \39\ Exhaust Emission Test \40\.. Idle Test (1968-1995 model years) \41\.. Curb Idle test (1968-1995 model years). Emission Standards.......... 1981 and newer--1.2% CO; 1981 and newer-- 1981 and newer--1.2% CO; 1981 and newer-- 220 ppm HC. 220 ppm HC. Emission Control Device None.................................... 1981 and newer Catalytic converter. Visual Inspection \42\. On-board Diagnostics II 1996 and newer vehicles................. 1996 and newer LDGVs and LDGTs (up to (OBDII) Inspection. 8,500 lbs GVWR); and 1997 and later LDDVs (light-duty diesel vehicles), up to 8,500 lbs GVWR; and 2008 and newer MDVs (gasoline or diesel), up to 14,000 lbs GVWR. 43 44 Evaporative system function None.................................... Gas Cap Pressure Test, for 1975-1995 check. vehicles. Waiver Rate (for repair 0%...................................... 3%. expenditure limits for I/M repairs). Motorist Compliance Rate.... 100%.................................... See Appendix A of the Delaware SIP Plan for Implementation for compliance rate. Evaluation Date \45\ \46\... January 2002............................ January 2023. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To demonstrate the applicable performance standard has been met, the state must model the emissions benefits of its program against that of EPA's model program, comparing the results to show that their program is at least as beneficial as the applicable performance standard. For an area subject to I/M under the ozone NAAQS, this analysis (performed using the latest available version of EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator Model (MOVES) [[Page 66302]] entails the comparison of the resultant levels, expressed as a comparison of average grams per mile (gpm), of the ozone precursors nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), from highway mobile sources in the I/M area, as derived from MOVES. For purposes of this comparison, the state uses the latest available meteorological and vehicle composition and usage data, keeping constant all other mobile source emission control program assumptions between the model program and state program scenarios.\47\ For comparison purposes, Delaware also modeled a hypothetical ``no I/M'' scenario to show the emissions for the same area with no benefits from an I/M program. Delaware used MOVES2014b as the emissions model to generate 2023 evaluation year emissions scenarios. Though EPA has since released newer versions of the MOVES model (i.e., MOVES3 and MOVES4), Delaware commenced development of their MOVES SIP analyses prior to the release of MOVES 3 in 2020.\48\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \47\ Requirements for conducting a performance standard analysis are established by 40 CFR part 51, subpart S, with guidance provided by EPA's guidance document ``Performance Standard Modeling for New and Existing Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Programs Using the MOVES Mobile Source Emissions Model,'' dated October 2022 [EPA- 420-B-22-034]. \48\ See ``EPA Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES 2014 for SIP Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes'' (EPA- 420-B-14-008, July 2014), p. 6. Delaware's SIP modeling was completed in 2019, to support regulatory adoption of Regulations 1126 and 1131. However, those rules were delayed during State adoption and not finalized until January 2023, delaying submission of the SIP until March 2023. This MOVES modeling analysis in support of these SIP revisions commenced prior to the subsequent release by EPA of MOVES3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 3, in this document, shows the results of Delaware's low enhanced I/M performance standard analysis for the Delaware portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City area. As the modeling depicted in Table 3 demonstrates, the NOX and VOC emission levels meet EPA's relevant I/M performance standard, as MOVES modeling for both Kent and New Castle Counties demonstrate that both county's programs are within the regulatory allowance (40 CFR 51.351(g)(13)) of 0.02 gpm as compared to emission levels resulting from EPA's Low Enhanced Performance Standard of 40 CFR 51.351. Table 3--Low Enhanced Performance Standard Modeling Results for the Delaware Portion of the Philadelphia- Wilmington-Atlantic City I/M Program for a 2023 Evaluation Year (Kent and New Castle Counties) \49\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOX (in grams per VOC (in grams per County I/M program design mile) mile) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kent................................. No I/M Program............... 0.5139 0.3171 Low Enhanced Performance 0.4871 0.2869 Standard. Delaware 2023 Program........ 0.4794 0.2831 Performance Standard Margin.. 0.0077 0.0038 New Castle........................... No I/M Program............... 0.4236 0.2557 Low Enhanced Performance 0.3988 0.2289 Standard. Delaware 2023 Program........ 0.3950 0.2300 Performance Standard Margin.. 0.0038 \50\ -0.0011 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As described in the Background section of this action, an I/M program is not CAA-required in Sussex County, Delaware--as the Seaford area meets neither the minimum MSA population threshold specified under CAA section 184, nor the minimum urbanized area population threshold for a nonattainment area under CAA section 182. However, Delaware elected to voluntarily implement an I/M program in Sussex County as a SIP strengthening measure and to provide additional ozone precursor emission reductions to benefit the Delaware portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City ozone nonattainment area. In order to quantify the benefits of this program, for the purpose of claiming benefits from the program to contribute to attainment of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City nonattainment area, Delaware elected to institute a program design similar to EPA's basic I/M performance standard.\51\ EPA's review of Delaware's updates to the Sussex County SIP-strengthening program finds that the revised program is substantially similar to CAA requirements for a basic I/M program. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \49\ Delaware's 2023 I/M program amendments expand OBD II testing Statewide, including expanding existing OBDII testing requirements in Kent and New Castle Counties on MDV's to include MDVs up to 14,000 lbs GVWR. \50\ Kent County, Delaware's VOC emission factor for the State's 2023 I/M Program falls within the 0.02 gpm margin of EPA's enhanced model enhanced performance standard program, as granted under EPA's enhanced I/M performance standard requirements at 40 CFR 51.351(g)(13). \51\ See CAA section 182(b)(4) and 40 CFR 51.352. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Demonstrating Noninterference of the Revised SIP Under CAA Section 110(l) With Attainment, Reasonable Further Progress, or Any Other CAA Applicable Requirement In the case where a state elects to revise its SIP-approved I/M program, in addition to meeting the applicable CAA section 182 program requirements and applicable performance standard compliance, the state must also demonstrate that the revisions to the prior, SIP-approved I/M program will not interfere with the area's ability to attain or maintain any NAAQS, or with any other applicable CAA requirement. This type of demonstration is known as a CAA section 110(l) noninterference demonstration. In order to offset any potential increase in emissions due to expansion of new car I/M exemptions to seven model years (as a result of a State law change (HB 246)), DNREC elected to harmonize inspection requirements more closely between the low enhanced Regulation 1131 program in the Wilmington area and the Regulation 1126 SIP strengthening I/M program in Sussex County. This includes: (1) the addition of OBD II checks to Sussex County; (2) expansion of OBD testing in all counties, to include OBD II testing for model year 2008 and newer medium duty vehicles between 8500-14,000 lbs GVWR; (3) elimination of 2-speed idle tailpipe testing in the Wilmington area, while retaining curb idle tailpipe testing for pre-1996 LDGVs in all areas (including Sussex County); (4) extension of gas cap pressure check testing to pre-1996 I/M-subject vehicles; and (5) retention of visual inspection for catalytic converters in all counties. See Table 4, in this document, for a comparison in the difference between emissions under the March 2023 SIP [[Page 66303]] revision I/M programs and the prior SIP-approved Delaware I/M program. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \52\ The Baseline SIP program is the I/M program, as of 2017, including exemption of vehicles up to 5 years old from testing. The 2023 Revised I/M program includes the disbenefit of expanding the new car exemption from 5 to 7 model years old, but offsets that emissions increase through the expansion of OBD testing to the Sussex County SIP strengthening program, the expansion of OBD checks in all counties to cover MDVs up to 14,000 lbs GVWR, the expansion of idle testing to LDVs and LDTs up to 8,500 lbs Statewide (i.e., including Sussex County), and a gas cap pressure check for all pre- 1995 I/M-subject vehicles. Table 4--CAA 110(l) Noninterference Demonstration--Difference Between Delaware's Baseline (Prior, Approved SIP Program) and the 2023 Revised I/M Program (All Program Areas) \52\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Difference from baseline SIP in Difference from Difference from County Program description carbon monoxide baseline SIP in baseline SIP in (CO) (tons per VOC (tons per NOX (tons per year) year) year) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kent........................... Baseline SIP Program.. ................. ................. ................. 2023 Revised I/M +17.1 +0.3 +0.7 Program. New Castle..................... Baseline SIP Program.. ................. ................. ................. 2023 Revised I/M +184.0 +10.1 +7.8 Program. Sussex......................... Baseline SIP Program.. ................. ................. ................. 2023 Revised I/M -594.2 -112.0 -54.1 Program. -------------------------------------------------------- Net Change (Statewide)..... 2023 Revised I/M -393.1 -101.6 -45.6 Program. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 4, in this document, shows that there is a slight increase in annual emissions attributed with Delaware's 2023 SIP revision (due primarily to expansion of new car exemptions) in the Wilmington area counties, as compared to the prior SIP program. However, the small increase in emissions (due to revision of Regulation 1131) within the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City nonattainment area is offset by an overall net decrease in emissions from the I/M program Statewide, due to program improvements made Statewide and in particular benefits (due to upgrade of the Regulation 1126 I/M program) in upwind Sussex County. The Sussex County, SIP-strengthening program was never a CAA- required emission control measure, nor were the emissions benefits attributed to the Sussex County I/M program part of any reasonable further progress demonstration or attainment demonstration for any NAAQS, nor any redesignation/maintenance plan for any NAAQS. Therefore, the reductions attributed to the Sussex program are ``surplus.'' The Regulation 1126 SIP-strengthening program is considered ``permanent'' and ``enforceable,'' in that it is required by State regulation (without sunset) and has been approved as part of Delaware's SIP for several decades. While Delaware could elect to discontinue I/M in Sussex County in the future, its removal from the SIP would warrant a 110(l) demonstration showing that the removal of the program would not impact the ability of any area to attain the NAAQS or demonstrate RFP, nor interfere with any other applicable CAA requirement. The emissions reductions from the Sussex County I/M program occur in a county adjacent to the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City ozone nonattainment area, providing nearby and surplus emission reductions directly upwind from the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City nonattainment area. In showing that all ozone and fine particulate matter precursor pollutants (NOX and VOC), as well as the pollutant CO, are decreased from the 2023 SIP revised program relative to the prior, SIP- approved program, Delaware has demonstrated that the 2023 SIP revision to amend the approved SIP will not interfere with attainment of any NAAQS, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement. C. EPA's Evaluation of Delaware's SIP Revisions EPA has reviewed Delaware's changes to its enhanced I/M program that differ from the previous federally approved program and has determined that these changes meet the requirements of CAA sections 182 and 184, EPA's I/M Requirements Rule at 40 CFR part 51, subpart S, as well as all other EPA guidance relevant to I/M programs that are cited in this action. EPA finds that Delaware's revised program meets applicable I/M performance standards of 40 CFR part 51.351 and has been shown to comply with the NAAQS noninterference provisions of CAA section 110(l). Delaware's revisions to its SIP-strengthening 1126 program in Sussex County and the incorporation of the Plan for Implementation as additional supporting materials for inclusion into the SIP are similarly approvable. EPA therefore proposes to find that that Delaware's SIP revisions are approvable into the SIP. EPA will continue to evaluate the effectiveness of Delaware's enhanced I/M program for the Delaware portion of the Philadelphia- Wilmington-Atlantic City I/M program through the annual and biennial reports submitted by Delaware in accordance with 40 CFR 51.366, ``Data analysis and reporting,'' and with the ongoing program evaluation requirements set forth at 40 CFR 51.353(c). EPA's review of this material indicates that Delaware's requested SIP revisions submitted on March 13, 2023, to amend the SIP-approved I/ M program for the Delaware portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington- Atlantic City area meets all applicable requirements for an enhanced I/ M program under CAA section 182 and 184. The SIP strengthening program in Sussex County meets applicable requirements for a basic I/M program. The program enhancements made to both programs have been shown to meet the applicable EPA performance standards, as required by 40 CFR part 51. The improvements made have been shown to offset emission increases brought about by expansion of the new vehicle test exemption to seven years. III. Proposed Action Pursuant to the analysis above, EPA is proposing to approve the relevant revisions to the Delaware I/M rules at 7 DE Admin Code 1126 (for Sussex [[Page 66304]] County) and 7 DE Admin. Code 1131 (for Kent and New Castle County), as submitted on March 13, 2023. For Regulation 1126, this involves incorporating by reference amendments to sections 1.0 through 9.0 and the removal of Technical Memorandum #1 and Technical Memorandum #2. For Regulation 1131, this entails incorporation of a State recodification of the regulation to reflect a State format change made in 2012, as well as incorporation of regulatory amendments made in 2012 and 2023. This results in a reformat of the prior SIP-approved Regulation 31, replacing sections 1 through 13 with the new format Regulation 1131, reflecting sections 1.0 to 9.0 as amended in January 2023, as well as removal of prior codified portions of Appendices 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. EPA is also proposing to approve a SIP revision dated March 13, 2023, submitting for inclusion to the SIP Delaware's ``Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program; Plan for Implementation for 7 DE Admin Code 1126 and 7 DE Admin. Code 1131''. This PFI details the means by which the Delaware SIP provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the ozone NAAQS. Delaware inadvertently added this PFI language to their regulation in a State action dated May 15, 2021. Delaware mistakenly included what were intended as non-regulatory planning provisions to support the I/M regulation as part of a State amendment to Regulation 1131--Low Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program; Plan for Implementation (PFI). In January 2023, Delaware acted to remove the PFI from Regulation 1131,\53\ instead making it a standalone, non-regulatory document for inclusion in the SIP to support both Regulation 1131 and Regulation 1126. Delaware has requested that EPA add this PFI document for Regulations 1126 and 1131 as additional materials for inclusion in the Delaware SIP, rather than incorporating these materials into State regulation for incorporation by reference by EPA as part of the SIP. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \53\ Regulation 1131--Low Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program; Plan for Implementation (PFI) was repealed effective January 11, 2023. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- EPA proposes to grant Delaware's request to approve the now non- regulatory PFI documents as additional supporting, non-regulatory State materials to the SIP. Approval of these three March 13, 2023 proposed SIP revisions will enable the Department to formally address EPA's applicable CAA 182 and 184 I/M requirements, as well as other SIP requirements under CAA section 110, and incorporate the same into Delaware's SIP document. EPA is proposing to approve three Delaware SIP revisions for their I/M programs in the Delaware portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington- Atlantic City area and the Sussex Area, as well as their accompanying PFI SIP revision, all of which were submitted on March 13, 2023. EPA is soliciting public comments on the proposed SIP revisions discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. IV. Incorporation by Reference In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Delaware's revised Title 7, Regulation 1131 entitled ``Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program--Kent and New Castle Counties'', as State-adopted on January 1, 2023--including updates to revisions made by the State on June 12, 2012, as described in section II.A. of the preamble. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is also proposing to incorporate by reference Delaware's revised Title 7, Regulation 1126, entitled ``Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program--Sussex County'', as published as a final rule in the Delaware Register on January 1, 2023 (effective January 11, 2023). EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 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 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 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 et seq.); 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 an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 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; In addition, this proposed rule, to approve three March 13, 2023 Delaware SIP revisions related to the vehicle I/M program, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address ``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and [[Page 66305]] commercial operations or programs and policies.'' The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its revised enhanced I/M program SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action proposing approval of Delaware's revision of its enhanced I/M program SIP revision, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Adam Ortiz, Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. 2024-18173 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:21.552932

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-16989

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 66305-66327] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-16989] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 1 [WC Docket Nos. 19-195, 11-10; FCC 24-72; FR ID 233874] Establishing the Digital Opportunity Data Collection; Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) seeks comment on proposed changes to the availability data filing and validation processes. DATES: Comments are due on or before September 16, 2024, and reply comments are due on or before October 15, 2024. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 19-195 and WC Docket No. 11-10, by any of the following methods: Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please contact, Will Holloway, Broadband Data Task Force, at [email protected] or (202) 418-2334. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket Nos. 19-195 and 11- 10, released on July 12, 2024. The full text of this document is available at the following internet address: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-takes-steps-update-broadband-data-collection-processes or by using the Commission's EDOCS web page at www.fcc.gov/edocs. Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act Statement. The Commission seeks comment on proposed changes to the Broadband Data Collection (BDC) availability data filing process that would limit publication of data on ``grandfathered'' services, collect terrestrial fixed wireless spectrum authorization information, and additional certifications and supporting data from satellite broadband providers. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on amendments and clarifications to several of its BDC data validation rules regarding data retention, sharing Fabric challenges with providers, the professional engineering certification requirement, audits and verification outcomes, restoring locations previously removed from the map, aligning reporting requirements for broadband availability and subscribership data, and adding a new rule section for Fabric challenges. Available at: https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but- disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must: (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made; and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenters written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by Sec. 1.49(f) of the rules or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml., .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules. [[Page 66306]] Synopsis I. Summary of the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Modifications to the FCC's Availability Data Collection Requirements 1. Limiting Publication of Data on ``Grandfathered'' Services 1. We seek comment on whether we should limit the publication of availability data to avoid the potential for releasing subscribership information, typically treated as confidential in other contexts, with respect to grandfathered services that providers are phasing out. 2. Background. The Broadband DATA Act mandates that the Commission collect data on the availability of ``broadband internet access service'' which, for purposes of the Act, ``has the meaning given the term in Sec. 8.1(b) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation.'' Under this rule, broadband internet access service is a ``mass-market retail service by wire or radio that provides the capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or substantially all internet endpoints, including any capabilities that are incidental to and enable the operation of the communications service, but excluding dial-up internet access service.'' 3. In the Third Report and Order (86 FR 18124, April 7, 2021), the Commission clarified that all facilities-based providers of broadband internet access services are required to comply with the requirements of the BDC. Fixed broadband internet access service providers must report the maximum advertised download and upload speeds associated with the service available at a location. Accordingly, the BDC collects availability data from a wide array of service providers encompassing a broad range of technologies and service types. The data collection covers both new and novel services, as well as legacy services that providers are in the process of permanently discontinuing. In the latter case, a filer may provide facilities-based broadband internet access service to existing subscribers at particular locations, but no longer market or sell that service to potential or new customers in the area and would not continue offering the service to a location once the existing subscriber disconnects that service at the location. In such instances, the effect of the filing requirement is that the availability data submitted by the provider for this service could essentially be a list of current subscribers of the service. The Commission routinely treats subscribership data submitted as part of the FCC's Form 477 as confidential. 4. Certain providers have expressed concern that publishing availability data for grandfathered services could reveal confidential subscribership information. For example, Verizon recently requested confidential treatment of its incumbent local exchange carriers' DSL service availability data submitted as part of its December 2023 BDC filing because the data reflect ``only those locations where [Verizon] currently provide[s] service to an existing customer, thereby resulting in the reporting of confidential customer-identifiable location and service information of those customers.'' Verizon noted that ``[a]lthough the Commission generally favors disclosure of service availability information, the nature of the DSL availability information [Verizon is] required to report will reveal the precise number of [its] subscribers in an area, plus the customer address and type of service provided to each DSL customer and cannot be masked by non-customer locations where the service is no longer offered.'' We seek comment on whether publication of availability data for grandfathered services should be limited. 5. Discussion. We propose to amend our rules to permit filers to indicate that the service offered at a location is a grandfathered service only. We further propose that in cases where a provider submits a request for confidential treatment of such data, and such a request is not denied, we would not publish such data as part of the location- specific availability information in the National Broadband Map (NBM). We also propose that information on the availability of these services would only be disclosed by the Commission on an aggregated, redacted or otherwise de-identified, differentiated or masked basis. The Commission would afford those data the protections from disclosure already established for subscription data gathered via FCC Form 477, and treated as confidential. 6. We believe there are multiple benefits to this approach. First, it would enable the Commission to collect and analyze more in-depth, useful information on the nature of fixed broadband services (whether they are grandfathered or not), thereby forming a more nuanced and comprehensive picture of broadband service availability. Second, it would better protect against potential disclosure of confidential customer information. Third, not showing on the NBM locations where a service has been discontinued and is available only to legacy subscribers (but not to any new or potential subscribers in the future) could provide more helpful information to consumers about broadband availability. We seek comment on these proposals. Are there any alternative approaches we should consider that would appropriately protect data that could constitute subscribership information and provide accurate information on the services that are actually available at a particular location? Are there alternatives we should consider for the types of information and format the Commission discloses about grandfathered services, or the protections afforded to this data? 7. We seek comment on how to define a ``grandfathered'' service for purposes of reporting broadband availability and making data on such services potentially eligible for this differentiated treatment on the NBM. We propose to define a ``grandfathered'' service similar to the definition used in other areas of our rules: any broadband internet access service that is currently provided to an existing end user at a Broadband Serviceable Location, but that a facilities-based provider is discontinuing, has permanently ceased to advertise or market to new or potential subscribers, and would not make available to a new or potential subscriber at the Broadband Serviceable Location. We seek comment on this proposed definition. We note that this proposed definition would not encompass locations where the provider is willing to connect a new end user but the potential customer is ``waitlisted'' due to capacity constraints that exist on the as-of date of the biannual BDC submission; it would similarly not include locations where a provider is unable to conduct a standard broadband installation within 10 business days due to equipment unavailability, capacity constraints or other limitations. Under our proposal, service to locations in these circumstances would not be considered grandfathered. Would this proposed definition, if adopted, provide sufficient clarity to BDC filers to know whether or not a particular service would be considered a grandfathered service? Are there alternative definitions we should consider? 8. We also seek comment on whether we should adopt any requirements pertaining to the size of the area where the service is no longer advertised or marketed in order to qualify as a ``grandfathered'' service. Must the provider cease marketing and selling the service throughout its entire footprint before it qualifies as a grandfathered service? How should the Commission treat a service provider with a multi- [[Page 66307]] state footprint who ceases marketing or selling the service in one or more states, but continues to offer the service in the other state(s) within its footprint? Should such a provider be permitted to claim ``grandfathered'' status for the service in the state(s) or other remaining geographic area(s) where it no longer markets or sells the service (and would not make it available to new or potential subscribers)? 9. We seek comment on whether we should adopt a process for a provider to ``undo'' a prior claim of grandfathered status. If we were to adopt such a process, what evidence, if any, should we require the provider to submit in support of a request to reverse a prior claim of grandfathered service status? 10. What measures, if any, should we adopt to protect against potential gaming of the protections we propose for ``grandfathered'' services? For example, should we require a service provider to include with its request for confidential treatment an affidavit, declaration or other certification that it does not currently market or sell to new or potential subscribers, and will not market or sell to new or potential subscribers in the future, the service reported as a grandfathered service in the system? Should we require that any such certification or other attestation be executed by a corporate officer of the filer? Should we require the filer to submit evidence that it no longer markets or sells to new or potential subscribers the reported service, and, if so, what types of evidence would be acceptable? Are there other measures we could adopt to protect against possible gaming? Alternatively, should Commission staff instead rely upon existing tools, such as verifications, audits, and enforcement mechanisms, to investigate and validate claims of grandfathered services? 11. We also seek comment on whether we should collect information on other attributes related to potential limitations on the availability of a particular broadband service. For example, should we have providers indicate that a service is made available to existing subscribers in an area, but is not marketed or sold in the area temporarily due to capacity constraints on the ``as-of'' date of the biannual BDC submission (though it will be marketed or sold in the area once those capacity constraints were alleviated)? In addition, while all broadband service transmission technologies are theoretically capacity constrained, certain services--such as spectrum-based terrestrial fixed wireless and satellite services--can be more affected by capacity considerations than traditional wireline services. In such cases, a provider may be able to connect service on a marginal basis to some, but not all, of the locations included in its availability data (if, theoretically, all the residents or businesses at such locations were to request service at the same time), or it may not be able to offer service to all of the locations at the reported maximum advertised speeds, due to network capacity constraints. Further, some providers have indicated that they offer certain broadband services only on a seasonal basis. Should we amend the BDC fixed availability reporting requirements so that the various circumstances or conditions mentioned above, as well as others, can be captured in the collected data? How should such circumstances, conditions, or factors be reported? What type of burden does distinguishing service attributes place upon facilities-based providers who file data in the BDC? 12. We additionally propose to allow filers to request confidential treatment pursuant to 47 CFR 0.459 for broadband availability data in the limited circumstance where the services are marked as grandfathered and for other analogous situations where the filed data would inherently disclose the coverage information of existing customers. We propose that all other filed broadband availability data submitted in the BDC would be available to the public. The Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission both to collect data from each provider reporting the areas to which it can and does make broadband services available and to allow for consumers and entities to challenge the accuracy of ``any information submitted by a provider regarding the availability of broadband internet access services.'' The Commission has previously made clear that information filed in the BDC ``will be presumed to be non-confidential unless the Commission specifically directs that it be withheld'' and has otherwise been skeptical of filer arguments about the confidentiality of broadband availability data generally. We continue to conclude that, in most circumstances, the public interest in disclosure of BDC availability data outweighs any commercial or competitive harm to the provider. Clarifying the circumstances under which we would consider confidentiality requests for availability data would provide additional certainty to filers and challengers of broadband availability data alike, while further streamlining the process by which the Commission processes and publishes such data. To be clear, we do not propose to limit the circumstances under which filers may request confidential treatment of data other than broadband availability data that are submitted into the BDC, including subscription data or supporting data (including, e.g., link budget parameters or coverage methodology information). We seek comment on this proposal. Are there other categories of broadband availability data for which we should continue to entertain requests for confidential treatment? How can we best balance the goals of the Broadband DATA Act and our responsibilities in administering the BDC program with competing concerns about the sensitivity of required data? 13. We propose requiring service providers to report attributes about the nature of service availability in their location- or area- specific availability data submissions. We propose revising our Data Specifications for Biannual Submission of Subscription, Availability, and Supporting Data to enable filers to report, and the BDC system to collect, data reflecting services with a grandfathered status or any other attributes. We seek comment on these proposals. 2. Collecting Terrestrial Fixed Wireless Spectrum Authorization Information 14. We next seek comment on changing our rules to require terrestrial fixed wireless providers to submit additional information that would allow the Commission to better verify terrestrial fixed wireless service availability data submitted in the BDC. 15. Background. The Broadband DATA Act required the Commission to provide two methods for terrestrial fixed wireless broadband internet access service providers to file their availability data: (1) propagation maps and model details that ``satisfy standards that are similar to those applicable to providers of mobile broadband internet access service . . . , taking into account material differences between fixed wireless and mobile broadband internet access service'' or (2) as a list of locations that constitute the service area of the provider. The Commission implemented these requirements in the Second Report and Order (85 FR 50886, August 18, 2020). When submitting their availability data, fixed providers must disclose the details of how they generated their coverage polygons or list of locations. The Second Report and Order adopted categories of parameters and details that fixed wireless providers submitting availability coverage polygons based on propagation maps and model details [[Page 66308]] must disclose to the FCC as part of their BDC submissions. Examples of these requirements include base station information (such as the frequency band(s) used to provide service being mapped, carrier aggregation information, the radio technologies used on each spectrum band, and site information such as the elevation above ground level for each base station), height and power values for receivers or other customer premises equipment, and terrain and clutter information. The Commission did not specify comparable disclosure requirements for supporting data that terrestrial fixed wireless providers that file location lists must submit as part of their biannual BDC submission. 16. In March 2022, prior to the opening of the initial BDC filing window, the Broadband Data Task Force released data specifications detailing the categories and format of data that broadband service providers must submit in the BDC system to satisfy their filing obligation. The data specifications originally included two technology codes to differentiate terrestrial fixed wireless services: technology code 70, used to report unlicensed terrestrial fixed wireless service, and technology code 71, used to report licensed terrestrial fixed wireless service. A third terrestrial fixed wireless technology code (72: Licensed-by-Rule Terrestrial Fixed Wireless) was added in January 2023. The codes are intended to characterize the last-mile fixed wireless technology used to deliver internet access services to end users. 17. The Commission has an affirmative obligation to verify providers' broadband availability data filed in the BDC. In verifying availability based on terrestrial fixed wireless service, we must also ensure that the reported availability is authorized based upon applicable FCC spectrum licenses or other forms of authorizations (as reported by technology category code), as a claim of terrestrial fixed wireless service availability would be invalid if the service provider's operations were unauthorized. There are three ways to be authorized to operate a terrestrial fixed wireless service in accordance with the FCC's rules: providers may possess a license; may be licensed-by-rule (LBR); or may operate via unlicensed spectrum in accordance with Part 15 of the Commission's rules. 18. Discussion. We seek comment on proposed rule changes that will allow the Commission to better verify the terrestrial fixed wireless service availability data submitted in the BDC. First, we propose that fixed wireless filers reporting licensed service (i.e., technology code 71--Licensed Terrestrial Fixed Wireless) in their biannual BDC filings be required to submit the following additional information: (1) all call signs and lease IDs (including the call sign(s) of the license(s) being leased) associated with the licenses held or leased by the filer that were (or could have been) used to provide broadband service as of the relevant BDC filing date (i.e., June 30 or December 31); and (2) the FCC Registration Number (FRN) of the entity holding the license or lease as recorded in the FCC's Universal Licensing System (ULS). Collecting this information will provide the most direct way to verify the permissibility of these operations, as it will allow staff to compare the reported coverage with the geographic areas associated with spectrum licenses or leases, as well as any transmitter locations, in ULS. If a BDC coverage area is found to be incongruous with the geographic area associated with the provisioning authorization(s) as assessed via call sign data, this may prompt further review by staff, form a credible basis for a verification request, or potentially trigger a future audit. We propose updating the BDC data specifications to implement this requirement. We seek comment on this approach, as well as on potential alternatives to verify coverage of providers offering licensed terrestrial fixed wireless service. 19. We note that terrestrial fixed wireless services operating in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) may be authorized via either Priority Access Licenses or under General Authorized Access (LBR or GAA) rules, and therefore fall under either technology code 71 or 72, respectively, in BDC filings. CBRS operators licensed under the former have associated call signs in ULS, and--as described above--we propose and seek comment on requiring them to report in their biannual BDC filings a comprehensive list of the call signs they use to provide the fixed broadband services reported in the BDC. Service providers authorized using LBR/GAA (i.e., technology code 72) do not receive call signs in ULS for that technology, but records of GAA registrations are maintained by automated frequency coordinators known as Spectrum Access Systems (SASs). Given that the Commission has an obligation to verify all reported broadband coverage, regardless of whether the service is offered using licensed or LBR spectrum, we propose requiring operators that claim LBR/GAA terrestrial fixed wireless service availability in the BDC using GAA-authorized base stations to provide proof of authorization by a SAS for the relevant BDC filing date. We propose collecting such data in structured formats to ease with its processing and evaluation, and seek comment on the most efficient way to do so. We also seek comment on whether there are other ways to verify the reported coverage of providers using GAA or any other LBR service. 20. Finally, we note that providers offering broadband service using unlicensed terrestrial fixed wireless technology(ies) do not receive call signs in ULS and do not require authorization from a SAS to operate their base stations, though they may be subject to other regulatory requirements, such as static or automated frequency coordination. It therefore is not possible to compare the locations or geographic areas where they report service availability with call signs (as is possible for licensed services) or using SAS database records (as is possible for LBR services). In cases where filers are authorized on an unlicensed basis under part 15 of the FCC's rules, we propose requiring the provider to file the FCC ID(s) of all base station transmission equipment used, and seek comment on whether there are other methods for validating that the service is authorized under the Commission's part 15 rules. We seek comment on this proposal and any other ways, beyond those mentioned above, to verify coverage of terrestrial fixed wireless providers offering service using unlicensed fixed wireless technologies (i.e., technology code 70). 3. Additional Certifications and Supporting Data From Satellite Providers 21. We also seek comment on requiring additional certifications and supporting data from satellite providers to improve the quality of data provided to the BDC and improve the Commission's data validation, verification, and audits of satellite availability data submitted in the BDC. 22. Background. The nature of satellite services presents unique challenges for ensuring the accuracy of data concerning satellite broadband service availability in the BDC. In 2019, the Commission sought comment on how it could ``improve upon the existing [Form 477] satellite broadband data collection to reflect more accurately current satellite broadband service availability.'' At that time, the Commission ``recognized there are issues with the quality of the satellite broadband data that are currently [[Page 66309]] reported under the existing Form 477.'' The Commission sought comment on how to improve the satellite broadband availability data reported in its new data collection, including whether it should collect additional information from satellite service providers, such as the number and location of satellite beams and the capacity used to provide service by individual satellites to consumers at various speeds. The Commission also sought comment on ``[w]hat issues should be addressed for [non- geostationary orbit] satellite services in the new data collection as they begin to be offered.'' 23. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission ``continue[d] to seek comment on how we could improve upon the existing satellite broadband data collection,'' including whether demand side data might assist the Commission in better ascertaining the availability of these services. The Commission determined in the Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (85 FR 50911, August 18, 2020) that, ``[i]f concrete proposals are not provided to more reasonably represent satellite broadband deployment, we would rely on other mechanisms . . . including standards for availability reporting, crowdsourced data checks, certifications, audits, and enforcement, potentially as well as currently reported subscriber data, in assessing the accuracy of satellite provider claims of broadband deployment.'' The Commission did not obtain concrete proposals in response to the Second Report and Order and, accordingly, in the Third Report and Order, it determined that it would rely upon verification measures to help ensure the accuracy of satellite broadband availability data. The Commission did, however, ``remind satellite providers that the standards for availability reporting that apply to all fixed services require that satellite providers include only locations that they are currently serving or meet the broadband installation standard. Satellite providers cannot report an ability to serve an area or location without a reasonable basis for claiming that deployment, taking into account current and expected locations of spot beams, capacity constraints, and other relevant factors.'' 24. To enable Commission staff to verify availability data as required by the Broadband DATA Act, Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA), and Space Bureau (SB) recently released updated verification data specifications that include common data fields for fixed broadband service providers, and include fields for satellite infrastructure data that satellite service providers use to estimate their service and coverage. The Broadband Data Task Force notified service providers (including satellite providers) that they must maintain these supporting data for each reporting period, and that the Commission may collect these data in the context of the Commission's statutory obligations to verify broadband service availability data. 25. Discussion. According to the BDC submissions as of June 30, 2023, satellite broadband service with speeds of at least 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload is available to 164.7 million Broadband Serviceable Locations, or 99.95% of all Broadband Serviceable Locations in the United States. Satellite broadband service with speeds of at least 100/20 Mbps is available to 164.1 million Broadband Serviceable Locations, or 99.6% of all locations. In the context of recent reports under section 706 of the Communications Act, the Commission has found that both ``FCC Form 477 deployment data and BDC service availability data for satellite broadband service may overstate the extent to which satellite broadband service is available.'' Given this, and the relatively low subscription rate and capacity limitations for satellite services indicated by available FCC Form 477 data, the Commission declined to include in its analysis of fixed broadband service availability any data on satellite services. 26. We propose that satellite providers must include, as a supporting data file accompanying their biannual availability submissions, the infrastructure data set forth in sections 2.3.1, 2.3.2, and 2.3.4 of the BDC Infrastructure Data Specifications (including any subsequent modifications, amendments or successors to those sections). We seek comment on this proposal. 27. Section 2.3.1 of the BDC Infrastructure Data Specifications specifies the format for the submission of records of general operating parameters of a satellite system. The data gathered pursuant to this section of the specifications include the network type (geostationary satellite orbit (GSO), non-geostationary satellite orbit, or other), the total number of satellites in the active constellation, the number of orbital shells deployed in the active constellation, the overall system downlink capacity and the overall system uplink capacity. Section 2.3.2 specifies the content and format for the submission of more detailed information for each constellation or orbital shell of space stations deployed by the satellite broadband service provider as of the applicable reporting period. The data gathered pursuant to this section include shell altitude, the orbital location (for GSO systems), inclination angle, orbital plane, number of satellites per orbital plane, shell orbital period, apogee, and perigee, among other data elements. Section 2.3.4 specifies the content and format for the submission of system capacity information for specific geographic regions of the country. 28. We propose to require satellite providers to submit all of the information requested in sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 of the BDC Infrastructure Data Specifications (as applicable, depending upon the satellite system type), as well as the capacity data in section 2.3.4 for each state or territory for which the provider claims to make service available as part of its BDC filing. We do not propose requiring satellite providers to submit system capacity information on a county-by-county basis. Furthermore, we do not propose, at this time, that providers submit the detailed link budget parameters set forth in section 2.3.3 of the specification, but we seek comment on whether the Commission should collect link budget data from satellite providers as part of the availability data submission process, similar to data collected from mobile wireless service providers and terrestrial fixed wireless service providers who submit polygon coverage maps using propagation maps and model details. We seek comment on these proposals and any potential alternatives. 29. We propose to (1) update the BDC Data Specifications for Biannual Submission of Subscription, Availability, and Supporting Data to include these categories of data from the BDC Infrastructure Data Specifications, and (2) publish these categories of data received from satellite providers in the Data Download section of the NBM platform, so that interested stakeholders may access the data (similar to supporting data published for other providers and technologies). We further propose that OEA and SB may analyze these data and use them for purposes of verifications and audits of satellite providers, consistent with our processes and procedures for conducting verifications and audits. 30. We seek comment on whether this proposal would place additional burdens upon satellite providers by requiring them to submit this information on a biannual basis. We note that the information included in the satellite provider infrastructure portion of the data specifications is largely based upon categories of data that each provider is required to submit [[Page 66310]] as part of its FCC Form 312 (Application for Satellite Space and Earth Station Authorizations) and accompanying Schedule S (Technical and Operational Appendix). Are any additional burdens associated with this reporting outweighed by the benefits to the Commission, other federal agencies, state, local, and Tribal governments, researchers and academia, and the public from obtaining more detailed information on the assumptions and modeling parameters underlying satellite providers' coverage claims? 31. Because the data sought through the BDC Infrastructure Data Specifications are based upon information included in a satellite provider's publicly available FCC Form 312 and Schedule S, we tentatively conclude that, should the Commission adopt the requirement that satellite providers include these data with their biannual availability submissions, the data would be presumptively public. Similar to our treatment of most categories of terrestrial fixed wireless infrastructure data, ``[w]e believe there is a strong public interest in having as much access to this information as possible in order to facilitate public review and input on its accuracy . . . .'' We invite comment on whether some of these data raise commercial sensitivities and, if so, whether some categories of the data should be treated as presumptively non-public. Alternatively, should we treat all of these data as presumptively public, and permit individual requests for confidential treatment pursuant to the Commission's existing rules? 32. What other data could the Commission collect, or processes could the Commission adopt, to improve the accuracy of and insights into satellite providers' broadband availability data? What are the specific sources of such data, and who would be responsible for submitting those to the Commission? Are there additional standardized data specifications the Commission could or should release? What use restrictions or confidentiality concerns would apply to these data, if any? Commenters who advocate that the Commission adopt alternatives to our proposal to collect from satellite providers the existing information set forth in the pertinent sections of the BDC Infrastructure Data Specifications should provide detailed and specific information about their alternative proposals, how the Commission would administer them, and why any such alternative would yield better satellite availability data than gathering additional infrastructure information directly from satellite broadband service providers. B. BDC Data Validation Processes 33. The Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission to verify the accuracy and reliability of data submitted in the BDC. We seek comment on several proposed changes to our rules to improve the Commission's validation, audit, and Fabric challenge processes, as well as facilitate provider certification of BDC submissions. 1. Data Retention Requirements 34. We seek comment on establishing a set data-retention period for documentation supporting providers' BDC submissions to ensure the Commission has access to necessary documentation for purposes of conducting audits, verifications, and other reviews. 35. Background. Broadband service providers are required to submit information on how they generated their availability data for each technology included in their biannual BDC filings. In particular, fixed service providers must include information on the methodology used to generate their availability data, along with an explanation of how the methodologies were implemented. Terrestrial fixed wireless providers who file their availability data as a coverage polygon are required to submit information about their propagation models, base stations, carriers, link budgets, and clutter categories. Similarly, mobile wireless service providers must include supporting data with their coverage maps, including propagation model details and link budget information. 36. In addition to their biannual submission, service providers must submit data and information to the Commission in response to challenges, verification inquiries, and audits. As discussed above, the Commission has published data specifications detailing the types of infrastructure data, by service type and technology, that must be submitted in response to verification inquiries and audits (and challenges, in instances where mobile wireless service providers are able to respond to mobile challenges with infrastructure data). In the context of most cognizable challenges to mobile broadband coverage data, service providers submit on-the-ground speed test data into the BDC system to rebut the challenge. 37. The Commission maintains these data in the BDC system and supplemental data storage infrastructure. All of the public (i.e., non- confidential) data are made available for view and download from the NBM. However, the Commission has not adopted a set data-retention period for how long service providers must preserve their availability, subscription, and supporting data or data used to respond to challenges, verification inquiries or audits. 38. Discussion. We propose that broadband service providers be required to retain the underlying data used to create their biannual submissions (including subscription data and supporting data) for at least three years from the applicable ``as-of'' date (e.g., data used to create a biannual submission for the June 30, 2024, reporting period would need to be retained until June 30, 2027). In addition, we propose that providers be required to retain the data used to respond to challenges, verification inquiries, and audits for a period of three years from the date the provider receives the challenge, verification inquiry, or notification of Commission initiation of an audit. These requirements, if adopted, would go into effect following the effective date of final rules implementing the new data retention periods. We seek comment on these proposals. 39. The Commission requires entities to retain records for applicable data-retention periods in several of its programs. For example, entities that have equipment subject to the equipment authorization procedures must retain the records associated with the authorizations. For equipment that must be certified, ``records shall be retained for a one year period after the marketing of the associated equipment has been permanently discontinued.'' The equipment authorization rules require entities to retain all other records for a two-year period. The rules specify what data must be collected and maintained. Each of the Commission's Universal Service Fund programs also include record retention requirements ranging from three to 10 years. 40. Just as with entities who participate in these other FCC programs, broadband service providers must know for how long they should retain their biannual submissions and the underlying data used to create them. We seek comment on a three-year data retention rule for these data. We believe that the needs of the BDC program support a three-year retention period, based upon the timeline from the relevant as-of date of a biannual availability filing to collection and publication of the data, followed by challenge and verification efforts by Commission staff and, finally, the downstream uses of the data in various funding programs. Do commenters agree? What are the benefits and [[Page 66311]] burdens of retaining the data for three years? Should we adopt a different retention period, such as five years or possibly longer? Commenters advocating for a longer data-retention period should explain the benefits of a longer retention period and why the benefits outweigh the burdens on providers associated with a longer data-retention period. We propose to adopt a uniform data-retention period for all of the availability, subscription, and supporting data. Are there reasons to adopt different data-retention requirements for certain types of data or portions of the data collection and, if so, what would these be? Are the burdens on smaller providers disproportionately large compared to larger providers? Does the benefit of having uniform retention rules outweigh any such difference in burden on smaller providers? 41. We also seek comment on whether a three-year retention period for data involving challenges, verification inquiries, and audits is sufficient. We propose to adopt the same data-retention period for challenge, verification, and audit response data as for underlying biannual submission data in order to avoid confusion and to provide administrative ease for filers. But should we adopt a longer (or shorter) retention period for these data? As in the case of availability data, we seek comment on whether we should adopt a uniform data-retention period for all types of challenge, verification, and audit response data or if different requirements should apply to certain portions of the data. For example, mobile wireless service providers that respond to challenges or verification inquiries with infrastructure data are required to submit cell-loading data in 15- minute intervals for a one-week period. Should we be concerned that this amount of cell-loading data would be so voluminous to store and maintain that requiring their retention for three years would be unduly burdensome? We also propose to adopt the same retention rules for all providers given that our need to verify and audit data and resolve challenges extends across all industry segments. But are there reasons why we should adopt different standards for some providers or for different technologies? Should the Commission adopt any additional requirements related to challenge, verification or audit response data? 2. Sharing Fabric Challenges With Providers 42. To facilitate the development of new versions of the Fabric, we seek comment on the processes and timing for sharing Fabric challenges with providers. 43. Background. In September 2022, shortly after the close of the inaugural BDC filing window, the Broadband Data Task Force announced that Fabric licensees could begin submitting bulk Fabric challenges through the BDC system. The Broadband Data Task Force limited these initial Fabric challenge submissions to bulk submissions because the NBM interface was not yet publicly available. For the same reason, only entities who had access to location data through a Fabric license could submit bulk challenges given that the FCC had not yet published location data points on a publicly accessible version of the NBM. The Commission subsequently began accepting Fabric challenges from individual consumers and entities that had not executed a Fabric license agreement when the pre-production draft of the NBM was published. Using the NBM interface, consumers and other non-licensees were then able to submit data to challenge the information associated with Broadband Serviceable Locations (BSLs) reflected in the first version of the Fabric. The publication of the NBM also commenced the individual and bulk availability challenge processes. 44. The Commission accepts Fabric challenges on an ongoing basis throughout the year, and a new version of the Fabric is released in connection with a biannual BDC submission round for the collection of fixed availability data (either as of June 30 or December 31 of each year). Creating the Fabric is a complex process that involves analyzing many data sources, including aerial and satellite imagery, address databases, land and local tax records; reconciling determinations against Fabric challenge adjudications; and preparing data files for Fabric licensees sufficiently in advance of the opening of a biannual BDC submission round. Successful challenges received early in the process of creating the new Fabric version are incorporated in the next Fabric release; those received too late to be incorporated into the process will be evaluated for inclusion in the following version of the Fabric. The Commission and CostQuest Associates, the Fabric data vendor, have processed Fabric challenges in this manner for each iteration of the Fabric. 45. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (IIJA) amended the Broadband DATA Act to require that ``[t]he rules issued to establish the challenge process under subparagraph (A) shall include [ ] a process for the speedy resolution of challenges, which shall require that the Commission resolve a challenge not later than 90 days after the date on which a final response by a provider to a challenge to the accuracy of a map or information described in subparagraph (A) is complete.'' Subparagraph (A) of section 642(b)(5) directs the Commission to ``establish a user-friendly challenge process . . . to challenge the accuracy of (i) the coverage maps; (ii) any information submitted by a provider regarding the availability of broadband internet access service; or (iii) the information included in the Fabric.'' In establishing the challenge processes, the Commission must both ``allow providers to respond to challenges submitted through the challenge process'' and ``develop an online mechanism, which . . . makes challenge data available in both geographic information system and non-geographic information system formats.'' 46. Discussion. Based on our experience with multiple cycles of Fabric challenges, allowing providers to directly respond to Fabric challenges while the most current Fabric is still being developed, rather than waiting until the next Fabric release, would require extensive resources and could lead to delays processing the Fabric. We therefore propose to amend our rules to eliminate the requirement that the BDC system alert a provider of accepted Fabric challenges and that service providers be afforded an opportunity to directly respond to Fabric challenges. Fabric challenge results are made available to providers upon final adjudication, and providers then have an opportunity to challenge any of the results with which they may disagree. Interposing a separate, in-cycle Fabric challenge process would, in most instances, require that the Commission and CostQuest delay the processing of the Fabric. We believe that any limited benefit of creating an in-cycle process for providers to directly respond to Fabric challenges does not outweigh the significant costs in terms of delaying the production of a subsequent iteration of the Fabric. 47. As a practical matter, Fabric challenges do not dispute availability information submitted by providers but, rather, dispute information used by CostQuest to identify locations and the attributes of BSLs. Having now processed several rounds of Fabric challenges, data show that while some providers have submitted Fabric challenges that have resulted in updates to subsequent versions of the Fabric, it is unclear that providers (as a group) have better or more reliable geospatial data on BSL attributes than other groups (e.g., state, local, or Tribal governments, [[Page 66312]] consumers). Additionally, while it may be relatively straightforward to identify Fabric challenges to locations where a provider has previously reported making broadband service available, the vast majority of challenges to date have been to add a new BSL, which, by definition, does not implicate previously reported availability data (at least as to fixed service providers who report availability using a list of (preexisting) BSLs). Since providers have not previously analyzed whether broadband is available at these proposed locations, and Commission staff could only guess as to which providers it should notify of such challenges, it is also impractical to have providers directly respond to Fabric challenges. For these reasons, the information the Commission collects through the Fabric challenge process, along with the methods used to create the Fabric dataset, do not effectively allow for a process for service providers to directly respond to these challenges. Rather, we believe that the best way for internet service providers to ``respond'' to Fabric challenges within their availability footprints would be to continue to submit follow-on challenges to challenged or new Fabric locations in a subsequent version of the Fabric. We seek comment on this proposal. 48. We believe that this proposed Fabric challenge process is consistent with the Congressional intent in the Broadband DATA Act that we ``allow providers to respond to challenges submitted through the challenge process . . . .'' In the first instance, we interpret this clause as primarily, if not exclusively, intended to apply to availability challenges filed against service providers. Nothing in our proposed changes would alter the ability of service providers to respond directly to challenges to their fixed (and mobile) availability data. Moreover, unlike with availability challenges, where it is the provider's data that are being challenged and where the provider has particular interest and specific knowledge, with Fabric challenges, it is unclear the extent to which providers have more or better information than local consumers or governments or others filing challenges to the location information in the Fabric. Finally (and importantly), the FCC publishes data on in-progress Fabric challenges monthly, and on resolved Fabric challenges through the information it makes available when it publishes a new version of the Fabric. Providers are thereby able to ``respond'' to these pending or resolved Fabric challenges by filing subsequent, follow-on challenges to such challenges. We seek comment on this interpretation of the Broadband DATA Act. 49. We seek comment on potential alternatives to this proposed process and specific proposals on how they might be implemented. For example, should we allow providers to view and directly respond to customized lists of non-Type-1 Fabric challenges to existing BSLs that fall within their service footprints? If so, then how could the Commission facilitate such a process without delaying the processing of Fabric challenges and the production schedule for subsequent iterations of the Fabric data? Should we also attempt to identify the internet service providers (ISP(s)) that may have an interest in Type-1 Fabric challenges to add new BSLs to the Fabric? If so, then what process should the Commission use to identify ISP(s) interested in these challenges? In particular, how would staff identify areas of interest for non-polygon availability data filers? Could staff create a buffer around the to-be-added location point, and provide notice to all service providers who report service at locations within a certain distance from the point? How could such a process be implemented without delaying the processing of Fabric challenges and the production schedule for subsequent iterations of the Fabric? Should the Commission delay processing of any challenges presented to ISPs for response? Doing so would mean setting aside such challenges for, e.g., 60 days, for providers to respond. That delay would effectively require that any challenges be incorporated into the next version of the Fabric. Alternatively, if the Commission does not delay processing of Fabric challenges for providers to respond, challenges might already be in the process of adjudication--or already adjudicated--before the ISP responds. In such cases, any ISP response would need to be treated as an additional challenge to the same location. Is there any advantage to having an ISP-specific process for a response instead of allowing ISPs to file additional challenges (an option that is already available to ISPs today)? Are there any additional measures we could implement to avoid delays in the event we were to allow for ISPs to directly respond to Fabric challenges? For example, the Commission already creates Fabric challenge adjudication files and change logs for Fabric licensees indicating changes made to the Fabric as a result of the challenge process (as well as updates made by the Commission and CostQuest). Should (and, if so, then how could) the FCC and CostQuest prepare similar (but separate and distinct) data files to identify pending Fabric challenges for ISPs that they may want to respond to? 50. Finally, we propose to interpret section 60102(h)(2)(E)(i) of the IIJA as inapplicable to Fabric challenges and revise our rules to make this clear. The statute requires the Commission to resolve challenges ``not later than 90 days after the date on which a final response by a provider . . . is complete.'' To the extent we amend our rules to provide that an ISP does not ``respond'' to an initial Fabric challenge (and instead the Commission would resolve such challenges as part of its publication of a subsequent version of the Fabric), the deadline required under the statute would not apply to Fabric challenges. Do commenters agree with our proposed interpretation of the IIJA? We believe this approach to the Fabric challenge process would facilitate efficient resolution of challenges, consistent with the requirements of the IIJA, while maintaining the Commission's flexibility to assess data that may be submitted by providers through a subsequent challenge to a later iteration of the Fabric. We note that the majority of Fabric challenges are processed and resolved well within 90 days of submission, particularly those that can be resolved based on the data submitted by filers without any need for manual or secondary review of satellite imagery. Challenges that are deemed successful based on such processing need to be reconciled with and incorporated into the next version of the Fabric, and are therefore tied to the biannual cadence of Fabric releases (i.e., a challenge is only fully accepted when incorporated into the next Fabric vintage). Moreover, the Broadband Data Task Force has historically announced target dates for submitting Fabric challenges that will be processed in time for inclusion in the next iteration of the Fabric. Given that challenges submitted by this date are adjudicated in advance of the creation of the next release of Fabric data, these challenges are usually resolved approximately 90 days from the date of their filing. 3. Professional Engineering Certification 51. We next seek comment on whether we should eliminate the requirement in our rules that parties submitting verified broadband data in the BDC provide a certification by a licensed professional engineer if not submitted by a corporate engineering officer. To address concerns about licensed professional engineer shortages, Wireline Competition Bureau [[Page 66313]] (WCB), OEA, and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) have waived this requirement for several filing periods and instead relied on other measures to ensure we receive accurate coverage maps that are based on data that are consistent with professional engineering standards. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether this requirement should be eliminated and replaced with other measures. 52. Background. The Broadband DATA Act requires that broadband service providers ``shall include in each [BDC] submission a certification from a corporate officer of the provider that the officer has examined the information contained in the submission and that, to the best of the officer's actual knowledge, information, and belief, all statements of fact contained in the submission are true and correct.'' In the Third Report and Order, the Commission expanded this requirement so that, in addition to a certification from a corporate officer, service providers must also submit a certification by a qualified engineer, who must be either a certified professional engineer or a corporate engineering officer. The Commission noted that this engineering certification requirement also applies to government entities and third parties that submit verified broadband data. The Commission explained that the purpose of the engineering certification is to ``ensur[e] the accuracy of coverage maps and that they be based on data that are consistent with professional engineering standards.'' 53. WCB, OEA, and WTB have waived this requirement several times over the past several years due to a shortage of professional engineers. In May 2022, the Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling or Limited Waiver, asking the Commission to clarify that BDC filings may be certified by either an engineer licensed by the relevant state licensure board (i.e., a Professional Engineer (PE)) or an ``otherwise qualified engineer.'' In its Petition, CCA noted that ``[t]he RF [radio frequency] engineering community is characterized by a scarcity of licensed PEs'' because ``[s]tate professional licensing boards issue PE licenses based on the fulfillment of state-specific education, examination, and experience requirements [and] states have generally not required PE licensure for RF engineers.'' CCA went on to assert that ``[t]he experience and expertise developed by RF engineers through their work provides comprehensive skills relevant to broadband deployment [and] . . . provides skills comparable to, and perhaps more relevant than, general licensure through the PE . . . exam process.'' 54. WCB, OEA, and WTB subsequently issued the 2022 BDC PE Order in which they (1) clarified that when a fixed or mobile provider submits a certification from a corporate engineering officer, such corporate engineering officer does not need to be a certified PE; and (2) waived the requirement that a fixed or mobile provider submit a certification from a ``certified professional engineer,'' allowing instead the submission of a certification completed by an otherwise-qualified engineer. In issuing the waiver, WCB, OEA, and WTB found that ``the lack of certified professional engineers specializing in RF engineering and broadband network design constitutes `special circumstances' that warrant a deviation from the general rule that certified professional engineers must certify the accuracy of providers' biannual BDC broadband data submissions.'' The waiver specified that an ``otherwise- qualified'' engineer must meet certain minimum qualifications in lieu of state PE licensure in order to certify a BDC filing; specifically, the engineer must ``possess either: (i) a bachelor's or postgraduate degree in electrical engineering, electronic technology, or another similar technical discipline, and at least seven years of relevant experience in broadband network design and/or performance; or (ii) specialized training relevant to broadband network engineering and design, deployment, and/or performance, and at least ten years of relevant experience in broadband network engineering, design, and/or performance.'' The waiver applied to all mobile and fixed broadband service providers for each of the first three BDC filing cycles (i.e., data as of June 30, 2022, December 31, 2022, and June 30, 2023). 55. In August 2023, CCA and USTelecom-The Broadband Association jointly submitted a petition to extend the 2022 BDC PE Order. The Waiver Extension Petition reported that circumstances had not changed for the industry in the year since adoption of the 2022 BDC PE Order. It further asserted that the minimum qualifications adopted for ``otherwise-qualified'' engineers in the 2022 BDC PE Order required experience that ``provides skills comparable to, and perhaps more relevant than, general PE licensure in the context of the BDC.'' On November 30, 2023, WCB, OEA, and WTB granted the Waiver Extension Petition for another three filing cycles (i.e., data as of December 31, 2023, June 30, 2024, and December 31, 2024), subject to certain conditions. 56. Discussion. As noted above, since the inception of the BDC, we have granted multiple waivers of the certified PE requirement. We propose to permanently eliminate the requirement under Sec. 1.7004(d) that an engineering certification, to the extent not submitted by a corporate engineering officer, must be submitted by a certified PE. In its place we propose to amend Sec. 1.7004(d) to state that all providers must submit a certification to the accuracy of their submissions by a ``qualified engineer,'' and we propose to define ``qualified engineer'' consistent with the engineering qualifications that WCB, OEA, and WTB adopted in the 2022 BDC PE Order and the PE Waiver Extension Order. We seek comment on our proposal. 57. Specifically, we propose to allow for the engineering certification to be submitted by (i) a corporate officer possessing a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) in engineering degree and who has direct knowledge of and responsibility for the carrier's network design and construction; (ii) an engineer possessing a bachelor's or postgraduate degree in electrical engineering, electronic technology, or another similar technical discipline, and at least seven years of relevant experience in broadband network design and/or performance; or (iii) an employee with specialized training relevant to broadband network engineering and design, deployment, and/or performance, and at least 10 years of relevant experience in broadband network engineering, design, and/or performance. 58. We further propose to modify the rule to clarify that a certifying engineer does not necessarily need to be a full-time employee of the broadband service provider but instead could be an independent contractor or third-party consultant. We do, however, propose to maintain the remaining requirements in Sec. 1.7004(d), including that the certifying engineer: (i) has direct knowledge of, or responsibility for, the generation of the provider's BDC filing; and (ii) has examined the information contained in the BDC submission and that, to the best of the engineer's actual knowledge, information, and belief, all statements of fact contained in the submission are true and correct, and in accordance with the service provider's ordinary course of network design and engineering. 59. In light of the other mechanisms available to the Commission, such as system validations and the existing corporate officer certification, we do not believe that a certification by a certified [[Page 66314]] PE is necessary to ensure the submission of high-quality data as part of the BDC. Moreover, the Commission has other tools at its disposal to ensure the ongoing improvement in BDC data, including the challenge, verification, and audit processes. Given all of these other processes, we do not believe the certified professional engineer requirement--at least in its current form--is necessary. Rather, we believe that the potential costs and burdens of the certified PE requirement outweigh its potential benefits. We propose that, consistent with our actions in the PE Waiver Extension Order, all providers be required to retain their infrastructure data in support of their biannual submissions and produce those data upon request as part of the Commission's efforts to validate availability data. We seek comment on these proposals and conclusions. 60. Does the limited availability of certified PE resources since the launch of the BDC support modifying the current requirement? Do commenters believe that state licensure requirements will change in the near term such that certified PEs with RF or fixed broadband network deployment experience will become more available? We seek updated data on the availability of licensed PEs. Commenters who assert that certified PEs will soon become available should provide evidence in support of their claims. 61. Assuming that we eliminate the requirement that a certified PE complete the engineering certification, do commenters agree that the alternative qualifications adopted in the 2022 BDC PE Order and the PE Waiver Extension Order are sufficient to ensure reliable BDC data are submitted by service providers? If commenters believe we should adopt different qualifications, what should those qualifications be and why should we adopt these qualifications rather than the qualifications in the prior waiver orders? 4. Audit and Verification Determinations 62. We next seek comment on our rule and procedures governing determinations made as a result of audits and verifications, including the removal of locations or areas if an audit or verification determines the data are deficient or unverifiable. 63. Background. As discussed earlier, the Broadband DATA Act requires that the Commission conduct audits to ensure that providers are complying with their reporting requirements. The Act also requires the Commission to verify the accuracy and reliability of availability data submissions in accordance with measures established by the Commission. In the final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, we delegate authority to OEA, in coordination with WTB, WCB, and SB to continue to perform audits and verifications using the tools currently available, including authority to establish methodologies and procedures for selecting service providers and locations or areas subject to verification or audit. At the conclusion of a verification or an audit, a provider must submit revised availability data to align with the conclusions of the verification or audit. In the case of mobile wireless coverage subject to a verification inquiry, we have also made clear that ``we may treat any targeted [mobile wireless coverage] areas that . . . fail verification as a failure to file required data in a timely manner and that the Commission may make modifications to the data presented on the broadband map (i.e., by removing some or all of the targeted area from the provider's coverage maps).'' But we have not been as explicit in announcing that similar procedures and remedies would apply in response to determinations made as a result of verification of fixed availability data or in the case of audits (of both fixed and mobile data). 64. Discussion. We seek comment on formalized procedures to govern determinations made as a result of audits and verifications of information submitted by fixed and mobile broadband service providers in their biannual BDC submissions. Specifically, we seek comment on whether we should amend Sec. 1.7009 of the Commission's rules to explicitly state that Commission staff may remove locations or areas from a provider's availability data should an audit or verification find that the data are deficient or unverifiable. While we seek comment on whether amendments to Sec. 1.7009 would help to clarify for broadband service providers the potential ramifications stemming from a verification or audit, we emphasize that our doing so does not diminish our existing authority to remove locations or areas from a provider's claimed availability data on a case-by-case basis as a result of a verification or an audit. 65. Section 1.7009(d) requires that providers ``file corrected data when they discover inaccuracy, omission, or significant reporting error in the original data that they submitted, whether through self- discovery, the crowdsource process, the challenge process, the Commission verification process, or otherwise.'' We tentatively conclude that it would be beneficial to clarify in our rule that, in the event a provider's response to a verification inquiry or an audit does not support its availability filing--whether due to an incomplete response or where the response demonstrates that service is not available--pursuant to Sec. 1.7009(d)(1), the provider must correct its availability data within 30 days of OEA or WTB, WCB, or SB (as relevant), notifying the provider of this finding. Consistent with our statutory obligations, and our processes for mobile wireless coverage verifications, in the event of an adverse audit or verification finding that is not appealed, or, in the event of an appeal, by a Commission decision resolving the appeal adversely to the provider, we propose that the failure to correct data within the 30-day timeframe may result in OEA, in coordination with WTB, WCB, or SB (as relevant), amending or removing from the NBM the provider's availability data. For example, an adverse audit determination would give the provider 30 days to either appeal the decision or to submit corrected data regarding specified areas; in the event the provider does not appeal the adverse audit decision, and does not submit corrected data within 30 days, OEA may remove the targeted areas subject to the audit from the NBM. Alternatively, OEA may determine that the provider's data are so unreliable as to warrant removal of all of the provider's availability data (not just for the targeted areas) from the NBM. In either scenario, the BDC will notify the provider in writing of either the alternation or removal of the provider's data. We find that this procedure is consistent with our statutory obligation to publish verified data and the current Commission process. We additionally note that the Commission already has established rules to submit an application for review of action taken pursuant to delegated authority, and a petition for reconsideration in a non-rulemaking proceeding that providers may avail themselves of in the event of an unfavorable bureau-level determination. We seek comment on this proposal. 5. Data Requirements for Restoration of Locations Lost or Conceded to Challenges 66. We seek comment on the data requirements for restoring locations or areas where infrastructure data under the existing data specifications are not relevant to the underlying fixed challenge code, and also seek comment on using speed test data for restoration of mobile coverage areas. 67. Background. In the Declaratory Ruling in the final rule published [[Page 66315]] elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, we clarify that in instances where a provider's claimed availability at a location or area was previously removed from the NBM as a result of a challenge, verification or audit, the provider may submit evidence in a subsequent BDC filing window demonstrating that it can make service available at that location or area and that the circumstances surrounding the previous removal no longer exist. As discussed in further detail above, this process is consistent with providers' obligations to report accurate data about the broadband services that they make available on a biannual basis, and is necessary to advance the Commission's goal of publishing accurate and precise data about where internet services are, and are not, available across the United States. 68. Fixed Availability Challenges. As noted above, in the case of most types of fixed challenges, the Commission would evaluate infrastructure data, such as the information contained in the Data Specifications for Provider Infrastructure Data in the Challenge, Verification, and Audit Processes, to confirm that the provider makes the claimed service available and therefore to substantiate a location restoration. While infrastructure data is relevant to location restoration in most instances, there are specific fixed challenge reason codes where this type of data may not be as closely aligned with the reason for the challenge. For example, fixed service can be challenged based on a showing that the provider requested more than a standard installation fee to connect the location with service (i.e., Challenge Category Code 3), or the provider failed to schedule a service installation within 10 business days (Challenge Category Code 1), or the provider did not install service at the agreed upon time (Challenge Category Code 2). In these instances, infrastructure data may not adequately demonstrate that the location presently warrants being restored to the NBM. This may be particularly so in the case of individual challenges, since they are more likely to capture unique attributes of a single location (such as a long driveway, a large hill, unique topography or building materials, etc.), as compared to bulk challenges that typically implicate several locations in a community and more often relate to a lack of infrastructure. 69. We propose to implement these requirements through revisions and updates to the data specification to account for the information a provider must submit when seeking to restore a location lost or conceded to fixed Challenge Category Codes 1, 2, and 3 (or other cases where infrastructure data would not be informative of whether or not to restore the location). We seek comment on the types of data or evidence that should be considered to justify restoration of locations previously conceded or lost to fixed Challenge Category Codes 1, 2, and 3 or other cases where infrastructure data would not be informative of whether or not to restore the location. What type of information would sufficiently demonstrate that a provider can make service available with a standard installation fee, or within 10 business days? Should different types of evidence be provided for individual as compared to bulk challenges submitted under these Challenge Category Codes? What type of information supports a provider's ability to schedule installation within 10 business days of a request for service when it previously could not do so at a particular location? Should we allow locations which were removed under these circumstances to be restored after a certain amount of time has passed? If so, what is the appropriate amount of time that must pass, and should we seek any supporting information to restore those locations aside from the passage of time? 70. Mobile Availability Challenges. Similarly, the Commission will consider infrastructure data to confirm that a mobile provider makes the claimed service available and therefore to substantiate restoration of a Removed Area resulting from a successful mobile challenge (or verification inquiry or audit). In addition to infrastructure data, we seek comment on whether we should also allow mobile providers to restore an area by providing on-the-ground speed test data. Could speed test data sufficiently support restoration of a previously removed hexagon? Under what circumstances should we accept on-the-ground speed test data (either in lieu of, or in addition to, infrastructure data) when a mobile provider seeks to restore a Removed Area? In the event we were to allow for submission of speed test data, should we require mobile service providers to collect these data using the parameters adopted for submittal of mobile challenge rebuttal speed test data, or are there different parameters to the speed testing methodology that we should seek for this type of data to support restoration? For additional speed test data to support restoration, is it necessary that the tests are conducted after the challenge has been upheld, or could the tests be collected any time after the as-of date of the relevant BDC data vintage? If commenters believe that tests should be conducted after the challenge has been resolved, should we require a certain amount of time to pass before we find such data compelling? We propose to implement these requirements through revisions and updates to the data specification for the information a mobile wireless service provider must submit when seeking to restore a previously Removed Area, should we allow for submission of speed test data. We seek comment on these proposals. 6. Aligning Reporting Requirements for Broadband Availability and Subscribership Data 71. Background. While broadband availability data are now gathered through the BDC, the Commission continues to collect counts of ``broadband connections'' in service--broadband subscribership--using the FCC Form 477. Facilities-based entities providing internet access service currently submit information for both the BDC and Form 477 within a common online filing application. The data about broadband availability collected pursuant to the Broadband DATA Act and BDC rules, as well as the data about broadband connections (i.e., subscriptions) collected under the Form 477 rules, are separately validated as they are ingested by the BDC system, and then checked against each other to ensure consistency and accuracy after individual files are ingested and prior to entities certifying and submitting their biannual submissions. 72. The operational definition of ``broadband'' in the context of FCC Form 477 subscribership is slightly different than that used in the BDC for broadband availability. As noted above, the Broadband DATA Act defines ``broadband internet access service'' for purposes of the BDC as a ``mass-market retail service by wire or radio that provides the capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or substantially all internet endpoints, including any capabilities that are incidental to and enable the operation of the communications service, but excluding dial-up internet access service.'' The existing Form 477 rules define a ``broadband connection'' as a ``wired line, wireless channel, or satellite service that terminates at an end user location or mobile device and enables the end user to receive information from and/or send information to the internet at information transfer rates exceeding 200 kilobits per second (kbps) in at least one direction.'' [[Page 66316]] 73. Discussion. We propose to modify the definition of ``broadband connection'' used in Form 477 so that it aligns with the definition of ``broadband internet access service'' used in the BDC. Specifically, we propose to require facilities-based providers of broadband internet access service to submit in Form 477 counts of ``broadband internet access service connections'' in service, with that term defined as connections that provide mass-market broadband internet access as defined and described in 47 CFR 8.1(b). This change would put the Form 477 on the same definitional footing as the BDC, as well as Broadband Labeling. Taking this step would also be consistent with the Broadband DATA Act's direction to the Commission to ``harmonize reporting requirements and procedures regarding the deployment of broadband internet access service'' for the FCC Form 477 with those adopted for the BDC. We believe our proposal will allow the Commission to streamline its rules, reduce confusion among filers, and impose consistency on the broadband data it collects in the BDC and FCC Form 477. We seek comment on this proposal. 74. We believe the definition of broadband internet access service is, on net, narrower than the definition of a broadband connection. Broadband connections are not limited to include only ``mass-market retail'' services. Such connections therefore include those providing types of internet access services that are not sold on a standardized basis. These non-mass market connections are currently in scope for reporting on FCC Form 477 but not in the BDC. Changing the Form 477 rules to focus solely on mass-market services would render custom internet access services out of scope for that collection, and providers specializing purely in such services would no longer be required to file. Within the Form 477, there is currently no way to determine the share of total reported broadband connections that are sold as non-mass market services, but our expectation is that it is small. In addition, such connections are arguably sold into a different market. Given that, we seek comment on whether no longer collecting data on such connections is worthwhile, particularly in light of the reduced filing burden to providers of such services and the benefits of data consistency. 75. An alternative to conforming the scope of the Form 477 to meet the BDC, is to instead change the Form 477 to capture mass market and non-mass market connections separately. That is, in addition to the current requirement to separately report ``consumer'' and ``total'' broadband connections in service, the Commission could require filers to further parse consumer, and by extension, non-consumer, connections based on whether the connections are mass market or not. This would likely increase the burden on filers but would make it possible to compare the Form 477 data on mass-market broadband connections in service to the BDC availability data, as well as other broadband data collections, while leaving the scope of the Form 477 unchanged. We invite comment on this alternative approach. 7. New Rule Subsection for Fabric Challenge Process 76. Finally, we seek comment on changes to our rules to better distinguish between fixed availability and Fabric challenge processes. The current rules for Fabric challenges are nested within a section of the BDC rules titled ``Fixed service challenge process'' (47 CFR 1.7006(d)). This section largely addresses the rules for the submission and processing of fixed availability challenges. But the fixed availability and Fabric challenge processes are different, and many of the provisions in rule Sec. 1.7006(d) are either inapplicable or not well suited to the Fabric challenge process. Further, the reference in the first sentence of the rule to ``challenge[s to] the accuracy of the coverage maps at a particular location, any information submitted by a provider regarding the availability of broadband internet access service, or the Fabric'' creates a potential misconception that all provisions of the rule apply equally to both fixed availability and Fabric challenges. 77. We propose amending Sec. 1.7006 of the Commission's rules to create a new subsection for the Fabric challenge process and to remove the Fabric challenge provisions in Sec. 1.7006(d) from those pertinent to the fixed availability challenge process. We seek comment on our proposal to create a new subsection in rule Sec. 1.7006 for Fabric challenges. 78. Promoting Digital Equity and Inclusion. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, including people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations, and invites comment on any benefits (if any) that may be associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein. Specifically, we seek comment on how our proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as well as the scope of the Commission's relevant legal authority. 79. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Fourth FNPRM) may contain new and modified information collection requirements subject to the PRA, Public Law 104- 13. The Office of Management and Budget, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on new or modified information collection requirements contained in the Fourth FNPRM. II. Ordering Clauses 80. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1 through 4, 7, 201, 254, 301, 303, 309, 319, 332, 403, and 641 through 646 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 through 154, 157, 201, 254, 301, 303, 309, 319, 332, 403, 641 through 646, the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS ADOPTED. 81. It is further ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on or before 30 days following publication in the Federal Register, and reply comments on or before 60 days following publication in the Federal Register. 82. It is further ordered that the Office of the Secretary shall send a copy of the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. III. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 83. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities from the policies and rules proposed in the Fourth FNPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Fourth FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the Fourth FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the Fourth FNPRM and IRFA [[Page 66317]] (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register. A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 84. The Commission continues its ongoing efforts to collect accurate and granular broadband deployment data so that we can bring broadband to those areas most in need of it. In the Fourth FNPRM, the Commission proposes targeted changes designed to either improve the processes for filers or to further ensure that we continue to receive high-quality data through our data collection efforts and seeks comment on additional steps we can take to obtain more reliable data on the availability and quality of service of broadband internet access. Specifically, we seek comment on proposed enhancements to the availability data filing process, as well as possible clarifications to several of our data-validation tools. This includes revising our definition of broadband availability to exclude legacy services, collecting terrestrial fixed wireless call sign data, obtaining supporting data from satellite service providers, data retention requirements, and audit rules and processes. B. Legal Basis 85. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1-5, 201-206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403, 405, and 641-646 of the Communications Act of 1934. C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Would Apply 86. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small-business concern'' under the Small Business Act. A ``small-business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by SBA. Total Small Entities 87. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe, at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from SBA's Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 33.2 million businesses. 88. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2022, there were approximately 530,109 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS. 89. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2022 Census of Governments indicate there were 90,837 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number, there were 36,845 general purpose governments (county, municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 11,879 special purpose governments (independent school districts) with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,724 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental jurisdictions.'' Broadband Internet Access Service Providers 90. To ensure that this IRFA describes the universe of small entities that our action might affect, we discuss in turn several different types of entities that might be providing broadband internet access service. 91. Wired Broadband Internet Access Service Providers (Wired ISPs). Providers of wired broadband internet access service include various types of providers except dial-up internet access providers. Wireline service that terminates at an end user location or mobile device and enables the end user to receive information from and/or send information to the internet at information transfer rates exceeding 200 kilobits per second (kbps) in at least one direction is classified as a broadband connection under the Commission's rules. Wired broadband internet services fall in the Wired Telecommunications Carriers industry. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. 92. Additionally, according to Commission data on internet access services as of June 30, 2019, nationwide there were approximately 2,747 providers of connections over 200 kbps in at least one direction using various wireline technologies. The Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for providers of these services, therefore, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of providers that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard. However, in light of the general data on fixed technology service providers in the Commission's 2022 Communications Marketplace Report, we believe that the majority of wireline internet access service providers can be considered small entities. 93. Internet Service Providers (Non-Broadband). Internet access service providers using client-supplied telecommunications connections (e.g., dial-up ISPs) as well as Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service providers using client-supplied telecommunications connections fall in the industry classification of All Other Telecommunications. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million or less as small. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Consequently, under the SBA size standard a majority of firms in this industry can be considered small. Wireline Providers 94. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of [[Page 66318]] voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry. Wired Telecommunications Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local service providers. 95. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities. 96. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services. Providers of these services include both incumbent and competitive local exchange service providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. Wired Telecommunications Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local service providers. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers that reported they were fixed local exchange service providers. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities. 97. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 1,212 providers that reported they were incumbent local exchange service providers. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 916 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of incumbent local exchange carriers can be considered small entities. 98. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services. Providers of these services include several types of competitive local exchange service providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 3,378 providers that reported they were competitive local exchange service providers. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 3,230 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities. 99. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for Interexchange Carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 127 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of interexchange services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 109 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this industry can be considered small entities. 100. Operator Service Providers (OSPs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for operator service providers. The closest applicable industry with an SBA small business size standard is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA small business size standard classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 20 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of operator services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that all 20 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, all of these providers can be considered small entities. 101. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition for small businesses specifically applicable to Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, or toll resellers. Wired [[Page 66319]] Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 90 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of other toll services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 87 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities. Wireless Providers--Fixed and Mobile 102. The broadband internet access service provider category covered by the Fourth FNPRM may cover multiple wireless firms and categories of wireless services. Thus, to the extent the wireless services listed below are used by wireless firms for broadband internet access service, the proposed actions may have an impact on those small businesses as set forth above and further below. In addition, for those services subject to auctions, we note that, as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that claim to qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments and transfers or reportable eligibility events, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. 103. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 594 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 511 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities. 104. Wireless Communications Services. Wireless Communications Services (WCS) can be used for a variety of fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite services. Wireless spectrum is made available and licensed for the provision of wireless communications services in several frequency bands subject to part 27 of the Commission's rules. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard applicable to these services. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small. 105. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to WCS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for the various frequency bands included in WCS. When bidding credits are adopted for the auction of licenses in WCS frequency bands, such credits may be available to several types of small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very small and entrepreneur) pursuant to the competitive bidding rules adopted in conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as identified in the designated entities section in part 27 of the Commission's rules for the specific WCS frequency bands. 106. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard. 107. 1670-1675 MHz Services. These wireless communications services can be used for fixed and mobile uses, except aeronautical mobile. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard applicable to these services. The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small. 108. According to Commission data as of November 2021, there were three active licenses in this service. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to 1670-1675 MHz Services involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for these services. For licenses in the 1670-1675 MHz service band, a ``small business'' is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and a ``very small business'' is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has had average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. The 1670-1675 MHz service band auction's winning bidder did not claim small business status. 109. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard. [[Page 66320]] 110. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio telephony carriers. The closest applicable industry with an SBA small business size standard is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). The size standard for this industry under SBA rules is that a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 331 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of cellular, personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 255 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities. 111. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband personal communications services (PCS) spectrum encompasses services in the 1850-1910 and 1930-1990 MHz bands. The closest industry with an SBA small business size standard applicable to these services is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small. 112. Based on Commission data as of November 2021, there were approximately 5,060 active licenses in the Broadband PCS service. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to Broadband PCS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for these services. In auctions for these licenses, the Commission defined ``small business'' as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and a ``very small business'' as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has had average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. Winning bidders claiming small business credits won Broadband PCS licenses in C, D, E, and F Blocks. 113. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard. 114. Specialized Mobile Radio Licenses. Special Mobile Radio (SMR) licenses allow licensees to provide land mobile communications services (other than radiolocation services) in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz spectrum bands on a commercial basis including but not limited to services used for voice and data communications, paging, and facsimile services, to individuals, Federal Government entities, and other entities licensed under part 90 of the Commission's rules. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard applicable to these services. The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 95 providers that reported they were of SMR (dispatch) providers. Of this number, the Commission estimates that all 95 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, these 119 SMR licensees can be considered small entities. 115. Based on Commission data as of December 2021, there were 3,924 active SMR licenses. However, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing SMR services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard. Nevertheless, for purposes of this analysis the Commission estimates that the majority of SMR licensees can be considered small entities using the SBA's small business size standard. 116. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The lower 700 MHz band encompasses spectrum in the 698-746 MHz frequency bands. Permissible operations in these bands include flexible fixed, mobile, and broadcast uses, including mobile and other digital new broadcast operation; fixed and mobile wireless commercial services (including frequency division duplex (FDD)- and time division duplex (TDD)-based services); as well as fixed and mobile wireless uses for private, internal radio needs, two-way interactive, cellular, and mobile television broadcasting services. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard applicable to licenses providing services in these bands. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small. 117. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were approximately 2,824 active Lower 700 MHz Band licenses. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to Lower 700 MHz Band licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses. For auctions of Lower 700 MHz Band licenses the Commission adopted criteria for three groups of small businesses. A very small business was defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years, a small business was defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and an entrepreneur was defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years. In auctions for Lower 700 MHz Band licenses seventy-two winning bidders claiming a small business classification won 329 licenses, twenty-six winning bidders [[Page 66321]] claiming a small business classification won 214 licenses, and three winning bidders claiming a small business classification won all five auctioned licenses. 118. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard. 119. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. The upper 700 MHz band encompasses spectrum in the 746-806 MHz bands. Upper 700 MHz D Block licenses are nationwide licenses associated with the 758-763 MHz and 788-793 MHz bands. Permissible operations in these bands include flexible fixed, mobile, and broadcast uses, including mobile and other digital new broadcast operation; fixed and mobile wireless commercial services (including FDD- and TDD-based services); as well as fixed and mobile wireless uses for private, internal radio needs, two-way interactive, cellular, and mobile television broadcasting services. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard applicable to licenses providing services in these bands. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small. 120. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were approximately 152 active Upper 700 MHz Band licenses. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to Upper 700 MHz Band licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses. For the auction of these licenses, the Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and a ``very small business'' an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years. Pursuant to these definitions, three winning bidders claiming very small business status won five of the twelve available licenses. 121. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard. 122. 700 MHz Guard Band Licensees. The 700 MHz Guard Band encompasses spectrum in 746-747/776-777 MHz and 762-764/792-794 MHz frequency bands. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable to licenses providing services in these bands. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small. 123. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were approximately 224 active 700 MHz Guard Band licenses. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to 700 MHz Guard Band licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses. For the auction of these licenses, the Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and a ``very small business'' an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years. Pursuant to these definitions, five winning bidders claiming one of the small business status classifications won 26 licenses, and one winning bidder claiming small business won two licenses. None of the winning bidders claiming a small business status classification in these 700 MHz Guard Band license auctions had an active license as of December 2021. 124. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard. 125. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service is a wireless service in which licensees are authorized to offer and provide radio telecommunications service for hire to subscribers in aircraft. A licensee may provide any type of air-ground service (i.e., voice telephony, broadband internet, data, etc.) to aircraft of any type, and serve any or all aviation markets (commercial, government, and general). A licensee must provide service to aircraft and may not provide ancillary land mobile or fixed services in the 800 MHz air-ground spectrum. 126. The closest industry with an SBA small business size standard applicable to these services is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small. 127. Based on Commission data as of December 2021, there were approximately four licensees with 110 active licenses in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. The [[Page 66322]] Commission's small business size standards with respect to Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses. For purposes of auctions, the Commission defined ``small business'' as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and a ``very small business'' as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has had average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. In the auction of Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service licenses in the 800 MHz band, neither of the two winning bidders claimed small business status. 128. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services therefore, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard. 129. Advanced Wireless Services (AWS)--(1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands (AWS-1); 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands (AWS-2); 2155-2175 MHz band (AWS-3); 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz (AWS-4)). Spectrum is made available and licensed in these bands for the provision of various wireless communications services. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard applicable to these services. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small. 130. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were approximately 4,472 active AWS licenses. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to AWS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for these services. For the auction of AWS licenses, the Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million, and a ``very small business'' as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. Pursuant to these definitions, 57 winning bidders claiming status as small or very small businesses won 215 of 1,087 licenses. In the most recent auction of AWS licenses 15 of 37 bidders qualifying for status as small or very small businesses won licenses. 131. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard. 132. 3650-3700 MHz band. Wireless broadband service licensing in the 3650-3700 MHz band provides for nationwide, non-exclusive licensing of terrestrial operations, utilizing contention-based technologies, in the 3650 MHz band (i.e., 3650-3700 MHz). Licensees are permitted to provide services on a non-common carrier and/or on a common carrier basis. Wireless broadband services in the 3650-3700 MHz band fall in the Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) industry with an SBA small business size standard that classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small. 133. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard applicable to 3650-3700 MHz band licensees. Based on the licenses that have been granted, however, we estimate that the majority of licensees in this service are small internet Access Service Providers (ISPs). As of November 2021, Commission data shows that there were 902 active licenses in the 3650-3700 MHz band. However, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard. 134. Fixed Microwave Services. Fixed microwave services include common carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio services. They also include the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS), Millimeter Wave Service (70/80/90 GHz), Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS), the Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS), 24 GHz Service, Multiple Address Systems (MAS), and Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS), where in some bands licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common carrier status. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard applicable to these services. The SBA small size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of fixed microwave service licensees can be considered small. 135. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to fixed microwave services involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for the various frequency bands included in fixed microwave services. When bidding credits are adopted for the auction of licenses in fixed microwave services frequency bands, such credits may be available to several types of small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very small and entrepreneur) pursuant to the competitive bidding rules adopted in conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as identified in part 101 of the Commission's rules for the specific fixed microwave services frequency bands. [[Page 66323]] 136. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard. 137. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. Broadband Radio Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS) systems, and ``wireless cable,'' transmit video programming to subscribers and provide two-way high speed data operations using the microwave frequencies of the Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) (previously referred to as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)). Wireless cable operators that use spectrum in the BRS often supplemented with leased channels from the EBS, provide a competitive alternative to wired cable and other multichannel video programming distributors. Wireless cable programming to subscribers resembles cable television, but instead of coaxial cable, wireless cable uses microwave channels. 138. In light of the use of wireless frequencies by BRS and EBS services, the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard applicable to these services is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small. 139. According to Commission data as December 2021, there were approximately 5,869 active BRS and EBS licenses. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to BRS involves eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for these services. For the auction of BRS licenses, the Commission adopted criteria for three groups of small businesses. A very small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average annual gross revenues exceed $3 million and did not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years, a small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues exceed $15 million and did not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years, and an entrepreneur is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years. Of the ten winning bidders for BRS licenses, two bidders claiming the small business status won 4 licenses, one bidder claiming the very small business status won three licenses and two bidders claiming entrepreneur status won six licenses. One of the winning bidders claiming a small business status classification in the BRS license auction has an active licenses as of December 2021. 140. The Commission's small business size standards for EBS define a small business as an entity that, together with its affiliates, its controlling interests and the affiliates of its controlling interests, has average gross revenues that are not more than $55 million for the preceding five (5) years, and a very small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates, its controlling interests and the affiliates of its controlling interests, has average gross revenues that are not more than $20 million for the preceding five (5) years. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard. Satellite Service Providers 141. Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms ``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Satellite telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business with $38.5 million or less in annual receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms in this industry operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242 firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 65 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 42 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, a little more than half of these providers can be considered small entities. 142. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of internet services (e.g., dial-up ISPs) or VoIP services, via client- supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this data, the Commission estimates that the majority of ``All Other Telecommunications'' firms can be considered small. [[Page 66324]] Cable Service Providers 143. Because section 706 of the Act requires us to monitor the deployment of broadband using any technology, we anticipate that some broadband service providers may not provide telephone service. Accordingly, we describe below other types of firms that may provide broadband services, including cable companies, MDS providers, and utilities, among others. 144. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as establishments primarily engaged in operating studios and facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a subscription or fee basis. The broadcast programming is typically narrowcast in nature (e.g., limited format, such as news, sports, education, or youth-oriented). These establishments produce programming in their own facilities or acquire programming from external sources. The programming material is usually delivered to a third party, such as cable systems or direct-to-home satellite systems, for transmission to viewers. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts less than $41.5 million as small. Based on U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017, 378 firms operated in this industry during that year. Of that number, 149 firms operated with revenue of less than $25 million a year and 44 firms operated with revenue of $25 million or more. Based on this data, the Commission estimates that a majority of firms in this industry are small. 145. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission has developed its own small business size standard for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a ``small cable company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide. Based on industry data, there are about 420 cable companies in the U.S. Of these, only seven have more than 400,000 subscribers. In addition, under the Commission's rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Based on industry data, there are about 4,139 cable systems (headends) in the U.S. Of these, about 639 have more than 15,000 subscribers. Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the majority of cable companies and cable systems are small. 146. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, contains a size standard for a ``small cable operator,'' which is ``a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than one percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' For purposes of the Telecom Act Standard, the Commission determined that a cable system operator that serves fewer than 498,000 subscribers, either directly or through affiliates, will meet the definition of a small cable operator. Based on industry data, only six cable system operators have more than 498,000 subscribers. Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the majority of cable system operators are small under this size standard. We note however, that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Therefore, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the Communications Act. All Other Telecommunications 147. Electric Power Generators, Transmitters, and Distributors. The U.S. Census Bureau defines the utilities sector industry as comprised of ``establishments, primarily engaged in generating, transmitting, and/or distributing electric power. Establishments in this industry group may perform one or more of the following activities: (1) operate generation facilities that produce electric energy; (2) operate transmission systems that convey the electricity from the generation facility to the distribution system; and (3) operate distribution systems that convey electric power received from the generation facility or the transmission system to the final consumer.'' This industry group is categorized based on fuel source and includes Hydroelectric Power Generation, Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation, Nuclear Electric Power Generation, Solar Electric Power Generation, Wind Electric Power Generation, Geothermal Electric Power Generation, Biomass Electric Power Generation, Other Electric Power Generation, Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control and Electric Power Distribution. 148. The SBA has established a small business size standard for each of these groups based on the number of employees which ranges from having fewer than 250 employees to having fewer than 1,000 employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 indicate that for the Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution industry there were 1,693 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 1,552 firms had less than 250 employees. Based on this data and the associated SBA size standards, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small entities. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities 149. Certain potential modifications proposed in the Fourth FNPRM, if adopted, would impose new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on some small entities while others would reduce the burden on such entities. Specifically, in the Fourth FNPRM, we propose enhancements to the availability data collection requirements that, if adopted, would amend our rules to continue to collect availability data on legacy services but to not include such services in the location-specific availability information published on the National Broadband Map. Once broadband internet access service has actually been discontinued, the filer would not be required to submit broadband availability data for the service upon the next subsequent BDC filing period following the grant of the discontinuance petition. 150. In addition, the Commission proposes that fixed wireless filers reporting licensed service in their biannual BDC filings also be required to provide call sign data. We also propose updates to the BDC reporting requirements, that if adopted, would improve the quality of satellite service provider availability data submitted as part of the biannual data submission process. Specifically, we propose that satellite service providers must include, as a supporting data file accompanied with their biannual availability submissions, the infrastructure data set forth in BDC Infrastructure Data Specification. 151. In addition, as a means of improving the accuracy and reliability of broadband internet access service data, the Commission proposes a number of methods to verify the information in the providers' filings, including adoption of data retention requirements and more specific audit procedures. Specifically, we propose that broadband service providers retain the underlying data used to create their availability filings (including supporting data) for three years from the applicable ``as-of'' date. Data used to rebut challenges or respond to verifications inquiries or audits would be retained for three years as well. In response to a BDC [[Page 66325]] audit request, providers would have 60 days to submit the applicable supporting documentation. The adoption of any of these verification processes could subject small entities and other providers to additional submission, recordkeeping, and compliance requirements. 152. In addition, we propose to eliminate the requirement under rule Sec. 1.7004(d) that an engineering certification, to the extent not submitted by a corporate engineering officer, must be submitted by a licensed PE. Instead, we propose to amend rule Sec. 1.7004(d) to require that providers submit certifications by a ``qualified engineer,'' as defined by the engineering qualifications the Broadband Data Task Force adopted in previous orders. This certifying engineer would not need to be a full time employee, but would be required to have direct knowledge and familiarity with the BDC filing. We believe that the potential costs and burdens of the licensed PE requirement outweigh its potential benefits, and thus propose to eliminate the requirement. 153. The issues raised for consideration and comment in the Fourth FNPRM may require small entities to hire attorneys, engineers, consultants, or other professionals. At this time, however, the Commission cannot quantify the cost of compliance with any potential rule changes and compliance obligations for small entities that may result from the Fourth FNPRM. We expect our requests for information on potential burdens on small entities associated with matters raised in the Fourth FNPRM will provide us with information to assist with our evaluation of the cost of compliance on small entities of any reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements we adopt. D. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered 154. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that could minimize impacts to small entities that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include (among others) the following four alternatives: (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities. 155. As an initial matter, several of the proposals in the Fourth FNPRM are unlikely to negatively impact small businesses. For example, we propose to eliminate the licensed professional engineering certification and instead propose to require certifications by a ``qualified engineer,'' as defined in previous BDC orders. This proposal, if adopted, will save some small entities from having to pay a professional engineer to certify their filings. The Fourth FNPRM additionally proposes to keep confidential certain legacy availability data to protect customers' identity while still enabling the Commission to continue to analyze availability on ``grandfathered'' services. 156. To assist the Commission's evaluation of the economic impact on small entities as a result of actions that may result from proposals and issues raised for consideration in the Fourth FNPRM, and to better explore options and alternatives, the Commission has sought comment from the public on how best to implement the requirements in the Broadband DATA Act. More specifically, the Commission seeks comment on what additional burdens are associated with implementing more specific audit provisions, and seeks to balance our statutory obligation to ensure accurate data with minimizing the burden on providers. In addition, we sought comment on whether the proposed three-year data retention policy places a burden on smaller providers disproportionately compared to larger ISPs, and, alternatively, whether we should consider a five-year retention period. We also sought comment on the burdens that would be placed on satellite service providers by requiring them to submit additional infrastructure information on a biannual basis, and any additional or alternative data that we could collect to improve the accuracy and granularity of satellite providers' broadband availability data. 157. More generally, the proposals and questions set forth in the Fourth FNPRM were designed to enable the Commission to understand the benefits, impact, and potential burdens associated with the different approaches that the Commission can pursue to achieve its objective of improving accuracy and reliability of its data collections. Before reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding, the Commission expects to review the comments filed in response to the Fourth FNPRM and more fully consider the economic impact on small entities and how any impact can be minimized. E. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules 158. None. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 1 Administrative practice and procedure, Broadband, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications. Federal Communications Commission Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer. Proposed Rules For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 1 as follows: PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 0 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 47 U.S.C. 1754, unless otherwise noted. 0 2. Amend Sec. 1.7001 by: 0 a. Removing the heading from paragraph (a); 0 b. Removing and reserving paragraph (a)(1); and 0 c. Adding paragraphs (a)(21) and (g). The additions read as follows: Sec. 1.7001 Scope and content of filed reports. (a) * * * (21) Grandfathered service. A broadband internet access service that is currently provided to an existing end user at a broadband serviceable location, but that a facilities-based provider has permanently ceased to advertise or market to new or potential subscribers and would not make available to a new or potential subscriber at the broadband serviceable location. * * * * * (g) Facilities-based providers shall retain the underlying data used to create their biannual FCC Form 477 submissions (including supporting data) for at least three years after the applicable ``as- of'' reporting date (i.e., June 30 or December 31). 0 3. Amend Sec. 1.7004 by: 0 a. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(3) through (7) as paragraphs (c)(5) through (9); 0 b. Adding new paragraphs (c)(3) and (4); and 0 c. Revising and republishing paragraph (d). The additions and revision read as follows: [[Page 66326]] Sec. 1.7004 Scope, content, and frequency of Broadband Data Collection filings. * * * * * (c) * * * (3) Fixed wireless broadband internet access service providers must disclose the following spectrum authorization information related to their broadband availability data: (i) For broadband internet access services provided using licensed spectrum: (A) All call signs and lease IDs (including the call sign(s) of the license(s) being leased) associated with the licenses held or leased by the filer and were (or could have been) used to provide broadband service as of the relevant Broadband Data Collection (BDC) filing date; and (B) The FCC Registration Number of the entity holding the license or lease as recorded in the FCC's Universal Licensing System. (ii) For broadband internet access services provided using licensed-by-rule spectrum: (A) Proof of authorization by a Spectrum Access System pursuant to part 96 of this chapter as of the relevant BDC filing date. (B) [Reserved] (iii) For broadband internet access services provided using unlicensed operations pursuant to part 15 of this chapter: (A) The FCC ID(s) of all base station transmission equipment used to provide the service as of the relevant BDC filing date. (B) [Reserved] (4) Satellite broadband internet access service providers must disclose the following information related to their broadband availability data: (i) Information on the general operating parameters of the satellite system active as-of the relevant filing period, including network type, the total number of satellites in the active constellation, the number of orbital shells deployed in the active constellation, the overall system downlink capacity, and the overall system uplink capacity; (ii) Information on each constellation or orbital shell of space stations deployed by the satellite system active as-of the relevant filing period, including shell altitude, orbital location (for GSO systems), inclination angle, orbital plane, number of satellites per orbital plane, shell orbital period, apogee, and perigee; and (iii) For each state or territory for which the facilities-based provider of satellite broadband internet access service claims coverage, system capacity information for each state or territory. * * * * * (d) Providers shall include in each Broadband Data Collection filing a certification signed by a corporate officer of the provider that the officer has examined the information contained in the submission and that, to the best of the officer's actual knowledge, information, and belief, all statements of fact contained in the submission are true and correct. All providers also shall submit a certification of the accuracy of its submissions by a qualified engineer. The engineering certification shall state that the qualified engineer is employed by the provider and has direct knowledge of, or responsibility for, the generation of the provider's Broadband Data Collection filing. The qualified engineer shall also certify that he or she has examined the information contained in the submission and that, to the best of the engineer's actual knowledge, information, and belief, all statements of fact contained in the submission are true and correct, and in accordance with the service provider's ordinary course of network design and engineering. If a corporate officer is also an engineer and has the requisite knowledge required under the Broadband DATA Act, a provider may submit a single certification that fulfills both requirements. A ``qualified engineer,'' for purposes of this certification, shall be: (1) A corporate officer possessing a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) in engineering degree and who has direct knowledge of and responsibility for the carrier's network design and construction; (2) An engineer possessing a bachelor's or postgraduate degree in electrical engineering, electronic technology, or another similar technical discipline, and at least seven years of relevant experience in broadband network design and/or performance; or (3) An employee with specialized training relevant to broadband network engineering and design, deployment, and/or performance, and at least 10 years of relevant experience in broadband network engineering, design, and/or performance. 0 4. Amend Sec. 1.7005 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: Sec. 1.7005 Disclosure of data in the Fabric and Broadband Data Collection filings. (a) * * * (1) Withholding from public inspection all data required to be kept confidential pursuant to Sec. 0.457 of this chapter, location-specific data on grandfathered services (though the Office of Economics and Analytics may make publicly available aggregated information or data related to such services), and all personally identifiable information submitted in connection with the information contained in the Fabric, the dataset supporting the Fabric, and availability data submitted pursuant to Sec. 1.7004; and * * * * * 0 5. Amend Sec. 1.7006 by: 0 a. Revising the section heading and paragraph (d) introductory text; 0 b. Removing and reserving paragraphs (d)(1)(vii) and (d)(9); and 0 c. Adding paragraphs (g) and (h). The revisions and addition read as follows: Sec. 1.7006 Data retention and verification. * * * * * (d) Fixed service challenge process. State, local, and Tribal governmental entities, consumers, and other entities or individuals may submit data in an online portal to challenge the accuracy of the coverage maps at a particular location and any information submitted by a provider regarding the availability of broadband internet access service. * * * * * (g) Broadband serviceable location Fabric challenge process. State, local, and Tribal governmental entities, consumers, and other entities or individuals may submit data in an online portal to challenge the accuracy of the information in the Fabric. (1) Fabric challengers must provide in their submissions: (i) Name and contact information (e.g., address, phone number, email); (ii) For a missing broadband-serviceable location, the geographic coordinates (latitude/longitude) of the location, along with an address for the location (if an address is available), a unit count, and the building type (selected from pre-established options on the portal); (iii) For an existing broadband-serviceable location, category of dispute, selected from pre-established options on the portal; (iv) Details and evidence about the challenged location; and (v) A certification from an individual or an authorized officer or signatory of a challenger that the person examined the information contained in the challenge and that, to the best of the person's actual knowledge, information, and belief, all statements of fact contained in the challenge are true and correct. (2) The Commission shall seek to resolve such challenges within 90 days of receiving the challenge filing in the online portal. [[Page 66327]] (3) Government entities or other entities may file challenges at multiple locations in a single challenge, but each challenge must contain all of the requirements set forth in paragraph (g)(1) of this section. (4) Once a challenge containing all the required elements is submitted in the online portal, the location shall be identified on the coverage maps as ``in dispute/pending resolution.'' The Commission shall make public information about the location that is the subject of the challenge, including the street address and/or coordinates (latitude and longitude) and any relevant details concerning the basis for the challenge. (h) Data retention. Facilities-based providers shall retain the underlying data used to create their biannual Broadband Data Collection submissions (including supporting data) for at least three years after the applicable ``as-of'' reporting date (i.e., June 30 or December 31). In addition, facilities-based providers shall also retain any and all data related to responses to the data verification efforts set forth in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section for at least three years from the date the provider receives notice of a challenge, verification inquiry, or initiation of an audit. 0 6. Amend Sec. 1.7009 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: Sec. 1.7009 Enforcement. * * * * * (e) If, as a result of a verification inquiry or audit performed pursuant to Sec. 1.7006, Commission staff request that a provider submit corrected availability data, and the provider fails to submit corrected data by the required date, then the Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA), in coordination with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Wireline Competition Bureau, or Space Bureau (as appropriate), may remove locations or areas from the availability data published in the National Broadband Map pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 642(c). In such an instance, the BDC system will notify the provider in writing that some or all of its availability data have been altered on or removed from the National Broadband Map. OEA will abstain from altering or removing locations or areas subject to an audit or verification for which the provider has filed an application for review or petition for reconsideration until such time as the Commission rules upon any such application or petition. During this period the locations or areas may be indicated as ``in dispute'' on the National Broadband Map. [FR Doc. 2024-16989 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:21.658218

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18110

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 66327-66338] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18110] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 204, 212, 217, and 252 [Docket DARS-2020-0034] RIN 0750-AK81 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Assessing Contractor Implementation of Cybersecurity Requirements (DFARS Case 2019-D041) AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to incorporate contractual requirements related to the proposed Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification 2.0 program rule, Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Program. This proposed DFARS rule also partially implements a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 that directed the Secretary of Defense to develop a consistent, comprehensive framework to enhance cybersecurity for the U.S. defense industrial base. DATES: Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before October 15, 2024, to be considered in the formation of a final rule. ADDRESSES: Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2019-D041, using either of the following methods: [cir] Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Search for DFARS Case 2019-D041. Select ``Comment'' and follow the instructions to submit a comment. Please include ``DFARS Case 2019- D041'' on any attached documents. [cir] Email: [email protected]. Include DFARS Case 2019-D041 in the subject line of the message. Comments received generally will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check https://www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Heather Kitchens, telephone 571- 296-7152. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background DoD is proposing to revise the DFARS to implement the contractual requirements related to the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) 2.0 program, published in the Federal Register as a proposed rule affecting 32 CFR part 170 on December 26, 2023, at 88 FR 89058. CMMC 2.0 provides a framework for assessing contractor implementation of cybersecurity requirements and enhancing the protection of unclassified information within the DoD supply chain. This proposed DFARS rule also partially implements section 1648 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Pub. L. 116-92), which directed the Secretary of Defense to develop a consistent, comprehensive framework to enhance cybersecurity for the U.S. defense industrial base no later than February 1, 2020. On September 29, 2020, an interim rule under DFARS Case 2019-D041, Assessing Contractor Implementation of Cybersecurity Requirements, was published in the Federal Register at 85 FR 61505, effective November 30, 2020. On November 17, 2021, the notice, ``Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) 2.0 Updates and Way Forward'' was published in the Federal Register at 86 FR 64100 to suspend the CMMC 1.0 pilot efforts. The purpose of suspending the CMMC 1.0 pilot efforts was to allow for development of CMMC 2.0. On December 26, 2023, DoD published in the Federal Register at 88 FR 89058 a proposed CMMC 2.0 program rule, Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Program, to propose the establishment of the CMMC 2.0 program requirements at 32 CFR part 170. II. Discussion and Analysis The proposed changes to the existing DFARS language are primarily to: (1) add references to the CMMC 2.0 program requirements proposed at 32 CFR part 170; (2) add definitions for controlled unclassified information (CUI) and DoD unique identifier (DoD UID) to the subpart; (3) establish a solicitation provision and prescription; and (4) revise the existing clause language and prescription. DoD is implementing a phased rollout of CMMC. Over a three-year period CMMC will be phased in based on the [[Page 66328]] CMMC 2.0 program requirements identified at 32 CFR part 170. The clause at DFARS 252.204-7021, Contractor Compliance With the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirements, is prescribed for use in solicitations and contracts that require the contractor to have a specific CMMC level, including solicitations and contracts using Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, excluding acquisitions exclusively for commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items. In order to implement the phased rollout of CMMC, inclusion of a CMMC requirement in a solicitation during this time period will be determined by the program office or requiring activity after consulting the CMMC 2.0 requirements at 32 CFR part 170. During the phase-in period, when there is a requirement in the contract for CMMC, CMMC certification requirements must be flowed down to subcontractors at all tiers, when the subcontractor will process, store, or transmit Federal contract information (FCI) or CUI, based on the sensitivity of the unclassified information flowed down to each of the subcontractors in accordance with the proposed CMMC 2.0 requirements to be established at 32 CFR part 170 (see the proposed rule published December 26, 2023, at 88 FR 89058). After the phase-in period, CMMC will apply to all DoD solicitations and contracts, including those for the acquisition of commercial products or commercial services (except those exclusively for COTS items), valued at greater than the micro-purchase threshold that involve processing, storing, or transmitting FCI or CUI. When a CMMC level is included in the solicitation or contract, contracting officers will not make award, exercise an option, or extend the period of performance on a contract, if the offeror or contractor does not have the results of a current certification or self-assessment for the required CMMC level, and an affirmation of continuous compliance with the security requirements to be identified at 32 CFR part 170, in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) for all information systems that process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI during contract performance. Furthermore, CMMC certification requirements must be flowed down to subcontractors at all tiers when the subcontractor will process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI, based on the sensitivity of the unclassified information flowed down to each of the subcontractors in accordance with the proposed CMMC 2.0 requirements to be established at 32 CFR part 170 (see 88 FR 89058). A. Proposed Rule Changes This proposed rule includes amendments to DFARS 204.7502, Policy. These amendments require at the time of award the results of a current CMMC certificate or CMMC self-assessment, at the level required, for all information systems that process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI during contract performance, when a CMMC level is included in the solicitation. The proposed rule also adds a requirement at DFARS 204.7503, Procedures, for contracting officers to work with the program office or requiring activity to verify in SPRS, prior to awarding a contract, exercising an option, or when new DoD UIDs are provided, that: (1) the results of a current CMMC certificate or current CMMC self-assessment at the level required by the solicitation, or higher, are posted in SPRS for each DoD UID applicable to each of the contractor information systems that will process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI and that will be used in performance of the contract; and (2) the apparently successful offeror has a current affirmation of continuous compliance with the security requirements identified at 32 CFR part 170 in SPRS for each DoD UID applicable to each of the contractor information systems that process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI and that are used in performance of the contract. The proposed rule also adds a definition at DFARS 204.7501 for use only in the subpart for the term CUI based on the 32 CFR 2002 definition of CUI. Definitions for current (as it relates to CMMC) and DoD UID are also added. This proposed rule includes a new DFARS provision, 252.204-7YYY, Notice of Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirements, to provide notice to offerors of the CMMC level required by the solicitation and of the CMMC certificate or self-assessment results that are required to have been posted in SPRS by the apparently successful offeror prior to award, unless electronically posted. Offerors post CMMC Level 1 and Level 2 self-assessments into SPRS. Level 2 certificate assessment results will be electronically transmitted to SPRS by the third-party assessment organization (see the proposed rule published at 88 FR 89058, in the proposed text at 32 CFR 170.17 for details on CMMC Level 2 certification assessment requirements). Level 3 certificate assessment results will be electronically transmitted to SPRS by the DoD assessor (see the proposed rule published at 88 FR 89058, in the proposed text at 32 CFR 170.18 for details on CMMC Level 3 certification requirements). Apparently successful offerors are also required to provide, at the contracting officer's request, the DoD UIDs issued by SPRS for the contractor information systems that will process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI during contract performance. SPRS will issue DoD UIDs to offerors in connection with their CMMC self-assessments and CMMC certificates. Apparently successful offerors will need to specify which DoD UIDs are applicable to the contractor information systems that will process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI during contract performance. This proposed rule at DFARS 204.7504 adds the prescription for the new DFARS solicitation provision, 252.204-7YYY, Notice of Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirements. DFARS 252.204-7YYY is prescribed for use in solicitations that include the clause at 252.204- 7021. The provision includes language identifying the CMMC level required for the contract and notifies offerors that the apparently successful offeror will not be eligible for award of a contract, task order, or delivery order resulting from the solicitation in which the provision appears, if the apparently successful offeror does not have the results of a current CMMC certificate or self-assessment entered in SPRS (https://piee.eb.mil) at the CMMC level required by the provision and an affirmation of continuous compliance with the security requirements identified at 32 CFR part 170 in SPRS for each of the contractor information systems that process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI and that are used in performance of the contract. This proposed rule includes changes to the clause at DFARS 252.204- 7021, Contractor Compliance with the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirement, to: Add definitions at paragraph (a) for Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification, current (as it relates to CMMC), and DoD UID, and remove the scope statement. Require the contractor to have and maintain the requisite CMMC level for the life of the contract. Require the contractor to submit to the contracting officer the DoD UID(s) issued by SPRS for contractor information systems that will process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI during performance of the contract. [[Page 66329]] Require the contractor to complete and maintain on an annual basis, or when security changes occur, the affirmation of continuous compliance with the security requirements identified at 32 CFR part 170. The affirmation of continuous compliance is made by a senior company official (see definition of ``senior company official'' at 32 CFR 170.4 in the proposed rule published at 88 FR 89058) to affirm that its CMMC self-assessment of CMMC certification for each DoD UID applicable to the contractor information systems that process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI during contract performance remains current and the information system(s) covered by the CMMC self- assessment or CMMC certificate continue to be in compliance with the security requirements identified at 32 CFR 170. Require the contractor to notify the contracting officer of any changes in the contractor information systems that process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI during contract performance and to provide the corresponding DoD UIDs for those contractor information systems to the contracting officer. The contractor is required to provide the DoD UIDS to the contracting officer so the Government can review associated CMMC certificate or CMMC self-assessment results and contractor affirmations of continued compliance in SPRS for those additional contractor information systems. Require the contractor to ensure that its subcontractors also have the appropriate CMMC level prior to awarding a subcontract or other contractual instruments. This requirement is included in the clause at DFARS 252.204-7021, paragraph (d), which tells contractors when to flow the clause down to subcontractors. Require the contractor to include the requirements of the clause in subcontracts or other contractual instruments. The purpose of the clause is to ensure suppliers at all tiers are in compliance with the security requirements identified at 32 CFR part 170 when there is a requirement for CMMC in the contract, if applicable based on the information that is being flowed down. The CMMC program requirements related to the CMMC level required for suppliers is based on the information that is being flowed down, and those requirements are defined in the Title 32 CFR CMMC Program proposed rule. The proposed rule also adds language to the clause at DFARS 252.204-7021 to incorporate a requirement for contractors to only transmit data on information systems that process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI during contract performance that have a certification at the CMMC level required by the contract. In addition, the contractor will be required to notify the contracting officer if there are any lapses or changes in CMMC certification levels that affect the requirements for information security during contract performance. The clause will also include language identifying the CMMC level required by the contract. This proposed rule also includes revisions to the clause prescription at DFARS 204.7504 to apply the clause at DFARS 252.204- 7021 to solicitations and contracts, task orders, or delivery orders that require the contractor to have a specific CMMC level, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, except for solicitations and contracts solely for the acquisition of COTS items. DoD considered three alternatives for the timing of the requirement to achieve a CMMC 2.0 level certification in the development of this proposed rule, weighing the benefits and risks associated with requiring CMMC 2.0 level certification: (1) at time of proposal submission; (2) at time of award; or (3) after contract award. DoD ultimately adopted the second alternative to require certification at the time of award. The drawback of the first alternative (i.e., at time of proposal submission) is the increased risk for offerors since they may not have sufficient time to achieve the required CMMC certification. The drawback of the third alternative (i.e., after contract award) is the increased risk to DoD with respect to the schedule and uncertainty due to the possibility that the contractor may be unable to achieve the required CMMC level in a reasonable amount of time given their current cybersecurity posture. This potential delay would apply to the entire supply chain and prevent the appropriate flow of FCI and CUI to the contractor and subcontractors. This proposed rule also includes the following conforming changes: Makes references to the CMMC 2.0 program requirements by incorporating the citation for 32 CFR part 170 throughout the text of the proposed rule. Amends the list in DFARS 212.301 of solicitation provisions and contract clauses that are applicable for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services to include the new provision at DFARS 252.204-7YYY, Notice of Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirements. The clause at DFARS 252.204-7021, Contractor Compliance with the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirements, is already included in this list from the prior interim rule under this DFARS Case 2019-D041. Amends DFARS 217.207, Exercise of Options, to advise contracting officers that when CMMC is required in the contract, an option may only be exercised after verifying in SPRS that the contractor has the required affirmation(s) of continuous compliance with the security requirements identified at 32 CFR part 170 and has posted the results of a current CMMC certificate or CMMC self- assessment at the level required by the contract, or higher. The text refers contracting officers to DFARS 204.7503(c) for complete details regarding these requirements. B. Analysis of Public Comments in Response to the Interim Rule This proposed rule follows the publication of an interim rule under this DFARS Case 2019-D041, which received over 750 public comments. Although this proposed rule does not finalize the interim rule, it responds to the public comments received and anticipates that these responses will facilitate the public's understanding of this proposed rule. Only comments submitted in response to the interim rule as it relates to the contractual requirements are discussed below. The technical and programmatic comments on CMMC 1.0 are being handled in the CMMC program rule affecting 32 CFR part 170. In addition to technical and programmatic comments, the comments related to the CMMC cost analysis are also being addressed under the CMMC program rule affecting 32 CFR part 170. It should also be noted that any comments related to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171 DoD Assessment methodology will be addressed under a separate DFARS Case 2022-D017, NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirements. A discussion of the comments is provided as follows: 1. Small Business Impact Comment: Several respondents requested more information on the impact to small entities from CMMC. Response: As described in the regulatory flexibility analysis in section VI of this preamble, the phased roll-out of CMMC over three years is intended to mitigate the impact of CMMC on contractors including small entities and is only expected to apply to 1,104 small entities in year one. In addition, the provision and clause in this proposed [[Page 66330]] rule exempt contracts that are exclusively for COTS items. 2. Requirement for CMMC Comment: Several respondents inquired about how contractors will know there is a requirement to have CMMC certification. Response: As stated in this proposed rule, if there is a requirement for a specific CMMC level, the CMMC requirement will be identified in the DFARS solicitation provision 252.204-7YYY, Notice of Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirements. In addition, the DFARS contract clause 252.204-7021, Contractor Compliance with the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirements, will be included in the contract. 3. CMMC Application to Other Transaction Agreements (OTAs) Comment: Many respondents asked whether CMMC will apply to OTAs. Response: Applicability to OTAs is outside the scope of this DFARS rule, as the DFARS does not provide coverage of OTA requirements. If the program office or requiring activity identifies a need to include a CMMC requirement in an OTA, it will be included in the solicitation and resulting agreement. 4. Application to Foreign Suppliers for CMMC Comment: Many respondents commented on whether CMMC will apply to foreign suppliers. Response: If the program office or requiring activity identifies a need to include a CMMC requirement in a contract, it will be included in the solicitation and resulting contract unless the contract is exclusively for COTS items. The proposed rule does not exempt foreign suppliers from CMMC requirements. 5. CMMC and NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirements Comment: Many respondents questioned how CMMC and the NIST SP 800- 171 requirements will interact and if one requirement will be used for the other. Response: As described in the interim rule at DFARS 204.7501(c), the CMMC assessments will not duplicate efforts from any other comparable DoD assessment, except for rare circumstances when a reassessment may be necessary, for example, when there are indications of issues with cybersecurity and/or compliance with CMMC requirements. 6. CMMC Application to Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs) Comment: Many respondents inquired whether CMMC will apply to BAAs. Response: If the program office or requiring activity identifies a need to include a CMMC requirement in a contract, it will be included in the solicitation and resulting contact. The proposed rule prescribes the CMMC clause at 252.204-7021, Contractor Compliance with the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirements, for use in solicitations and contracts, task orders, and delivery orders that require the contractor to have a specific CMMC level, including those using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, except those solely for the acquisition of COTS items. 7. Duplication of DFARS Clause 252.204-7012 and DFARS Clause 252.204- 7021 Comment: A respondent commented on whether DFARS clause 252.204- 7012 and DFARS clause 252.204-7021 duplicate one another. Response: These clauses are not duplicative as they have distinct purposes. DFARS clause 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting, levies cybersecurity requirements on contractors, and DFARS clause 252.204-7021, Contractor Compliance with the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirements, levies a requirement for an assessment of how well a contractor is meeting those cybersecurity requirements specified in 252.204-7012. 8. Uniform Definition of CUI Comment: A respondent commented that there should be a uniform definition of CUI. Response: This proposed rule adds a definition for use in subpart 204.75 for the term ``controlled unclassified information.'' The definition is based on the definition of CUI at 32 CFR 2002. 9. Uniformity and Consistency Comment: Many respondents commented that the final rule should provide uniformity and consistency. Response: This proposed rule does not conflict with other regulations. 10. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold Comment: Many respondents commented that there should be clarification as to whether this rule applies to contracts at or below the simplified acquisition threshold. Response: As described in section III of this preamble, this proposed rule applies to contracts at or below the simplified acquisition threshold, but not to purchases at or below the micro- purchase threshold. 11. Expected Cost Impact and Benefits Comment: Several respondents commented that the interim rule for 2019-D041 had a cost analysis that lacked a basis for the analysis. Response: The Regulatory Impact Analysis associated with this proposed rule only includes a cost analysis of the contractual requirements associated with this proposed rule. The rule for the CMMC Program affecting 32 CFR part 170 contains the expected cost impact and benefits of technical requirements associated with CMMC. Any comments on the cost estimates of technical or programmatic requirements related to the CMMC Program should be directed to the proposed rule affecting 32 CFR part 170. 12. Applicability to COTS--Define Exclusively COTS Comment: Many respondents commented that there needs to be a definition for ``exclusively COTS''. Response: As described in this preamble, this proposed rule does not apply to awards that are exclusively for COTS items. The term ``commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) item'' is defined at FAR 2.101, so any awards that are exclusively for items falling within that FAR definition would be considered ``exclusively COTS'' awards. 13. Timing of CMMC Certification Comment: Many respondents recommended that the CMMC certification timing be delayed until after award, or that it should be made more flexible. Response: The CMMC policy identified in the CMMC 2.0 proposed rule affecting 32 CFR part 170 (published December 26, 2023, at 88 FR 89058) establishes that CMMC certification and CMMC self-assessments are required at the time of award. 14. Prime Contractor Validation of Subcontractor CMMC Level Comment: Many respondents commented that there should be a way for prime contractors to validate subcontractor CMMC certificates and CMMC self-assessments. Response: There is not currently a tool established that would allow sharing of subcontractor information [[Page 66331]] with prime contractors electronically. Prime contractors are expected to work with their suppliers to conduct verifications as they would under any other clause requirement that applies to subcontractors. 15. Cost Allowability Comment: Many respondents commented that the DFARS rule should specify whether costs for CMMC are allowable costs. Response: Cost allowability requirements are described at FAR 31.201-2, Determining allowability. 16. Clause Applicability Overly Broad Comment: Many respondents commented that the clause applicability is overly broad. Response: In this proposed DFARS rule, the applicability of the clause has been narrowed to apply only when there is a requirement in the solicitation for the contractor to have a specific CMMC level. 17. Application to Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS) Comment: One respondent asked if handling CUI under a POTS contract would trigger the requirements of DFARS 252.204-7012. Response: The requirements under 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting, are triggered when the contractor processes, stores, or transmits CUI on a covered contractor information system (the contractor's internal information system). Common carrier telecommunications circuits or POTS would not normally be considered part of the covered contractor information system processing FCI or CUI. Data traversing common carrier systems should be separately encrypted per NIST SP 800-171 requirement 3.13.8. Contracts with common carriers to provide telecommunications services may include DFARS clause 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting, but should not be interpreted to imply the common carrier telecommunications systems themselves have to meet the DFARS requirements. 18. Joint Ventures Comment: Many respondents commented on how to handle CMMC certifications and CMMC self-assessments under joint ventures. Response: Each individual entity that has a requirement for CMMC would be required to comply with the requirements related to the individual entity's information systems that process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI during contract performance. 19. Training on Marking CUI Comment: Many respondents commented that DoD should train personnel on marking CUI and recommended that agencies do a better job of marking CUI. Response: This comment is outside of the scope of this rule. 20. Clarification of How CMMC Applies to Information Systems Comment: Many respondents commented that clarification is needed regarding how CMMC is applied to information systems. Response: As described in this proposed rule, if there is a requirement for CMMC, then it applies to all information systems that process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI in performance of the contract. 21. Fundamental Research Comment: Many respondents commented that clarification is needed regarding whether CMMC applies to fundamental research. Response: Fundamental research, as defined in National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 189, is published and broadly shared within the scientific community and, as such, cannot be safeguarded as either FCI or CUI; however, if fundamental research has the potential to become CUI, it would be subject to the requirements of CMMC. 22. Clause Fill-In With CMMC Level Comment: One respondent requested that the clause contain a fill-in with the CMMC level requirement. Response: In this proposed rule, the CMMC level requirement will be included in the solicitation provision at 252.204-7YYY, Notice of Cybersecurity Model Certification Level Requirements and in the contract clause at 252.204-7021. 23. Application of CMMC to Non-COTS Item Contracts With No FCI or CUI Involved Comment: Many respondents commented that it appears the CMMC clause would be included in non-COTS item contracts with no FCI or CUI involved at the prime contractor and subcontractor levels. Response: The proposed rule prescribes the CMMC clause for use only in solicitations and contracts that require the contractor to have a specific CMMC level. Contracts that are exclusively for COTS items and purchases at or below the micro-purchase threshold will not have a requirement for the contractor to have a specific CMMC level. 24. Application of CMMC Clause to Service Contracts and Non-Defense Contracts Comment: One respondent commented on whether the CMMC clause will be included in services contracts and non-defense contracts. Response: The proposed rule proposes to amend the DFARS, so this proposed rule only includes changes to the requirements for DoD. A services contract may have a requirement for CMMC. 25. Definition of ``Contractor Information System Relevant to the Contract/Offer'' Comment: Many respondents requested clarification of the phrase, ``contractor information system relevant to the contract/offer''. Response: The proposed rule includes language that clarifies that contractor information systems relevant to the contract or offer are contractor information systems that process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI during performance of the contract. 26. Effective Date of CMMC Clause for Contracts and Applicability to Modifications Comment: Many respondents requested clarification on the effective date of the CMMC clause and applicability to modifications. Response: The proposed rule includes amendments to the DFARS that will not take effect until a final rule is issued. Therefore, the effective date of the clause would be the effective date specified in the final rule. The clause will only be included in solicitations issued on or after the effective date of the final rule and any resulting contracts, unless the contracting officer makes a decision to include the clause in a solicitation issued prior to the effective date of the final rule, provided that any resulting contracts are awarded on or after the effective date of the final rule. Contracting officers have the discretion to bilaterally incorporate the clause in contracts in effect prior to the effective date of the clause, with appropriate consideration. See FAR 1.108(d). 27. Determining CMMC Level for Subcontracts Comment: Many respondents commented that there should be clarification regarding how to determine the required CMMC level for subcontracts. [[Page 66332]] Response: In determining a CMMC level appropriate for the information being flowed down to subcontractors, see the proposed rule affecting 32 CFR part 170 published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2023, at 88 FR 89058. 28. Proliferation of Component-Unique Security Requirements Comment: Many respondents commented that it appeared there was a proliferation of component-unique security requirements. Response: While the comment is noted, the comment is outside of the scope of this proposed rule. 29. Reflecting CMMC Levels in SAM.gov for Prime Contractor Verification of Subcontractors Comment: One respondent recommended reflecting CMMC levels in SAM.gov for prime contractor verification of the subcontractors. Response: The CMMC Program proposed rule affecting 32 CFR part 170 has identified that SPRS is the repository for CMMC certificates and self-assessment information at present. Contractors will only be able to access their own CMMC certificate and self-assessment information. 30. Training Contracting Officers Comment: Many respondents commented that it would be helpful to train contracting officers on how to appropriately identify contracts for inclusion of the DFARS clause at 252.204-7021, Contractor Compliance with the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirements. Response: As with any clause, contracting officers will follow the prescription language in determining when to include a contract clause. 31. Vendor Description of CMMC Queue in Response to Proposals Comment: One respondent commented recommending that an offeror should be able to share where they are in the queue for a CMMC assessment and be allowed to have a late submission of their CMMC certification. Response: The CMMC Program policy, in the proposed rule affecting 32 CFR part 170, is to require a CMMC certification or CMMC self- assessment at the time of award if there is a requirement for CMMC under the contract. 32. Define ``Certification'' Comment: A respondent commented that the term ``certification'' should be defined. Response: The term ''certification'' referenced in this proposed rule relates to the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification. 33. Defense Industrial Base Cybersecurity Assessment Center (DIBCAC) Assessment Reciprocity Comment: Several respondents asked for clarification on reciprocity between CMMC certification and Defense Contract Management Agency DIBCAC assessments. Response: As described in the interim rule at DFARS 204.7501(c), the CMMC assessments will not duplicate efforts from any other comparable DoD assessment, except for rare circumstances when a reassessment may be necessary, for example, when there are indications of issues with cybersecurity and/or compliance with CMMC requirements. 34. Clearance Procedures for Interim Rule Comment: A respondent asked what clearance procedures were bypassed to allow for the emergency processing of the previously published interim rule. Response: Clearance procedures were not bypassed in the emergency processing of the previously published interim rule under this DFARS Case 2019-D041. As described in section IX of the preamble for the interim rule, a determination was made pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1707(d) and FAR 1.501-3(b) to issue the interim rule. 35. Recommend Opening a DFARS Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI) Case Comment: One respondent recommended that a PGI case should be opened to provide procedures, guidance, and information to the workforce related to CMMC. Response: At present, the requirements in the proposed rule are simply for contracting officers to include the provision and clause as prescribed. Any additional guidance would be for the program office and requiring activity community. Such guidance would not be added to the DFARS PGI, which speaks to contracting officers. 36. Existence of the Clause as an Indication of the Presence of CUI Comment: Several respondents asked for clarification on whether the presence of the clause at 252.204-7021 means that CUI will be used in performance of the contract. Response: CMMC also applies to FCI, so the existence of the clause at 252.204-7021, Contractor Compliance with the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirements, does not automatically mean that there is CUI that will be processed, stored, or transmitted in the performance of the contract. 37. Application of the Clause to Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) Comment: One respondent requested clarification on whether the clause will apply to GFE or GFE in a test environment. Response: If the program office or requiring activity includes a requirement in the solicitation and resulting contract for the contractor to have a specific CMMC level, then the clause would apply. 38. Other Contractual Instruments Comment: A respondent commented that there should be a definition in the DFARS of ``other contractual instruments''. Response: ``Other contractual instruments'' are agreements with vendors or suppliers that are not considered subcontracts. The term has been used in the DFARS for years and is well understood. 39. Source Selections Comment: A respondent requested information on how CMMC applies to source selections. Response: Proposed changes to DFARS 204.7503 require that contracting officers shall not award a contract, task order, or delivery order to an offeror that does not have a current CMMC certificate or self-assessment at the level required by the solicitation. If CMMC is included in a solicitation, it is also included as a contract requirement. III. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT), for Commercial Products (Including COTS Items), and for Commercial Services This proposed rule amends the clause at DFARS 252.204-7021, Contractor Compliance with the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirements, as well as the prescription at DFARS 204.7504(a). The clause is prescribed for use in solicitations and contracts, task orders, or delivery orders, that require the contractor to have a specific CMMC level, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, except for solicitations and contracts solely for the acquisition of COTS items. This proposed rule includes a new [[Page 66333]] provision, DFARS 252.204-7YYY, Notice of Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirements. The provision is prescribed at DFARS 204.7504(b) for use in solicitations that include the clause at DFARS 252.204-7021. DoD intends to apply the provision and clause to contracts and subcontracts valued at or below the SAT but greater than the micro- purchase threshold, for the acquisition of commercial products excluding COTS items, and for the acquisition of commercial services. A. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold 41 U.S.C. 1905 governs the applicability of laws to contracts or subcontracts in amounts not greater than the simplified acquisition threshold. It is intended to limit the applicability of laws to such contracts or subcontracts. 41 U.S.C. 1905 provides that if a provision of law contains criminal or civil penalties, or if the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council makes a written determination that it is not in the best interest of the Federal Government to exempt contracts or subcontracts at or below the SAT, the law will apply to them. The Principal Director, Defense Pricing, Contracting, and Acquisition Policy (DPCAP), is the appropriate authority to make comparable determinations for regulations to be published in the DFARS, which is part of the FAR system of regulations. DoD does intend to make that determination. Therefore, this proposed rule will apply at or below the simplified acquisition threshold. B. Applicability to Contracts for the Acquisition of Commercial Products Including COTS Items and for the Acquisition of Commercial Services 10 U.S.C. 3452 exempts contracts and subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial products including COTS items, and commercial services from provisions of law enacted after October 13, 1994, unless the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment) (USD(A&S)) makes a written determination that it would not be in the best interest of DoD to exempt contracts for the procurement of commercial products and commercial services from the applicability of the provision or contract requirement, except for a provision of law that-- Provides for criminal or civil penalties; Requires that certain articles be bought from American sources pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 4862, or that strategic materials critical to national security be bought from American sources pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 4863; or Specifically refers to 10 U.S.C. 3452 and states that it shall apply to contracts and subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial products (including COTS items) and commercial services. The statute implemented in this proposed rule does not impose criminal or civil penalties, does not require purchase pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 4862 or 4863, and does not refer to 10 U.S.C. 3452. Therefore, section 1648 of the NDAA for FY 2020 will not apply to the acquisition of commercial services or commercial products including COTS items unless a written determination is made. Due to delegations of authority, the Principal Director, DPCAP is the appropriate authority to make this determination. DoD intends to make that determination to apply this statute to the acquisition of commercial products excluding COTS items and to the acquisition of commercial services. Therefore, this proposed rule will apply to the acquisition of commercial products excluding COTS items and to the acquisition of commercial services. C. Determinations Given that the requirements of section 1648 of the NDAA for FY 2020 were enacted to promote protection of FCI and CUI that will be processed, stored, or transmitted on contractor information systems, and since FCI and CUI may be processed, stored, or transmitted on contractor information systems in the performance of contracts or orders valued below the simplified acquisition threshold and when the Federal Government is procuring commercial products and commercial services, it is in the best interest of the Federal Government to apply the statute to contracts for the acquisition of commercial services and commercial products, excluding COTS items, as defined at FAR 2.101. An exception for contracts for the acquisition of commercial services and commercial products, excluding COTS items, would exclude the contracts intended to be covered by the law, thereby undermining the overarching public policy purpose of the law. IV. Expected Impact of the Rule A. Background DoD is proposing to amend the DFARS to implement the contractual requirements related to the DoD policy for CMMC 2.0 (see the proposed rule affecting 32 CFR 170, published in the Federal Register December 26, 2023, at 88 FR 89058). CMMC 2.0 self-assessments and certificates assess a contractor's compliance with certain information system security requirements. Pursuant to the DoD policy in the CMMC 2.0 proposed rule, the CMMC level requirements apply to every contractor information system that will process, store, or transmit Federal contract information (FCI) or controlled unclassified information (CUI). DoD is proposing to amend the DFARS to include the following solicitation and contractual requirements related to the CMMC 2.0 policy: Offeror and contractor requirement to post the results of a CMMC 2.0 Level 1 or Level 2 self-assessment to the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) prior to award, exercise of an option, or extension of a period of performance, if not already posted. Contractor requirement to maintain the required CMMC self- assessment or certificate level for the life of the contract. Contractor requirement to complete a contractor senior company official affirmation of continuous compliance with the security requirements identified at 32 CFR part 170 in SPRS for each DoD unique identifier (UID) applicable to each of the contractor information systems that will process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI and that will be used in performance of the contract on an annual basis, or when CMMC 2.0 compliance status changes occur. Apparently successful offeror and contractor requirement to identify the contractor information systems that will be used to process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI in performance of the contract prior to award, exercise of an option, or extension of any period of performance, by providing to the Government the DoD UIDs generated by SPRS. The costs associated with the technical completion of the CMMC 2.0 certifications and self-assessments are included in the CMMC 2.0 proposed rule affecting title 32 CFR. B. Summary of Impact This proposed DFARS rule will impact certain contracts during a phased-in, three-year implementation period. Afterwards, the requirements will apply to all contracts for which the contractor will process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI on contractor information systems during the performance of the contract, except for contracts solely for the acquisition of commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items. For the first three years after the effective date of the final rule, the information collection requirements [[Page 66334]] will only impact an offeror or contractor when the solicitation or contract requires an offeror or contractor to have a specific CMMC level, based on a phased rollout plan, including solicitations and contracts using Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, except for solicitations and contracts solely for the acquisition of COTS items. By the fourth year, the information collection requirements in the solicitation provision and contract clause will impact solicitations and contracts, task orders, or delivery orders, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, when there will be a requirement under the contract to process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI, except for solicitations and contracts solely for the acquisition of COTS items. Since DoD does not track awards that may include FCI or CUI, DoD assumes the number of impacted awardees in Year 4 and beyond will be the average number of entities in the Electronic Data Access (EDA) system from fiscal year (FY) 2021 through FY 2023 with awards containing the clause at DFARS 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting, or 29,543 entities, of which 20,395 (69 percent) are small businesses. DoD also assumes that offerors or contractors with a requirement for CMMC in contracts will have on average 5 contractor information systems that will be used to process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI in performance of the contract. For each of the information systems that will process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI, DoD assumes it will take offerors and contractors-- An estimated 5 minutes to post the results of the CMMC self-assessments in SPRS; An estimated 5 minutes to complete the required affirmation in SPRS; and An estimated 5 minutes to retrieve DoD UIDs in SPRS for the information systems that will be used in performance of the contract and to submit the DoD UIDs to the Government. For the Government, DoD assumes it will take-- An estimated 5 minutes to validate the existence of the correct level and currency of a CMMC certification or CMMC self- assessment results associated with offeror DoD UIDs in SPRS for the apparently successful offeror prior to award and for the contractor prior to exercising an option or extending any period of performance; An estimated 5 minutes to validate the existence of an affirmation that is current for each of the contractor information systems that will process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI; and An estimated 5 minutes to validate the existence of the correct level and currency of a CMMC certification or CMMC self- assessment and affirmation associated with contractor DoD UIDs in SPRS, when there are changes in the information systems during contract performance. The primary cost impact of this proposed rule is that apparently successful offerors for contracts that include a CMMC requirement will now be required to conduct the cost activities described below in accordance with the provision at DFARS 252.204-7YYY, Notice of Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirement, and the clause at DFARS 252.204-7021, Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Requirements. The benefits of this proposed rule include verification of a defense industrial base (DIB) contractor's implementation of system security requirements. The clause at DFARS 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting, does not provide for the DoD verification of a DIB contractor's implementation of the security requirements specified in National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171 prior to contract award. CMMC adds the element of verification of a DIB contractor's cybersecurity through the use of accredited third-party assessors. This proposed rule provides increased assurance to DoD that a DIB contractor can adequately protect sensitive unclassified information such as CUI at a level commensurate with the risk, accounting for information flow down to its subcontractors in a multi- tier supply chain. Another benefit of this proposed rule is that it supports the protection of intellectual property and sensitive information from malicious activity that has a significant impact on the U.S. economy and national security. While there is not enough information to be able to estimate the benefits of this rule at this time, DoD assumes there will be a benefit from reducing the threat of malicious cyber activity. The Council of Economic Advisors estimates that malicious cyber activity cost the U.S. economy between $57 billion and $109 billion in 2016. Over a ten-year period, that burden would equate to an estimated $512 billion to $979 billion in costs at a 2 percent discount rate. The following is a summary of the estimated public and Government costs calculated over a 10-year period at a 2 percent discount rate: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary Public Government Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present Value.......................................... $40,687,957 $25,237,882 $65,925,839 Annualized Costs....................................... 4,529,649 2,809,646 7,339,295 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Public comments are solicited on this analysis of the estimated burden of the proposed rule. V. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as amended. VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act DoD does not expect this proposed rule, when finalized, to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been performed and is summarized as follows: This proposed rule is necessary to respond to the threat to the U.S. economy and national security posed by [[Page 66335]] ongoing malicious cyber activities designed to steal hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. intellectual property. This proposed rule includes the following requirements for apparently successful offerors responding to a solicitation, and contractors awarded contracts, containing a requirement for CMMC: (1) post in SPRS the results of a current CMMC certificate or current CMMC self-assessment at the level required by the solicitation, or higher, for each DoD UID applicable to each of the contractor information systems that will process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI and that will be used in performance of the contract and maintain the CMMC level for the life of the contract; (2) provide the DoD UID(s) applicable to each of those contractor information systems to the contracting officer and provide updates, if applicable; and (3) have a current affirmation of continuous compliance with the security requirements identified at 32 CFR part 170 in SPRS for each DoD UID applicable to each of those contractor information systems. These requirements apply to apparently successful offerors with a CMMC requirement in solicitations prior to award and to contractors with a CMMC requirement in contracts prior to exercising an option. The proposed rule has two objectives. One objective is to provide DoD with assurances that a defense industrial base contractor can adequately protect sensitive unclassified information at a level commensurate with the risk, accounting for information shared with its subcontractors in a multi-tier supply chain. Another objective is to partially implement section 1648 of the NDAA for FY 2020. The legal basis for the rule is 41 U.S.C. 1303 and section 1648 of the NDAA for FY 2020. Given the enterprise-wide implementation of CMMC, DoD developed a three-year phased rollout strategy. The rollout is intended to minimize both the financial impacts to the industrial base, especially small entities, and disruption to the existing DoD supply chain. Upon completion of the phased implementation, this rule will impact all small entities awarded contracts with DoD, except those providing only COTS items and those that do not handle FCI or CUI. The estimated number of small entities to which the rule will apply in year one is 1,104. By the fourth year, all entities receiving DoD contracts and orders that have contractor information systems that will process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI and that will be used in performance of the contract or order, other than contracts or orders exclusively for COTS items, will be required to have, at minimum, a CMMC Level 1 self- assessment or the CMMC Level identified in the solicitation and resulting contract, as appropriate for the type of information being handled under the contract. As described previously, it should be noted that this requirement does not apply to awards that do not involve the handling or transmission of FCI or CUI. By year four, the total estimated number of small entities to which the rule will apply will be 60,783. During the first three years of the phased rollout, the CMMC requirement will be included only in certain contracts for which the CMMC Program Office directs DoD component program offices to include a CMMC requirement. After three years, DoD component program offices will be required to include a requirement for CMMC in solicitations and contracts that will require the contractor to process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI on contractor information systems during contract performance. Not every contractor will be awarded a contract in Year 4, so it will take several years for every contractor in the defense industrial base to be awarded a contract containing a requirement for CMMC. DoD does not track how many years it takes for every contractor to be awarded a DoD contract, so DoD assumes this will occur over a period of several years. Based on data from the Electronic Data Access system for FY 2021 through FY 2023, the number of unique entities with contracts containing the clause at DFARS 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting, is 29,543, of which 20,395 (69 percent) are small entities. Therefore, DoD estimates that in Year 4 and beyond, approximately 20,395 small entities will be impacted per year. DoD anticipates that the following mix of self- assessments and certificates will occur starting in Year 4; however, it is likely to change based on component program office discretion regarding whether a CMMC self-assessment or certificate is required and, if so, at what level: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CMMC Level Percentages Small entities Large entities Total entities ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level 1 Self-assessment......................... 63 12,849 5,763 18,612 Level 2 Self-assessment......................... 2 408 183 591 Level 2 Certificate............................. 35 7,138 3,202 10,340 --------------------------------------------------------------- Total Entities.............................. 100 20,395 9,148 29,543 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This proposed rule includes new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements for small entities. The following is a summary of the projected reporting and other compliance requirements associated with the proposed rule: (1) a requirement for apparently successful offerors to post results of current CMMC Level 1 and Level 2 self- assessments to SPRS for each DoD UID applicable to each of the contractor information systems that will process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI and that will be used in performance of the contract, if applicable; (2) a requirement for apparently successful offerors and contractors to provide DoD UIDs for each of those contractor information systems, if applicable, prior to award and when any changes to DoD UIDs occur; and (3) a requirement for a senior company official to complete and maintain on an annual basis, or when CMMC compliance status changes occur, the affirmation of continuous compliance with the security requirements identified at 32 CFR part 170 in SPRS for each DoD UID applicable to each of those contractor information systems. These reporting requirements would apply to any small entities that are the apparently successful offeror for a contract for which there is a requirement for a specific CMMC level. The requirement to post the self-assessment will only apply to small entities that have a requirement for a CMMC Level 1 or Level 2 self-assessment. The requirement to provide DoD UIDs and the requirement for the senior official to complete the affirmation in SPRS will apply to all small entities that are apparently successful offerors for a solicitation or [[Page 66336]] contractors awarded a contract for which there is a requirement for CMMC. This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. This proposed DFARS rule implements the contractual requirements related to the CMMC 2.0 program, which was published as a separate proposed rule affecting 32 CFR part 170 on December 26, 2023, at 88 FR 89058. There are no known alternatives that would accomplish the stated objectives of the applicable statute. This proposed rule uses a phased rollout approach to implementation and applies the CMMC requirements only to apparently successful offerors for solicitations and contractors awarded a contract containing a CMMC requirement. This proposed rule exempts contracts and orders exclusively for the acquisition of COTS items to minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. Because of the across-the-board risks of not implementing cybersecurity requirements, DoD was unable to identify any additional alternatives that would reduce the burden on small entities and still meet the objectives of the proposed rule. DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this proposed rule on small entities. DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this proposed rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2019- D041), in correspondence. VII. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule contains information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). Accordingly, DoD has submitted a request for approval of a new information collection requirement concerning 2019-D041, Assessing Contractor Implementation of Cybersecurity Requirements, to the Office of Management and Budget. A. Estimate of Public Burden Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 minutes (0.8333) per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The annual reporting burden is estimated as follows: Respondents: 1,493. Total annual responses: 30,990. Total annual burden hours: 2,582. B. Request for Comments Regarding Paperwork Burden Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection, including suggestions for reducing this burden, should be submitted using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov or by email to [email protected]. Comments can be received up to 60 days after the date of this notice. Public comments are particularly invited on: whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DoD, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of DoD's estimate of the burden of this information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. To obtain a copy of the supporting statement and associated collection instruments, please email [email protected]. Include DFARS Case 2019-D041 in the subject line of the message. List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 204, 212, 217, and 252 Government procurement. Jennifer D. Johnson, Editor/Publisher, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. Therefore, the Defense Acquisition Regulations System proposes to amend 48 CFR parts 204, 212, 217, and 252 as follows: 0 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 204, 212, 217, and 252 continues to read as follows: Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1. PART 204--ADMINISTRATIVE AND INFORMATION MATTERS 0 2. Revise subpart 204.75 to read as follows: Subpart 204.75--Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Sec. 204.7500 Scope of subpart. 204.7501 Definitions. 204.7502 Policy. 204.7503 Procedures. 204.7504 Solicitation provision and contract clause. Subpart 204.75--Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification 204.7500 Scope of subpart. (a) This subpart prescribes policies and procedures for including the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) level requirements in DoD contracts. CMMC is a framework (see 32 CFR part 170) for assessing a contractor's compliance with applicable information security requirements (see https://DoDcio.defense.gov/CMMC/ ). (b) This subpart does not abrogate any other requirements regarding contractor physical, personnel, information, technical, or general administrative security operations governing the protection of unclassified information, nor does it affect requirements of the National Industrial Security Program. 204.7501 Definitions. As used in this subpart-- Controlled unclassified information means information the Government creates or possesses, or an entity creates or possesses for or on behalf of the Government, that a law, regulation, or Governmentwide policy requires or permits an agency to handle using safeguarding or dissemination controls (32 CFR 2002.4(h)). Current means, with regard to Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification-- (1) Not older than 1 year for Level 1 self-assessments, with no changes in CMMC compliance since the date of the assessment; (2) Not older than 3 years for Level 2 certificates and self- assessments, with no changes in CMMC compliance since the date of the assessment; (3) Not older than 3 years for Level 3 certificates, with no changes in CMMC compliance since the date of the assessment; and (4) Not older than 1 year for affirmations of continuous compliance with the security requirements identified at 32 CFR part 170, with no changes in CMMC compliance since the date of the affirmation. DoD unique identifier means an alpha-numeric string of ten characters assigned within the Supplier Performance Risk System to each contractor assessment with the first two characters indicating the confidence level of the assessment. 204.7502 Policy. (a) The CMMC certificate or CMMC self-assessment level specified in the contract is required for all information systems, used in the performance of the contract, that will process, store, or [[Page 66337]] transmit Federal contract information (FCI) or controlled unclassified information (CUI). (b) Contractors are required to achieve, at time of award, a CMMC certificate or CMMC self-assessment at the level specified in the solicitation, or higher. Contractors are required to maintain a current CMMC certificate or CMMC self-assessment at the specified level, if required by the contract, task order, or delivery order, throughout the life of the contract, task order, or delivery order. (c) The CMMC assessments shall not duplicate efforts from any other comparable DoD assessment, except for rare circumstances when a re- assessment may be necessary, for example, when there are indications of issues with cybersecurity and/or compliance with CMMC requirements. 204.7503 Procedures. (a) The contracting officer shall include the CMMC level required by the program office or requiring activity in the solicitation and contract. (b)(1) Contracting officers shall not award a contract, task order, or delivery order to an offeror that does not have-- (i) The results of a current CMMC certificate or current CMMC self- assessment at the level required by the solicitation, or higher, for each DoD unique identifier (DoD UID) applicable to each of the contractor information systems that will process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI and that will be used in performance of the contract posted in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) (see 32 CFR 170.15 through 170.18); and (ii) A current affirmation of continuous compliance with the security requirements identified at 32 CFR part 170 in SPRS for each DoD UID applicable to each of the contractor information systems that will process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI and that will be used in performance of the contract. (2) Contracting officers shall require the apparently successful offeror to provide the DoD UID(s) applicable to each of the contractor information systems that will process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI and that will be used in performance of the contract. The contracting officer shall ensure the program office or requiring activity reviews the information described in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section. (c)(1) Contracting officers shall not exercise an option period or extend the period of performance on a contract, task order, or delivery order, unless the contractor has-- (i) A current CMMC certificate or CMMC self-assessment at the level required by the contract, task order, or delivery order, or higher, for each DoD UID applicable to each of the contractor information systems that process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI and that are used in performance of the contract; and (ii) A current affirmation of continuous compliance with the security requirements identified at 32 CFR part 170 in SPRS for each DoD UID applicable to each of the contractor information systems that process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI and that are used in performance of the contract (see 252.204-7021, paragraph (b)(5)). (2) The contracting officer shall ensure the program office or requiring activity reviews the information described in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii). (d) If the contractor provides new DoD UIDs during performance of the contract, the contracting officer shall ensure the program office or requiring activity verifies in SPRS that the contractor-- (1) Has a current affirmation of continuous compliance with the security requirements identified at 32 CFR part 170 for each DoD UID applicable to each of the contractor information systems that process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI (see 252.204-7021, paragraph (b)(5)); and (2) Has a current CMMC certificate or CMMC self-assessment at the required level, or higher, for each information system identified that will process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI during contract performance using the DoD UIDs assigned by SPRS. 204.7504 Solicitation provision and contract clause. (a) Use the clause at 252.204-7021, Contractor Compliance with the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirements, in solicitations and contracts, task orders, or delivery orders that require the contractor to have a CMMC certificate or CMMC self- assessment at a specific level, including those using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, except for solicitations and contracts or orders solely for the acquisition of commercially available off-the-shelf items. (b) Use the provision at 252.204-7YYY, Notice of Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirements, in solicitations that include the clause at 252.204-7021. PART 212--ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES 0 3. Amend section 212.301-- 0 a. In paragraph (f)(ii)(L) by removing ``204.7503(a) and (b)'' and adding ``204.7504(a)'' in its place; and 0 b. By adding paragraph (f)(ii)(P) to read as follows: 212.301 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services. * * * * * (f) * * * (ii) * * * (P) Use the provision at 252.204-7YYY, Notice of Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirements, as prescribed in 204.7504(b). * * * * * PART 217--SPECIAL CONTRACTING METHODS 0 4. Amend section 217.207-- 0 a. In paragraph (c) introductory text by removing ``after:'' and adding ``after--'' in its place; 0 b. In paragraph (c)(1) by removing the period at the end of the paragraph and adding ``; and'' in its place; 0 c. By revising paragraph (c)(2) introductory text; 0 d. In paragraph (c)(2)(i) by removing the period at the end of the paragraph and adding ``; and'' in its place; and 0 e. By revising paragraph (c)(2)(ii). The revisions read as follows: 217.207 Exercise of options. (c) * * * (2) Ensuring the program office or requiring activity verifies in the Supplier Performance Risk System (https://piee.eb.mil) that-- * * * * * (ii) If there is a requirement for the contractor to have a Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) certificate or CMMC self-assessment at a specific level, the contractor has the required affirmation(s) of continuous compliance with the security requirements identified at 32 CFR part 170 and has posted the results of a current (see 204.7501) CMMC certificate or CMMC self-assessment at the level required by the contract, or higher. See 204.7503(c). PART 252--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 0 5. Revise section 252.204-7021 to read as follows: [[Page 66338]] 252.204-7021 Contractor Compliance With the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirements. As prescribed in 204.7504(a), insert the following clause: Contractor Compliance With the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirements (Date) (a) Definitions. As used in this clause-- Controlled unclassified information means information the Government creates or possesses, or an entity creates or possesses for or on behalf of the Government, that a law, regulation, or Governmentwide policy requires or permits an agency to handle using safeguarding or dissemination controls (32 CFR part 2002.4(h)). Current means, with regard to Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC)-- (1) Not older than 1 year for Level 1 self-assessments, with no changes in CMMC compliance since the date of the assessment; (2) Not older than 3 years for Level 2 certificates and self- assessments, with no changes in CMMC compliance since the date of the assessment; (3) Not older than 3 years for Level 3 certificates, with no changes in CMMC compliance since the date of the assessment; and (4) Not older than 1 year for affirmations of continuous compliance with the security requirements identified at 32 CFR part 170, with no changes in CMMC compliance since the date of the affirmation. Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification means a framework for assessing a contractor's compliance with applicable information security requirements (see 32 CFR part 170). DoD unique identifier means an alpha-numeric string of ten characters assigned within the Supplier Performance Risk System to each contractor assessment, with the first two characters indicating the confidence level of the assessment. (b) Requirements. The Contractor shall-- (1)(i) Have a current CMMC certificate or current CMMC self- assessment at the following CMMC level, or higher: _____ [Contracting Officer to fill in the required CMMC level]; and (ii) Consult 32 CFR part 170 related to flowing down information in order to establish the correct CMMC level requirements for subcontracts and other contractual instruments; (2) Maintain the CMMC level required by this contract for the duration of the contract for all information systems, used in performance of the contract, that process, store, or transmit Federal contract information (FCI) or controlled unclassified information (CUI); (3) Only process, store, or transmit data on information systems that have a CMMC certificate or CMMC self-assessment at the CMMC level required by the contract, or higher; (4) Notify the Contracting Officer within 72 hours when there are any lapses in information security or changes in the status of CMMC certificate or CMMC self-assessment levels during performance of the contract; (5) Complete and maintain on an annual basis, or when changes occur in CMMC compliance status (see 32 CFR part 170), an affirmation of continuous compliance with the security requirements associated with the CMMC level required in paragraph (b)(1) of this clause in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) (https://piee.eb.mil) for each DoD unique identifier (DoD UID) applicable to each of the contractor information systems that process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI and that are used in performance of the contract; and (6) Ensure all subcontractors and suppliers complete and maintain on an annual basis, or when changes occur in CMMC compliance status (see 32 CFR part 170), an affirmation of continuous compliance with the security requirements associated with the CMMC level required for the subcontract or other contractual instrument for each of the contractor information systems that process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI and that are used in performance of the contract. (c) Reporting. The Contractor shall-- (1) Submit to the Contracting Officer the DoD UID(s) issued by SPRS for contractor information systems that will process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI during performance of the contract; (2) Enter into SPRS the results of self-assessment(s) for each DoD UID applicable to each of the contractor information systems that process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI and that are used in performance of the contract; and (3) Report to the Contracting Officer any changes to the list of DoD UIDs applicable to each of the contractor information systems that process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI and that are used in performance of the contract. (d) Subcontracts. The Contractor shall-- (1) Insert the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (d), and exclude paragraphs (b)(5) and (c), in subcontracts and other contractual instruments, including those for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, excluding commercially available off-the-shelf items, when there is a requirement under the subcontract or similar contractual instrument for a CMMC level; and (2) Prior to awarding a subcontract or other contractual instrument, ensure that the subcontractor has a current CMMC certificate or current CMMC self-assessment at the CMMC level that is appropriate for the information that is being flowed down to the subcontractor. (End of clause) 0 6. Add section 252.204-7YYY to read as follows: 252.204-7YYY Notice of Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirements. As prescribed in 204.7504(b) use the following provision: Notice of Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirements (Date) (a) Definitions. As used in this provision, controlled unclassified information, current, Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification, and DoD unique identifier have the meaning given in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 252.204-7021, Contractor Compliance With the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirements, clause of this solicitation. (b)(1) Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) level. The CMMC certificate or CMMC self-assessment level required by this solicitation is: _____ [Contracting Officer insert: CMMC Level 1 self-assessment; CMMC Level 2 certificate or CMMC self-assessment; or CMMC Level 3 certificate]. This CMMC certificate or CMMC self- assessment level, or higher, is required prior to award for each contractor information system that will process, store, or transmit Federal contract information (FCI) or controlled unclassified information (CUI) during performance of the contract. (2) The apparently successful offeror will not be eligible for award of a contract, task order, or delivery order resulting from this solicitation if the apparently successful offeror does not have the results of a current CMMC certificate or self-assessment entered in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) (https://piee.eb.mil) at the CMMC level required by paragraph (b)(1) of this provision and an affirmation of continuous compliance with the security requirements identified at 32 CFR part 170 in SPRS for each of the contractor information systems that will process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI and that will be used in performance of a contract resulting from this solicitation. (c) DoD unique identifiers. At the request of the Contracting Officer, the apparently successful offeror shall provide the DoD unique identifier(s) issued by SPRS for each contractor information system that will process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI during performance of a contract, task order, or delivery order resulting from this solicitation. The DoD unique identifier(s) are provided in SPRS after the Offeror enters the results of self-assessment(s) for each such information system. (End of provision) [FR Doc. 2024-18110 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6001-FR-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:21.789637

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18111

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 66338-66341] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18111] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 209 and 252 [Docket DARS-2024-0025] RIN 0750-AM20 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Limitation on Certain Institutes of Higher Education (DFARS Case 2024-D023) AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 66339]] SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement sections of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, which amend a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 that provides for the limitation of funds, authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for any fiscal year for DoD, to be provided to an institution of higher education that hosts a Confucius Institute. DATES: Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before October 15, 2024, to be considered in the formation of a final rule. ADDRESSES: Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2024-D023, using either of the following methods: [cir] Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Search for DFARS Case 2024-D023. Select ``Comment'' and follow the instructions to submit a comment. Please include ``DFARS Case 2024- D023'' on any attached documents. [cir] Email: [email protected]. Include DFARS Case 2024-D023 in the subject line of the message. Comments received generally will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check https://www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly Bass, telephone 703-717-3446. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background DoD is proposing to revise the DFARS to implement sections 1044 and 1045 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 (Pub. L. 118-31), which amend section 1062 of the NDAA for FY 2021 (Pub. L. 116-283). DoD published an interim rule in the Federal Register at 88 FR 67607 on September 29, 2023, under DFARS Case 2021- D023 to implement section 1062 of the NDAA for FY 2021. Section 1062 provides that none of the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for any fiscal year for DoD may be provided to an institution of higher education that hosts a Confucius Institute, defined as a cultural institute directly or indirectly funded by the government of the People's Republic of China. In addition, section 1062 provided the authority to waive the funds limitation. There were no public comments submitted in response to the interim rule. Section 1044 of the NDAA for FY 2024 amends section 1062(d) of the NDAA for FY 2021 by revising the definition of ``Confucius Institute'' as any program that receives funding or support from the Chinese International Education Foundation, the Center for Language Exchange Cooperation of the Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China, or any cultural institute funded by the government of the People's Republic of China. Section 1045 of the NDAA for FY 2024 amends section 1062(b) of the NDAA for FY 2021 to add a termination date of October 1, 2026, for the authority to issue a waiver. II. Discussion and Analysis No respondents submitted public comments in response to the interim rule published at 88 FR 67607 on September 29, 2023. A. New Definition This proposed rule under DFARS Case 2024-D023 includes revisions to the definition of ``Confucius Institute'' at DFARS 209.170-1. ``Confucius Institute'' means any program that receives funding or support from the Chinese International Education Foundation, the Center for Language Exchange Cooperation of the Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China, or any cultural institute funded by the government of the People's Republic of China. B. Waiver of Funds Limitation This proposed rule at DFARS 209.170-3 adds a termination date of October 1, 2026, for the authority to issue a waiver. Currently, the funds limitation with respect to an institution of higher education can be waived by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (OUSD(R&E)). DFARS 209.170-3 addresses the OUSD(R&E), Confucius Institute Waiver Program procedures. C. Solicitation Provision The solicitation provision at DFARS 252.209-7011, Representation for Restriction on the Use of Certain Institutions of Higher Education, is proposed to be amended to include conforming changes. III. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) and for Commercial Products, Including Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf (COTS) Items, and Commercial Services This rule proposes to amend the solicitation provision at DFARS 252.209-7011, Representation for Restriction on the Use of Certain Institutions of Higher Education. The provision at DFARS 252.209-7011 is prescribed at DFARS 209.170-4 for use in solicitations for acquisitions to an institution of higher education, including solicitations using Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products, including COTS items, and commercial services. DoD does intend to apply the proposed rule to contracts at or below the SAT, to contracts for the acquisition of commercial products including COTS items, and for the acquisition of commercial services. A. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold 41 U.S.C. 1905 governs the applicability of laws to contracts or subcontracts in amounts not greater than the simplified acquisition threshold. It is intended to limit the applicability of laws to such contracts or subcontracts. 41 U.S.C. 1905 provides that if a provision of law contains criminal or civil penalties, or if the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council makes a written determination that it is not in the best interest of the Federal Government to exempt contracts or subcontracts at or below the SAT, the law will apply to them. The Principal Director, Defense Pricing, Contracting, and Acquisition Policy (DPCAP), is the appropriate authority to make comparable determinations for regulations to be published in the DFARS, which is part of the FAR system of regulations. DoD does intend to make that determination. Therefore, this proposed rule will apply at or below the simplified acquisition threshold. B. Applicability to Contracts for the Acquisition of Commercial Products Including COTS Items and for the Acquisition of Commercial Services 10 U.S.C. 3452 exempts contracts and subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial products, including COTS items, and commercial services from provisions of law enacted after October 13, 1994, unless the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment) (USD(A&S)) makes a written determination that it would not be in [[Page 66340]] the best interest of DoD to exempt contracts for the procurement of commercial products and commercial services from the applicability of the provision or contract requirement, except for a provision of law that-- Provides for criminal or civil penalties; Requires that certain articles be bought from American sources pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 4862 or that strategic materials critical to national security be bought from American sources pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 4863; or Specifically refers to 10 U.S.C. 3452 and states that it shall apply to contracts and subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial products (including COTS items) and commercial services. Sections 1044 and 1045 of the NDAA for FY 2024 do not impose criminal or civil penalties, do not require purchase pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 4862 or 4863, and do not refer to 10 U.S.C. 3452. Therefore, sections 1044 and 1045 will not apply to the acquisition of commercial services or commercial products including COTS items unless a written determination is made. Due to delegations of authority, the Principal Director, DPCAP is the appropriate authority to make this determination. DoD intends to make that determination to apply this statute to the acquisition of commercial products including COTS items and to the acquisition of commercial services. Therefore, this proposed rule will apply to the acquisition of commercial products including COTS items and to the acquisition of commercial services. C. Determinations To ensure compliance with the limitation on the use of funds, the proposed rule must apply to all contracts with institutions of higher education. An exception for acquisitions at or below the SAT, for the acquisition of commercial products including COTS items, or for the acquisition of commercial services would exclude the contracts intended to be covered by the law, thereby undermining the overarching public policy purpose of the law and the associated statutory funds limitation. IV. Expected Impact of the Rule Although section 1044 of the NDAA for FY 2024 broadened the definition of Confucius Institute, DoD expects there will be no change to the number of offerors impacted by the representation requirement. Research and data analysis by DoD subject matter experts has not revealed any activity that would constitute a Confucius Institute as defined in section 1044. However, DoD's process of outreach to institutions is ongoing, in an effort to identify any institutes meeting the new definition being hosted by any U.S. institution of higher education. If it is determined an institution of higher education is hosting an institute meeting the new definition of Confucius Institute, and if the institute intends to continue operating, the prohibition will be applied accordingly. Consequently, de minimis associated burden exists since the proposed rule still only requires the prospective offeror, when submitting an offer in response to a solicitation, to represent compliance with the requirements of section 1062 of the NDAA for FY 2021 as amended by sections 1044 and 1045 of the NDAA for FY 2024. Data from the Federal Procurement Data System indicate that less than 10 unique entities awarded DoD contracts in fiscal years 2021 through 2023 met the definition of an institution of higher education; none of those entities hosted a Confucius Institute as newly defined. This proposed rule also includes the addition of the termination date for the authority to waive the funds limitation. As provided in section 1045 of the NDAA for FY 2024, the waiver authority will end on October 1, 2026, and any waivers issued prior to that date will no longer be effective as of October 1, 2026. To date, DoD has not issued any waivers to the funds limitation, and DoD does not anticipate issuing any waivers on or before October 1, 2026. V. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as amended. VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act DoD does not expect this proposed rule, when finalized, to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the funds limitation affects a very limited number of offerors and, therefore, has a limited impact. However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been performed and is summarized as follows: DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to revise the definition of Confucius Institute and to implement an end date for the associated waiver authority. The DFARS currently requires that none of the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for any fiscal year for DoD may be provided to an institution of higher education that hosts a Confucius Institute. Currently, this prohibition may be waived. The objective of the rule is to implement sections 1044 and 1045 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 (Pub. L. 118-31), which is the legal basis for the rule. Section 1044 amends section 1062(d) of the NDAA for FY 2021 by revising the definition of ``Confucius Institute'' to mean any program that receives funding or support from the Chinese International Education Foundation or the Center for Language Exchange Cooperation of the Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China, or any cultural institute funded by the Government of the People's Republic of China. Section 1045 of the NDAA for FY 2024 amends section 1062(b) of the NDAA for FY 2021 to add a termination date of October 1, 2026, for the authority to issue a waiver. To assess the potential impact, the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) was queried for FY 2021, FY 2022, and FY 2023 for DoD contracts and purchase orders, including those for commercial products and commercial services, awarded to institutions of higher education that meet the definition in 20 U.S.C. 1002. The FPDS data reflect a total of 104 contract awards to 9 unique entities over the entire three fiscal years. All awards were made to other than small entities. Entities in FPDS categorized as higher-level institutions of education are designated only as other than small entities. This rule does not include any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements for small entities, unless they are associated with an institution of higher education that hosts a Confucius Institute. The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. There are no known significant alternative approaches to the rule that would meet the requirements of the statute. DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested [[Page 66341]] parties on the expected impact of this proposed rule on small entities. DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this proposed rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C 610 (DFARS Case 2024-D023), in correspondence. VII. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 209 and 252 Government procurement. Jennifer D. Johnson, Editor/Publisher, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. Therefore, the Defense Acquisition Regulations System proposes to amend 48 CFR parts 209 and 252 as follows: 0 1. The authority citation for part 209 and 252 continues to read as follows: Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1. PART 209--CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS 0 2. Amend section 209.170-1 by revising the definition of ``Confucius Institute'' to read as follows: 209.170-1 Definitions. * * * * * Confucius Institute means-- (1) Any program that receives funding or support from-- (i) The Chinese International Education Foundation; or (ii) The Center for Language Exchange Cooperation of the Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China; or (2) Any cultural institute directly or indirectly funded by the government of the People's Republic of China. * * * * * 0 3. Revise section 209.170-3 to read as follows: 209.170-3 Waiver of restriction. The restriction in 209.170-2 can be waived by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Research and Engineering), without power of delegation, in accordance with the Confucius Institute Waiver Program guidance. The waiver authority terminates on October 1, 2026. Any waiver issued shall not apply on or after that date. See PGI 209.170-3. PART 252--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 0 4. Amend section 252.209-7011-- 0 a. By revising the provision date; 0 b. In paragraph (a) by revising the definition of ``Confucius Institute''; and 0 c. By revising paragraph (b). The revisions read as follows: 252.209-7011 Representation for Restriction on the Use of Certain Institutions of Higher Education. * * * * * Representation for Restriction on the Use of Certain Institutions of Higher Education (Date) (a) * * * Confucius Institute means-- (1) Any program that receives funding or support from-- (i) The Chinese International Education Foundation; or (ii) The Center for Language Exchange Cooperation of the Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China; or (2) Any cultural institute directly or indirectly funded by the government of the People's Republic of China. * * * * * (b) Restriction. As required by section 1062 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Pub. L. 116-283), DoD may not award a contract with any institution of higher education that hosts a Confucius Institute. Section 1062 prohibits DoD from providing funding to any U.S. institution of higher education hosting a Confucius Institute unless that institution receives a waiver from the Department of Defense Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (OUSD(R&E)). The waiver authority terminates on October 1, 2026. Any waiver issued shall not apply on or after that date. See the OUSD(R&E) Confucius Institute Waiver Program Guidance to U.S. Institutions of Higher Education at https://rt.cto.mil/wp-content/uploads/Confucius-Institute-Waiver-Program-Guidance-28Mar2023.pdf. * * * * * [FR Doc. 2024-18111 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6001-FR-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:21.898522

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18308

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66342] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18308] ======================================================================== Notices Federal Register ________________________________________________________________________ This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency statements of organization and functions are examples of documents appearing in this section. ======================================================================== Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 158 / Thursday, August 15, 2024 / Notices [[Page 66342]] DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by September 16, 2024. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. National Agricultural Statistics Service Title: List Sampling Frame Surveys. OMB Control Number: 0535-0140. Summary of Collection: The primary objective of the National Agricultural Statistics Service is to prepare and issue State and national estimates of crop and livestock production, economic statistics, environmental statistics related to agriculture and also to conduct the Census of Agriculture. The List Sampling Frame Surveys are used to develop and maintain a complete list of possible farm and ranch operations. The goal is to produce for each State a relatively complete, current, and unduplicated list of names for statistical sampling for agricultural operation surveys and the Census of Agriculture. Data from these agricultural surveys are used by government agencies and educational institutions in planning, farm policy analysis, and program administration. More importantly, farmers and ranchers use NASS data to help make informed business decisions on what commodities to produce and when is the optimal time to market their products. NASS data is useful to farmers in comparing their farming practices with the economic and environmental data published by NASS. Need and Use of the Information: These data will be collected under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985 as amended, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents. The List Sampling Frame Surveys are used to develop and maintain a complete list of possible farm operations. Data from List Sampling Frame Surveys are used to provide control data for new records on the list sampling frame. This information is utilized to define the size of operation, define sample populations, and establish eligibility for the Census of Agriculture. New names and addresses of potential farms are obtained on a regular basis from growers association, other government agencies and various outside sources. The goal is to produce for each State a relatively complete, current, and unduplicated list of names for statistical sampling for agricultural operation surveys and the Census of Agriculture. This information is used to develop efficient sample designs, which allows NASS the ability to draw reduced sample sizes from the originally large universe populations. Description of Respondents: Farms; Business or other for-profit. Number of Respondents: 481,677. Frequency of Responses: Reporting; Annually. Total Burden Hours: 101,405. Levi S. Harrell, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. 2024-18308 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:22.124311

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18283

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66342-66343] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18283] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-45-2024] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 121, Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Curia New York, Inc.; (Pharmaceutical APIs); Rensselaer, New York Curia Global, Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its subsidiary Curia New York, Inc. and its facility in Rensselaer, New York, within Subzone 121A. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on August 8, 2024. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and specific finished product described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website--accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz. The proposed finished product and material(s)/component(s) would be added to the production authority that the Board previously approved for the operation, as reflected on the Board's website. The proposed finished product is 2,5-dichloro-N-[2- (dimethylphosphoryl)phenyl]pyrimidin-4-amine (duty rate is 6.5%). [[Page 66343]] The proposed foreign-status materials/components include 2- (Dimethylphosphinyl)benzeneamine, N,N-Disopropylethylamine, and 2,4,5- trichloropyrimidine (duty rate ranges from 3.7% to 6.5%). The request indicates that certain materials/components are subject to duties under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41). Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to: [email protected]. The closing period for their receipt is September 24, 2024. A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the ``Online FTZ Information System'' section of the Board's website. For further information, contact Juanita Chen at [email protected]. Dated: August 9, 2024. Elizabeth Whiteman, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-18283 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:22.227879

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18286

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66343-66346] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18286] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-052] Certain Hardwood Plywood Products From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, Preliminary Determination of No Shipments, and Partial Rescission; 2021-2022 AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and/or exporters of certain hardwood plywood products (hardwood plywood) from the People's Republic of China (China) during the period of review (POR) September 26, 2021, through December 31, 2022. Commerce also preliminarily finds that 18 companies had no subject shipments of hardwood plywood and that these companies will be eligible to participate in the certification program previously established with respect to the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain hardwood plywood products from China. Finally, we are also rescinding this review with respect to nine companies. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. DATES: Applicable August 15, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Galantucci, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2923. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 4, 2018, Commerce published in the Federal Register the CVD order on hardwood plywood from China.\1\ On January 3, 2023, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the Order covering entries of hardwood plywood from China from January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022.\2\ On March 14, 2023, based on timely requests for an administrative review, Commerce initiated the administrative review with respect to 32 companies.\3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See Certain Hardwood Plywood Products from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 83 FR 513 (January 4, 2018) (Order). \2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review and Join Annual Inquiry Service List, 88 FR 45 (January 3, 2023). \3\ We note that Commerce listed 40 company names in the initiation notice. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 88 FR 15642 (March 14, 2023) (Initiation Notice); see also Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 88 FR 21609 (April 11, 2023) (containing a correction to add an additional company name). However, in the Circumvention Final Determination, we found that a number of companies were duplicated via minor name variations. See Certain Hardwood Plywood Products from the People's Republic of China: Final Scope Determination and Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 88 FR 46740 (July 20, 2023) (Circumvention Final Determination), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM) at 76; and Memorandum, ``Notice of Intent to Rescind Review, In Part,'' dated July 3, 2024 (Intent to Rescind Memorandum). For further discussion, see Memorandum, ``Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review of Certain Hardwood Plywood Products from the People's Republic of China; 2021-2022,'' dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On July 20, 2023, we published in the Federal Register the Circumvention Final Determination, in which we: (1) determined that certain hardwood plywood exported from Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) and entered into the United States was circumventing the Order and therefore is now covered by the Order; and (2) established a certification program to allow eligible producers and exporters of hardwood plywood exported from Vietnam to certify that entries of hardwood plywood exported from Vietnam are not subject to the Order.\4\ We also indicated that we would: (1) expand the POR for this administrative review to begin on September 26, 2021, in order to capture the first entry suspended as a result of the circumvention determination; and (2) allow interested parties to request reviews of unliquidated/suspended entries of merchandise from Vietnam that entered from September 26, 2021, through December 31, 2021.\5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ See Circumvention Final Determination. \5\ See Circumvention Final Determination IDM at Comment 13. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On August 11, 2023, Commerce notified parties that we received no additional requests for administrative reviews as a result of Commerce's decision to expand the POR,\6\ and on August 28, 2023, Commerce released entry data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to interested parties for comment.\7\ Subsequently, we notified parties of our intent to rescind this administrative review with respect to certain companies subject to this review.\8\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ See Memorandum ``Companies Under Review for the Expanded POR,'' dated August 11, 2023. \7\ See Memorandum, ``CBP Data Release,'' dated August 28, 2023. \8\ See Intent to Rescind Memorandum at Attachment I. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On January 31, 2024, Commerce deferred the deadline for completing the preliminary results of this review until July 30, 2024.\9\ On July 22, 2024, Commerce tolled certain deadlines in this administrative proceeding by seven days.\10\ The deadline for the preliminary results is now August 6, 2024. For details regarding the events that occurred subsequent to the initiation of the review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ See Memorandum, ``Deferral of the Preliminary Results of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews; 2022,'' dated January 31, 2024. \10\ See Memorandum, ``Tolling of Deadlines for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings,'' dated July 22, 2024. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by the scope of this Order is hardwood plywood from China. A complete description of the scope of the Order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Rescission of Administrative Review, in Part Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), when there are no reviewable entries of [[Page 66344]] subject merchandise during the POR subject to the CVD order for which liquidation is suspended, Commerce may rescind an administrative review, in whole or only with respect to a particular exporter or producer.\11\ At the end of the administrative review, any suspended entries are liquidated at the assessment rate computed for the review period.\12\ Therefore, for an administrative review to be conducted, there must be a reviewable, suspended entry to be liquidated at the newly calculated assessment rate. On July 3, 2024, Commerce notified all interested parties of its intent to rescind this review with respect to certain companies because those companies had no reviewable, suspended entries of subject merchandise and invited parties to comment.\13\ We received no comments on our intent to rescind the review with respect to these companies. Accordingly, in the absence of suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR for three companies \14\ for which this review was initiated, we are hereby rescinding this administrative review, in part, with respect to these companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ See, e.g., Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015, 82 FR 14349 (March 20, 2017); see also Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2017, 84 FR 14650 (April 11, 2019). \12\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2). \13\ See Intent to Rescind Memorandum. \14\ The companies are: (1) BAC Son Woods Processing Joint Stock Company; (2) Huong Son Wood Group Co., Ltd.; and (3) Long Phat Construction Investment and Trade Joint Stock Company. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In addition, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. All parties timely withdrew their review requests for: (1) Fulin Wood Import Export Company Limited; (2) Greatwood Joint Stock Company; (3) Greentech Investment Co., Ltd.; (4) Long Dat Import and Export Production Company; (5) Star Light Multimedia Co., Ltd.; and (6) VietBac Plywood LLC. Because the review requests were timely withdrawn, and no other party requested a review of these companies, we are rescinding the review with respect to these six companies (see Appendix II for a list of all companies for which Commerce is rescinding this review). Methodology Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.213. For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. See Appendix III for a complete list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is available at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx. Preliminary Determination of No Shipments In this administrative review, we issued questionnaires to all companies under review to gather information on the quantity and value (Q&V) of their shipments of hardwood plywood to the United States.\15\ We received responses to these questionnaires from 21 companies, all of which reported that their suspended entries consisted exclusively of non-subject merchandise. We issued additional questionnaires to these companies and received complete responses from only 15 of them. We have analyzed the information in these responses and preliminarily find that these 15 companies have provided information to support their claims that the hardwood plywood they exported to the United States was not assembled using any of the Chinese hardwood plywood input scenarios subject to this Order.\16\ We are also preliminarily accepting the claims of three additional companies from which Commerce is awaiting additional information, pending the receipt of the requested information.\17\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ See Commerce's Letter, ``Quantity and Value Questionnaire,'' dated November 20, 2023; see also Memorandum, ``Clarification of Companies Required to Submit Responses to Q&V Questionnaire,'' dated November 28, 2023; and Commerce's Letters, ``Request for Entry Information,'' dated February 5, 2024 (collectively, Q&V Questionnaire). \16\ See Circumvention Final Determination, 88 FR at 46742. \17\ The responses to the questionnaires issued to the following companies are currently due on or after the date of these preliminary results: An An Plywood Joint Stock Company, Greatwood Hung Yen Joint Stock Company, and Thang Long Wood Panel Company (Thang Long). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- We also preliminarily find it appropriate to permit the 15 companies referenced above, as well as Thang Long, to participate in the certification program at the conclusion of this administrative review. The other two companies are currently eligible to participate in this certification program, and we preliminarily find no basis to alter their status.\18\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ See Appendix I for a complete list of companies subject to this review that are preliminarily eligible to certify their entries of hardwood plywood exported from Vietnam. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Use of Adverse Facts Available Groll Ply and Cabinetry Co., Ltd. (Groll Ply), Hoang Lam Plywood Joint Stock Co. (Hoang Lam), Plywood Sunshine Co., Ltd. (Plywood Sunshine), Quang Phat Wood Joint Stock Company (Quang Phat), and Quoc Thai Forestry Import Export Limited Company (Quoc Thai) had entries of plywood during the POR that they claimed were of non-subject merchandise. We required these companies to provide information related to these entries, but they did not respond to these requests for information, and therefore, we are preliminary finding that Groll Ply, Hoang Lam, Plywood Sunshine, Quang Phat, and Quoc Thai failed to support their claims that their entries of plywood during the POR were not of subject merchandise. Pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, Commerce has assigned Groll Ply, Hoang Lam, Plywood Sunshine, Quang Phat, and Quoc Thai a subsidy rate of 100.11 percent based on facts available with adverse inferences (AFA). These five companies ceased participating in this review and did not provide information requested by Commerce; accordingly, we find that necessary information is not available on the record, they failed to provide the requested information in the form and manner requested, and significantly impeded the proceeding, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act. Additionally, we find that Groll Ply, Hoang Lam, Plywood Sunshine, Quang Phat, and Quoc Thai had necessary information in their possession and elected not to submit the information and, thus, that the five companies did not act to the best of their abilities in responding to Commerce's information request by the applicable deadline, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. For additional information regarding this determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Commerce preliminary determines that the following net countervailable subsidy rates exist for the period of [[Page 66345]] September 26, 2021, through December 31, 2022: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subsidy rate Company (percent ad valorem) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Groll Ply and Cabinetry Co., Ltd........................ * 100.11 Plywood Sunshine Co., Ltd............................... * 100.11 Quoc Thai Forestry Import Export Limited Company........ * 100.11 Hoang Lam Plywood Joint Stock Co........................ * 100.11 Quang Phat Wood Joint Stock Company..................... * 100.11 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * This rate is based on AFA. Disclosure Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in preliminary results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of preliminary results in the Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because Commerce is applying AFA to the above companies, there are no additional calculations to disclose. Certification Eligibility Due to their failure to provide necessary information for determining certification eligibility, we preliminarily determine that Groll Ply, Hoang Lam, Plywood Sunshine, Quang Phat, and Quoc Thai remain barred from participating in the certification program in this proceeding. Verification From July 1, through July 10, 2024, we conducted verification of the questionnaire responses of five exporters/producers under review, Arrow Forest International Co., Ltd., Hai Hien Bamboo Wood Joint Stock Company, Lechenwood Viet Nam Company Limited, Long Luu Plywood Production Co., Ltd., and TL Trung Viet Company Limited. We intend to verify the information submitted by the remaining exporters listed in Appendix I after the preliminary results. Public Comment In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c), 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. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline for case briefs.\19\ Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this review are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) a statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.\20\ Further, we request that interested parties limit their public executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the public executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final determination in this investigation. We request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the public executive summary of each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f).\21\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ We use the term ``issue'' here to describe an argument that Commerce would normally address in a comment of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. \21\ See Administrative Protective Order, Service, and Other Procedures in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 88 FR 67069, 67077 (September 29, 2023). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Assessment Rates Upon issuance of the final results of this review, Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. For all entries of merchandise exported by the companies listed in Appendix I, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate the entries without regard to countervailing duties if these preliminary results are unchanged for the final results. For entries of merchandise exported by Groll Ply, Hoang Lam, Plywood Sunshine, Quang Phat, and Quoc Thai, we will instruct CBP to liquidate their entries at the assigned rate of 100.11 percent. 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 Federal Register. If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired (i.e., within 90 days of publication). For the companies (see Appendix II) for which this review is rescinded with these preliminary results, we will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period September 26, 2021, through December 31, 2022, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(l)(i). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP for these companies no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results of this review in the Federal Register. If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired (i.e., within 90 days of publication). Cash Deposit Requirements In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce intends upon publication of the final results, to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of the estimated countervailing duties in the amounts calculated in the final results of this review for the respective companies listed above with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, CBP will continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the all-others rate or the most recent [[Page 66346]] company-specific rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Final Results of Review Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results of review, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Notification to Interested Parties These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(l) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). Dated: August 6, 2024. Scot Fullerton, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. Appendix I Participating Companies Which Reported No POR Shipments of Subject Merchandise 1. An An Plywood Joint Stock Company 2. Arrow Forest International Co., Ltd. 3. Cam Lam Vietnam Joint Stock Company \22\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ We also initiated a review of this company under the minor name variation Camlam Vietnam Joint Stock Company. See Intent to Rescind Memorandum. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Eagle Industries Company Limited 5. Golden Bridge Industries Pte. Ltd. 6. Govina Investment Joint Stock Company 7. Greatriver Wood Co., Ltd.\23\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \23\ We also initiated a review of Cong Ty TNHH Greatriver Wood. We have preliminarily treated these companies as the same entity. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Greatwood Hung Yen Joint Stock Company \24\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \24\ We also initiated a review of this company under its former name Greatwood Company Limited. See Circumvention Final Determination IDM at 76. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. Hai Hien Bamboo Wood Joint Stock Company 10. Her Hui Wood (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. 11. Innovgreen Thanh Hoa Co. Ltd. 12. Lechenwood Vietnam Company Limited \25\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \25\ We also initiated a review of Lechenwood Viet Nam Company Limited. See Intent to Rescind Memorandum. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. Long LUU Plywood Production Co., Ltd. 14. TEKCOM Corporation 15. Thang Long Wood Panel Company Ltd.\26\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \26\ We also initiated a review of this company under the minor name variation Thang Long Wood Panel Company. See Intent to Rescind Memorandum. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16. TL Trung Viet Company Limited 17. Vietnam Zhongjia Wood Co., Ltd 18. Win Faith Trading Limited \27\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \27\ We also initiated a review of this company under the minor name variation Win Faith Trading. See Intent to Rescind Memorandum. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II Companies Rescinded From Review A. Withdrawals of Requests for Review: 1. Fulin Wood Import Export Company Limited 2. Greentech Investment Co., Ltd. 3. Star Light Multimedia Co., Ltd. 4. Long Dat Import and Export Production Company 5. VietBac Plywood LLC 6. Greatwood Joint Stock Company B. No Suspended Entries during the POR 1. BAC Son Woods Processing Joint Stock Company 2. Huong Son Wood Group Co., Ltd. 3. Long Phat Construction Investment and Trade Joint Stock Company Appendix III List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Rescission of Administrative Review, In Part V. Discussion of Methodology VI. Certification Program VII. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2024-18286 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:22.304201

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18285

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66346-66350] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18285] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-051] Certain Hardwood Plywood Products From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Preliminary Determination of No Shipments, and Partial Rescission; 2021-2022 AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily finds that certain hardwood plywood products (hardwood plywood) from the People's Republic of China (China) were sold in the United States at below normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR) September 26, 2021, through December 31, 2022. Commerce also preliminarily finds that 19 companies had no subject shipments of hardwood plywood and that these companies will be eligible to participate in the certification program previously established with respect to the antidumping duty order on certain hardwood plywood products from China. Further, Commerce preliminarily determines that three companies subject to this review are part of the China-wide entity because they had shipments of subject merchandise and did not demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate. Finally, we are rescinding this review with respect to 73 companies. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. DATES: Applicable August 15, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Jennings, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1110. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 4, 2018, Commerce published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on hardwood plywood from China.\1\ On January 3, 2023, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the Order covering entries of hardwood plywood from China from January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022.\2\ On March 14, 2023, based on timely requests for an administrative review, Commerce initiated the administrative review with respect to 98 companies.\3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See Certain Hardwood Plywood Products from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Antidumping Duty Order, 83 FR 504 (January 4, 2018) (Order). \2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review and Join Annual Inquiry Service List, 88 FR 45 (January 3, 2023). \3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 88 FR 15642 (March 14, 2023) (Initiation Notice). Although we initiated this review with respect to 109 individual company names, we previously found that several of these companies were the same entity, while a number of other companies were duplicated via minor name variations. For further discussion, see Memorandum, ``Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Hardwood Plywood Products from the People's Republic of China and Partial Rescission; 2021-2022,'' dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On July 20, 2023, we published in the Federal Register the Circumvention Final Determination, in which we: (1) determined that certain hardwood plywood exported from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) and entered into the United States was circumventing the Order and therefore is now covered by the Order; and (2) established a certification program to allow eligible producers and exporters of hardwood plywood exported from Vietnam to certify that entries of hardwood plywood exported from Vietnam are not subject to the Order.\4\ [[Page 66347]] We also indicated that we would: (1) expand the POR for this administrative review to begin on September 26, 2021, so as to capture the first entry suspended as a result of the circumvention determination; and (2) allow interested parties to request reviews of unliquidated/suspended entries of merchandise from Vietnam that entered from September 26, 2021, through December 31, 2021.\5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ See Certain Hardwood Plywood Products from the People's Republic of China: Final Scope Determination and Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 88 FR 46740 (July 20, 2023) (Circumvention Final Determination), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (IDM). \5\ See Circumvention Final Determination IDM at Comment 13. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On August 11, 2023, Commerce notified parties that we received no additional requests for administrative reviews as a result of Commerce's decision to expand the POR,\6\ and on August 23, 2023, Commerce released entry data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to interested parties for comment.\7\ Subsequently, we notified parties of our intent to rescind this administrative review with respect to 73 of the 98 companies subject to this review because they either had no suspended entries during the POR or had all requests for review withdrawn.\8\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ See Memorandum ``Companies Under Review for the Expanded POR,'' dated August 11, 2023. \7\ See Memorandum, ``CBP Data Release,'' dated August 23, 2023. \8\ See Memorandum, ``Notice of Intent to Rescind Review, In Part,'' dated June 27, 2024 (Intent to Rescind Memorandum) at Attachment III. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On January 31, 2024, Commerce deferred the deadline for completing the preliminary results of this review until July 30, 2024.\9\ On July 22, 2024, Commerce tolled certain deadlines in this administrative proceeding by seven days.\10\ The deadline for the preliminary results is now August 6, 2024. For details regarding the events that occurred subsequent to the initiation of the review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ See Memorandum, ``Deferral of the Preliminary Results of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews; 2022,'' dated January 31, 2024. \10\ See Memorandum, ``Tolling of Deadlines for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings,'' dated July 22, 2024. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by the scope of this Order is hardwood plywood from China. A complete description of the scope of the Order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Rescission of Administrative Review, in Part Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), when there are no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR subject to the antidumping duty order for which liquidation is suspended, Commerce may rescind an administrative review, in whole or only with respect to a particular exporter or producer.\11\ At the end of the administrative review, any suspended entries are liquidated at the assessment rate computed for the review period.\12\ Therefore, for an administrative review to be conducted, there must be a reviewable, suspended entry to be liquidated at the newly calculated assessment rate. On June 27, 2024, Commerce notified all interested parties of its intent to rescind this review with respect to 67 companies because those companies had no reviewable, suspended entries of subject merchandise and invited parties to comment.\13\ We received no comments on our intent to rescind the review with respect to these companies. Accordingly, in the absence of suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR for these 67 companies for which this review was initiated, we are hereby rescinding this administrative review, in part, with respect to these companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ See, e.g., Forged Steel Fittings from Taiwan: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2018-2019, 85 FR 71317, 71318 (November 9, 2020); see also Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Mexico: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017, 83 FR 54084 (October 26, 2018). \12\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). \13\ See Intent to Rescind Memorandum. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In addition, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. All parties timely withdrew their review requests for: (1) Fulin Wood Import Export Company Limited; (2) Greatwood Joint Stock Company; (3) Greentech Investment Co., Ltd.; (4) Long Dat Import and Export Production Company ; (5) Star Light Multimedia Co., Ltd.; and (6) VietBac Plywood LLC. Because the review requests were timely withdrawn, and no other party requested a review of these companies, Commerce is rescinding this review with respect to these six companies (see Appendix II for a list of all companies for which Commerce is rescinding this review). Methodology Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.213. For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. See Appendix III for a complete list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is available at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx. Preliminary Determination of No Shipments In this administrative review, we issued questionnaires to all companies under review to gather information on the quantity and value (Q&V) of their shipments of hardwood plywood to the United States.\14\ We received responses to these questionnaires from 22 companies, all of which reported that their suspended entries consisted exclusively of non-subject merchandise. We issued additional questionnaires to these companies and received complete responses from only 15 of them. We have analyzed the information in these responses and preliminarily find that these 15 companies have provided information to support their claims that the hardwood plywood they exported to the United States are of non-subject plywood. We are also preliminarily accepting the claims of four additional companies from which Commerce is awaiting additional information, pending the receipt of the requested information.\15\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ See Commerce's Letter, ``Quantity and Value Questionnaire,'' dated November 20, 2023; see also Memorandum, ``Clarification of Companies Required to Submit Responses to Q&V Questionnaire,'' dated November 28, 2023; and Commerce's Letters, ``Request for Entry Information,'' dated February 5, 2024 (collectively, Q&V Questionnaire). \15\ The responses to the questionnaires issued to the following companies are currently due on or after the date of these preliminary results: An An Plywood Joint Stock Company, Cosco Star International Co., Ltd., Greatwood Hung Yen Joint Stock Company, and Thang Long Wood Panel Company (Thang Long). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- We also preliminarily find it appropriate to permit the 15 companies noted above, as well as Thang Long, to participate in the certification program [[Page 66348]] at the conclusion of this administrative review. The other three companies are currently eligible to participate in this certification program, and we preliminarily find no basis to alter their status.\16\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\ See Appendix I for a complete list of companies subject to this review that are preliminarily eligible to certify their entries of hardwood plywood exported from Vietnam. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- China-Wide Entity Commerce's policy regarding conditional review of the China-wide entity applies to this administrative review.\17\ Under this policy, the China-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or Commerce self-initiates, a review of the China-wide entity.\18\ Because no party requested a review of the China-wide entity in this review, the China-wide entity is not under review. For additional information, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963 (November 4, 2013). \18\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Separate Rates In this administrative review, three companies under review had suspended entries but failed to provide Separate Rate Applications (SRAs) or separate rate certifications (SRCs)and/or responses to the Q&V Questionnaire. These companies are Hoang Lam Plywood Joint Stock Co. (Hoang Lam), Quang Phat Wood Joint Stock Company (Quang Phat), and Shanghai Luli Trading Co., Ltd. (Shanghai Luli). Commerce noted in its SRA that exporters must respond to Commerce's Q&V questionnaire as well as submit an SRA or SRC in order to receive consideration for separate rate status.\19\ As a result, we consider Hoang Lam, Quang Phat, and Shanghai Luli to be part of the China-wide entity. At the conclusion of the review, we intend to liquidate any suspended entries from these companies at the current rate for the China-wide entity (i.e., 114.72 percent).\20\ For additional information, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ See Commerce's Separate Rate Application at https://access.trade.gov/Resources/nme/nme-sep-rate.html (Commerce's Separate Rate Application), page 3. \20\ See Certain Hardwood Plywood Products from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Decision Not in Harmony with the Final Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation; Notice of Amended Determination pursuant to Court Decision; and Notice of Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order, In Part, 88 FR 77966 (November 14, 2023). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Three additional companies under review (i.e., Groll Ply and Cabinetry Co., Ltd. (Groll Ply), Plywood Sunshine Co., Ltd. (Plywood Sunshine), and Quoc Thai Forestry Import Export Limited Company (Quoc Thai)) had suspended entries of plywood exported from Vietnam and submitted both responses to the Q&V Questionnaire and SRAs. We preliminarily find that these three companies have demonstrated eligibility for separate rates. As noted below, we have assigned Groll Ply, Plywood Sunshine, and Quoc Thai, a dumping margin based on adverse facts available (AFA). Use of Adverse Facts Available Groll Ply, Plywood Sunshine, and Quoc Thai had entries of plywood during the POR that they claimed were of non-subject merchandise. We required these companies to provide information related to these entries, but they did not respond to these requests for information, and therefore, we are preliminary finding that Groll Ply, Plywood Sunshine, and Quoc Thai failed to support their claims that their entries of plywood during the POR were not of subject merchandise.\21\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \21\ See Preliminary Decision Memorandum. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, Commerce has assigned Groll Ply, Plywood Sunshine, and Quoc Thai a dumping margin of 89.10 percent based on AFA, offset by the export subsidies determined in the companion countervailing duty (CVD) administrative review. These three companies ceased participating in this review and did not provide information requested by Commerce; accordingly, we find that necessary information is not available on the record, they failed to provide the requested information in the form and manner requested, and significantly impeded the proceeding, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act. Additionally, we find that Groll Ply, Plywood Sunshine, and Quoc Thai had necessary information in their possession and elected not to submit the information and, thus, the three companies did not act to the best of their abilities in responding to Commerce's information requests by the applicable deadline, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. For additional information regarding this determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Commerce preliminarily determines that the following dumping margins exist for the period of September 26, 2021, through December 31, 2022, for entries of hardwood plywood exported by these companies: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dumping margin Exporter (percent) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Groll Ply and Cabinetry Co., Ltd........................ * 89.10 Plywood Sunshine Co., Ltd............................... * 89.10 Quoc Thai Forestry Import Export Limited Company........ * 89.10 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * This rate was determined wholly under section 776 of the Act, and was offset by the export subsidies calculated in the companion CVD administrative review.\22\ Disclosure --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ See Certain Hardwood Plywood Products from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Decision Not in Harmony with the Final Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation; Notice of Amended Determination pursuant to Court Decision; and Notice of Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order, In Part, 88 FR 77966 (November 14, 2023); see also Memorandum, ``Export Subsidies Rate,'' dated concurrently with this notice. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in preliminary results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of preliminary results in the Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because Commerce is applying AFA to the above companies, there are no calculations to disclose. Certification Eligibility Due to their failure to provide necessary information for determining certification eligibility, we preliminarily determine that Groll Ply, Hoang Lam, Plywood Sunshine, Quang Phat, and Quoc Thai remain barred from participating in the certification program in this proceeding. Verification From July 1 through July 10, 2024, we conducted verification of the questionnaire responses of five exporters/producers under review, Arrow Forest International Co., Ltd., Hai Hien Bamboo Wood Joint Stock Company, Lechenwood Viet Nam Company Limited, Long Luu Plywood Production Co., Ltd., and TL Trung Viet Company Limited. We intend to verify the information submitted by the remaining exporters listed in Appendix I after the preliminary results. Public Comment In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c), case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days [[Page 66349]] after the date on which the last verification report is issued. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline for case briefs.\23\ Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this review are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) a statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \23\ See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.\24\ Further, we request that interested parties limit their public executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the public executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final results in this administrative review. We request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the public executive summary of each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f).\25\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \24\ We use the term ``issue'' here to describe an argument that Commerce would normally address in a comment of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. \25\ See Administrative Protective Order, Service, and Other Procedures in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 88 FR 67069, 67077 (September 29, 2023). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Assessment Rates Upon issuance of the final results of this review, Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.\26\ For all entries of merchandise exported by the companies listed in Appendix I, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate the entries without regard to antidumping duties in these preliminary results are unchanged for the final results. For entries of merchandise exported by Hoang Lam, Quang Phat, and Shanghai Luli, which are part of the China-wide entity, we will instruct CBP to liquidate their entries at the current rate for the China-wide entity (i.e., 114.72 percent). For all suspended entries of merchandise exported by Groll Ply, Plywood Sunshine, and Quoc Thai, we will instruct CBP to liquidate their entries at the assigned rate of 89.10 percent. 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 Federal Register. If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired (i.e., within 90 days of publication). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \26\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the companies (see Appendix II) for which this review is rescinded with these preliminary results, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period September 26, 2021, through December 31, 2022, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(l)(i). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results of this review in the Federal Register. If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired (i.e., within 90 days of publication). Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of subject merchandise, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for Groll Ply, Plywood Sunshine, and Quoc Thai, will be 89.10 percent; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed exporters that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for the China-wide entity (i.e., 114.72 percent); (4) for all non-Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the exporter that supplied that non-Chinese exporter, where available, or the rate for the China-wide entity (i.e., 114.72), if no alternate rate is available. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Final Results of Review Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results of review, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification to Interested Parties These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(l) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). Dated: August 6, 2024. Scot Fullerton, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping duty and Countervailing Operations. Appendix I Participating Companies Which Reported No POR Shipments of Subject Merchandise 1. An An Plywood Joint Stock Company [[Page 66350]] 2. Arrow Forest International Co., Ltd. 3. Cam Lam Vietnam Joint Stock Company \27\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \27\ We also initiated a review of this company under the minor name variation Camlam Vietnam Joint Stock Company. See Intent to Rescind Memorandum. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Cosco Star International Co., Ltd. 5. Eagle Industries Company Limited 6. Golden Bridge Industries Pte. Ltd 7. Govina Investment Joint Stock Company 8. Greatriver Wood Company Limited \28\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \28\ We also initiated a review of this company of Cong Ty TNHH Greatriver Wood. We have preliminarily treated these companies as the same entity. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. Greatwood Hung Yen Joint Stock Company \29\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \29\ We also initiated a review of this company under its former name Greatwood Company Limited. See Circumvention Final Determination IDM at 76. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. Hai Hien Bamboo Wood Joint Stock Company 11. Her Hui Wood (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. 12. Innovgreen Thanh Hoa Co., Ltd. 13. Lechenwood Viet Nam Company Limited \30\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \30\ We also initiated a review of Lechenwood Viet Nam Company Limited. We have preliminarily treated these companies as the same entity. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14. Long Luu Plywood Production Co., Ltd 15. TEKCOM Corporation 16. Thang Long Wood Panel Company Ltd.\31\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \31\ We also initiated a review of this company under the minor name variation Thang Long Wood Panel Company. See Intent to Rescind Memorandum. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17. TL Trung Viet Company Limited 18. VietNam ZhongJia Wood Company Limited. 19. Win Faith Trading Limited \32\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \32\ We also initiated a review of this company under the minor name variation Win Faith Trading. See Intent to Rescind Memorandum. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II Companies Rescinded from Review A. Withdrawals of Requests for Review 1. Fulin Wood Import Export Company Limited 2. Greatwood Joint Stock Company 3. Greentech Investment Co., Ltd. 4. Long Dat Import and Export Production Company 5. Star Light Multimedia Co., Ltd. 6. VietBac Plywood LLC B. No Suspended Entries During the POR 1. Anhui Hoda Wood Co., Ltd. 2. BAC Son Woods Processing Joint Stock Company 3. Bao Yen MDF Joint Stock Company 4. Bergey (Tianjin) International Co., Ltd. 5. BHL Thai Nguyen Corp. 6. BHL Vietnam Investment and Development 7. Celtic Co., Ltd. 8. Chengxinli Wood Co Ltd of Lanshan 9. China Friend Limited 10. China National United Forestry Co. 11. Dong Tam Production Trading Company Limited 12. Dongguan Lingfeng Wood Industry Co. 13. Feixian Wanda Wood Factory 14. Happy Wood Industrial Group Co., Ltd. 15. High Hope Zhongding Corporation 16. Hunan Fuxi International Trade Co., Ltd. 17. Huong Son Wood Group Co., Ltd. 18. Jiangsu High Hope Arser Co. Ltd. 19. Jiaxing Hengtong Wood Co., Ltd. 20. Lianyungang Yuantai International Trade Co., Ltd. 21. Linwood Vietnam Co. Ltd. 22. Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co., Ltd. 23. Linyi City Dongfang Fukai Wood Industry Co., Ltd. 24. Linyi City Dongfang Jinxin Economic & Trade Co., Ltd. 25. Linyi Dongstar Import & Export Co., Ltd. 26. Linyi Evergreen Wood Co., Ltd. 27. Linyi Glary Plywood Co., Ltd. 28. Linyi Highwise International Trade Co., Ltd. 29. Linyi Huasheng Yongbin Wood Co., Ltd. 30. Linyi Jiahe Wood Industry Co., Ltd. 31. Linyi Sanfortune Wood Co., Ltd. 32. Linyi Yachen Wood Co., Ltd. 33. Long Phat Construction Investment and Trade Joint Stock Company 34. Pingyi Jinniu Wood Co., Ltd. 35. Pizhou Dayun Import and Export Trade Co., Ltd. 36. Pizhou Jiangshan Wood Co., Ltd 37. Pizhou Ouyme Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd. 38. Qingdao Top P&Q International Corp. 39. Rongjia Woods Vietnam Company Limited 40. Shandong Dongfang Bayley Wood Company 41. Shandong Fangsi Import and Export Co. 42. Shandong Good Wood Imp and Exp Co. 43. Shandong Jinhua International Trading Co. 44. Shandong Junke Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd. 45. Shandong Wood Home Trading Co., Ltd. 46. Shanghai Brightwood Trading Co., Ltd. 47. Shanghai Futuwood Trading Co., Ltd. 48. Shenzhen Yumei Trading Co., Ltd 49. Shouguang Wanda Wood Co., Ltd. 50. Sumec Huongson Wood Group Co. Ltd. 51. Sumec International Technology Co. 52. Suqian Hopeway International Trade Co., Ltd. 53. Suzhou Oriental Dragon Import and Export Co., Ltd. 54. Tan Tien Co. Ltd. 55. Thanh Hoa Stone Export Company 56. Truong Son North Construction JSC 57. Vietind Co. Ltd. 58. Vietnam Golden Timber Company Limited 59. Xuzhou Emmet Import and Export Trade 60. Xuzhou Jiangheng Wood Products Co., Ltd. 61. Xuzhou Jiangyang Wood Industries Co., Ltd. 62. Xuzhou Shelter Imp & Exp Co., Ltd. 63. Xuzhou Shengping Imp. and Exp. Co., Ltd. 64. Xuzhou Timber International Trade Co., Ltd. 65. Yangzhou Hanov International Co., Ltd. 66. Yishui Win-Win Wood Co., Ltd. 67. Zhejiang Dehua TB Import & Export Co., Ltd. Appendix III List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Rescission of Administrative Review, In Part V. Discussion of Methodology VI. Certification Program VII. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2024-18285 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:22.451175

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18297

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66350-66353] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18297] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-489-829] Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From the Republic of T[uuml]rkiye: Preliminary Results and Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2022-2023 AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily finds that certain producers/exporters of steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) from the Republic of T[uuml]rkiye (T[uuml]rkiye) made sales of subject merchandise in the United States at prices below normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR) July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023. In addition, Commerce is rescinding the review, in part, with respect to three companies which had no entries in the U.S. Customs and Border Production (CBP) data. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. DATES: Applicable August 15, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Benito Ballesteros or Samuel Evans, AD/CVD Operations, Office IX, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4725 or (202) 482-2420, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 14, 2017, Commerce published the antidumping duty order on rebar from T[uuml]rkiye in the Federal Register.\1\ On September 11, 2023, based [[Page 66351]] on timely requests for review, Commerce initiated an administrative review of the Order covering six companies, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).\2\ On March 6, 2024, we extended the deadline for the preliminary results of this administrative review to July 30, 2024.\3\ On July 22, 2024, Commerce tolled certain deadlines in this administrative proceeding by seven days.\4\ The deadline for the preliminary results is now August 6, 2024. For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.\5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of Turkey and Japan: Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Duty Determination for the Republic of Turkey and Antidumping Duty Orders, 82 FR 32532 (July 14, 2017), as amended by Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with the Amended Final Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation; Notice of Amended Final Determination, 87 FR 934 (January 22, 2022) (Order). \2\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 88 FR 62322 (September 11, 2022). \3\ See Memorandum, ``Extension of Deadline for the Preliminary Results of 2022-2023 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,'' dated March 6, 2024. \4\ See Memorandum, ``Tolling of Deadlines for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings,'' dated July 22, 2024. \5\ See Memorandum, ``Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of T[uuml]rkiye; 2022- 2023,'' dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by the Order is rebar from T[uuml]rkiye. For a full description of the scope of the Order, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Methodology Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with sections 751(a) of the Act. We calculated export price and constructed export price in accordance with section 772 of the Act. We calculated NV in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as an appendix to this notice. The Preliminary 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 https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx. Partial Rescission of Administrative Review Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), Commerce will rescind an administrative review when there are no entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended.\6\ Normally, upon completion of an administrative review, the suspended entries are liquidated at the antidumping duty assessment rate calculated for the review period.\7\ Therefore, for an administrative review of a company to be conducted, there must be a suspended entry that Commerce can instruct and CBP to liquidate at the AD assessment rate calculated for the POR.\8\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ See, e.g., Dioctyl Terephthalate from the Republic of Korea: Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review; 2021-2022, 88 FR 24758 (April 24, 2023); see also Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut- to Length Plate from the Federal Republic of Germany: Recission of Antidumping Administrative Review; 2020-2021, 88 FR 4157 (January 24, 2023). \7\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2). \8\ See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On December 21, 2023, we notified parties of our intent to rescind this administrative review, in part, with respect to: (1) Diler D[inodot][scedil] Ticaret A.[Scedil]. (Diler); (2) Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S. (Ekinciler); and (3) Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas) because there were no suspended entries of subject merchandise produced or exported by these companies during the POR, and we invited interested parties to comment.\9\ On January 4, 2024, Ekinciler and Diler commented on the Intent to Rescind Memorandum.\10\ On January 11, 2024, the Rebar Trade Action Coalition, the petitioner in this proceeding, submitted rebuttal comments.\11\ We reviewed these comments and determine that, in the absence of any suspended entries of subject merchandise from Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas during the POR, we are rescinding the administrative review for these companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ See Memorandum, ``Notice of Intent to Rescind Review, In Part,'' dated December 21, 2023 (Intent to Rescind Memorandum). \10\ See Ekinciler's and Diler's Letter, ``Comments on Commerce's Intent to Rescind the Review,'' dated January 4, 2024. \11\ See Petitioner's Letter, ``Rebuttal Comments on Intent to Rescind, In Part,'' dated January 11, 2024. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rate for Company Not Selected for Individual Examination The Act and Commerce's regulations do not address the rate to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely on the basis of facts available. We preliminarily calculated a dumping margin of zero for one of the two mandatory respondents, Icdas Celik Enerju Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S. (Icdas). Therefore, we have preliminarily assigned a dumping margin to Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi Ve Ticaret A.S./Kaptan Metal Dis Ticaret Ve Nakliyat A.S., the company not selected for individual examination in this review, based on the rate calculated for the other mandatory respondent, Colakoglu Metalurji A.S./Colakoglu Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively, Colakoglu). Preliminary Results of Review We preliminarily determine the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Weighted- average Exporter/producer dumping margin (percent) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Colakoglu Metalurji A.S./Colakoglu Dis Ticaret A.S...... 1.05 Icdas Celik Enerju Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S......... 0.00 Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi Ve Ticaret A.S./Kaptan 1.05 Metal Dis Ticaret Ve Nakliyat A.S...................... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Verification On December 20, 2023, the petitioner requested that Commerce conduct verification of the factual information submitted by the respondents in this administrative review.\12\ Accordingly, as provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the [[Page 66352]] information relied upon in determining its final results. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ See Petitioner's Letter, ``Request for Verification,'' dated December 20, 2023. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclosure and Public Comment Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties for these preliminary results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs to Commerce no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this administrative review. 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.\13\ Interested parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this administrative review must submit: (1) a table of contents listing each issue; and (2) a table of authorities.\14\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1); see also Administrative Protective Order, Service, and Other Procedures in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 88 FR 67069, 67077 (September 29, 2023) (APO and Service Final Rule). \14\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 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.\15\ Further, we request that interested parties limit their public executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the public executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final results in this administrative review. We request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the public executive summary of each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f).\16\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ We use the term ``issue'' here to describe an argument that Commerce would normally address in a comment of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. \16\ See APO and Service Final Rule, 88 FR at 67077. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing.\17\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ See 19 CFR 351.310(d). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- All submissions, including case and rebuttal briefs, as well as hearing requests, should be filed via ACCESS.\18\ An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the established deadline. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ See 19 CFR 351.303. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assessment Rates Upon completion of this administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), because both respondents reported the entered value for their U.S. sales, we calculated importer-specific ad valorem antidumping duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c), or an importer-specific rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. Commerce's ``automatic assessment'' practice will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Colakoglu or Icdas for which these companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to an intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. We will instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.\19\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ For a full discussion of this practice, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the companies which were not selected for individual review, we intend to assign an assessment rate based on the review-specific rate, calculated as noted in the ``Rate for Company Not Selected for Individual Examination'' section, above. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.\20\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ See section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Federal Register. If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired (i.e., within 90 days of publication). For those companies for which we are rescinding this administrative review (i.e., Diler, Ekinciler, and Habas), we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(l)(i). Commerce intends to issue these rescission instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the companies listed above will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company- specific rate published for the most recently-completed segment of this proceeding in which the company was reviewed; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently-completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters [[Page 66353]] will continue to be 3.90 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation.\21\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \21\ See Order, 87 FR at 935. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Final Results of Review Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1). Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a 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 POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. Notification to Interested Parties We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4). Dated: August 5, 2024. Scot Fullerton, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Discussion of the Methodology V. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2024-18297 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:22.534141

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18272

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66353-66354] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18272] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [Application No. 19-3A001] Export Trade Certificate of Review ACTION: Notice of application for an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review for National Pecan Shellers Association (NPSA), Application No. 19-3A001. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Secretary of Commerce, through the Office of Trade and Economic Analysis (OTEA) of the International Trade Administration, has received an application for an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review (Certificate). This notice summarizes the proposed application and seeks public comments on whether the Certificate should be issued. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanda Reynolds, Acting Director, OTEA, International Trade Administration, (202) 482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4011-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from State and Federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325. OTEA is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(a), which requires the Secretary of Commerce to publish a summary of the application in the Federal Register, identifying the applicant and each member and summarizing the proposed export conduct. Request for Public Comments Interested parties may submit written comments relevant to the determination whether a Certificate should be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a nonconfidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked as privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be nonconfidential. Written comments should be sent to [email protected]. An original and two (2) copies should also be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice to: Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 21028, Washington, DC 20230. Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as ``Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 19-3A001.'' Summary of the Application Applicant: National Pecan Shellers Association, 4348 Carter Creek Pkwy Ste 101, Bryan, TX 77802. Contact: Catherine Clark, Managing Editor at Texas Pecan Growers Association. Application No.: 19-3A001. Date Deemed Submitted: August 1, 2024. Proposed Amendment: National Pecan Shellers Association seeks to amend its Certificate as follows: 1. Add the following entity as an Exporting Members of the Certificate within the meaning of section 325.2(l) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(l)): Rancho Pecana, El Paso, TX 2. Add the following entity as a Non-exporting Member of the Certificate within the meaning of section 325.2(l) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(l)). This entity is the proposed Independent Third Party. Texas Pecan Growers Association, Bryan, TX (Independent Third Party) 3. Remove the following companies as Members of the Certificate: Exporting Members [cir] Chase Pecan, LP, San Saba, TX [cir] John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc., Elgin, IL [cir] Lamar Pecan Company, Hawkinsville, GA Non-exporting Members [cir] The Kellen Company, Atlanta, GA (Independent Third Party) 4. Change the location of the following Non-exporting Member of the Certificate: Pecan Export Trade Council's location changes from Atlanta, GA to Bryan, TX NPSA's proposed amendment of its Certificate would result in the following Membership list: Exporting Members Arnco, Inc. dba Carter Pecan, Panama City Beach, FL Diamond Foods LLC, Stockton, CA Easterlin Pecan Co, Montezuma, GA HNH Nut Company, Visalia, CA Hudson Pecan Co., Inc., Ocilla, GA Humphrey Pecan LLC, San Antonio, TX La Nogalera USA Inc, El Paso, TX Navarro Pecan Company, Corsicana, TX Pecan Grove Farms, Dallas, TX Pecan Star & Nut Corp, San Antonio, TX [[Page 66354]] Rancho Pecana, El Paso, TX South Georgia Pecan Company, Valdosta, GA Southern Roots Nut Company, LLC, Cruces, NM Non-Exporting Members Pecan Export Trade Council, Bryan, TX Texas Pecan Growers Association, Bryan, TX (Independent Third Party) Dated: August 12, 2024. Amanda Reynolds, Acting Director, Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. [FR Doc. 2024-18272 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:22.682256

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18318

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66354] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18318] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [RTID 0648-XE178] Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of SEDAR 95 Atlantic Migratory Cobia Data Webinar III. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The SEDAR 95 assessment of the Atlantic stock of cobia will consist of a series of data and assessment webinars. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. DATES: The SEDAR 95 Atlantic Migratory Cobia data Webinar III has been scheduled for Friday, September 6, 2024, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., Eastern. The established times may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the assessment process. Such adjustments may result in the meeting being extended from or completed prior to the time established by this notice. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) to request an invitation providing webinar access information. Please request webinar invitations at least 24 hours in advance of each webinar. SEDAR address: 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N Charleston, SC 29405; www.sedarweb.org. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366; email: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 three-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non- governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies. The items of discussion at the SEDAR 95 Atlantic Migratory Cobia Data Webinar III are as follows: Discuss and review available indices of abundance, removals data, and life history information, and provide recommendations for their use in the assessment. 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. Special Accommodations This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council office (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 business days prior to the meeting. Note: The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Dated: August 12, 2024. Rey Israel Marquez, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2024-18318 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:22.882580

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18319

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66354-66355] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18319] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [RTID 0648-XE182] New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public webinar of its Risk Policy Working Group to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate. DATES: This webinar will be held on Friday, September 6, 2024, at 9 a.m. ADDRESSES: Webinar registration URL information: https://nefmc-org.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJEsfu-oqzoqE9P6i8n5mDSANlSR_r81UQ3a. Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cate O'Keefe, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda The Risk Policy Working Group (RPWG) Address Term of Reference (TOR) 2 by continuing to develop a revised Risk Policy concept. The RPWG will review an updated Risk Policy concept document and focus on the [[Page 66355]] implementation. In doing so, the group will consider applying the new approach to catch setting and management of species or stock for illustration purposes. They will also review plans for presenting the Risk Policy Concept to Council Advisory Panel members (TOR 3) prior to the September Council meeting. The RPWG will also discuss the focus of future simulation testing and develop a timeline for implementation after the September Council meeting. Other business will be discussed, if necessary. Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Cate O'Keefe, Executive Director, at (978) 465- 0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Dated: August 12, 2024. Rey Israel Marquez, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2024-18319 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:22.909774

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18251

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66355] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18251] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Science Advisory Board AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC). ACTION: Notice of public meeting. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda for a meeting of the Science Advisory Board (SAB). The members will discuss issues outlined in the section on Matters to be considered. DATES: The meeting is scheduled for September 11, 2024, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). The time and the agenda topics described below are subject to change. For the latest agenda please refer to the SAB website: http://sab.noaa.gov/SABMeetings/. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held virtually. The link for the webinar registration will be posted, when available, on the SAB website: https://sab.noaa.gov/current-meetings/. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Casey Stewart, Executive Director, SSMC3, Room 11360, 1315 East-West Hwy., Silver Spring, MD 20910; Phone Number: 240-381-0833; Email: [email protected]; or visit the SAB website at https://sab.noaa.gov/current-meetings/. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB) was established by a Decision Memorandum dated September 25, 1997, and is the only Federal Advisory Committee with responsibility to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on strategies for research, education, and application of science to operations and information services. SAB activities and advice provide necessary input to ensure that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) science programs are of the highest quality and provide optimal support to resource management. Status: The September 11, 2024, meeting will be open to public participation with a 10-minute public comment period at 3:45 p.m. EST on September 11, 2024. The SAB expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted verbal or written statements. In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of three minutes. Written comments for the September 11, 2024 meeting should be received by the SAB Executive Director's Office ([email protected]) by September 4, 2024 to provide sufficient time for SAB review. Written comments received by the SAB Executive Director after these dates will be distributed to the SAB, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date. Special Accommodations: The meeting is virtual. Requests for special accommodations may be directed to the Executive Director no later than 12 p.m. on September 04, 2024. Matters to be Considered: The meeting on September 11, 2024, will include the following topic(s): (1) the SAB Consent Calendar, and (2) Review of the Cooperative Institute for Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Systems (CIMEAS) report. Meeting materials, including work products, will also be available on the SAB website: https://sab.noaa.gov/current-meetings/current-meeting-documents/. Emily Larkin, Deputy Chief Financial Officer/Administrative Officer, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. 2024-18251 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-KD-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:22.961358

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18317

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66355-66356] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18317] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [RTID 0648-XE188] Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Habitat Committee (HC) will hold an online public meeting. DATES: The online meeting will be held Thursday, September 5, 2024, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., Pacific Daylight Time, and Friday, September 6, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., or until business for the day has been completed. ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held online. Specific meeting information, including a proposed agenda and instructions on how to attend the meeting and system requirements, will be provided in the meeting announcement on the Pacific Council's website (see www.pcouncil.org). You may send an email to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt ([email protected]) or contact him at (503) 820-2412 for technical assistance. Council address: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kerry Griffin, Staff Officer, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2409. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this online meeting is for the HC to consider items on the Pacific Council's September meeting agenda and to prepare supplemental reports as necessary. Topics will include Current [[Page 66356]] Habitat Issues, the Columbia River Dredge Materials Management Program, development of a national fishing effects database, and other topics as necessary. Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document 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. Special Accommodations Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt ([email protected]; (503) 820-2412) at least 10 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Dated: August 12, 2024. Rey Israel Marquez, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2024-18317 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:23.092660

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18315

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66356] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18315] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [RTID 0648-XE171] Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Ecosystem Advisory Subpanel (EAS) is holding an online meeting, which is open to the public. DATES: The online meeting will be held Thursday and Friday, September 5-6, 2024, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Pacific Time, or until business concludes for the day, on each day. ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held online. 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 www.pcouncil.org). You may send an email to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt ([email protected]) or contact him at (503)-820-2412 for technical assistance. Council address: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kit Dahl, Staff Officer, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2422. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this online meeting is for the EAS to discuss and draft reports for items on the September 2024 Pacific Council meeting agenda. The EAS may also discuss other items related to the Council's Fishery Ecosystem Plan. An agenda for the webinar will be posted on the Pacific Council website in advance of the webinar. Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document 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. Special Accommodations Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt ([email protected]; (503)-820-2412) at least 10 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Dated: August 12, 2024. Rey Israel Marquez, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2024-18315 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:23.161366

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18311

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66356-66357] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18311] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force Department of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY: Department of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, Department of the Air Force. ACTION: Notice of Federal advisory committee meeting. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice in accordance with chapter 10 of title 5, United States Code, to announce that the following meeting of the Department of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board will take place. DATES: Closed to the public. 10 September 2024 from 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at The Mark Center, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lt Col Steven Ingraham, (240) 470-4566 (Voice), [email protected] (Email). Mailing address is 1500 West Perimeter Road, Ste. #3300, Joint Base Andrews, MD 20762. Website: https://www.scientificadvisoryboard.af.mil/. The most up-to-date changes to the meeting agenda can be found on the website. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This meeting is being held under the provisions of chapter 10 of title 5, United States Code (as enacted on Dec. 27, 2022, by section 3(a) of Pub. L. 117-286) (formerly the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., Appendix), section 552b of title 5, United States Code (popularly known as the Government in the Sunshine Act), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150. Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of this Department of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board meeting is to provide dedicated time for members to begin collaboration on research and formally commence the Department of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board's FY25 Secretary of the Air Force directed studies. Agenda: [All times are Eastern Time] Tuesday, 10 September 2024: 0830-0900 Opening Remarks and Status Update 0900-0930 FY25 Study Terms of Reference 0930-1030 SAB Secretariat Update/Training 1030-1100 Break 1100-1200 FY25 Study #1 Introduction 1200-1300 Lunch 1300-1400 FY25 Study #2 Introduction 1400-1430 FY25 Study #3 Introduction 1430-1500 Break 1500-1600 FY25 Study #4 Introduction In accordance with section 1009(d) of title 5, United States Code (formerly sec. 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix) and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the Administrative Assistant of the Air Force, in consultation with the Air Force General Counsel, has agreed that the public [[Page 66357]] interest requires this meeting of the United States Department of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board be closed to the public because it will involve discussions involving classified matters covered by section 552b(c)(1) of title 5, United States Code. Written Statements: Any member of the public wishing to provide input to the United States Department of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board should submit a written statement in accordance with 41 CFR 102-3.140(c), section 1009(a)(3) of title 5, United States Code (formerly sec. 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act), and the procedures described in this paragraph. Written statements can be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer at the address detailed above at any time. The Designated Federal Officer will review all submissions with the Department of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Chairperson and ensure they are provided to members of the Department of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. Written statements received after the meeting that is the subject of this notice may not be considered by the Scientific Advisory Board until the next scheduled meeting. Tommy W. Lee, Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. 2024-18311 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3911-44-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:23.200978

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18293

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66357-66360] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18293] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 22-62] Arms Sales Notification AGENCY: Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Arms sales notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil Hedlund at [email protected] or (703) 697-9214. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104- 164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 22- 62, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology. Dated: August 12, 2024. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 6001-FR-P [[Page 66358]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU24.020 BILLING CODE 6001-FR-C Transmittal No. 22-62 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended (i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Australia (ii) Total Estimated Value: Major Defense Equipment *............... $4.76 billion Other................................... $1.59 billion ------------------------------- TOTAL................................. $6.35 billion (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase: Major Defense Equipment (MDE): Twenty-four (24) C-130J-30 Aircraft with Four (4) each Rolls Royce AE- 2100D Turboprop Engines installed Twenty-four (24) Rolls Royce AE-2100D Turboprop Engines with Quick Engine Change Assembly (QECA) and Propellers installed (spares) Sixty (60) Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System (GPS/INS) (EGI) Security Devices, Airborne (48 installed, 12 spares) Thirty-two (32) AN/ALQ-251 Radio Frequency Countermeasure (RFCM) Systems Twenty-seven (27) Guardian Laser Transmitter Assemblies (GLTA) for Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) Systems (24 installed, 3 spares) Sixteen (16) AN/AAQ-24(V)N LAIRCM System Processor Replacements (LSPR) (12 installed, 4 spares) Twenty-four (24) Multifunctional Information Distribution System Joint Tactical Radio System (MIDS JTRS) (installed) Non-MDE: Also included are AN/AAQ-24(V)N LAIRCM Infrared Missile Warning Sensors (MWS), Control Interface Unit Replacements (CIRU), and classified memory card User Data Modules (UDM); KYV-5M communication security modules; AN/ARC-190 High Frequency (HF) radios; AN/ARC-210 radios; AN/ ARN-153 tactical airborne navigation (TACAN) systems; AN/ARN-147 receivers; AN/ARN-149(V) [[Page 66359]] automatic direction finders; AN/APX-119 Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) transponders; AN/AAR-47 missile warning systems; AN/APN-241 Low- Power Color Radars (LPCR); AN/ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispensing Systems (CMDS); AN/ALR-56 Radar Warning Receivers (RWR); AN/PYQ-10 Simple Key Loaders; MX-20HD electro-optical/infrared targeting systems; AN/KIV-77 IFF cryptographic appliques; Advanced Digital Antenna Production (ADAP) system components; integration support and test equipment; aircraft and support equipment; secure communications equipment, precision navigation, and cryptographic devices; classified software delivery and support; spare and repair parts, consumables and accessories; maintenance and maintenance support; classified manuals, publications, and technical documentation; personnel training and training equipment, and U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, studies and surveys; and other related elements of logistical and program support. (iv) Military Department: Air Force (AT-D-SAI) (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: None (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None known at this time. (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: November 2, 2022 * As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act. POLICY JUSTIFICATION Australia--C-130J-30 Aircraft The Government of Australia has requested to buy twenty-four (24) C-130J-30 aircraft with four (4) each Rolls Royce AE-2100D turboprop engines installed; twenty-four (24) Rolls Royce AE-2100D turboprop engines with Quick Engine Change Assembly (QECA) and propellers installed (spares); sixty (60) Embedded Global Positioning System/ Inertial Navigation System (GPS/INS) (EGI) security devices, airborne (48 installed, 12 spares); thirty-two (32) AN/ALQ-251 Radio Frequency Countermeasure (RFCM) systems; twenty-seven (27) Guardian Laser Transmitter Assemblies (GLTA) for Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) systems (24 installed, 3 spares); sixteen (16) AN/AAQ-24(V)N LAIRCM System Processor Replacements (LSPR) (12 installed, 4 spares); and twenty-four (24) Multifunctional Information Distribution System Joint Tactical Radio System (MIDS JTRS) (installed). Also included are AN/AAQ-24(V)N LAIRCM Infrared Missile Warning Sensors (MWS), Control Interface Unit Replacements (CIRU), and classified memory card User Data Modules (UDM); KYV-5M communication security modules; AN/ARC-190 High Frequency (HF) radios; AN/ARC-210 radios; AN/ARN-153 tactical airborne navigation (TACAN) systems; AN/ ARN-147 receivers; AN/ARN-149(V) automatic direction finders; AN/APX- 119 Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) transponders; AN/AAR-47 missile warning systems; AN/APN-241 Low-Power Color Radars (LPCR); AN/ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispensing Systems (CMDS); AN/ALR-56 Radar Warning Receivers (RWR); AN/PYQ-10 Simple Key Loaders; MX-20HD electro-optical/ infrared targeting systems; AN/KIV-77 IFF cryptographic appliques; Advanced Digital Antenna Production (ADAP) system components; integration support and test equipment; aircraft and support equipment; secure communications equipment, precision navigation, and cryptographic devices; classified software delivery and support; spare and repair parts, consumables and accessories; maintenance and maintenance support; classified manuals, publications, and technical documentation; personnel training and training equipment, and U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, studies and surveys; and other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated total cost is $6.35 billion. This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States. Australia is one of our most important allies in the Western Pacific. The strategic location of this political and economic power contributes significantly to ensuring peace and economic stability in the region. It is vital to the U.S. national interest to assist our ally in developing and maintaining a strong and ready self-defense capability. The proposed sale will improve Australia's capability to meet current and future threats by providing the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) with replacements for its aging cargo fleet, guaranteeing a reliable airlift capability, and allowing the RAAF to improve its overall operational capability. Australia will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces. The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region. The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin Corporation, Marietta, GA. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale. Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Australia. There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale. Transmittal No. 22-62 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii (vii) Sensitivity of Technology: 1. The C-130J-30 Super Hercules is a military airlift aircraft that performs primarily the tactical portion of the airlift mission. The aircraft is capable of operating from rough, dirt strips and is the prime transport for air dropping troops and equipment into hostile areas. The C-130J is faster, goes further and holds more compared to legacy platforms, translating to greater power and enhanced capabilities. a. The Rolls Royce AE 2100D3 is a 3,400 kW Turboprop Engine and the primary power plant on the C-130J Hercules military airlift aircraft. It uses dual Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) to control both engine and propeller. b. The C-130J-30 is a stretch version of the C-130J. It adds 15 feet to the fuselage, increasing usable space in the cargo compartment to accommodate two more pallets of equipment. 2. The M-Code capable Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System (GPS/INS) (EGI), with an embedded GPS Precise Positioning Service (PPS) Receiver Application Module-Standard Electronic Module (GRAM-S/M), is a self-contained navigation system that provides acceleration, velocity, position, attitude, platform azimuth, magnetic and true heading, altitude, body angular rates, time tags, and coordinated universal time (UTC) synchronized time. The embedded GRAM-S/M enables access to both the encrypted P(Y) and M-Code signals, providing protection against active spoofing attacks, enhanced military exclusivity, integrity, and anti-jam. 3. The AN/ALQ-251 radio frequency countermeasure (RFCM) system [[Page 66360]] provides superior situational awareness and protection against electronic warfare systems and radar-guided weapons systems in contested and congested electromagnetic spectrum environments. 4. The AN/AAQ-24(V)N LAIRCM system is a self-contained, directed- energy countermeasures system designed to protect aircraft from infrared-guided surface-to-air missiles. The LAIRCM system features digital technology micro-miniature solid-state electronics. The system operates in all conditions, detecting incoming missiles and jamming infrared-seeker equipped missiles with aimed bursts of laser energy. The LAIRCM system consists of multiple Missile Warning Sensors, the Guardian Laser Transmitter Assembly (GLTA), a System Processor Replacement (LSPR), a Control Interface Unit Replacement (CIUR), and a Classified Memory Card User Data Module (UDM). a. The LAIRCM Missile Warning Sensors detect and declare threat missiles. The sensors are mounted on the aircraft exterior to provide omni-directional protection. The sensors detect the rocket plume of missiles and send appropriate data signals to the System Processor Replacement (LSPR) for processing. b. The Guardian Laser Transmitter Assembly (GLTA) is a laser transmitter pointer/tracker subsystem designed to track the inbound threat missile and point the laser jam source at the missile's seeker. The GLTA automatically deploys the countermeasure. c. The LSPR analyzes the data from each Missile Warning Sensor and automatically deploys the appropriate countermeasure via the GLTA. The LSPR contains Built-in-Test (BIT) circuitry. d. The Control Interface Unit Replacement (CIUR) displays the incoming threat for the pilot to take appropriate action. The CIUR also provides operator interface to program the LAIRCM system to initiate built-in-test (BIT), to display system status, and to provide the crew with bearing to threat missile launch. e. The UDM card contains the laser jam codes. It is loaded into the LSPR prior to flight; when not in use, the Classified Memory Card User Data Module is removed from the LSPR and put in secure storage. 5. The Multifunctional Information Distribution System (MIDS) with Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) is an advanced Link-16 command, control, communications, and intelligence (C3I) system incorporating high-capacity, jam-resistant, digital communication links for exchange of near real-time tactical information, including both data and voice, among air, ground, and sea elements. 6. The KYV-5M Communication Security Module enables secure voice for the ANDVT. 7. The AN/ARC-190 is a solid-state, high-frequency (HF) transceiver that provides beyond-line-of-sight communications capability for various military airborne applications. 8. The AN/ARC-210 is a voice communications radio system equipped with HAVE QUICK II, which employs cryptographic technology. Other waveforms may be included as needed. 9. The AN/ARN-153 is an airborne receiver-transmitter component of the Tactical Airborne Navigation (TACAN) avionics system. 10. AN/ARN-147 receivers combine all VHF Omni Ranging/Instrument Landing System (VOR/ILS) functions into one compact, lightweight set. 11. The AN/ARN-149(V) low-frequency, automatic direction-finding system provides automatic pointing to low-frequency and medium- frequency non-directional beacons (NDB), standard broadcast stations, and emergency stations on frequencies of 500 and 2182 kHz. An aural output provides station identification, weather reporting, and AM broadcast audio. 12. The AN/APX-119 is an Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) transponder that provides military aircraft with a secure combat identification capability to help reduce fratricide and enhance battlespace awareness, while providing safe access to civilian airspace. 13. The AN/AAR-47A(V)2 Missile Warning System is a small, lightweight, passive, electro-optic, threat warning device used to detect surface-to-air missiles fired at helicopters and low-flying, fixed-wing aircraft and automatically provide countermeasures, as well as audio and visual-sector warning messages to the aircrew. 14. The AN/APN-241 is a Low-Power Color Radar (LPCR) are radars in the transport class with a high-resolution SAR mapping mode. In addition to meeting needs for precision navigation, this radar enables operators to execute landing missions on unimproved runways without aid from ground-based landing systems. 15. The AN/ALE-47 countermeasures dispensing system (CMDS) is an integrated, threat-adaptive, software programmable dispensing system capable of dispending chaff, flares, and active radio frequency expendables. The AN/ALE-47 uses data received over the aircraft interfaces to assess the threat situation and to determine a response. 16. The AN/ALR-56 is a computer-controlled, advanced radar warning receiver (RWR) designed to provide improved aircrew situational awareness of the radar guided threat environment through improved performance in a dense signal environment and improved detection of modern threats signals. 17. The AN/PYQ-10 Simple Key Loader is a handheld device used for securely receiving, storing, and transferring data between compatible cryptographic and communications equipment. 18. The MX-20HD is a gyro-stabilized, multi-spectral, multi-field- of-view (FOV) Electro-Optical/Infrared (E.O./IR) targeting system. The system provides surveillance laser illumination and laser designation through use of an externally mounted turret sensor unit and internally mounted master control. Sensor video imagery is displayed in the aircraft real time and may be recorded for subsequent ground analysis. 19. The KIV-77 is a cryptographic applique for IFF. It can be loaded with Mode 5 classified elements. 20. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET. 21. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities. 22. A determination has been made that Australia can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification. 23. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to Australia. [FR Doc. 2024-18293 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6001-FR-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:23.352002

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18294

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66360-66362] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18294] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 22-63] Arms Sales Notification AGENCY: Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Arms sales notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 66361]] SUMMARY: The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil Hedlund at [email protected] or (703) 697-9214. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104- 164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 22- 63, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology. Dated: August 12, 2024. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 6001-FR-P [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU24.018 BILLING CODE 6001-FR-C Transmittal No. 22-63 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended (i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Belgium (ii) Total Estimated Value: Major Defense Equipment *............... $358 million Other................................... $ 22 million ------------------------------- TOTAL................................. $380 million (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase: Major Defense Equipment (MDE): Up to one hundred twenty (120) AIM-120C-8 Advanced Medium Range Air-to- Air Missiles (AMRAAM) Ten (10) AMRAAM C-8 Guidance Sections Non-MDE: Also included are spare AIM-120 control sections and containers; AIM-120C Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM); other spare parts, [[Page 66362]] consumables, accessories, and repair/return support; classified software; books, technical documentation, and other publications; training and training equipment; munitions support and support equipment; and other related elements of logistical and program support. (iv) Military Department: Air Force (BE-D-YCG) (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: N/A (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None known at this time (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: November 8, 2022 * As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act. POLICY JUSTIFICATION Belgium--Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles for F-16 and F-35 Programs The Government of Belgium has requested to buy up to one hundred twenty (120) AIM-120C-8 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM); and ten (10) AMRAAM C-8 Guidance Sections. Also included are spare AIM-120 control sections and containers; AIM-120C Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM); other spare parts, consumables, accessories, and repair/return support; classified software; books, technical documentation, and other publications; training and training equipment; munitions support and support equipment; and other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated total cost is $380 million. This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a NATO Ally which is an important force for political stability and economic progress in Europe. The proposed sale will improve Belgium's capability to meet current and future threats by maintaining its F-16 and F-35 fleets in combat- ready status and providing a credible deterrent to regional threats. Belgium will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces. The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region. The principal contractor will be Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, AZ. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale. Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Belgium. There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale. Transmittal No. 22-63 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii (vii) Sensitivity of Technology: 1. The AIM-120C-8 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) is a supersonic, air launched, aerial intercept, guided missile featuring digital technology and micro-miniature solid-state electronics. AMRAAM capabilities include look-down/shoot-down, multiple launches against multiple targets, resistance to electronic countermeasures, and interception of high and low-flying and maneuvering targets. This potential sale will include Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM) as well as AMRAAM guidance section and control section spares. 2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET. 3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities. 4. A determination has been made that Belgium can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification. 5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to Belgium. [FR Doc. 2024-18294 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6001-FR-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:23.473440

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18288

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66362-66364] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18288] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 22-60] Arms Sales Notification AGENCY: Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Arms sales notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil Hedlund at [email protected] or (703) 697-9214. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104- 164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 22- 60, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology. Dated: August 12, 2024. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 6001-FR-P [[Page 66363]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU24.016 BILLING CODE 6001-FR-C Transmittal No. 22-60 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended (i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Lithuania (ii) Total Estimated Value: Major Defense Equipment *................ $440 million Other.................................... $ 55 million ------------------------------ TOTAL.................................. $495 million Funding Source: National Funds and Foreign Military Financing (FMF) (if approved) (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase: Major Defense Equipment (MDE): Eight (8) M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) Launchers Thirty-six (36) M30A2 Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) Alternative Warhead (AW) Missile Pods with Insensitive Munitions Propulsion System (IMPS) Thirty-six (36) M31A2 GMLRS Unitary High Explosive (HE) Missile Pods Thirty-six (36) XM403 Extended Range GMLRS (ER GMLRS) Alternative Warhead (AW) Missile Pods with IMPS Thirty-six (36) XM404 Extended Range GMLRS (ER GMLRS) Unitary Pods with IMPS Eighteen (18) M57 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) Missile Pods Non-MDE: Also included are M28A2 Low Cost Reduced Range Practice Rocket (LCRRPR) pods; International Field Artillery Tactical Data System (IFATDS); battle management system Vehicle Integration Kits; ruggedized laptops; training [[Page 66364]] equipment publications for HIMARS and munitions; and other related elements of program and logistics support. (iv) Military Department: Army (LH-B-UEG) (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: None (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None known at this time (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: November 9, 2022 * As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act. POLICY JUSTIFICATION Lithuania--M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) The Government of Lithuania has requested to buy eight (8) M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) Launchers; thirty-six (36) M30A2 Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) Alternative Warhead (AW) Missile Pods with Insensitive Munitions Propulsion System (IMPS); thirty-six (36) M31A2 GMLRS Unitary High Explosive (HE) Missile Pods; thirty-six (36) XM403 Extended Range GMLRS (ER GMLRS) Alternative Warhead (AW) Missile Pods with IMPS; thirty-six (36) XM404 Extended Range GMLRS (ER GMLRS) Unitary Pods with IMPS; and eighteen (18) M57 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) Missile Pods. Also included are M28A2 Low Cost Reduced Range Practice Rocket (LCRRPR) pods; International Field Artillery Tactical Data System (IFATDS); battle management system Vehicle Integration Kits; ruggedized laptops; training equipment publications for HIMARS and munitions; and other related elements of program and logistics support. The total estimated cost is $495 million. This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the military capability of a NATO Ally that is an important force for ensuring political stability and economic progress within Eastern Europe. The proposed sale will contribute to Lithuania's military goals of updating its capability while further enhancing interoperability with the United States and other allies. Lithuania intends to use these defense articles and services to modernize its armed forces and expand its capability to strengthen its homeland defense and deter regional threats. Lithuania will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces. The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region. The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin, Grand Prairie, TX. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale. Implementation of this proposed sale will require U.S. Government or contractor representatives to travel to Lithuania for program management reviews to support the program. Travel is expected to occur approximately twice per year as needed to support equipment fielding and training. There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale. Transmittal No. 22-60 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended (vii) Sensitivity of Technology 1. The M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) is a C- 130 transportable wheeled launcher mounted on a 5-ton Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles truck chassis. HIMARS is the modern Army-fielded version of the M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) launcher and can fire all the MLRS Family of Munitions/Missiles (FOM) that includes Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS), Extended Range GMLRS, and the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS). Utilizing the FOM, the HIMARS can engage targets between 15 and 300 kilometers with Global Positioning System/Precise Positioning Service (GPS/PPS)-aided precision accuracy. 2. The GMLRS M31A2 Unitary is the Army's primary munition for units fielding the M142 HIMARS and M270Al MLRS Launchers. The M31A2 Unitary is a solid propellant artillery rocket that uses GPS/PPS-aided inertial guidance to accurately and quickly deliver a single high-explosive blast fragmentation warhead to targets at ranges from 15-70 kilometers. The rockets are fired from a launch pod container that also serves as the storage and transportation container for the rockets. Each rocket pod holds six (6) total rockets. 3. The M30A2 GMLRS AW shares a greater than 90% commonality with the M31A1/A2 Unitary. The primary difference between the GMLRS Unitary and GMLRS AW is the replacement of the Unitary high explosive warhead with a 200-pound fragmentation warhead of pre-formed tungsten penetrators which is optimized for effectiveness against a large area and imprecisely located targets. The munitions otherwise share a common motor, GPS/PPS-aided inertial guidance and control system, a multi- option fuzing height of burst capability, and effective range of 15-70 km. 4. The M57 ATACMS Unitary is a conventional, semi-ballistic missile that utilizes a 500-pound high explosive warhead. It has an effective range of between 70 and 300 kilometers and has increased lethality and accuracy over previous versions of the ATACMS due to a GPS/Precise Position System (PPS) aided navigation system. 5. The ER GMLRS missiles provide a persistent, responsive, all- weather, rapidly deployed, long range, surface-to-surface, area- and point-precision strike capability. The XM403 Alternative Warhead (AW), like GMLRS M30A1/A2, carries a 200-pound fragmentation assembly filled with high explosives which, upon detonation, accelerates two layers of preformed penetrators optimized for effectiveness against large area and imprecisely located targets. The XM404 Unitary, like GMLRS M31A1/ A2, has a 200-pound class unitary with a steel blast-fragmentation case, designed for low collateral damage against point targets. Both variants of the ER GMLRS missiles maintain the accuracy and effectiveness demonstrated by the baseline GMLRS out to a maximum range of 150 km (double that of the GMLRS capability). 6. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET. 7. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities. 8. A determination has been made that Lithuania can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification. 9. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Lithuania. [FR Doc. 2024-18288 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6001-FR-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:23.529812

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18280

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66365] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18280] [[Page 66365]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2024-OS-0065] U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Proposed Rules Changes AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Notice of responses to comments received on the proposed Rules of Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This notice contains the responses to comments received on the proposed Rules of Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. Although these rules of practice and procedure fall within the Administrative Procedure Act's exemptions for notice and comment, the Department, as a matter of policy, has decided to make these changes available for public review and comment before they are implemented. DATES: Applicable September 16, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Malcolm H. Squires, Jr., Clerk of the Court, telephone (202) 761-1448. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion of Comments and Changes On June 7, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces published a notice titled U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Proposed Rules Changes in the Federal Register (89 FR 48601). Comments were accepted for 30 days until July 8, 2024. A total of five comments were received. Please see the summarized comments and the Court's responses below. I. Public Comments The publication of this notice finalizes the interim final rules published on June 6. The Court, after circulating the proposed comments amongst its Rules Committee and the five active judges, has decided to adopt some comments in part and reject others. Several comments concerned the reduction in time for amicus to file briefs. The Court has decided to accept these proposals and expand the time to file amicus briefs in support of parties to fourteen days. Similarly, after reviewing the comments, the Court has decided to expand the time to submit a waiver letter under Rule 21 to fourteen days. Another comment was directed at the Court's student practice rule and suggested that the rules account for law students who do not attend an ABA accredited law school. After circulating the comment for review amongst the Rules Committee and the five active judges, the Court has decided not to make any changes to the proposed Rule 13A, as the rules provide that the Court may grant exceptions to any of the rules as is necessary. II. Revisions to the Original Notice The new Rule 21 will read: * * * * * (c) * * * (2) Answer/Reply in Other Appeals. An appellee's answer to the supplement to the petition for grant of review in all other appeal cases may be filed no later than twenty-one days after the filing of such supplement (see Rule 2l(e)). As a discretionary alternative if a formal answer is waived, an appellee may file with the Clerk a short letter, within fourteen days after the filing of the appellant's supplement to the petition, setting forth one of the following alternative positions: (i) that the United States submits a general opposition to the assigned error(s) of law and relies on its brief filed with the Court of Criminal Appeals; or (ii) that the United States does not oppose the granting of the petition (for some specific reason, such as an error involving an unsettled area of the law). An appellant may file a reply no later than seven days after the filing of the appellee' s answer or answer letter. * * * * * Comment: The time to submit a waiver letter was expanded to fourteen days after the filing of the appellant's supplement to the petition. The new Rule 26 will read: * * * * * (d) An amicus curiae brief in support of a party must be filed no later than fourteen days after that party has filed its brief, supplement to the petition for grant of review, petition for extraordinary relief, writ-appeal petition, or answer. If no party is supported, the amicus curiae brief must be filed no later than seven days after the filing of the brief of the appellant/petitioner. In the case of a petition for new trial, the amicus curiae must file its brief no later than fourteen days after the petitioner has filed its brief with the Court. Motions for leave to file an amicus curiae brief under Rule 26(b)(4), together with the proposed brief, must be filed within the time allowed for filing the brief. * * * * * Comment: The time to file amicus curiae brief in support of a party was expanded to fourteen days after the original party has filed its brief. Dated: August 9, 2024. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 2024-18280 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6001-FR-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:23.604756

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18292

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66365-66367] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18292] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 21-35] Arms Sales Notification AGENCY: Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Arms sales notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil Hedlund at [email protected] or (703) 697-9214. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104- 164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 21- 35, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology. Dated: August 12, 2024. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 6001-FR-P [[Page 66366]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU24.017 BILLING CODE 6001-FR-C Transmittal No. 21-35 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as Amended (i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Oman (ii) Total Estimated Value: Major Defense Equipment *............... $185 million Other................................... $200 million ------------------------------- TOTAL................................. $385 million Funding Source: National Funds (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase: Major Defense Equipment (MDE): Forty-eight (48) AGM-154C Joint Stand Off Weapons (JSOW) Non-MDE: Also included are Dummy Air Training Missiles; Captive Flight Vehicles (CFVs) and/or Captive Air Training Missiles (CATMs); Environmental Determination Test Vehicles (EDTVs); Free Flight Vehicles (FFVs); containers; mission planning; integration support and testing; munitions storage security and training; weapon operational flight program software development; transportation; tools and test equipment; support equipment; spare and repair parts; publications and technical documentation; personnel training and training equipment; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. [[Page 66367]] (iv) Military Department: Navy (MU-P-AAF) (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: None (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: November 9, 2022 *As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act. POLICY JUSTIFICATION Oman--Joint Stand Off Weapons (JSOW) The Government of Oman has requested to buy forty-eight (48) AGM- 154C Joint Stand Off Weapons (JSOW). Also included are Dummy Air Training Missiles; Captive Flight Vehicles (CFVs) or Captive Air Training Missiles (CATMs); Environmental Determination Test Vehicles (EDTVs); Free Flight Vehicles (FFVs); containers; mission planning; integration support and testing; munitions storage security and training; weapon operational flight program software development; transportation; tools and test equipment; support equipment; spare and repair parts; publications and technical documentation; personnel training and training equipment; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $385 million. This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country that continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East. The proposed sale would increase the Royal Air Force of Oman's ability to secure Oman's borders, airspace, and territorial waters. This expanded capacity will be a force multiplier and help negate regional security threats. Recent attacks on ships in the Gulf of Oman have increased Oman's need for weapons that enable it to defend its territorial waters and ensure freedom of navigation. Oman will have no difficulty absorbing these articles into its armed forces. The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region. The principal contractor will be Raytheon Missiles and Defense Company, Tucson, AZ. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale. Implementation of this proposed sale will require annual trips to Oman involving U.S. Government and contractor representatives for technical reviews, support, and oversight for approximately seven years. There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale. Transmittal No. 21-35 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii (vii) Sensitivity of Technology: 1. The AGM-154 JSOW is used by Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, and allows aircraft to attack well-defended targets in day, night, and adverse weather conditions. The AGM-154C carries a BROACH warhead. The BROACH warhead incorporates an advanced multistage warhead. The JSOW uses the Global Positioning System (GPS) Precise Positioning System (PPS), which provides for a more accurate capability than the commercial version of GPS. 2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET. 3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities. 4. A determination has been made that Oman can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification. 5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Government of Oman. [FR Doc. 2024-18292 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6001-FR-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:23.631333

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18295

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66367-66369] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18295] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 22-69] Arms Sales Notification AGENCY: Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Arms sales notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil Hedlund at [email protected] or (703) 697-9214. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104- 164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 22- 69, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology. Dated: August 12, 2024. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 6001-FR-P [[Page 66368]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU24.019 BILLING CODE 6001-FR-C Transmittal No. 22-69 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended (i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Switzerland (ii) Total Estimated Value: Major Defense Equipment *............... $600 million Other................................... $100 million ------------------------------- TOTAL................................. $700 million (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase: Major Defense Equipment: Up to seventy-two (72) PATRIOT Advanced Capability (PAC) 3 Missile Segment Enhanced (MSE) Missiles Non-MDE: Also included are telemetry kits; PAC-3 MSE missile round trainers; PAC-3 MSE empty round trainers; PAC-3 missile skid kits; launcher stations heater controls; classified missile repair and return; classified PAC-3 concurrent spare parts; unclassified PAC-3 concurrent spare parts; PAC-3 MSE canister consumables; quality assurance; Field Surveillance Program; U.S. Government and contractor technical, engineering, and logistics technical assistance; flight test support; flight test targets; and other related elements of logistics and program support. (iv) Military Department: Army (SZ-B-UCA) (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: SZ-B-UAS (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: November 15, 2022 * As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act. [[Page 66369]] POLICY JUSTIFICATION Switzerland--PATRIOT Advanced Capability (PAC) 3 Missile Segment Enhanced (MSE) Missiles The Government of Switzerland has requested to buy up to seventy- two (72) PATRIOT Advanced Capability (PAC) 3 Missile Segment Enhanced (MSE) missiles. Also included are telemetry kits; PAC-3 MSE missile round trainers; PAC-3 MSE empty round trainers; PAC-3 missile skid kits; launcher stations heater controls; classified missile repair and return; classified PAC-3 concurrent spare parts; unclassified PAC-3 concurrent spare parts; PAC-3 MSE canister consumables; quality assurance; Field Surveillance Program; U.S. Government and contractor technical, engineering, and logistics technical assistance; flight test support; flight test targets; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The total estimated cost is $700 million. This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly European nation that continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress within Europe. The proposed sale of the PAC-3 MSE missiles will enhance the capability of Switzerland's PATRIOT missile defense system. Switzerland will use the PATRIOT system and missiles to defend its territorial integrity and for regional stability. The proposed sale supports Switzerland's goal of improving national and territorial defense as well as interoperability with U.S. and NATO forces. Switzerland will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces. The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region. The prime contractor will be Lockheed-Martin, Dallas, Texas. The purchaser typically requests offsets. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor. Implementation of this proposed sale will require approximately five (5) U.S. Government and five (5) contractor representatives to travel to Switzerland for an extended period for equipment de- processing/fielding, and technical and logistics support. There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale. Transmittal No. 22-69 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii (vii) Sensitivity of Technology: 1. The PATRIOT Advanced Capability (PAC) 3 Missile Segment Enhanced missile is a small, highly agile, kinetic kill interceptor for defense against tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and air-breathing threats. The MSE variant of the PAC-3 missile represents the next generation in hit-to-kill interceptors and provides expanded battlespace against evolving threats. The PAC-3 MSE improves upon the original PAC-3 capability with a higher performance solid rocket motor, modified lethality enhancer, more responsible control surfaces, upgraded guidance software, and insensitive munitions improvements. 2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET. 3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent systems, which might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities. 4. A determination has been made that Switzerland can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification. 5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Switzerland. [FR Doc. 2024-18295 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6001-FR-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:23.680417

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18275

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66369-66372] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18275] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Applications for New Awards; Strengthening Program Evaluation Capacity: Building Evidence of Effectiveness of Strategies To Increase Postsecondary Student Success AGENCY: Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Education. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2025 for the Strengthening Program Evaluation Capacity grant program. DATES: Application Packages Available: August 29, 2024. Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: November 14, 2024. ADDRESSES: For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2022 (87 FR 75045) and available at www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/07/2022-26554/common-instructions-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant-programs. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Soldner. Telephone: 202-453- 7441. Email: [email protected]. If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description Purpose of Program: In awarding grants under this program, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) intends to build individual and organizational capacity to conduct high-quality evaluations of education interventions that are designed in accordance with evaluation standards identified by IES's What Works Clearinghouse (see https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks). Sponsored by IES's National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), this program supports NCEE's larger mission to encourage the conduct and use of scientifically valid education research and evaluation throughout the United States. Assistance Listing Numbers: 84.429A. OMB Control Number: 4040-0001. Competition in this Notice: NCEE is announcing one competition under its Strengthening Program Evaluation Capacity (SPEC) program: Building Evidence of Effectiveness of Strategies to Increase Postsecondary Student Success (PS) Network (ALN 84.429A). Through this program, IES is seeking evaluation teams to join the new Building Evidence of Effectiveness of Strategies to Increase Postsecondary Student Success (SPEC-PS) Network. Evaluation teams will (1) engage in a series of IES-sponsored technical [[Page 66370]] assistance activities that will strengthen their capacity to design and conduct rigorous evaluations of a proposed postsecondary student success intervention, (2) implement the proposed intervention at more than one institution that participates in programs authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA; 20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), and (3) conduct an independent evaluation of the intervention once implemented that includes an examination of the impact of the intervention on HEA program participants. Evaluation teams must consist of employees at (1) State higher education agencies and/or (2) consortia of 2-year or 4-year institutions of higher education. Interventions proposed to be implemented and evaluated under this grant program must be allowable under one or more programs authorized by the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) and the evaluations must examine the impact of the intervention on HEA program participants. Additional information, including about eligible evaluation teams and interventions, is provided in the request for applications (RFA). Multiple Submissions: You may submit applications to more than one of the FY 2025 research grant programs offered through the Department, including those offered through IES as well as those offered through other offices and programs within the Department. However, you may submit only one application to the IES grant program announced here. If you submit multiple similar applications, IES will determine whether and which applications will be accepted for review and/or will be eligible for funding. In addition, if you submit the same or similar application to IES and to another funding entity within or external to the Department and receive funding for the non-IES application prior to IES scientific peer review of applications, you must withdraw the same or similar application submitted to IES, or IES may otherwise determine you are ineligible to receive an award. If reviews are happening concurrently, IES staff will consult with the other potential funder to determine the degree of overlap and which entity will provide funding if both applications are being considered for funding. Exemption from Proposed Rulemaking: Under section 191 of the Education Sciences Reform Act, 20 U.S.C. 9581, IES is not subject to section 437(d) of the General Education Provisions Act, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d), and is therefore not required to offer interested parties the opportunity to comment on matters relating to grants. Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 9561-9563 et seq.; Sec. 310 of Division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (117 Pub. L. 328). Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in Federal civil rights laws. Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 77, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. In addition, the regulations in 34 CFR part 75 are applicable, except for the provisions in 34 CFR 75.100, 75.101(b), 75.102, 75.103, 75.105, 75.109(a), 75.200, 75.201, 75.209, 75.210, 75.211, 75.217(a)- (c), 75.219, 75.220, 75.221, 75.222, 75.230, 75.250(a), and 75.708. (b) The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. Note: The open licensing requirement in 2 CFR 3474.20 does not apply to these competitions. Note: The Department will implement the provisions in the OMB final rule OMB Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance, which amends 2 CFR parts 25, 170, 175, 176, 180, 182, 183, 184, and 200, on October 1, 2024. Grant applicants should follow the provisions in the OMB Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance (89 FR 30046) when preparing an application. For more information about these updated regulations please visit: www.cfo.gov/resources/uniform-guidance/. II. Award Information Types of Awards: Cooperative agreements. Fiscal Information: This competition will be supported with funds reserved under the authority in sec. 310 of Division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (Pub. L. 117-328) for the purpose of carrying out rigorous and independent evaluations and to collect and analyze outcome data for any program authorized by the HEA. Estimated Range of Awards: Up to $1,000,000 for the entire project period of 3 years. The size of the awards will depend on the scope of the projects proposed. Estimated Number of Awards: The number of awards will depend on the quality of the applications received and the availability of funds. IES may waive any of the following limits on awards in the special case that the peer review process results in a tie between two or more grant applications, making it impossible to adhere to the limits without funding only some of the equally ranked applications. In that case, IES may make a larger number of awards to include all applications of the same rank. We intend to fund up to 3 evaluation teams. However, should funding be available, we may consider making additional awards to high-quality applications that remain unfunded after 3 awards are made. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. Project Period: Up to 3 years. III. Eligibility Information 1. Eligible Applicants: Eligible applicants are State higher education agencies or public or private institutions of higher education, as defined in section 101 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1001). Applicants that are public or private institutions of higher education must lead the activities of a consortium comprised of at least two public or private institutions of higher education, as defined in section 101 of the HEA. 2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: The competition in this notice does not require cost sharing or matching. b. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses an unrestricted indirect cost rate. For more information regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please see www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html. 3. Subgrantees: Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c) a grantee under this competition may award subgrants--to directly carry out project activities described in its application--to the following types of entities: public and private agencies and institutions of higher education. The grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application. IV. Application and Submission Information 1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2022 (87 FR 75045) and available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/07/2022-26554/common-instructions-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant-programs, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application. [[Page 66371]] 2. Other Information: Information regarding program and application requirements for the competition can be found in the currently available IES NCEE Application Submission Guide and in the NCEE Request for Applications (RFA), which will be available on or before August 29, 2024, on the IES website at: https://ies.ed.gov/funding/. The application packages for this competition will also be available on or before August 29, 2024. 3. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements concerning the content of an application are contained in the RFA. The forms that must be submitted are in the application package. 4. Submission Dates and Times: The deadline date for transmittal of applications is November 14, 2024. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirement. 5. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 6. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice. V. Application Review Information 1. Selection Criteria: For all its grant competitions, IES uses selection criteria based on a peer review process that has been approved by the National Board for Education Sciences. The Peer Review Procedures for Grant Applications can be found on the IES website at https://ies.ed.gov/director/sro/peer_review/application_review.asp. For the 84.429A competition, peer reviewers will evaluate the significance of the proposed capacity building, the significance of the proposed intervention, institutional resources, and engagement and dissemination. For all IES competitions, applications must include budgets no higher than the relevant maximum award as set out in the relevant RFA. IES will not make an award exceeding the maximum award amount as set out in the relevant RFA. 2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, IES may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, compliance with the IES policy regarding public access to research, and compliance with grant conditions. IES may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality. In addition, in making a competitive grant award, IES requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23). 3. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.206, before awarding grants under this competition, the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 200.208, IES may impose specific conditions and, under 2 CFR 3474.10, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible. 4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000), under 2 CFR 200.206(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards--that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant--before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS. Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000. 5. In General: In accordance with the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance located at 2 CFR part 200, all applicable Federal laws, and relevant Executive guidance, the Department will review and consider applications for funding pursuant to this notice inviting applications in accordance with: (a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering results based on the program objectives through an objective process of evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205); (b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) (2 CFR 200.216); (c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States (2 CFR 200.322); and (d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340). VI. Award Administration Information 1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We also may notify you informally. If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you. 2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice. We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant. 3. Grant Administration: Applicants should budget for an annual meeting of up to three days for project directors to be held in Washington, DC. 4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b). (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by IES. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides [[Page 66372]] the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by IES under 34 CFR 75.118. IES may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html. 5. Performance Measures: To evaluate the overall success of its education research grant programs, IES annually assesses the percentage of projects that result in peer-reviewed publications and the number of IES-supported interventions with evidence of efficacy in improving learner education outcomes. 6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, IES considers, among other things: whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; whether a grantee is in compliance with the IES policy regarding public access to research; and if IES has established performance measurement requirements, whether the grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the performance targets in the grantee's approved application. In making a continuation award, IES also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23). VII. Other Information Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, as well as in the RFA and application package, individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the RFA in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, compact disc, or other accessible format. Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other Department documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the Adobe website. You may also access Department documents published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department. Matthew Soldner, Acting Director, Institute of Education Sciences. [FR Doc. 2024-18275 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:23.710575

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18271

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66372-66375] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18271] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Applications for New Awards; Special Education Dissertation Research Fellowship Program AGENCY: Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Education. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2025 for the Special Education Dissertation Research Fellowship Program. DATES: Application Package Available: August 29, 2024. Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: November 14, 2024. ADDRESSES: For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2022 (87 FR 75045) and available at www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/07/2022-26554/common-instructions-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant-programs. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Courtney Pollack. Telephone: 202-987- 0999. Email: [email protected]. If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description Purpose of Program: In awarding research training grant programs, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) aims to prepare individuals to conduct rigorous and relevant education and special education research that advances knowledge within the field and addresses issues important to education policymakers and practitioners. Assistance Listing Number: 84.324G. OMB Control Number: 4040-0001. Competition in This Notice: The IES National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) is announcing one competition: Special Education Dissertation Research Fellowship Program (ALN 84.324G). Under the Dissertation program, doctoral students will receive support for conducting their dissertation and participating in related training with guidance from a sponsor at their institution. NCSER will consider only applications that address one or more of the following topics: Education Systems Education Technologies Low-Incidence Disabilities Postsecondary Education Multiple Submissions: You may submit applications to more than one of the FY 2025 research and research training grant programs offered through the Department, including those offered through IES as well as those offered through other offices and programs within the Department. You may submit multiple applications to the grant program announced here as long as they specify different doctoral students and dissertation research. However, you may submit a given application only once for the IES FY 2025 grant competitions, meaning you may not submit the same application or similar applications to multiple grant programs within IES, to multiple topics within a grant competition, or multiple times within the same topic. If you submit multiple similar applications, IES will determine whether and which applications will be accepted for review and/or will be eligible for funding. In addition, if you submit the same or similar application to IES and to another funding entity within or external to the Department and receive funding for the non-IES application prior to IES scientific peer review of applications, you must withdraw the same or similar application submitted to IES, or IES may otherwise determine you are ineligible to receive an award. If reviews are happening concurrently, IES staff will consult with the other potential funder to determine the degree of overlap and which entity will provide funding if both applications are being considered for funding. Exemption from Proposed Rulemaking: Under section 191 of the [[Page 66373]] Education Sciences Reform Act, 20 U.S.C. 9581, IES is not subject to section 437(d) of the General Education Provisions Act, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d), and is therefore not required to offer interested parties the opportunity to comment on matters relating to grants. Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 9501 et seq. Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in Federal civil rights laws. Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 77, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. In addition, the regulations in 34 CFR part 75 are applicable, except for the provisions in 34 CFR 75.100, 75.101(b), 75.102, 75.103, 75.105, 75.109(a), 75.200, 75.201, 75.209, 75.210, 75.211, 75.217(a)- (c), 75.219, 75.220, 75.221, 75.222, 75.230, 75.250(a), and 75.708. (b) The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. Note: The open licensing requirement in 2 CFR 3474.20 does not apply to this competition. Note: The Department will implement the provisions in the OMB final rule OMB Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance, which amends 2 CFR parts 25, 170, 175, 176, 180, 182, 183, 184, and 200, on October 1, 2024. Grant applicants that anticipate a performance period start date on or after October 1, 2024 should follow the provisions in the OMB Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance (89 FR 30046) when preparing an application. For more information about these updated regulations please visit: www.cfo.gov/resources/uniform-guidance/. II. Award Information Type of Awards: Discretionary grants. Fiscal Information: Although Congress has not yet enacted an appropriation for FY 2025, IES is inviting applications for this competition now so that applicants can have adequate time to prepare their applications. The actual level of funding, if any, depends on final congressional action. IES may announce additional competitions later in 2024. Estimated Range of Awards: Up to $50,000 for the entire project period of 1 year. Estimated Number of Awards: The number of awards will depend on the quality of the applications received and the availability of funds. IES may waive any of the following limits on awards in the special case that the peer review process results in a tie between two or more grant applications, making it impossible to adhere to the limits without funding only some of the equally ranked applications. In that case, IES may make a larger number of awards to include all applications of the same rank. IES intends to fund up to eight grants. However, should funding be available, IES may consider making additional awards to high-quality applications that remain unfunded after eight awards are made. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. Project Period: Up to 1 year. III. Eligibility Information 1. Eligible Applicants: Eligible applicants are institutions of higher education in the United States and its territories that confer doctoral degrees. 2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: The competition in this notice does not require cost sharing or matching. b. Indirect Cost Rate Information: Under 34 CFR 75.562(c)(2), indirect cost reimbursement on a training grant is limited to the recipient's actual indirect costs, as determined by its negotiated indirect cost rate agreement, or 8 percent of a modified total direct cost base, whichever amount is less. For more information regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please see www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html. 3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may not award subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities described in its application. IV. Application and Submission Information 1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2022 (87 FR 75045) and available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/07/2022-26554/common-instructions-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant-programs, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application. 2. Other Information: Information regarding program and application requirements can be found in the currently available IES Application Submission Guide and in the Request for Applications (RFA), which will be available on or before August 29, 2024, on the IES website at: https://ies.ed.gov/funding/. The application package will also be available on or before August 29, 2024. 3. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements concerning the content of an application are contained in the RFA. The forms that must be submitted are in the application package. 4. Submission Dates and Times: The deadline date for transmittal of applications is November 14, 2024. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. 5. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 6. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice. V. Application Review Information 1. Selection Criteria: For all of its grant competitions, IES uses selection criteria based on a peer review process that has been approved by the National Board for Education Sciences. The Peer Review Procedures for Grant Applications can be found on the IES website at https://ies.ed.gov/director/sro/application_review.asp. Peer reviewers will be asked to evaluate the significance of the application, quality of the research plan, quality of the career plan, and quality of the management plan. These criteria will be described in greater detail in the RFA. Applications must include budgets no higher than the maximum award as set out in the RFA. IES will not make an award exceeding the maximum award amount as set out in the RFA. 2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, IES may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, compliance with the IES policy regarding public access to research, and compliance with grant conditions. IES may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality. In addition, in making a competitive grant award, IES requires various [[Page 66374]] assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23). 3. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.206, before awarding grants under this competition, the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 200.208, IES may impose specific conditions and, under 2 CFR 3474.10, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible. 4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000), under 2 CFR 200.206(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards--that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant--before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS. Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000. 5. In General: In accordance with the OMB's guidance located at 2 CFR part 200, all applicable Federal laws, and relevant Executive guidance, the Department will review and consider applications for funding pursuant to this notice inviting applications in accordance with: (a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering results based on the program objectives through an objective process of evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205); (b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) (2 CFR 200.216); (c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States (2 CFR 200.322); and (d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340). VI. Award Administration Information 1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We also may notify you informally. If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you. 2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice. We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant. 3. Grant Administration: Applicants should budget for an annual meeting of four days for project directors to be held in Washington, DC. 4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under the competition announced in this notice, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b). (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by IES. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by IES under 34 CFR 75.118. IES may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html. 5. Performance Measures: To evaluate the overall success of its special education research grant programs, IES annually assesses the percentage of projects that result in peer-reviewed publications, the number of newly developed or modified interventions with evidence of promise for improving learner education outcomes, and the number of IES-supported interventions with evidence of efficacy in improving learner education outcomes. School readiness outcomes include pre- reading, reading, pre-writing, early mathematics, early science, and social-emotional skills that prepare young children for school. Developmental outcomes for infants and toddlers (birth to age three) include cognitive, communicative, linguistic, social, emotional, adaptive, functional, or physical development. Student academic outcomes include learning and achievement in academic content areas, such as reading, writing, math, and science, as well as outcomes that reflect students' successful progression through the education system, such as course and grade completion; high school graduation; and postsecondary enrollment, progress, and completion. Social and behavioral competencies include social and emotional skills, attitudes, and behaviors that are important to academic and post-academic success. Functional outcomes include behaviors and skills that learners need to participate in developmentally appropriate routines and activities. Transition outcomes include transition to employment, independent living, and postsecondary education. Employment and earnings outcomes include hours of employment, job stability, and wages and benefits, and may be measured in addition to student academic outcomes. 6. Continuation Awards: There is no option for a continuation award under this competition. VII. Other Information Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, as well as in the RFA and application package, individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the RFA in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, compact disc, or other accessible format. [[Page 66375]] Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other Department documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site. You may also access Department documents published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department. Matthew Soldner, Acting Director, Institute of Education Sciences. [FR Doc. 2024-18271 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:23.775909

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18304

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66375] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18304] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER24-2715-000] Timbermill Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market- Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Timbermill Wind, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 29, 2024. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov). From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field. 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 [email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502- 8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. Dated: August 9, 2024. Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-18304 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:23.822224

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18301

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66375-66377] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18301] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. IC24-23-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725A); Comment Request; Extension AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC-725A (Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System). There are no changes to the information collection. DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due October 15, 2024. ADDRESSES: You may submit copies of your comments (identified by Docket No. IC24-23-000) by one of the following methods: Electronic filing through https://www.ferc.gov, is preferred. Electronic Filing: Documents must be filed in acceptable native applications and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture format. For those unable to file electronically, comments may be filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery: [cir] Mail via U.S. Postal Service Only: Addressed to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. [cir] Hand (Including Courier) Delivery: Deliver to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852. Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: https://www.ferc.gov. For user assistance, contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at (866) 208-3676 (toll-free). Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at https://www.ferc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Reimel may be reached by email at [email protected], telephone at (202) 502-6461. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [[Page 66376]] Title: FERC-725A (Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk- Power System). OMB Control No.: 1902-0244. Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-725A information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements. Abstract: On August 8, 2005, the Electricity Modernization Act of 2005, which is Title XII, Subtitle A, of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), was enacted into law.\1\ EPAct 2005 added a new section 215 to the FPA, which requires a Commission-certified electric reliability organization (ERO) (FERC-725) to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, which are subject to Commission review and approval. Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced by the ERO, subject to Commission oversight or the Commission can independently enforce Reliability Standards (FERC-725A).\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law No 109-58, Title XII, Subtitle A, 119 Stat. 594, 941 (2005), to be codified at 16 U.S.C. 824o. \2\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(3). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On February 3, 2006, the Commission issued Order No. 672, implementing section 215 of the FPA.\3\ Pursuant to Order No. 672, the Commission certified one organization, NERC, as the ERO.\4\ The ERO is required to develop Reliability Standards, which are subject to Commission review and approval. The Reliability Standards will apply to users, owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System, as set forth in each Reliability Standard. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability Organization; Procedures for the Establishment, Approval and Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, 71 FR 8662 (February 17, 2006), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,204 (2006), order on reh'g, Order No. 672-A, 71 FR 19814 (April 18, 2006), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,212 (2006). \4\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ] 61,062 (ERO Certification Order), order on reh'g & compliance, 117 FERC ] 61,126 (ERO Rehearing Order) (2006), order on compliance, 118 FERC ] 61,030 (2007) (January 2007 Compliance Order). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On March 16, 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 693, a Final Rule adding part 40, a new part, to the Commission's regulations. The Final Rule states that this part applies to all users, owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System within the United States (other than Alaska or Hawaii). It also requires that each Reliability Standard identify the subset of users, owners and operators to which that particular Reliability Standard applies. The new regulations also require that each Reliability Standard that is approved by the Commission will be maintained on the ERO's internet website for public inspection. In order for the Commission to perform its oversight function with regard to Reliability Standards that are proposed by the ERO, it is essential that the Commission receives timely information regarding all or potential violations of Reliability Standards. While section 215 of the FPA contemplates the filing of the record of an ERO or Regional Entity enforcement action, FERC needs information regarding violations and potential violations at or near the time of occurrence. Therefore, it will work with the ERO and regional reliability organizations to be able to use electronic filing of information so the Commission receives timely information. The new regulations also require that each Reliability Standard that is approved by the Commission will be maintained on the ERO's internet website for public inspection. In accordance with section 39.5 of the Commission's regulations, the ERO must file each Reliability Standard or a modification to a Reliability Standard with the Commission. The filing is to include a concise statement of the basis and purpose of the proposed Reliability Standard, either a summary of the Reliability development proceedings conducted by the ERO or a summary of the Reliability Standard development proceedings conducted by a Regional Entity together with a summary of the Reliability Standard review proceedings of the ERO and a demonstration that the proposed Reliability Standard is ``just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. The existing burden inventory for the entire FERC-725A collection is estimated at 1,407,238 burden hours (Table 1). FERC-725A contains the information collection requirements for nearly all of the US wide Reliability Standards. The collection started in 2007 when FERC approved 83 Reliability Standards with an estimated 1,252,680 burden hours. Since that time, NERC has revised many of the original standards (as well as proposed new standards) resulting in many incremental additions to the total burden hours. Additionally, over time FAC-003, FAC-008, PER-003; INT-006; INT-009; TOP-001, TOP-002, TOP-003, TOP-010 revisions were captured in 725A collection. In August 2024, the associated manhours and cost for PER-003-2 are being relocated from 725A into 725Y (Table 2). This change will not result in change in the number of respondents in 725A as the same group of responsible entities have other obligation under 725A but the associated cost per entity will decrease slightly overall (Table 3). Estimate of Annual Burden: \5\ The Commission estimates the burden and cost for this information collection as follows. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation of what is included in the information collection burden, refer to 5 CFR part 1320. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IC24-23-000 Renewal of 725A The following table represents the current burden associated with all Mandatory Reliability Standards that fall under FERC-725A. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ This is a list of NERC registered entities who under 725A need to follow the NERC Standards. BA = Balancing Authority (98); DP = Distribution Provider (371); GP = Generator Owner (1,210); Generator Operator (1028); PA/PC Planning Authority/Planning Coordinator (62); RC = Reliability Coordinator (12); RP = Resource Planner (159); RSG = Reserve Sharing Group (8); FRSG = Frequency Response Sharing Group (1); TO = Transmission Owner (324); TOP = Transmission Operator (165); TP = Transmission Provided (203); TSP = Transmission Service Provider (70); for a sum total of (3,711). The same entity may have multiple registration obligation to follow under 725A, so an individual entity's obligation increases based on registration functions. These values were derived from the NERC Compliance data of April 16, 2024, using only unique United States registered entities. \7\ The estimated hourly cost (salary plus benefits) is a combination based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), as of 2024, for 75% of the average of an Electrical Engineer (17-2071) $79.31/hr., 79.31 x .75 = 59.4825 ($59.48-rounded) ($59.48/hour) and 25% of an Information and Record Clerk (43-4199) $44.74/hr., $44.74 x .25% = 11.185 ($11.19 rounded) ($11.19/hour), for a total ($59.48 + $11.19 = $70.67/hour). [[Page 66377]] Original 725A IC24-23-000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number and type of Annual number Total number Average burden & cost Total annual burden Cost per respondents of responses of responses per response \7\ hours & total annual respondent ($) \6\ per respondent cost ($) (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (4)..................... (3) * (4) = (5)........ (5) / (1) (3) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Annual Review of 725A................ 3,711 1 3,711 379.21 hrs., $26,798.77. 1,407,238 hrs., $26,798.77 $99,449,509.46. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total............................ .............. .............. .............. ........................ 1,407,238 hrs. .............. $99,449,509.46. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Original 725 A Moving to FERC-725Y in Docket No. IC24-16-000 Reliability Standard PER-003-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Annual number Average burden & Total annual burden Number and type of of responses Total number cost per response hours & total annual Cost per respondents \8\ per respondent of responses \9\ cost ($) respondent ($) (1)...................... (2) (1) * (2) = (4)................. (3) * (4) = (5)..... (5) / (1) (3) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Annual Review of Credentials..... 12 (RC).................. 1 12 60 hrs., $4,758.60.. 720 hrs., $57,103.20 4,758.60 98 (BA).................. 1 98 60 hrs., $4,758.60.. 5,880 hrs., $4,758.60 $466,342.80. 165 (TOP)................ 1 165 60 hrs., $4,758.60.. 9,900 hrs., $785,169 4,758.60 Record Retention................. (RC, BA, TOP) 275........ 1 275 60 hrs., $2,915.40.. 16,500 hrs., 2,915.40 $801,735. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total........................ ......................... .............. .............. .................... 33,000 hrs., .............. $2,110,350. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Electrical Engineer (Occupation Code: 17-2071): $79.31 (to calculate the reporting requirements). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ For PER-003-2: RC = Reliability Coordinator; BA = Balancing Authority; TOP = Transmission Operator; TO = Transmission Owner; GOP = Generator Operator. The NERC compliance registry table April 16, 2024, was used to perform analysis. \9\ The estimated hourly cost (salary plus benefits) is a combination based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), as of 2024. The estimates for cost per response are loaded hourly wage figure (includes benefits) based on two occupational categories for 2023 found on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm): --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office and Administrative Support (Occupation Code: 43- 0000): $48.59 (to calculate the recordkeeping requirements). Third table to show different from table 1 minus table 2. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of annual Average number of Reliability standard & requirement Number of entities \10\ responses per Total number of responses burden hours per Total burden hours entity response \11\ (1)....................... (2) (1) * (2) = (3)........... (4).................. (3) * (4) = (5) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FERC-725A -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mandatory Reliability Standards 3,711..................... 1 3,711..................... 379.21 hrs., 1,407,238 hrs., for Bulk Power System. $26,798.77. $99,449,509.46. PER-003-2 Net Changes............. 550 (No change)........... 1 550 (No Change)........... -60 hrs., $4,240.20.. -33,000 hrs., $2,332,110.00 (Reduction). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total for FERC-725A........... .......................... .............. .......................... ..................... 1,374,238 hrs., $97,117,399.46. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ This is a list of NERC registered entities who under 725A need to follow the NERC Standards. BA = Balancing Authority (98); DP = Distribution Provider (371); GP = Generator Owner (1,210); Generator Operator (1028); PA/PC Planning Authority/Planning Coordinator (62); RC = Reliability Coordinator (12); RP = Resource Planner (159); RSG = Reserve Sharing Group (8); FRSG = Frequency Response Sharing Group (1); TO = Transmission Owner (324); TOP = Transmission Operator (165); TP = Transmission Provided (203); TSP = Transmission Service Provider (70); for a sum total of (3,711). The same entity may have multiple registration obligation to follow under 725A so an individual entity's obligation increases based on registration functions. These values were derived from the NERC Compliance data of April 16, 2024 using only unique United States registered entities. \11\ The estimated hourly cost (salary plus benefits) is a combination based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), as of 2024, for 75% of the average of an Electrical Engineer (17-2071) $79.31/hr., 79.31 x .75 = 59.4825 ($59.48-rounded) ($59.48/hour) and 25% of an Information and Record Clerk (43-4199) $44.74/hr., $44.74 x .25% = 11.185 ($11.19 rounded) ($11.19/hour), for a total ($59.48 + $11.19 = $70.67/hour). Dated: August 9, 2024. Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-18301 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:23.871600

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18305

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66378] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18305] [[Page 66378]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: Filings Instituting Proceedings Docket Numbers: RP24-964-000. Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. Description: Sec. 4(d) Rate Filing: Termination of Transportation Service Agreement (EWM) to be effective 9/9/2024. Filed Date: 8/8/24. Accession Number: 20240808-5123. Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/24. Docket Numbers: RP24-965-000. Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC. Description: Sec. 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Yankee Gas to Emera Energy eff 8-10-24 to be effective 8/10/2024. Filed Date: 8/9/24. Accession Number: 20240809-5060. Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/24. Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding. The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying the docket number. eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659. 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 [email protected]. Dated: August 9, 2024. Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-18305 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:23.952073

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18303

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66378] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18303] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER24-2725-000] Lone Star Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market- Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Lone Star Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 29, 2024. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov). From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field. 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 [email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502- 8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. Dated: August 9, 2024. Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-18303 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:24.014579

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18300

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66378-66379] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18300] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 15327-001] New England Hydropower Company, LLC; Notice of Surrender of Preliminary Permit Take notice that New England Hydropower Company, LLC, permittee for the proposed Middlebury Falls Project No. 15327, has requested that its preliminary permit be terminated. The permit was issued on July 25, 2024, and [[Page 66379]] would have expired on June 30, 2028.\1\ The project would have been located on Otter Creek in Addison County, Vermont. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ New England Hydropower Company, LLC, 188 FERC ] 61,079 (2024). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The preliminary permit for Project No. 15327 will remain in effect until the close of business, thirty days from the date of this notice. But, if the Commission is closed on this day, then the permit remains in effect until the close of business on the next day in which the Commission is open.\2\ New applications for this site may not be submitted until after the permit surrender is effective. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ 18 CFR 385.2007(a)(2) (2023). Dated: August 9, 2024. Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-18300 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:24.081227

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18307

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66379] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18307] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ID-4169-006] Campbell, David A.; Notice of Filing Take notice that on August 7, 2024, David A. Campbell submitted for filing, application for authority to hold interlocking positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d (b) and section 45.8 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 45.8. 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, 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. 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 Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov). From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field. 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 [email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502- 8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at [email protected]. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 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 [email protected]. Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 28, 2024. Dated: August 8, 2024. Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-18307 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:24.107072

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18306

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66379-66380] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18306] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: Docket Numbers: ER24-2085-000. Applicants: PacifiCorp. Description: Notice of termination of Rate Schedule 595 for PacifiCorp. Filed Date: 5/20/24. Accession Number: 20240520-5230. Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/24. Docket Numbers: ER24-2392-001. Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment of Amended ISA, SA No. 6698; AE2-110 to be effective 8/27/2024. Filed Date: 8/8/24. Accession Number: 20240808-5147. Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/24. Docket Numbers: ER24-2706-000. Applicants: Navajo Tribal Utility Authority. Description: Petition for Limited Waiver of Navajo Tribal Utility Authority. Filed Date: 7/22/24. Accession Number: 20240722-5231. Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/16/24. Docket Numbers: ER24-2725-000. Applicants: Lone Star Solar, LLC. Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Baseline new to be effective 8/9/2024. Filed Date: 8/8/24. Accession Number: 20240808-5145. Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/24. Docket Numbers: ER24-2726-000. Applicants: MS Solar 4, LLC. Description: Request for Limited Waiver of MS Solar 4, LLC. Filed Date: 8/8/24. Accession Number: 20240808-5151. Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/24. Docket Numbers: ER24-2727-000. Applicants: NTUA Generation-Utah, LLC. Description: Tariff Amendment: Notice of Cancellation of Market- Based Rate Tariff to be effective 5/31/2024. Filed Date: 8/9/24. Accession Number: 20240809-5026. Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/24. Docket Numbers: ER24-2728-000. Applicants: PacifiCorp. Description: Sec. 205(d) Rate Filing: Colstrip Trans System LGIA-- Concurrence Glendive Wind (RS No. 332) to be effective 6/18/2024. Filed Date: 8/9/24. Accession Number: 20240809-5031. Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/24. Docket Numbers: ER24-2729-000. Applicants: PacifiCorp. Description: Sec. 205(d) Rate Filing: Colstrip Trans System LGIA-- Concurrence Glendive Wind (RS No. 333) to be effective 6/18/2024. Filed Date: 8/9/24. Accession Number: 20240809-5032. Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/24. Docket Numbers: ER24-2730-000. [[Page 66380]] Applicants: Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative, Inc. Description: Sec. 205(d) Rate Filing: 2024 Abbreviated Rate Change Filing Moon Lake to be effective 8/10/2024. Filed Date: 8/9/24. Accession Number: 20240809-5043. Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/24. Docket Numbers: ER24-2731-000. Applicants: FirstEnergy Pennsylvania Electric Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Description: Sec. 205(d) Rate Filing: FirstEnergy Pennsylvania Electric Company submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: FE PA submits Amended CA, SA No. 6640 to be effective 10/9/2024. Filed Date: 8/9/24. Accession Number: 20240809-5044. Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/24. Docket Numbers: ER24-2732-000. Applicants: Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Transmission, LLC. Description: Sec. 205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Second Amended and Restated Facilities Agreement to be effective 10/9/2024. Filed Date: 8/9/24. Accession Number: 20240809-5056. Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/24. Docket Numbers: ER24-2733-000. Applicants: Union Electric Company. Description: Sec. 205(d) Rate Filing: Monthly System Support Resource Payment for Rush Island Energy Center to be effective 9/1/ 2024. Filed Date: 8/9/24. Accession Number: 20240809-5061. Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/24. Docket Numbers: ER24-2734-000. Applicants: Southern California Edison Company. Description: Sec. 205(d) Rate Filing: 1st Amend LGIA, Tumbleweed ES2-Cancel eTariff Record (TOT778-SA215) to be effective 8/10/2024. Filed Date: 8/9/24. Accession Number: 20240809-5086. Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/24. Docket Numbers: ER24-2735-000. Applicants: Henrietta BESS LLC. Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Shared Facilities Agreement Filing to be effective 8/10/2024. Filed Date: 8/9/24. Accession Number: 20240809-5092. Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/24. Docket Numbers: ER24-2736-000. Applicants: MRP San Joaquin Energy, LLC. Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Shared Facilities Agreement Filing to be effective 8/10/2024. Filed Date: 8/9/24. Accession Number: 20240809-5094. Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/24. Docket Numbers: ER24-2737-000. Applicants: Malaga BESS LLC. Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Shared Facilities Agreement Filing to be effective 8/10/2024. Filed Date: 8/9/24. Accession Number: 20240809-5095. Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/24. Docket Numbers: ER24-2738-000. Applicants: Malaga Power, LLC. Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Shared Facilities Agreement Filing to be effective 8/10/2024. Filed Date: 8/9/24. Accession Number: 20240809-5096. Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/24. Docket Numbers: ER24-2739-000. Applicants: Hanford BESS LLC. Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Shared Facilities Agreement Filing to be effective 8/10/2024. Filed Date: 8/9/24. Accession Number: 20240809-5101. Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/24. Docket Numbers: ER24-2740-000. Applicants: ISO New England Inc., The Connecticut Light and Power Company. Description: Sec. 205(d) Rate Filing: ISO New England Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: ISO-NE/CL&P Unexecuted Original Service Agreement LGIA-ISONE/CLP-24-01 to be effective 8/10/2024. Filed Date: 8/9/24. Accession Number: 20240809-5108. Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/24. Docket Numbers: ER24-2741-000. Applicants: BCD 2024 Fund 2 Lessee, LLC. Description: Tariff Amendment: BCD 2024 Fund 2 Lessee, LLC Notice of Cancellation of MBR Tariff to be effective 8/10/2024. Filed Date: 8/9/24. Accession Number: 20240809-5112. Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/24. Docket Numbers: ER24-2742-000. Applicants: MRP San Joaquin Energy, LLC. Description: Sec. 205(d) Rate Filing: Normal filing COC Hanford Filing to be effective 8/10/2024. Filed Date: 8/9/24. Accession Number: 20240809-5117. Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/24. Docket Numbers: ER24-2743-000. Applicants: Entergy Louisiana, LLC. Description: Sec. 205(d) Rate Filing: Bayou Galion LBA Agreement to be effective 8/13/2024. Filed Date: 8/9/24. Accession Number: 20240809-5137. Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/24. Docket Numbers: ER24-2744-000. Applicants: Entergy Louisiana, LLC. Description: Sec. 205(d) Rate Filing: Sunlight Road LBA Agreement to be effective 9/1/2024. Filed Date: 8/9/24. Accession Number: 20240809-5138. Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/24. Docket Numbers: ER24-2745-000. Applicants: Huck Finn Solar, LLC. Description: Tariff Amendment: 2024-08-09 Huck Finn Solar Notice of Cancellation of MBR Tariff to be effective 12/31/9998. Filed Date: 8/9/24. Accession Number: 20240809-5143. Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/24. The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying the docket number. 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: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659. 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 [email protected]. Dated: August 9, 2024. Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-18306 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:24.173357

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18302

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66381-66382] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18302] [[Page 66381]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC24-20-000] Commission Information Collection Activities FERC-917 and FERC- 918; Consolidated Comment Request; Extension AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE. ACTION: Notice of information collections and request for comments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collections, FERC-917 (Electric Transmission Facilities) and FERC-918 (Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities), both under OMB Control No. 1902-0233. The Commission will submit this request for comment to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. No comments were received on the 60 day notice. DATES: Comments on the collections of information are due September 16, 2024. ADDRESSES: You may submit copies of your comments (identified by Docket No. IC24-20-000 and the specific FERC collection number (FERC-917 and/ or FERC-918) by one of the following methods: Electronic filing through http://www.ferc.gov, is preferred. Electronic Filing: Documents must be filed in acceptable native applications and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture format. For those unable to file electronically, comments may be filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery: [cir] Mail via U.S. Postal Service Only: Addressed to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. [cir] Hand (including courier) delivery: Deliver to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852. Instructions: OMB submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Using the search function under the ``Currently Under Review'' field, select Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; click ``submit,'' and select ``comment'' to the right of the subject collection. FERC submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: https://www.ferc.gov. For user assistance, contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free). Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Reimel may be reached by email at [email protected], telephone at (202) 502-6461. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: FERC-917, Electric Transmission Facilities and FERC-918, Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities. OMB Control No.: 1902-0233. Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-917 and FERC-918 information collection requirements with no changes to the reporting requirements. Type of Respondents: Public utilities transmission providers. Abstract: The information collection requirements in the FERC 917 and 918 include posting requirements in compliance with Federal Power Act sections 206. Furthermore, the requirements for posting are described in the Commission's pro forma Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) that is prescribed by 18 CFR 35.28 to ensure non-discriminatory practices in electric energy systems and markets. Additionally, the specifications to posting information and standards that must be followed are outlined in 18 CFR part 37 (Open Access Same Time Information System (OASIS)) and part 38 (Standards for Public Utility Business Operations and Communications) of the Commission's regulations. The FERC 917 and 918 information collections specifically contain the burden related to gathering and posting information (on OASIS) as specified in the OATT \1\ and the burden related to complying with standards that are described by the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB).\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The requirements for OASIS were established in FERC order 888 and 889. Later, in FERC Order 1000-A, the FERC Information Collection under OMB control no. 1902-0233 was created. \2\ 18 CFR part 38 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This notice and information collection request pertains to the extension of the existing requirements with no change to the reporting requirements.\3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ There is a separate docket no. (RM21-17) that is revising the OATT at this time. To reduce confusion between the revision and the extension, the Commission is issuing this notice for the extension to requirements that are not being revised in the separate rulemaking effort. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Estimate of Annual Burden: \4\ The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection to remain consistent with the previous estimate. However, the Commission has updated the number of respondents with a more current estimate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation of what is included in the information collection burden, refer to 5 CFR part 1320. FERC-917 (Electric Transmission Facilities) and FERC-918 (Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Annual number Average annual burden Total average annual Average annual Number of of responses Annual number hrs. & cost \5\ per burden hours & total cost per respondents per respondent of responses response ($) annual cost \5\ ($) respondent ($) (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (4)..................... (3) * (4) = ( 5)....... (5) / (1) = (3) (6) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FERC-917 & FERC-918 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Non-Discriminatory Open Access 162 1 162 566 hrs.; $56,600....... 91,692 hrs.; $9,169,200 $56,600 Transmission Tariff (reporting). Open Access Transmission Tariff 162 1 162 10 hrs.; $1,000......... 1,620 hrs.; $162,000... 1,000 (record keeping). [[Page 66382]] Information to be posted on the OASIS 162 1 162 376 hrs.; $37,600....... 60,912 hrs.; $6,091,200 37,600 and Auditing Transmission service (reporting). Information to be posted on the OASIS 162 1 162 45 hrs.; $4,500......... 7,290 hrs.; $729,000... 4,500 and Auditing Transmission service (record keeping). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total............................ .............. .............. .............. ........................ 161,514 hrs.; .............. $16,151,400. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collections of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost of the collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ The Commission staff estimates that the average respondent for this collection is similarly situated to the Commission, in terms of salary plus benefits. Based on FERC's 2024 annual average of $207,786 (for salary plus benefits), the average hourly cost is $100/hour. Dated: August 9, 2024. Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-18302 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:24.423022

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18247

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66382-66384] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18247] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0415; FRL-12116-01-OAR] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Implementation of the 8-Hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone (Renewal) AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), Implementation of the 8-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone (Renewal) (EPA ICR Number: 2347.05, OMB Control Number: 2060-0695) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Before doing so, the EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described later. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through January 31, 2025. This document allows 60 days for public comments. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 15, 2024. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ- OAR-2020-0415, to EPA online using https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method) or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Francis Oggeri, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, C504-05, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-3255; email address: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through January 31, 2025. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and a person is not required to respond to it unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. This document 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 https://www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is (202) 566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets. Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate forms of information technology. The EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, the EPA will issue another Federal Register document to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. Abstract: The original ozone ICR No. 2347.01 that applied to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS was issued after the ozone NAAQS was revised in 2012. The original ICR was renewed as No. [[Page 66383]] 2347.02 for the period February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2018. The ICR No. 2347.02 was renewed in ICR No. 2347.03 for the period February 1, 2018, through January 31, 2021. The ICR No. 2347.03 was renewed in ICR No. 2347.04 for the period February 1, 2021, through January 31, 2025. The ICR No. 2347.01, 2347.02, and 2347.03 renewals applied to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS before the ozone NAAQS was revised in 2015. The ICR renewal currently approved by OMB, ICR No. 2347.04, added the burden of implementing the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS and continued implementation of the 2008 and 1997 8-hour NAAQS requirements. This proposed ICR renewal continues to address all applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP) requirements for the remaining 2015 and 2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment areas. This ICR will be effective from February 1, 2025, through January 31, 2028. States with nonattainment areas for the 2008 and 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are implementing the NAAQS under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA-issued implementation regulations issued for that NAAQS. The state activities include, but are not limited to, developing and submitting attainment demonstrations, reasonable further progress (RFP) plans, reasonably available control technology (RACT) determinations, and maintenance plans. This proposed ICR renewal estimates the burden for states to meet the ongoing planning requirements that apply to their remaining nonattainment areas for the 2008 and 2015 NAAQS for the period covering February 1, 2025, to January 31, 2028. These requirements primarily result from 2015 ozone Moderate nonattainment areas that may fail to attain the NAAQS by their attainment date during this period and are reclassified to Serious with SIP revisions required from the states. In addition, this ICR renewal includes burden estimates for state and EPA activities related to redesignation requests for the 2018 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, and second maintenance plans for the 2008 NAAQS. The burden estimates for states in this ICR renewal include the states burden to develop and submit attainment plans to meet the requirements prescribed in CAA sections 110 and part D, subparts 1 and 2 of Title I as interpreted by EPA's ozone NAAQS SIP requirements rules. An ozone NAAQS attainment plan contains state rules and other measures designed to improve air quality and achieve the NAAQS by the deadlines established under the CAA. It also must address several additional CAA requirements related to demonstrating timely attainment and contain contingency measures if the nonattainment area does not achieve reasonable further progress throughout the attainment period or if the area does not attain the NAAQS by its attainment date. The burden estimate for states for the 2008 NAAQS accounts for 25 nonattainment areas. Six former nonattainment areas, also referred to as maintenance areas, have second maintenance plans due during the ICR period, and 19 nonattainment areas are eligible for redesignation to attainment based on 2021-2023 air quality data. Because some nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone standards comprise portions of two or more states, the 25 nonattainment areas result in up to 32 total responses from states. The burden estimate for the 2015 NAAQS accounts for 28 nonattainment areas with SIP revisions expected to be due from their respective states. Because some nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone standards are comprised of portions of two or more states, the 28 nonattainment areas result in up to 38 total responses from states. Out of these 28 nonattainment areas, 6 nonattainment areas are eligible for redesignation to attainment, 19 nonattainment areas are currently classified as Moderate that could be reclassified to Serious, and 3 areas received voluntary reclassifications from Moderate to Serious that will have SIP revisions due during the ICR renewal period covering February 1, 2025, to January 31, 2028. The nonattainment areas currently classified as Moderate that could be reclassified to Serious will be subject to additional attainment planning requirements if the areas fail to attain the NAAQS by the August 3, 2024, attainment date. Such Serious area SIPs will be due within about 12 months from the date of reclassification, which would be during the reporting period for this ICR. This ICR estimates that the states' average yearly burden is 63,000 hours, with a 3-year burden of 189,000 hours and estimated costs of $15,615,887 for the 3-year burden. The burden estimates for the EPA included in this ICR renewal include the EPA burden to review and to approve or disapprove the four primary requirements that apply to states with nonattainment areas for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS and 2015 Ozone NAAQS: the attainment demonstration, the RFP SIP submission, the RACT SIP submission, and a maintenance plan. Additional obligations are the second maintenance plan SIP revisions for a few areas subject to ongoing requirements to implement the 2008 Ozone NAAQS and the burden of developing the required SIP revisions for the two tribal areas that are eligible for reclassification to attainment. Tribes may develop or submit attainment plans but are not required to do so. This ICR estimates the EPA's estimated average burden is 7,663 hours annually, with a 3-year burden of 22,990 hours and estimated costs of $1,899,520 for the 3-year burden. Form numbers: None. Respondents/affected entities: State and Local government. Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory. Estimated number of respondents: 70 (total). Frequency of response: Once per triggering event, e.g., an air agency is required to revise and submit a SIP revision when an area under its jurisdiction is initially designated nonattainment or reclassified to a higher classification. For areas that are redesignated to attainment, an air agency is also required to submit an initial 10-year maintenance plan, and eight years later a second 10- year maintenance plan. Total estimated burden: 63,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b). Total estimated cost: $5,205,295.62 (per year), which includes $0 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs. Changes in the estimates: There is a decrease in the annual state's burden of $56,133 hours below the 119,133 hours estimated from the previous ICR. The EPA estimates the total burden for state respondents to be 189,000 hours over the next 3 years compared to 357,399 hours for state respondents during the period of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS ICR currently approved by OMB (EPA ICR No. 2347.04). This decrease is generally due to fewer ozone program requirements coming due during the next 3 years compared to the previous ICR. There are both fewer active ozone nonattainment areas to trigger applicable requirements, and the incremental burden of triggered SIP revisions is expected to be lower than the overall SIP burden associated with areas when they are initially designated nonattainment. The previous ICR accounted for 96 respondents compared to 70 respondents for this renewal period. For the previous ICR, the majority of the burden hours and cost came from the foundational set of SIP requirements due for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS for all 52 areas initially [[Page 66384]] designated in 2018 as nonattainment. Additionally, the previous ICR accounted for the reclassification of 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment areas from Serious to Severe, in addition to second maintenance plan development for the 2008 and 1997 ozone NAAQS. In comparison, this ICR renewal burden hours and costs are accounting for the fewer incremental SIP requirements for the 2015 8-hour NAAQS for reclassification of nonattainment areas from Moderate to Serious (19 nonattainment areas), and second 10-year maintenance plans coming due only for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The burden estimate is detailed in the supporting statement located in the docket for this proposed ICR. The adjustments to the cost assumptions are summarized in sections 6(b) and 6(c) of the supporting statement. Cost estimates for the ICR renewal are based on estimates calculated using 2024 dollars. Scott Mathias, Director, Air Quality Planning and Standards. [FR Doc. 2024-18247 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:24.491438

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18179

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66384-66385] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18179] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0519, OMB 3060-1292; FR ID 238478] Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to Office of Management and Budget AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might ``further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.'' DATES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before September 16, 2024. ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function. Your comment must be submitted into www.reginfo.gov per the above instructions for it to be considered. In addition to submitting in www.reginfo.gov also send a copy of your comment on the proposed information collection to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to [email protected] and to [email protected]. Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418- 2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) go to the web page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the web page called ``Currently Under Review,'' (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the ``Select Agency'' box below the ``Currently Under Review'' heading, (4) select ``Federal Communications Commission'' from the list of agencies presented in the ``Select Agency'' box, (5) click the ``Submit'' button to the right of the ``Select Agency'' box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the Title of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501- 3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might ``further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.'' OMB Control Number: 3060-0519. Title: Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278. Form Number: N/A. Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection. Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Individuals or households; Not-for-profit institutions. Number of Respondents and Responses: 171,026 respondents; 193,328,796 responses. Estimated Time per Response: .004 hours (15 seconds) to 8 hours. Frequency of Response: Annual, monthly, on occasion and one-time reporting requirements; Recordkeeping requirement; Third party disclosure requirement. Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for the information collection requirements are found in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), Public Law 102-243, December 20, 1991, 105 Stat. 2394, which added section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934, [47 U.S.C. 227] Restrictions on the Use of Telephone Equipment. Total Annual Burden: 3,535,421 hours. Total Annual Cost: $1,357,200. Needs and Uses: The reporting requirements included under this OMB Control Number 3060-0519 enable the Commission to gather information regarding violations of section 227 of the Communications Act, the Do- Not-Call Implementation Act (Do-Not-Call Act), and the Commission's implementing rules. If the information collection was not conducted, the Commission would be unable to track and enforce violations of section 227 of the Communications Act, the Do-Not-Call Act, or the Commission's implementing rules. The Commission's implementing rules provide consumers with several options for avoiding most unwanted telephone solicitations. The national do-not-call registry supplements the company-specific do-not-call rules for those consumers who [[Page 66385]] wish to continue requesting that particular companies not call them. Any company that is asked by a consumer, including an existing customer, not to call again must honor that request for five (5) years. A provision of the Commission's rules, however, allows consumers to give specific companies permission to call them through an express written agreement. Nonprofit organizations, companies with whom consumers have an established business relationship, and calls to persons with whom the telemarketer has a personal relationship are exempt from the ``do-not-call'' registry requirements. On September 21, 2004, the Commission released the Safe Harbor Order, published at 69 FR 60311, October 8, 2004, establishing a limited safe harbor in which persons will not be liable for placing autodialed and prerecorded message calls to numbers ported from a wireline service within the previous 15 days. The Commission also amended its existing National Do-Not-Call Registry safe harbor to require telemarketers to scrub their lists against the Registry every 31 days. On December 4, 2007, the Commission released the DNC NPRM, published at 72 FR 71099, December 14, 2007, seeking comment on its tentative conclusion that registrations with the Registry should be honored indefinitely, unless a number is disconnected or reassigned or the consumer cancels his registration. On June 17, 2008, in accordance with the Do-Not-Call Improvement Act of 2007, the Commission revised its rules to minimize the inconvenience to consumers of having to re-register their preferences not to receive telemarketing calls and to further the underlying goal of the National Do-Not-Call Registry to protect consumer privacy rights. The Commission released a Report and Order in CG Docket No. 02- 278, FCC 08-147, published at 73 FR 40183, July 14, 2008, amending the Commission's rules under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) to require sellers and/or telemarketers to honor registrations with the National Do-Not-Call Registry so that registrations will not automatically expire based on the current five-year registration period. Specifically, the Commission modified Sec. 64.1200(c)(2) of its rules to require sellers and/or telemarketers to honor numbers registered on the Registry indefinitely or until the number is removed by the database administrator or the registration is cancelled by the consumer. On February 15, 2012, the Commission released a Report and Order in CG Docket No. 02-278, FCC 12-21, originally published at 77 FR 34233, June 11, 2012, and later corrected at 77 FR 66935, November 8, 2012, revising its rules to: (1) require prior express written consent for all autodialed or prerecorded telemarketing calls to wireless numbers and for all prerecorded telemarketing calls to residential lines; (2) eliminate the established business relationship exception to the consent requirement for prerecorded telemarketing calls to residential lines; (3) require telemarketers to include an automated, interactive opt-out mechanism in all prerecorded telemarketing calls, to allow consumers more easily to opt out of future robocalls during a robocall itself; and (4) require telemarketers to comply with the 3% limit on abandoned calls during each calling campaign, in order to discourage intrusive calling campaigns. Finally, the Commission also exempted from the Telephone Consumer Protection Act requirements prerecorded calls to residential lines made by health care-related entities governed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. OMB Control Number: 3060-1292. Title: Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Fourth Report and Order, CG Docket No. 17-59, FCC 20-187. Form Number: N/A. Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection. Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities. Number of Respondents: 6,493 respondents; 575,941 responses. Estimated Time per Response: .25 to 40 hours. Frequency of Response: On-occasion reporting requirement. Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for these collections are contained in sections 4(i), 201, 202, 217, 227, 227b, 251(e), 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 201, 202, 217, 227, 227b, 251(e), 303(r), 403. Total Annual Burden: 173,440 hours. Total Annual Cost: No cost. Needs and Uses: On December 29, 2020, the Commission adopted Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls Fourth Report and Order (``Call Blocking Fourth Report and Order''). Unwanted and illegal robocalls have long been the Federal Communication Commission's (``Commission'') top source of consumer complaints and one of the Commission's top consumer protection priorities. In 2019, Congress passed the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED) Act. In addition to directing the Commission to mandate adoption of caller ID authentication technology and encourage voice service providers to block calls by establishing safe harbors, the TRACED Act directs the Commission to ensure that both consumers and callers are provided with transparency and effective redress when calls are blocked in error. In the Call Blocking Fourth Report and Order, the Commission took several steps to better protect consumers from unwanted and illegal robocalls, and implement the TRACED Act. The Commission expanded the existing safe harbor for blocking of calls, established affirmative requirements to ensure that voice service providers better police their networks against illegal calls, and adopted several transparency and redress requirements to ensure that erroneous blocking can be quickly identified and remedied. 47 CFR 64.1200(k)(1), originally adopted in the Call Blocking Fourth Report and Order requires any terminating voice service provider that blocks calls on an opt-in or opt-out basis to provide, on the request of the subscriber to a particular number, a list of all calls intended for that number that the voice service provider or its designee has blocked. The list must include the prior 28 days of blocked calls and must be provided to the subscriber within 3 business days. The TRACED Act expressly directs the Commission to ensure that both consumers and callers are provided with transparency. In the Call Blocking Fourth Report and Order, the Commission determined that, while opt-in or opt-out blocking must already be disclosed to consumers, a consumer may be unaware that particular calls are blocked absent such a list. Consumers can use the list to determine whether to opt out of blocking services or reach out to callers whose calls may have been blocked. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-18179 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:24.582294

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18194

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66386] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18194] [[Page 66386]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [FR ID 238052] Radio Broadcasting Services; AM or FM Proposals To Change the Community of License AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DATES: The agency must receive comments on or before October 15, 2024. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rolanda F. Smith, 202-418-2054, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Media Bureau shall provide notice in the Federal Register that an application to modify an AM or FM station's community of license has been filed. See 71 FR 76208, 76211 (published December 20, 2006). The following applicants filed AM or FM proposals to change the community of license: AKAL MEDIA KKDZ, INC., KKDZ(AM), FAC ID NO. 12112, FROM: SEATTLE, WA, TO: KENT, WA, FILE NO. 0000247664; PROGRESSIVE BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., WCMR(AM), FAC ID NO. 53650, FROM: ELKHART, IN, TO: DUNLAP, IN, FILE NO. 0000249659; CSN INTERNATIONAL, INC., KSOA(FM), FAC ID NO. 767193, FROM: SOLEDAD, CA, TO: SOUTH DOS PALOS, CA, FILE NO. 0000246748; AND ELIJAH RADIO, WLJL(FM), FAC ID NO. 764082, FROM: RIVERSIDE, AL, TO: TALLADEGA, AL, FILE NO. 0000247585. The full text of these applications is available electronically via Licensing and Management System (LMS), https://apps2int.fcc.gov/dataentry/public/tv/publicAppSearch.html. Federal Communications Commission. Nazifa Sawez, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. 2024-18194 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:24.623587

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18180

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66386-66387] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18180] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-1307; FR ID 238466] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. DATES: Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before October 15, 2024. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. OMB Control Number: 3060-1307. Title: Performance Evaluation of Numbering Administration Vendor(s). Form Number: N/A. Type of Review: Revision of a currently information collection. Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, Not-for-profit entities, and State, Local and Tribal governments. Number of Respondents and Responses: 6,237 respondents and 6,237 responses. Estimated Time per Response: 0.25 hours. Frequency of Response: Annual reporting requirement. Obligation to Respond: Voluntary. Statutory authority for this information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 251(e)(1). Total Annual Burden: 1,561 hours. Total Annual Cost: No cost. Needs and Uses: The Commission is requesting Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval this revised information collection. This collection of information is an annual performance satisfaction survey of its vendor(s) acting as administrators for various telephone number management functions. These functions may be performed by one or multiple vendors under one or multiple contracts. The vendor(s) act pursuant to their contract(s) with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the FCC's numbering rules. See 47 CFR 52.1 et seq. The survey will be designed and administered by the Numbering Administration Oversight Working Group (NAOWG) of the North American Numbering Council (NANC). The NANC is a Federal Advisory Committee established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The NANC advises the FCC and makes recommendations, reached through consensus, that foster efficient and impartial number administration. The NANC is composed of representatives of telecommunications carriers, regulators, cable providers, Voice Over internet Protocol (VoIP) providers, industry associations, vendors, and consumer advocates. Working groups, including the NAOWG, made up of industry experts, have been established by the NANC to assist in its efforts. The NANC charter can be found at https://www.fcc.gov/files/charter-north-american-numbering-council. The relevant contract(s) require that the Commission and/or its designee shall develop and conduct a performance survey for each administrator. The results of this consumer satisfaction survey will provide the FCC with indicators on how well the vendor(s) are acting as the North American Numbering Program Administrator (NANPA), Pooling Administrator (PA), Routing Number Administrator (RNA) and Reassigned Numbering Database Administrator (RNDA) is meeting its contractual obligations and accomplishing its mission as the NANPA/PA/RNA/RNDA. [[Page 66387]] Federal Communications Commission. Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-18180 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:24.692946

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18299

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66387] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18299] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION [Notice 2024-20] Filing Dates for the Texas Special Election in the 18th Congressional District AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. ACTION: Notice of filing dates for special election. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Texas has scheduled a Special General Election on November 5, 2024, to fill the U.S. House of Representatives seat in the 18th Congressional District held by the late Representative Sheila Jackson Lee. There are two possible elections, but only one may be necessary. Under Texas law, all qualified candidates, regardless of party affiliation, will appear on the ballot. The majority winner of the Special General Election is declared elected. Should no candidate achieve a majority vote, the Governor will then set the date for a Special Runoff Election that will include only the top two vote- getters. Committees participating in the Texas special election are required to file pre- and post-election reports. ADDRESSES: 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20463. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Elizabeth S. Kurland, Information Division, (202) 694-1100 or (800) 424-9530, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Principal Campaign Committees All principal campaign committees of candidates who participate in the Texas Special General Election shall file a 12-day Pre-General Report on October 24, 2024. If there is a majority winner, committees must also file a Post-General Report on December 5, 2024. (See charts below for the closing date for each report.) Note that these reports are in addition to the campaign committee's regular quarterly filings. (See charts below for the closing date for each report). Unauthorized Committees (PACs and Party Committees) Political committees not filing monthly are subject to special election reporting if they make previously undisclosed contributions or expenditures in connection with the Texas Special General Election by the close of books for the applicable report(s). (See charts below for the closing date for each report.) Committees filing monthly that make contributions or expenditures in connection with the Texas Special General Election will continue to file according to the monthly reporting schedule. Additional disclosure information for the Texas special election may be found on the FEC website at https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/dates-and-deadlines/. Possible Special Runoff Election In the event that no candidate receives a majority of the votes in the Special General Election, a Special Runoff Election will be held. The Commission will publish a future notice giving the filing dates for that election if it becomes necessary. Disclosure of Lobbyist Bundling Activity Principal campaign committees, party committees and leadership PACs that are otherwise required to file reports in connection with the special election must simultaneously file FEC Form 3L if they receive two or more bundled contributions from lobbyists/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs that aggregate in excess of $22,700 during the special election reporting periods. (See charts below for closing date for each period.) 11 CFR 104.22(a)(5)(v), (b), 110.17(e)(2), (f). Calendar of Reporting Dates for Texas Special Election ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reg./cert. & Report Close of books overnight mailing Filing deadline \1\ deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If Only the Special General (11/05/2024) is Held, Political Committees Involved Must File ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pre-General............................................ 10/16/2024 10/21/2024 10/24/2024 Post-General........................................... 11/25/2024 12/05/2024 12/05/2024 Year-End............................................... 12/31/2024 01/31/2025 01/31/2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If Two Elections are Held, Political Committees Involved in Only the Special General (11/05/2024) Must File ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pre-General............................................ 10/16/2024 10/21/2024 10/24/2024 Year-End............................................... 12/31/2024 01/31/2025 01/31/2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The reporting period always begins the day after the closing date of the last report filed. If the committee is new and has not previously filed a report, the first report must cover all activity that occurred before the committee registered as a political committee up through the close of books for the first report due. Dated: August 12, 2024. On behalf of the Commission. Sean J. Cooksey, Chairman, Federal Election Commission. [FR Doc. 2024-18299 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:24.779735

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18191

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66388-66412] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18191] [[Page 66388]] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM [Docket No. OP-1816] FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION RIN 3064-ZA37 Guidance for Resolution Plan Submissions of Domestic Triennial Full Filers AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). ACTION: Final guidance. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Board and the FDIC (together, the agencies) are adopting this final guidance for the 2025 and subsequent resolution plan submissions by certain domestic banking organizations. The final guidance is meant to assist these firms in developing their resolution plans, which are required to be submitted under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, as amended (the Dodd-Frank Act), and the jointly issued implementing regulation (the Rule). The scope of application of the final guidance is domestic triennial full filers (specified firms or firms), which are domestic Category II and III banking organizations. The final guidance describes the agencies' expectations, depending on the resolution strategy chosen by the firm, regarding a number of key vulnerabilities in plans for an orderly resolution under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (i.e., capital; liquidity; governance mechanisms; operational; legal entity rationalization; and insured depository institution (IDI) resolution, if applicable). The final guidance modifies and clarifies certain aspects of the proposed guidance based on the agencies' consideration of comments to the proposal, additional analysis, and further assessment of the business and risk profiles of the firms. DATES: The final guidance is available on August 15, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Board: Catherine Tilford, Deputy Associate Director, (202) 452- 5240, Elizabeth MacDonald, Assistant Director, (202) 475-6316, Tudor Rus, Manager, (202) 475-6359, Mason Laird, Senior Financial Institution Policy Analyst II, (202) 912-7907, Caroline Elkin, Senior Financial Institution Policy Analyst, (202) 263-4888, Division of Supervision and Regulation; or Jay Schwarz, Deputy Associate General Counsel, (202) 452-2970; Andrew Hartlage, Special Counsel, (202) 452-6483; Brian Kesten, Counsel, (202) 843-4079; or Sarah Podrygula, Senior Attorney, (202) 912-4658, Legal Division, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551. For users of TTY-TRS, please call 711 from any telephone, anywhere in the United States. FDIC: Robert C. Connors, Senior Advisor, (202) 898-3834; Mark E. Haley, Chief, (917) 320-2911, Patrick R. Bittner, Senior Policy Specialist, (202) 898-6571, Division of Complex Financial Institution Supervision and Resolution; Celia Van Gorder, Assistant General Counsel (Acting), (202) 898-6749; Dena S. Kessler, Counsel, (202) 898-3833; Gregory J. Wach, Counsel, (202) 898-6972, Legal Division. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction A. Background B. Connection to Other Rulemakings C. Proposed Guidance II. Overview of Comments III. Final Guidance A. Scope of Application B. Transition Period C. Capital D. Liquidity E. Governance Mechanisms F. Operational G. Legal Entity Rationalization and Separability H. Insured Depository Institution Resolution I. Derivatives and Trading Activities J. Format and Structure of Plans; Assumptions K. Additional Comments IV. Paperwork Reduction Act V. Text of the Final Guidance I. Introduction A. Background Section 165(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act \1\ and the Rule \2\ require certain financial institutions to report periodically to the Board and the FDIC their plans for rapid and orderly resolution under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (the Bankruptcy Code) in the event of material financial distress or failure. The Rule divides covered companies into three groups of filers: (a) biennial filers, (b) triennial full filers, and (c) triennial reduced filers.\3\ The terms ``covered company'' and ``triennial full filer'' have the meanings given in the Rule, as do other, similar terms used throughout this final guidance document. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 12 U.S.C. 5365(d). \2\ 12 CFR parts 243 and 381. \3\ 12 CFR 243.4 and 381.4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Triennial full filers under the Rule are required to file a resolution plan every three years, alternating between full and targeted resolution plans.\4\ The Rule requires each covered company's full resolution plan to include, among other things, a strategic analysis of the plan's components, a description of the range of specific actions the covered company proposes to take in resolution, and a description of the covered company's organizational structure, material entities, and interconnections and interdependencies.\5\ Targeted resolution plans are required to include a subset of information contained in a full plan.\6\ In addition, the Rule requires that all resolution plans consist of two parts: a confidential section that contains any confidential supervisory and proprietary information submitted to the agencies, and a section that the agencies make available to the public.\7\ Public sections of resolution plans can be found on the agencies' websites.\8\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ 12 CFR 243.4(b) and 381.4(b). \5\ 12 CFR 243.5 and 381.5. \6\ 12 CFR 243.6(b) and 381.6(b). \7\ 12 CFR 243.11(c) and 381.11(c). \8\ The public sections of resolution plans submitted to the agencies are available at www.federalreserve.gov/supervisionreg/resolution-plans.htm and www.fdic.gov/regulations/reform/resplans/. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recent Developments Implementation of the Rule has been an iterative process aimed at strengthening the resolution planning capabilities of financial institutions subject to the Rule. To assist the development of covered companies' resolution planning capabilities and plan submissions, the agencies have provided feedback on individual plan submissions, issued guidance to certain groups of covered companies, and issued answers to frequently asked questions. The agencies believe that guidance can help focus the efforts of similarly situated covered companies to improve their resolution capabilities and clarify the agencies' expectations for those filers' future progress in their resolution plans. To date, the agencies have issued guidance to (a) U.S. global systemically important banks (GSIBs),\9\ [[Page 66389]] which constitute the biennial filer group; and (b) certain large foreign banking organizations (FBOs) that are triennial full filers.\10\ The agencies have not, however, thus far issued guidance to domestic triennial full filers and the additional FBOs that make up the remainder of the triennial full filers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ Guidance for section 165(d) Resolution Plan Submissions by Domestic Covered Companies applicable to the Eight Largest, Complex U.S. Banking Organizations, 84 FR 1438 (Feb. 4, 2019) (2019 U.S. GSIB Guidance). \10\ Guidance for Resolution Plan Submissions of Certain Foreign-Based Covered Companies, 85 FR 83557 (Dec. 22, 2020) (2020 FBO Guidance). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Several developments inform the final guidance: The agencies' consideration of comments to the proposed guidance (as defined below); The agencies' review of domestic triennial full filers' 2021 resolution plans and the issuance of individual letters communicating the agencies' feedback on those submitted plans; The agencies' recent experience with the resolutions of Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and First Republic Bank, and related stress experienced by a range of other financial institutions; and The agencies' analysis of the current risk profiles of the domestic triennial full filers. The preamble to the 2019 revisions to the Rule indicated that the agencies would make any future resolution guidance available for comment,\11\ and on August 29, 2023, the agencies invited comments on proposed guidance for the 2024 and subsequent resolution plan submissions by domestic triennial full fillers (proposed guidance or proposal).\12\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ Resolution Plans Required, 84 FR 59194, 59204 (Nov. 1, 2019) (2019 Federal Register Rule Publication). \12\ https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20230829b.htm; https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2023/pr23067.html. See also Guidance for Resolution Plan Submissions of Domestic Triennial Full Filers, 88 FR 64626 (Sept. 19, 2023). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Rule requires triennial full filers to submit their resolution plans on or before July 1 of each year in which a resolution plan is due.\13\ At the time the agencies issued the proposed guidance, triennial full filers were required to submit their next resolution plans on or before July 1, 2024. In the proposal, the agencies requested comment about whether the agencies should provide more than six months for firms to take into consideration the expectations in the finalized guidance. Several comments discussed the timing of the next resolution plan submission and its relationship to the final guidance as well as other regulatory requirements. Most requested extensions, with several requesting at least a year and one stating six months would be adequate. Two commenters stated a maximum of six months from publication of the final guidance to the first submission would be adequate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ 12 CFR 243.4(b)(3) and 381.4(b)(3). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On January 17, 2024, the agencies announced an extension of the resolution plan submission deadline for the triennial full filers from July 1, 2024, to March 31, 2025.\14\ At this time, the agencies are further extending the 2025 resolution plan submission deadline for all triennial full filers to October 1, 2025, to provide the firms with sufficient time to develop their full resolution plans in light of the final guidance. The agencies are also clarifying that all triennial full filers' subsequent resolution plan submission, a targeted resolution plan, is due on or before July 1, 2028, and that future resolution plan submissions will be due every three years after that, alternating between full and targeted resolution plans, pursuant to the Rule,\15\ unless the agencies exercise their authority under the Rule to alter the submission date for future resolution plan submissions.\16\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20240117a.htm; https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2024/pr24002.html. \15\ 12 CFR 243.4(b) and 381.4(b). \16\ 12 CFR 243.4(d)(2) and 381.4(d)(2). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution Plan Strategy U.S.-based covered companies subject to the Rule have adopted one of two resolution strategies: (1) a single point of entry (SPOE) strategy where only the top tier bank holding company enters resolution through a bankruptcy proceeding; or (2) a multiple point of entry (MPOE) strategy where the top tier bank holding company files for bankruptcy, the FDIC-insured bank subsidiary enters resolution pursuant to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act of 1950, as amended (the FDI Act), and where other entities enter the appropriate resolution regimes. The SPOE and MPOE resolution strategies that firms have chosen present different risks and entail different types of planning and development of capabilities; accordingly, the proposal contained content applicable to SPOE resolution strategies and separate content applicable to MPOE resolution strategies. Commenters supported inclusion of expectations for both MPOE and SPOE resolution strategies, and supported firms' ability to choose either strategy. However, some commenters questioned whether the agencies were expecting or encouraging firms to adopt an SPOE resolution strategy and recommended that the agencies disclose publicly whether they prefer a particular resolution strategy, and engage in notice and comment rulemaking if they do. For firms that change resolution strategies, some commenters requested that the agencies provide a transition period and made statements about the preferred length of such a transition period, and one requested that the agencies not issue any findings regarding a firm's first resolution plan that adopts a different resolution strategy. The agencies do not prescribe a specific resolution strategy for any firm. This guidance, similarly, does not suggest that any firm should change its resolution strategy, nor are the agencies identifying a preferred strategy for a specific firm or set of firms. The selection of a preferred strategy, including MPOE or SPOE as a preferred resolution strategy, should reflect the characteristics of the firm and its business operations and support the goal of the resolution plan to substantially mitigate serious adverse effects of the firm's failure on financial stability in the United States. Each firm remains free to choose the resolution strategy it believes would most effectively facilitate a rapid and orderly resolution. The agencies are providing separate guidance for an SPOE resolution strategy and an MPOE resolution strategy in acknowledgment that firms are free to adopt the resolution strategy that best suits their operations and organizations. Further, the agencies note there may be resolution strategies other than SPOE and MPOE that could facilitate a rapid and orderly resolution. The specified firms should continue to submit resolution plans using the resolution strategies they believe would be most effective in achieving an orderly resolution of their firms. Regardless of strategy, a resolution plan should address the key vulnerabilities, support the underlying assumptions required to successfully execute the chosen resolution strategy, and demonstrate the adequacy of the capabilities necessary to execute the selected strategy. Moreover, because the agencies do not prescribe resolution strategies, firms may voluntarily change their preferred strategy in the future. However, reflecting the voluntary nature of resolution strategy changes, the agencies do not anticipate providing a transition period during which a firm would be free from potential findings under the Rule while it effectuates a change in resolution strategy, whether from MPOE to SPOE, or to any other resolution strategy. A firm controls the timing of when it submits its first plan with a different strategy; accordingly, it can take the time it needs to put in place the [[Page 66390]] resources and capabilities needed to submit a plan that satisfies the standard in section 165(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act and the Rule. The standard of review for a resolution plan submission of a firm that transitions to a new strategy is therefore the same as for any firm subject to the Rule.\17\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ See 12 CFR 243.8 and 381.8. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Connection to Other Rulemakings Long-Term Debt Proposal The agencies, as well as the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (together with the agencies, the Federal banking agencies), issued in August 2023 a proposed rule for comment that would require certain large holding companies, U.S. intermediate holding companies of FBOs, and certain IDIs, to issue and maintain outstanding a minimum amount of long-term debt (LTD), among other proposed requirements.\18\ The agencies have received comments on the LTD proposal, and will consider all comments received in context of the LTD rulemaking. The agencies requested comments on the proposed guidance that take the LTD proposal into consideration. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20230829a.htm; https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2023/pr23065.html. See also Long-Term Debt Requirements for Large Bank Holding Companies, Certain Intermediate Holding Companies of Foreign Banking Organizations, and Large Insured Depository Institutions, 88 FR 64524 (Sept. 19, 2023) (LTD proposal). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- One commenter recommended that, for purposes of their resolution plans, firms should only assume their existing outstanding LTD and not the projected LTD that would be in place once the firm has achieved full compliance with the LTD proposal. Another commenter argued that the agencies should consider the interaction between the proposed guidance and LTD proposal, with a goal of having them work together to improve the resolvability of applicable banking organizations and avoid duplicative or contradictory requirements. The commenter also asserted that calibration of an IDI's internal LTD requirement could lead banking organizations using an MPOE resolution strategy to adopt an SPOE resolution strategy because of the costs of compliance with such internal LTD issuance. One commenter discussed whether the agencies should align the objectives of the LTD proposal and the resolution planning under the Rule. The Federal banking agencies have not finalized the LTD rulemaking as of the issuance of this final guidance. The agencies recognize that LTD issued and maintained by a specified firm could affect the firm's strategic analysis of the funding, liquidity, and capital needs of, and resources available to, the covered company and its material entities.\19\ However, the agencies believe that the finalization of a requirement to maintain a specified amount of LTD would not affect this guidance in any material way. Any final LTD rule will address the manner in which its requirements will be implemented. This final guidance is intended to convey the agencies' expectations regarding the content of resolution plan submissions, and not to contradict, modify, or accelerate a company's obligations under other laws or regulations. As provided in the final guidance, firms should develop their resolution plans in accordance with the current state of the applicable legal and policy frameworks. The agencies also recognize, however, that there may be phase-in periods during which rules become effective. Should the LTD rule be finalized in advance of October 1, 2025, the agencies will not expect firms to incorporate the requirements of the rule into their 2025 resolution plan submissions. This should provide firms covered by the LTD rule with reasonable time to consider any final LTD rule in a future resolution plan submission. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ See 12 CFR 243.5(c)(1)(iii) and 381.5(c)(1)(iii). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Further, and as noted above, the agencies are not recommending that any specified firm adopt any particular strategy in response to this guidance or the LTD proposal. FDIC IDI Resolution Plan Proposal The agencies received three comments on the connection between the proposal and the IDI Rule.\20\ The FDIC published proposed revisions to the IDI Rule on September 19, 2023,\21\ and published final revisions on July 9, 2024.\22\ Those commenters recommended coordinating aspects of the proposed guidance and the Proposed IDI Rule, including having consistent terms and concepts. One commenter requested that cross- referencing to section 165(d) resolution plans be permitted under the Proposed IDI Rule. Another comment questioned whether a more holistic approach would be possible to synchronize the requirements of section 165(d) planning and IDI Rule resolution planning. One commenter asserted that the MPOE guidance could cause confusion on the part of firms by conflating resolution strategies and the underlying purpose of the Rule and the IDI Rule. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ 12 CFR 360.10 (IDI Rule). \21\ Resolution Plans Required for Insured Depository Institutions With $100 Billion or More in Total Assets; Informational Filings Required for Insured Depository Institutions With at Least $50 Billion But Less Than $100 Billion in Total Assets, 88 FR 64579 (Sept. 19, 2023) (Proposed IDI Rule). \22\ Resolutions Plans Required for Insured Depository Institutions with $100 Billion or More in Total Assets; Informational Filings Required for Insured Depository Institutions With at Least $50 Billion but Less Than $100 Billion in Total Assets, 89 FR 56620 (July 9, 2024). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Rule requires a covered company to submit a resolution plan that would allow for the rapid and orderly resolution of the firm under the Bankruptcy Code in the event of material financial distress or failure. The final guidance clarifies the agencies' expectations regarding certain topics and provides direction as to how a covered company may demonstrate its compliance with its statutory obligation under section 165(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act to develop a resolution plan allowing for its rapid and orderly resolution. The IDI Rule serves a different purpose: the IDI Rule assists the FDIC in preparing to manage the resolution of a covered insured depository institution. While these two rules may be complementary, they are not the same. Additionally, whether to align the IDI Rule with the Rule or permit cross-referencing to section 165(d) resolution plans under the IDI Rule is outside the scope of this guidance. C. Proposed Guidance On August 29, 2023, the agencies invited public comment on proposed guidance for how domestic triennial full filers' resolution plans could address key challenges in resolution, which was proposed to apply beginning with the specified firms' 2024 resolution plan submissions.\23\ The proposal identified the banking organizations to which the guidance would apply and articulated several areas of guidance: capital; liquidity; governance mechanisms; operational; legal entity rationalization and separability; and IDI resolution, if applicable. The proposed guidance described the agencies' proposed expectations for each of these areas. Most substantive topics were bifurcated, with separate guidance for an SPOE resolution strategy and an MPOE resolution strategy. The proposed guidance concluded with information about the format and structure of a plan that applied equally to plans contemplating either an SPOE resolution strategy or an MPOE resolution strategy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \23\ Supra note 12. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The proposed guidance for firms that adopt an SPOE resolution strategy was generally based on the 2019 U.S. GSIB Guidance, with certain modifications [[Page 66391]] that reflected the specific characteristics of and potential risks posed by the failure of the specified firms. The proposed guidance for firms that adopt an MPOE resolution strategy incorporated certain aspects of the 2019 U.S. GSIB Guidance that the agencies believed are applicable to large banking organizations, with modifications appropriate to this strategy and institutions with the characteristics displayed by the specified firms. For MPOE firms, the proposed guidance also omitted aspects of the 2019 U.S. GSIB Guidance that would not be pertinent to MPOE resolution strategies. The agencies also proposed to clarify their expectations for specified firms that adopt an MPOE resolution strategy that includes the resolution of a material entity that is a U.S. IDI. The agencies invited comments on all aspects of the proposed guidance. The agencies also specifically requested comments on a number of issues, including the interaction of resolution guidance with a final long-term debt rule, the amount of time between the publication of the final guidance and the firms' next resolution plans, the appropriateness of guidance on IDI resolution, and whether to issue derivatives and trading expectations. II. Overview of Comments The agencies received and reviewed eight comment letters on the proposed guidance. Commenters included various financial services trade associations, a law firm, two public interest groups, and certain individuals. In addition, the agencies met with representatives of a banking organization that would be a specified firm and a trade association that represents banking organizations that would be specified firms at their request to discuss issues relating to the proposed guidance.\24\ This section provides an overview of the general themes raised by commenters. The comments received on the proposed guidance are further discussed below in the sections describing the final guidance (and, in some cases, previously in section I), including any changes that the agencies have made to the proposed guidance in response to comments. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \24\ Summaries of those meetings and copies of the comments can be found on each agency's website. https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/ViewComments.aspx?doc_id=OP-1816&doc_ver=1; https://www.fdic.gov/resources/regulations/federal-register-publications/2023/2023-guidance-resolution-plan-submissions-domestic-triennial-3064-za37.html. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Differentiating Expectations Based on Size, Complexity, and Risk One commenter contended that the proposed guidance did not sufficiently differentiate expectations among firms subject to resolution planning guidance. The commenter argued that section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the agencies to tailor application of prudential standards issued pursuant to that section, such as resolution planning guidance; contended that the proposal was too similar to the 2019 U.S. GSIB Guidance; and encouraged expectations in the final guidance to be further differentiated based on size, risk, and other factors. Resolution Strategy and Transition Period Several commenters supported the proposal's inclusion of expectations for both MPOE and SPOE resolution strategies and the agencies' statement that firms have ability to choose their preferred strategy. However, as noted above, some commenters questioned whether the agencies were expecting or encouraging firms to adopt an SPOE resolution strategy and recommended that the agencies disclose publicly whether they prefer a particular resolution strategy. For firms that change resolution strategies, some commenters requested that the agencies provide a transition period during which the agencies would not make credibility findings in connection with a plan review. Capital and Liquidity The agencies received a number of comments on the capital and liquidity sections of the proposed guidance. Regarding the capital section of the proposed guidance, one commenter asserted that including expectations regarding the positioning of capital for firms with an SPOE resolution strategy is premature given that finalization of a proposal to modify the capital requirements for large banking organizations \25\ and the LTD proposal may impact firms' capital planning, contended that the proposal included expectations that are duplicative of existing capital requirements, and suggested removing the guidance on Resolution Capital Adequacy and Positioning (RCAP) from the final guidance. Regarding expectations for firms using an MPOE resolution strategy, one commenter agreed that additional expectations are not warranted, while another commenter argued for capital plans for each material entity and asked the agencies to align expectations for the MPOE capital guidance with SPOE capital guidance. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \25\ Regulatory Capital Rule: Large Banking Organizations and Banking Organizations With Significant Trading Activity, 88 FR 64028 (Sept. 18, 2023) (Capital proposal). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regarding the liquidity section of the proposed guidance, one commenter argued that Resolution Liquidity Adequacy and Positioning (RLAP) expectations are not appropriate due to the comparatively simple legal entity structures and reduced risk profiles of these firms and claimed that RLAP is redundant with certain regulatory requirements. In addition, one commenter requested that the final guidance strengthen expectations for liquidity in resolution by including a procedure or protocol for liquidity related decisions, irrespective of resolution strategy. IDI Resolution Analysis The agencies received a number of comments on the proposed guidance related to the resolution of a subsidiary material entity U.S. IDI. Multiple commenters requested clarity on how the firm's plan should address the expectations regarding the FDIC's statutory least-cost requirement and questioned whether there is sufficient information available for firms to effectively evaluate whether a proposed resolution plan would satisfy the least-cost analysis expectations. These commenters also questioned whether the least-cost analysis would be of value to FDIC in an actual resolution and argued that the guidance should be aligned with the requirements of the IDI Rule. One stated sufficient time should be given for firms to conduct new analyses and seek additional guidance from the agencies and that aspects of this section of the proposal should not be finalized. Another commenter argued that firms should not be expected to demonstrate that their preferred strategy would be consistent with the FDIC's statutory least-cost requirement. One commenter further suggested that the Proposed IDI Rule is a better forum to address how IDI subsidiaries can be resolved under the FDI Act. Another commenter suggested that the agencies should require firms to develop resolution strategies involving bridge depository institutions (BDIs) and recommended that the guidance address the value of assets transferred to such a BDI, how the resolution plan would address the IDI's franchise value, and how the preferred resolution strategy would result in a least-costly resolution. [[Page 66392]] Derivatives and Trading Some commenters supported including expectations for derivatives and trading activity in the final guidance, contending that derivatives activity for domestic triennial full filers may increase in the future and proposed applying such guidance to firms with net derivatives exceeding a given threshold. However, one commenter supported not including such expectations, stating it was appropriate to exclude such guidance because the specified firms have limited derivatives and trading portfolios, particularly relative to the U.S. G-SIB banking organizations covered by such guidance. Connection to Other Rules The agencies received a number of comments about the interaction of the proposed guidance with several other rulemaking initiatives by the Federal banking agencies. For example, some commenters recommended coordinating the FDIC's Proposed IDI Rule revisions with the resolution plan rule and final guidance for the specified firms. Two commenters suggested that the agencies consider the interaction between the proposed guidance and the LTD proposal to ensure the two proposals work together to improve the resolvability of applicable banking organizations and avoid duplicative or contradictory requirements. One commenter also expressed concern including certain expectations in the final guidance, such as those relating to capital, would be premature before finalizing the Capital proposal and LTD proposal, which impact firms' capital planning. Timing of Next Resolution Plan Several comments discussed the timing of the next resolution plan submission and its relationship to this final guidance. Some commenters recommended providing at least one year between issuing final guidance and the deadline for domestic triennial full filers' next resolution plan submissions. However, other commenters suggested that six months from publication of the final guidance to the first resolution plan submission would be adequate for firms to take into account the guidance. III. Final Guidance After considering the comments, conducting additional analysis, and further assessing the business and risk profiles of domestic triennial full filers, the agencies are issuing final guidance that includes certain modifications and clarifications from the proposal. In particular, the capital, liquidity, governance mechanisms, operational, IDI resolution, separability, and assumptions sections of the final guidance reflect changes from the proposed guidance. In addition, as was noted in the proposal,\26\ the final guidance consolidates all prior resolution planning guidance for the firms in one document. Further, as was noted in the proposal,\27\ the final guidance is not intended to override the obligation of an individual firm to respond in its next resolution plan submission to pending items of individual feedback or any shortcomings or deficiencies jointly identified or determined by the agencies in that firm's prior resolution plan submissions. The guidance is drafted to reflect the current conditions in the industry and institutions as they exist today. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \26\ See proposed guidance at 88 FR 64628. \27\ See id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As discussed below,\28\ several commenters asserted that the proposal did not adequately differentiate among covered companies based on their size, complexity, and risk to financial stability. The guidance, however, takes into account the size and complexity of firms, their resolution strategy, and whether they are based in the United States or in a foreign jurisdiction. In addition, the final guidance is not meant to limit firms' consideration of additional vulnerabilities or obstacles that might arise based on a firm's particular structure, operations, or resolution strategy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \28\ See infra section III.K of this document. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The agencies also note that commenters described certain expectations that are set forth in the guidance as ``requirements.'' As the agencies indicated in the proposed guidance and are now reaffirming, the final guidance does not have the force and effect of law. Rather, the final guidance outlines the agencies' supervisory expectations regarding each subject area covered by the final guidance.\29\ The final guidance includes language reflecting this position.\30\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \29\ See 12 CFR 262.7 and appendix A to 12 CFR part 262; 12 CFR part 302. \30\ See infra section V.I of this document. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the agencies made several minor, non-substantive changes from the proposal, including to align the wording of guidance directed at firms that adopt an SPOE resolution strategy and firms that adopt an MPOE resolution strategy. A. Scope of Application The agencies proposed applying the guidance to all domestic triennial full filers and invited comment on all aspects of the proposed scope of the guidance. The agencies received no comments concerning the scope of the guidance's application and are finalizing this section of the guidance as proposed. B. Transition Period The proposed guidance did not describe how the guidance would be applied to domestic banking organizations that become covered by its scope, but it did request comment on all aspects of the proposed scope of application. To provide certainty to domestic banking organizations, the final guidance states that when a domestic banking organization becomes a specified firm, the final guidance will apply to the firm's next resolution plan submission with a submission date that is at least 12 months after the time the firm becomes a specified firm.\31\ If a specified firm ceases to be a domestic triennial full filer, it will no longer be considered a specified firm, and the guidance will no longer be applicable to that firm as of the date the firm ceases to be a domestic triennial full filer. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \31\ The plan type for that next submission remains as specified by the Rule, i.e., a full or targeted resolution plan. See 12 CFR 243.4 and 381.4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C. Capital For specified firms with an SPOE resolution strategy, the agencies proposed capital expectations substantially similar to those in the 2019 U.S. GSIB Guidance. The ability to provide sufficient capital to material entities without disruption from creditors is essential to an SPOE resolution strategy's objective of ensuring that material entities can continue to operate as the firm is resolved. The proposal described expectations concerning the appropriate positioning of capital and other loss-absorbing instruments (e.g., debt that a parent holding company may choose to forgive or convert to equity) among the material entities within the firm (RCAP). The proposal also described expectations regarding a methodology for periodically estimating the amount of capital that may be needed to support each material entity after the bankruptcy filing (resolution capital execution need, or RCEN). The agencies received several comments on the capital section of the proposed guidance. One commenter asserted that including expectations in this guidance regarding the positioning of capital is premature given that finalization of the Capital proposal and the LTD proposal may impact firms' capital planning. The commenter argued [[Page 66393]] that existing capital requirements are sufficient for the size and complexity of the firms subject to this guidance without RCAP expectations, which, the commenter asserted, would add more complexity to the resolution planning process. After reviewing these comments, the agencies are finalizing this section of the guidance generally as proposed, but with one clarification. Proposed guidance related to the methodology for periodically estimating the amount of capital that may be needed to support material entities in bankruptcy (RCEN) could have been construed as establishing a mandatory minimum capital requirement. As the agencies have discussed elsewhere, resolution plan guidance is not binding and does not establish legal requirements.\32\ The final guidance clarifies the kind of information the agencies expect a firm to provide if that firm's resolution strategy includes recapitalizing material entities but does not establish requirements for firms. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \32\ See supra section III of this document. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- RCAP expectations are important for firms to ensure the appropriate positioning of capital and other loss-absorbing instruments among the material entities within the firm and to effectively execute a SPOE resolution strategy. Finalizing RCAP expectations is not premature in light of outstanding proposals such as the LTD rulemaking and other pending rules because the RCAP expectations can be achieved with or without the LTD contemplated in the LTD proposal. The Federal banking agencies have not finalized the LTD proposal as of the issuance of this final guidance, and comments on that proposed rule are currently under consideration. Specifically, the final guidance does not rely on or presume the finalization of pending rules and instead states, consistent with the proposal, that a resolution plan should be based on the current state of the applicable legal and policy frameworks.\33\ The guidance is intended to assist firms in developing their resolution plans, which are required to be submitted pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act and the Rule. While other capital and resolution-related rules may establish minimum standards applicable to firms submitting resolution plans, this guidance is designed to facilitate a firm's own analysis of its expected needs in resolution across that firm's material entities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \33\ See infra section V.VIII of this document. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Additionally, the stress experienced by and the failure of several large banking organizations in March 2023 highlighted the fast-moving nature of stress events, as several banking organizations entered resolution proceedings rapidly. These events also highlighted the potential for the failure of a large regional banking organization to affect financial stability. Successful execution of an SPOE resolution strategy--including the need to ensure that individual material entities have adequate capital to maintain operations as the firm is resolved--is unlikely to be successful under a short time frame without advance planning. Appropriate positioning of capital and other loss- absorbing instruments among the firm's material entities is an important element of this advanced planning to reduce uncertainty and enable timely recapitalization consistent with an SPOE resolution strategy. Accordingly, the agencies are finalizing guidance that includes RCAP expectations for firms that adopt an SPOE strategy. For firms that adopt an MPOE resolution strategy, the agencies did not propose further expectations concerning capital and asked a question about whether capital-related expectations should be applied. In response, one commenter agreed with the proposal that additional expectations are not warranted for firms using an MPOE resolution strategy, arguing that such expectations would serve no purpose. However, another commenter contended that it is not prudent to assume that material entities within a holding company structure can be wound down in an orderly manner and that, at a minimum, capital plans are needed for each material entity to preserve its value during the transition period between a firm's failure and when it can be sold or closed in an orderly way. The commenter asked the agencies to reconsider expectations for firms that adopt an MPOE resolution strategy and align them with expectations for firms that adopt an SPOE resolution strategy. The agencies have determined that additional capital expectations for firms selecting an MPOE resolution strategy are not necessary at this time. Under an MPOE resolution strategy, most material entities do not continue as going concerns upon the firm's entry into resolution proceedings and are likely to have already depleted existing capital. Accordingly, the agencies are finalizing this section as proposed. D. Liquidity For firms that adopt an SPOE resolution strategy, the agencies proposed liquidity expectations substantially similar to those in the 2019 U.S. GSIB Guidance. A firm's ability to reliably estimate and meet its liquidity needs prior to, and in, resolution is important to the execution of a firm's resolution strategy because it enables the firm to respond quickly to demands from stakeholders and counterparties, including regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions and financial market utilities. Maintaining sufficient and appropriately positioned liquidity also allows subsidiaries to continue to operate while the firm is being resolved in accordance with the firm's preferred resolution strategy. For firms that adopt an MPOE resolution strategy, the agencies proposed that a firm should have the liquidity capabilities necessary to execute its preferred resolution strategy, and its plan should include analysis and projections of a range of liquidity needs during resolution. The agencies received several comments on the liquidity section of the proposed guidance. One commenter supported including RLAP expectations in the final guidance for firms that adopt an SPOE resolution strategy, while another commenter requested that the agencies remove RLAP from the final guidance. The second commenter argued that RLAP expectations are not appropriate due to the comparatively simple legal entity structures and reduced risk profiles of the firms subject to the proposed guidance. The commenter also claimed that RLAP would be redundant to certain regulatory requirements, such as the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) and Internal Liquidity Stress Testing (ILST). Another commenter requested that, irrespective of resolution strategy, the guidance strengthen expectations for liquidity in resolution by including a procedure or protocol for liquidity related decisions. The commenter argued that the guidance should affirm the importance of overcoming barriers to moving liquidity across material legal entities and clarify which types of transfers of liquidity are permissible for material entities in resolution. After reviewing these comments, the agencies are finalizing this section of the guidance largely as proposed, with one clarifying edit concerning forecasting maximum operating liquidity and peak funding needs. The final guidance clarifies that these forecasts should ensure that material entities can operate through resolution, as compared to the proposed guidance that provided that the forecasts should ensure that material entities can operate after the firm files for bankruptcy. RLAP expectations are not addressed by ILST and other regulatory requirements. Maintaining sufficient [[Page 66394]] and appropriately positioned liquidity is critical to executing an SPOE resolution strategy, regardless of the size and complexity of the banking organization. The LCR and ILST requirements that commenters referenced serve a different purpose--to promote resilience of firms' funding profiles--and are not focused on resolution planning. Finally, the agencies are not establishing expectations regarding procedures or protocols for liquidity-related decisions and the types of transfers of liquidity that are permissible for material entities in resolution for firms that adopt a MPOE resolution strategy. The Rule already includes requirements for firms to include detailed descriptions of funding and liquidity needs and resources of material entities, and to identify interconnections and interdependencies related to liquidity arrangements.\34\ Beyond the assumptions specified in the final guidance related to liquidity, additional details of how each firm provisions liquidity in the lead up to and during resolution are not needed at this time. Furthermore, firms should follow procedures and protocols that are aligned with their larger liquidity management frameworks to facilitate their preferred resolution strategies. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \34\ 12 CFR 243.5(c)(1)(iii) and (g) and 381.5(c)(1)(iii) and (g). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E. Governance Mechanisms The agencies proposed governance mechanisms expectations for domestic firms that use an SPOE resolution strategy. These firms would have been expected to develop an adequate governance structure with triggers that identify the onset, continuation, and increase of financial stress to ensure that there is sufficient time to prepare for resolution-related actions. The agencies did not propose governance mechanisms expectations for domestic firms contemplating an MPOE resolution strategy, as entry of certain types of material entities into resolution would be determined by criteria prescribed in statute or dependent to some extent on actions taken by regulatory authorities in implementing a statute. The agencies requested comment on whether to apply additional governance mechanisms expectations to domestic firms contemplating an MPOE resolution strategy. Some commenters called for the agencies to apply similar governance mechanisms expectations regardless of a firm's preferred resolution strategy, arguing that many aspects of resolution planning are the same or similar for MPOE and SPOE resolution strategies. One commenter also encouraged the agencies to adopt expectations that firms articulate their internal legal strategy, processes for making key decisions, and roles and responsibilities leading up to and after a material entity of a firm using an MPOE resolution strategy enters bankruptcy. Another commenter claimed that governance mechanisms are needed for domestic MPOE filers to preserve the value of each material entity during the transition period between failure and orderly resolution. However, another commenter argued that final guidance should not include governance mechanisms expectations for domestic MPOE filers as such expectations would not meaningfully improve resolvability. After review and consideration of these comments, the agencies are finalizing this section of the guidance largely as proposed, with one clarification applicable only to firms that adopt an SPOE strategy. The proposed guidance provided that a firm can reproduce a legal analysis that was submitted in a prior plan submission, and that the firm should build upon the analysis. The final guidance clarifies that the agencies expect that a firm that relies upon a previously submitted analysis ensure it remains accurate and up to date. While there is a general obligation for firms to submit plans that contain accurate information, the agencies are providing this clarification due to the agencies' experience that certain legal matters in some resolution plan submissions have been outdated. Regarding firms that adopt an MPOE strategy, the agencies are finalizing this section of the guidance as proposed. Under an MPOE resolution strategy, certain material entities' entry into resolution is typically determined by or dependent on the actions of supervisory and resolution authorities. Adopting expectations for triggers, playbooks, pre-bankruptcy support, internal legal strategy, processes for making key decisions, and roles and responsibilities for domestic triennial full filers adopting an MPOE resolution strategy, with their present operations, activities, and structures, would not meaningfully improve the resolvability of the specified firms. Accordingly, the final guidance does not contain governance mechanisms expectations for those firms. F. Operational For firms that adopt an SPOE resolution strategy, the agencies proposed aspects of the operational expectations of the 2019 U.S. GSIB Guidance and SR letter 14-1,\35\ with modifications based on the specific characteristics and complexities of the specified firms. Like the 2019 U.S. GSIB Guidance, the proposal contained expectations on managing, identifying, and valuing collateral; management information systems (MIS); and shared and outsourced services. For firms that adopt an MPOE resolution strategy, the agencies proposed operational expectations based on SR letter 14-1 and the 2019 U.S. GSIB Guidance that are limited to those most relevant to an MPOE resolution strategy. As noted in the proposal, development and maintenance of operational capabilities is important to support and enable execution of a firm's preferred resolution strategy, including providing for the continuation of identified critical operations and preventing or mitigating adverse effects on U.S. financial stability. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \35\ SR letter 14-1, ``Principles and Practices for Recovery and Resolution Preparedness'' (Jan. 24, 2014), available at: https://www.federalreserve.gov/supervisionreg/srletters/sr1401.htm. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The agencies received two comments on the proposed guidance. One comment argued that the proposed guidance's expectation that MPOE firms remediate vendor arrangements to support continuity of shared and outsourced services is overbroad. The commenter asserted that this expectation is inappropriate for MPOE firms that mostly receive external services through their IDIs because termination of such vendor contracts due to ipso facto clauses would be stayed by the FDI Act,\36\ and as many firms include resolution-resilient terms in vendor contracts when those contracts undergo periodic review and renewal. The commenter recommended that the Agencies specify that this expectation would apply only to contracts not covered by the FDI Act stay. Another commenter contended that firms with limited payment, clearing, and settlement (PCS) activities, such as firms without identified critical operations related to those activities, should not have to develop the same capabilities as firms with more complex PCS activities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \36\ See 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(13). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- After review and consideration of these comments, the agencies are finalizing this area of the guidance with three clarifications applicable only to firms that adopt an SPOE strategy, and one modification applicable to firms with either preferred resolution strategy. First, the proposed guidance for firms that adopt an SPOE strategy stated that a firm should maintain a fully [[Page 66395]] actionable implementation plan to ensure the continuity of shared services that support identified critical operations or core business lines. Implied in the concept of supporting identified critical operations or core business lines is the notion that a firm would need to be able to execute its resolution strategy. Accordingly, the final guidance for firms that adopt an SPOE strategy explicitly states that a firm's implementation plan to ensure continuity of shared services should include those services that are material to the execution of the firm's resolution strategy. Second, the proposed guidance for firms that adopt an SPOE strategy stated that a firm should demonstrate capabilities for continued access to PCS services essential to an orderly resolution through a framework to support such access and the provided elements of such a framework. The agencies note that prior instances of resolution plan guidance contained certain limitations on similar PCS framework expectations,\37\ and the final guidance adopts that language to clarify the scope of said expectations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \37\ 2020 FBO Guidance at 85 FR 83572-73. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Third, the proposed PCS guidance for firms that adopt an SPOE strategy contained several references to ``various currencies.'' The agencies note that in the finalization of the 2020 FBO Guidance, the agencies revised similar language in response to a comment requesting that certain aspects of that guidance be made consistent with international expectations.\38\ The final guidance is adopting the language from the 2020 FBO Guidance for that same reason. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \38\ See 2020 FBO Guidance at 85 FR 83566. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Additionally, the agencies recognize that firms anticipate relying on external parties for the execution of some aspects of the resolution strategy, and the proposal included and the final guidance maintains the expectation that a firm identify and support the continuity of outsourced services that support critical operations or are material to the execution of the preferred resolution strategy. Such outsourced services that firms may rely on could be employing outside bankruptcy counsel and consultants to help prepare documents needed to file for bankruptcy, and to represent the firm during the course of the bankruptcy proceedings. The agencies expect that covered companies engage in advance planning to help facilitate their ability to complete all filings, motions, supporting declarations and other documents to prepare for and file an orderly resolution in bankruptcy. In recognition of this expectation, the final guidance states that-- regardless of strategy--those professionals' services could be material to the execution of a firm's preferred resolution strategy and, if so, should be accounted for in the firm's resolution plan. Accordingly, the agencies expect that firms should prepare during business-as-usual to ensure they can complete and file all documents needed to initiate their preferred resolution strategy. The other aspects of this section of the guidance are being finalized as proposed. The comment addressing contract remediation correctly observes that the FDI Act permits the FDIC as receiver of a failed IDI to enforce contracts with that IDI notwithstanding any provisions in the contract permitting termination due to insolvency or appointment of the receiver. However, it is advantageous for contracts that support identified critical operations or that are material to the execution of the resolution strategy to not purport to permit termination. Counterparties may not be aware of the receiver's authority under the FDI Act to enforce such agreements, potentially requiring the receiver to seek authority from a court to compel the counterparty's performance, which could lead to interruption of identified critical operations and capabilities needed to execute the resolution strategy. Further, counterparties located overseas may not recognize the authority afforded the receiver to compel the performance of contracts. The agencies recognize that contract remediation is an ongoing process and encourage firms to make such changes proactively. Regarding PCS activities, as discussed elsewhere,\39\ the Agencies note that the level of detail provided in a firm's plan should be both consistent and commensurate with the firm's risk and activities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \39\ See infra section III.K of this document. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- G. Legal Entity Rationalization and Separability For domestic banking organizations that adopt an SPOE resolution strategy, the agencies proposed adopting legal entity rationalization (LER) and separability expectations from the 2019 U.S. GSIB Guidance. The LER expectations explained that a firm's legal structure should support the firm's preferred resolution strategy, including by: facilitating the recapitalization and liquidity support of material entities; facilitating the sale, transfer, or wind-down of certain discrete operations; adequately protecting the subsidiary IDIs from risks arising from the activities of any nonbank subsidiaries of the firm; and minimizing complexity that could impede an orderly resolution. The separability expectations outlined that a firm should identify discrete operations that could be sold or transferred in resolution, with the objective of providing optionality in resolution, including via a detailed separability analysis that addresses divestiture options, execution plans, and impact assessments. For domestic banking organizations using an MPOE resolution strategy, the agencies proposed LER and separability expectations that are reduced as compared to those contained in the 2019 U.S. GSIB Guidance. The LER expectations clarified that the firm should consider various factors and describe in its plan how the legal entity structure aligns core business lines and any identified critical operations with the firm's material entities, as well as any cases where a material entity IDI relies on an affiliate that is not the IDI's subsidiary during resolution. The separability expectations explained that a firm should include options for the sale, transfer, or disposal of significant assets, portfolios, legal entities, or business lines in resolution and provide supporting analysis, including an execution plan, identification of any impediments and mitigants, a financial impact assessment, and an identified critical operation impact assessment. The agencies received one comment on the LER and separability guidance for domestic banking organizations. The commenter contended that separability analysis is inappropriate for businesses and legal entities that would be wound down in resolution, as it may not be feasible to sell or otherwise transfer such businesses, and that separability analysis would not enhance resolvability. The commenter further claimed that many elements of the separability analysis may not be appropriate for firms that are not active in the investment banking space or lack large mergers and acquisitions teams. After consideration of the comment received, the agencies are issuing legal entity rationalization guidance for both SPOE and MPOE firms. LER criteria enhance an orderly resolution by promoting in business-as-usual a corporate structure that supports a firm's preferred resolution strategy. The agencies are retaining these expectations, in part, to encourage firms to consider resolution implications of changes to corporate structure, including from future growth or mergers and acquisitions. For firms with SPOE [[Page 66396]] resolution strategies, the agencies continue to encourage the firms to develop and apply LER criteria to facilitate the sale, transfer, or wind-down of certain discrete operations within a timeframe that would meaningfully increase the likelihood of orderly resolution. The agencies continue to encourage firms using MPOE resolution strategies to consider potential sales, transfers, and wind-downs during resolution as they maintain their legal entity structures. However, the separability section of guidance is not needed at this time for the specified firms due to their current corporate structures and other separability-related expectations. Most of the specified firms have three or fewer material entities, with the overwhelming majority of their assets concentrated in their IDIs. In addition, the Rule requires firms to address the feasibility and impact of sales or divestitures and the final LER guidance contains separability-related expectations. The agencies may consider the need for firm-specific separability expectations in the future for specified firms that substantially increase their non-bank activities or change in a way such that separability becomes critical to their resolvability. Finally, the agencies moved the description of their expectation on governance processes from the proposed separability section to the LER section of the final guidance text. H. Insured Depository Institution Resolution Background In the proposal, the agencies provided clarifying expectations as to how a firm adopting an MPOE resolution strategy with a material entity IDI should explain how the IDI can be resolved under the FDI Act in a manner that is consistent with the overall objectives of the resolution plan. In particular, the proposed expectations for IDI resolution were designed to support the resolution plans' effectiveness in substantially mitigating the risk that the failure of the specified firm would have serious adverse effects on financial stability in the United States, while also adhering to the legal requirements of the FDI Act without relying on the assumption that the systemic risk exception will be invoked in connection with the resolution of the firm. For example, the agencies proposed clarifying that if a firm adopting an MPOE resolution strategy selects an IDI resolution strategy other than a payout liquidation, the firm's plan should provide information supporting the feasibility of the firm's selected strategy, although such a feasibility analysis need not consist of a full FDI Act least- cost requirement analysis. The agencies proposed that a firm could instead provide a more limited analysis. The proposal noted that the same expectations would not be applicable to firms adopting an SPOE resolution strategy because the U.S. IDI subsidiaries of such firms would not be expected to enter resolution. The agencies received a number of comments on the proposed guidance related to the resolution of a subsidiary material entity U.S. IDI. Some commenters requested additional clarity on how the firm's plan should address the expectation that the plan include an analysis of how the resolution strategy could potentially meet the FDIC's statutory least-cost requirement. One commenter suggested that the agencies should require firms to develop resolution strategies involving BDIs. This commenter recommended that the guidance address how firms could describe and quantify the value of the firm's assets transferred to such a BDI, and that the agencies should provide guidance so that firms would address how the resolution plan would incorporate the value of the IDI's assets and liabilities, including its franchise value, and how the preferred resolution strategy would result in a least-costly resolution. The commenter also recommended that firms and regulators reach agreement on certain assumptions regarding valuations. Another commenter argued that firms adopting an MPOE strategy should not be expected to demonstrate that their preferred strategy would be consistent with the FDIC's statutory least-cost requirement. This commenter stated that efforts to conduct a hypothetical least-cost requirement analysis, or a proxy for that analysis, would be of no or minimal value to the FDIC in an actual resolution event. The commenter claimed that it would not be possible to conduct a least-cost test requirement analysis in a resolution plan submission in the absence of actual bids from actual buyers. Instead, the commenter recommended that the guidance provide expectations for how firms selecting an MPOE strategy could demonstrate their valuation capabilities. The commenter also suggested that because a least-cost requirement analysis is not a component of the Proposed IDI Rule, it also should not be a component of the guidance. This commenter requested sufficient time to address any finalized guidance that provides expectations for including least- cost requirement analysis. Several commenters suggested that the Proposed IDI Rule is a better forum to address how the IDI subsidiary of a specified firm selecting an MPOE strategy can be resolved under the FDI Act in a manner that is consistent with the FDI Act. A commenter also suggested that the agencies' expectations for resolution plan submissions under the Rule should align with the requirements of the FDIC's IDI Rule plan submissions. When an IDI fails and the FDIC is appointed receiver, the FDIC generally must use the resolution option for the failed IDI that is least costly to the DIF of all possible methods (the least-cost requirement).\40\ A resolution plan that contemplates the separate resolution of a U.S. IDI that is a material entity and the appointment of the FDIC as receiver for that IDI should explain how the resolution could be achieved in a manner that adheres to applicable law, including the FDI Act, and that would achieve the overall objectives of the resolution plan. Prior resolution plans that have addressed the resolution of the IDIs in MPOE strategies have sometimes included resolution mechanics that are not consistent with the FDI Act, including inappropriate assumptions that uninsured deposits could automatically be transferred to a BDI. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \40\ See 12 U.S.C. 1823(c)(4)(A). A deposit payout and liquidation of the failed IDI's assets (payout liquidation) is the general baseline the FDIC uses in a least-cost requirement determination. See 12 U.S.C. 1823(c)(4)(D). An exception to this requirement exists when a determination is made by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the President and after a written recommendation from two-thirds of the FDIC's Board of Directors and two-thirds of the Board, that complying with the least-cost requirement would have serious adverse effects on economic conditions or financial stability and implementing another resolution option would avoid or mitigate such adverse effects. See 12 U.S.C. 1823(c)(4)(G). A specified firm should not assume the use of this systemic risk exception to the least-cost requirement in its resolution plan. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Separate and distinct from the Rule, the FDIC has a regulation, the IDI Rule, requiring certain IDIs (covered IDIs or CIDIs) to submit to the FDIC resolution plans providing information about how the CIDI can be resolved under the FDI Act. Contemporaneous with publication of the proposed guidance, the FDIC published in the Federal Register the Proposed IDI Rule, a proposed rulemaking to amend and restate the IDI Rule, which has since been finalized and was published in the Federal Register on July 9, 2024. The IDI Rule and the Rule each have different goals, and, accordingly, the expected content of the respective resolution plans is different. The purpose of the IDI Rule is to ensure that [[Page 66397]] the FDIC has access to the information it needs to resolve a CIDI efficiently in the event of its failure, including an understanding of the CIDI's ability to produce the information the FDIC would need to conduct a least-cost determination under a wide range of circumstances. The Rule serves a different purpose. The Rule requires a covered company to submit a resolution plan that would allow rapid and orderly resolution of the firm under the Bankruptcy Code in the event of material financial distress or failure. The regional bank failures in March 2023 demonstrated that banking organizations of size and complexity similar to that of the specified firms--or even smaller and less complex banking organizations--can be disruptive to U.S. financial stability. In the case of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, uninsured depositors would have faced the potential for significant losses had the least costly approach to resolution, a payout liquidation, been adopted. The potential for contagion from the deposit runs at the firms that failed, as well as related potential for risks to the economy and financial stability, led the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the President and after a written recommendation from the FDIC's Board of Directors and the Board, to invoke the systemic risk exception to enable the FDIC to resolve these institutions in a way that would avoid or mitigate serious adverse effects on economic conditions or financial stability. Though a specified firm would be conducting its analysis without input in the form of actual bids from potential buyers, the agencies expect firms to use available information to estimate the value of its franchise for purposes of conducting the limited least-cost analysis articulated in the guidance. If a firm's resolution plan under the Rule that includes an MPOE strategy calls for resolving an IDI using a strategy other than payout liquidation, the plan should explain how the requirements of the FDI Act could be met without depending upon extraordinary government support. Even though this analysis is not binding in an actual resolution scenario, an analysis showing that the firm's preferred resolution strategy could satisfy requirements of the FDI Act could help the firm demonstrate that the resolution plan's preferred strategy could be executed in a manner consistent with applicable law. If a resolution plan does not provide such an explanation, it may be appropriate to conclude that the strategy would not satisfy the FDI Act's relevant provisions, such as the least-cost requirement, which could represent a weakness in the plan. As a general matter, the agencies followed this practice in reviewing previous full resolution plan submissions. Guidance. In response to commenters, the agencies are providing additional detail to help address commenters' questions related to the FDI Act's least-cost requirement and how it relates to the expectations in this final guidance. The final guidance does not express a change in the agencies' expectations. Instead, the final guidance provides more detail on approaches a firm can use to explain how the resolution of its IDI subsidiary can be achieved in a manner that substantially mitigates the risk that the firm's failure would have serious adverse effects on U.S. financial stability while also complying with the statutory and regulatory requirements governing IDI resolution. The final guidance lists a number of different common strategies for resolving an IDI and describes the kind of information that a firm could provide to explain how a resolution using one of the example strategies could be consistent with the least-cost requirement. The final guidance also provides information about calculating the value of an IDI's assets and its franchise value. Finally, the final guidance explicitly notes that the agencies are not expecting a firm to provide a complete least-cost analysis. Strategies for Resolving an IDI Purchase and Assumption Transaction. The FDIC typically seeks to resolve a failed IDI by identifying, before the IDI's failure, one or more potential acquirers so that as many of the IDI's assets and deposit liabilities as possible can be sold to and assumed by the acquirer(s) instead of remaining in the receivership created on the failure date.\41\ This transaction form, termed a purchase and assumption or P&A transaction, has often been the resolution approach that is least costly to the DIF, and is usually considered the easiest for the FDIC to execute and the least disruptive to the depositors of the failed IDI--particularly in the case of transactions involving the assumption of all the failed IDI's deposits by the assuming institution (an all-deposit transaction). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \41\ See generally https://www.fdic.gov/resources/resolutions/bank-failures/ for background about the resolution of IDIs by the FDIC. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The limited size and operational complexity present in most small- bank failures have been significant factors in allowing the FDIC to execute P&A transactions with a single acquirer on numerous occasions. Resolving an IDI via a P&A transaction over the closing weekend, however, has not always been available to the FDIC, particularly in failures involving large IDIs. P&A transactions require lead time to identify potential buyers and allow due diligence on, and an auction of, the failing IDI's assets and banking business, also termed its franchise. The acquiring banks must also have sufficient excess capital to absorb the failed IDI's assets and deposit franchise, sufficient expertise to manage business integration, and the ability to comply with several legal requirements. Larger failed banks can pose significant, and potentially systemic, challenges in resolutions that make a P&A transaction less viable. These challenges include: a more limited pool of potential acquirers as a failed IDI increases in size; operational complexities that require lengthy advance planning on the part of the IDI and the FDIC; the development of certain expertise; potential market concentration and antitrust considerations; and potentially the need to maintain the continuity of activities conducted in whole or in part in the IDI that are critical to U.S. financial stability. Alternative Resolution Strategies. If no P&A transaction that meets the least-cost requirement can be accomplished at the time an IDI fails, the FDIC must pursue an alternative resolution strategy. The primary alternative resolution strategies for a failed IDI are (1) a payout liquidation, or (2) utilization of a BDI. Payout Liquidation. The FDIC conducts payout liquidations by paying insured deposits in cash or transferring the insured deposits to an existing institution or a new institution organized by the FDIC to assume the insured deposits (generally, a Deposit Insurance National Bank or DINB). In payout liquidations, the FDIC as receiver retains substantially all of the failed IDI's assets for later sale, and the franchise value of the failed IDI is lost. A payout liquidation is often the most costly and disruptive resolution strategy because of this destruction of franchise value and the FDIC's direct payment of insured deposits. Bridge Depository Institution. If the FDIC determines that temporarily continuing the operations of the failed IDI is less costly than a payout liquidation, the FDIC may organize a BDI to purchase certain assets and assume certain liabilities of the failed IDI.\42\ Generally, a BDI would continue [[Page 66398]] the failed bank's operations according to business plans and budgets approved by the FDIC and carried out by FDIC-selected BDI leadership. In addition to providing depositors continued access to deposits and banking services, the BDI would conduct any necessary restructuring required to rationalize the failed IDI's operations and maximize value to be achieved in an eventual sale. Subject to the least-cost requirement, the initial structure of the BDI may be based upon an all- deposit transaction, a transaction in which the BDI assumes only the insured deposits, or a transaction in which the BDI assumes all insured deposits and a portion of the uninsured deposits. Once a BDI is established, the FDIC seeks to stabilize the institution while simultaneously planning for the eventual exit and termination of the BDI. In exiting and terminating a BDI, the FDIC may merge or consolidate the BDI with another depository institution, issue and sell a majority of the capital stock in the BDI, or effect the assumption of the deposits or acquisition of the assets of the BDI.\43\ While utilizing a BDI can avoid the negative effects of a payout liquidation, such as destruction of franchise value, many of the same factors that challenge the feasibility of a traditional P&A transaction also complicate planning for the termination of a BDI through a sale of the whole entity or its constituent parts. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \42\ Before a BDI may be chartered, the chartering conditions set forth in 12 U.S.C. 1821(n)(2) must also be satisfied. For purposes of this guidance, if the Plan provides appropriate analysis concerning the feasibility of the BDI strategy, there is no expectation that the resolution plan also demonstrate separately that the conditions for chartering the BDI have been satisfied. \43\ 12 U.S.C. 1821(n)(10). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Though one commenter suggested that the guidance should require firms to develop resolution strategies involving BDIs, the agencies do not maintain an expectation that firms will develop resolution strategies involving BDIs. The expectations provided in this guidance are also intended to be helpful to firms that have chosen to involve a BDI in their resolution strategy. Least-Cost Analysis for Resolution Plans. The final guidance does not include an expectation that firms provide in their resolution plans a complete least-cost analysis. Such an analysis would, for example, include a comparison of the preferred strategy for resolving an IDI that is a material entity against every other possible resolution method. While a firm may choose to provide a complete least-cost analysis, this guidance discusses expectations regarding a limited least-cost analysis that would explain how the firm's preferred strategy is not more costly than a payout liquidation and, if applicable, an insured-only BDI. One commenter suggested that the agencies should provide guidance for how firms should address the valuation of an IDI's assets and liabilities, including its franchise value. In this final guidance, the agencies are providing additional explanation for how firms can develop and support the valuation of the IDI's assets and liabilities in an IDI resolution. This guidance includes a description of how firms can assess the franchise value of a firm's business. Example. The following example should be read in conjunction with section VIII of the guidance text, Insured Depository Institution Resolution. This example is only intended to provide firms with an illustration of the types of considerations and calculations that could be included in a firm's analysis explaining how its preferred strategy would be less costly than a payout liquidation and, if applicable, an insured-only BDI. This example is not intended to serve as a template for firms or to provide guidelines for reasonable valuations of a firm's assets or liabilities. The valuations described in this example are intended to be illustrative and are not guidance about the likely values of a firm's assets and liabilities in an individual resolution plan or in resolution. Bank A has $500 billion in total assets, consisting of $250 billion loans; $75 billion cash and equivalents; $125 billion in investment securities; and other assets totaling $50 billion. The bank's initial funding structure consists of $400 billion in deposits; $25 billion in various unsecured payables and debt; $25 billion in secured funding; and $50 billion in capital instruments. For this example, the bank assumes it would encounter idiosyncratic events at a time when severely adverse economic conditions are present, and this combination of events would cause the bank to be closed by the chartering authority and the FDIC appointed as receiver. The illustrative tables below reflect values as of the appointment of the FDIC as receiver. The initial events combine to cause immediate losses of $25 billion recognized as direct operating charges and $15 billion through write- downs/provision expense for the loan portfolio, and $60 billion of deposit runoff occurs. For purposes of conducting the analysis, the firm's management assumes that additional value diminution is present in the loan portfolio. Accordingly, after thoroughly analyzing the quality of its loan portfolio and determining the potential for additional credit losses, as well as considering the market value of the loan portfolio based upon the type of loans it holds in comparison with comparable sales transactions, and after further considering sensitivity testing, management supports an estimate near $175 billion for the loan portfolio. In developing its Resolution Plan, the firm's management further supports that $40 billion of additional deposit runoff would occur in addition to the initial $60 billion. At the time of failure, Bank A's remaining $300 billion of deposits are 60 percent insured and 40 percent uninsured. The ratio of insured deposits to uninsured deposits is used to calculate the pro rata recovery of depositors and the losses imposed on the DIF as a result.\44\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \44\ See infra note 45. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The deposit runoff is assumed to be met by using $50 billion of cash and selling $50 billion of investment securities. The remaining $75 billion investment portfolio is entirely invested in short-term U.S. Treasury securities with an estimated value of $70 billion. The other assets are implicated in the initial idiosyncratic loss. These other assets include fixed assets, foreclosed property, intellectual property, and miscellaneous items with a market value of $25 billion. As shown in table 1, the Plan provides an analysis of the payout liquidation strategy. This strategy includes an expected loss to the DIF of $18 billion. [[Page 66399]] Table 1--Illustration of Bank A Payout Liquidation--Cost Estimate [Dollars in billions] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Liquidation market value Payout liquidation liability claim and amount recovered ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Category Value Category Claim Recovery/(loss) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Loans............................ $175 Secured Claims..... $25 $25/($0). Securities....................... $70 Deposits Insured... $180 $162/($18). -------------------------------------------------------------- Cash............................. $25 FDIC incurs the loss for the insured deposits so that all Other............................ $25 insured deposits are fully repaid. -------------------------------------------------------------- Total........................ $295 Deposits Uninsured. $120 $108/($12). Unsecured Claims/ $25 $0/($25). Debt. Equity Holders..... .............. No recovery. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Loss to Deposit Insurance Fund (to make whole insured depositors) = $18 billion.\45\ Losses to uninsured depositors = $12 billion. However, the Plan also asserts and supports that the payout liquidation approach fails to reflect the franchise value of the combined deposit and loan relationships stemming from considerations such as the low administrative costs associated with servicing large deposits, the elimination of significant customer acquisition costs, the stable fee income stream associated with the accounts due to barriers to entry for certain products, and the importance and value of integrating the loan and deposit products. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \45\ Calculation: (1) $295 billion asset value less secured claim of $25 billion = $270 billion available to depositors and junior claims; (2) $270 billion available spread pro-rata across $300 billion depositor class; 60 percent insured deposits and 40 percent uninsured deposits; (3) $270 billion x .6 = $162 billion paid to insured depositors; $270 billion x .4 = $108 billion paid to uninsured depositors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Plan calculates, and provides the analysis supporting the calculation, that the economic benefit of packaging these benefits together in an all-deposit BDI is $20 billion, which is reflected as a bid premium to liquidation pricing in table 2. The result is that the all-deposit BDI is less costly to the DIF than liquidation because of the inclusion of the bid premium. Table 2--Illustration of Bank A Preferred Strategy--Cost Estimate [Dollars in billions] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All deposit bridge market value All deposit bridge bank liability claim and amount recovered ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Category Value Category Claim Recovery/(loss) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Loans............................ $175 Secured Claims..... $25 $25/($0). Securities....................... $70 Deposits Insured... $180 $174/($6). -------------------------------------------------------------- Cash............................. $25 FDIC incurs the loss for the insured deposits so that all Other............................ $25 insured deposits are fully repaid. -------------------------------------------------------------- Sub Total........................ $295 Deposits Uninsured. $120 $116/($4).* Bid Premium...................... $20 Unsecured Claims/ $25 $0/($25). Debt. Total........................ $315 Equity Holders..... .............. No recovery. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Loss to Deposit Insurance Fund (to make whole insured and uninsured depositors) = $10 billion, which is less than the payout liquidation loss.\46\ * Losses to uninsured depositors total $4 billion and are absorbed by the DIF. I. Derivatives and Trading Activities The agencies requested comment on whether to provide derivatives and trading activities guidance for specified firms that adopt an SPOE or MPOE resolution strategy. Some commenters argued that no derivatives and trading guidance is needed for domestic triennial full filers because they have limited derivatives and trading portfolios, particularly relative to the U.S. GSIB banking organizations covered by such guidance. These commenters also noted that not all of these biennial filers, which are Category I firms, are subject to this type of guidance. Other commenters supported providing such guidance to domestic triennial full filers, despite observing that these firms engage in less activity than the biennial filers. One commenter cautioned that derivatives activities for domestic triennial full filers may increase in the future and proposed the inclusion of an orderly-wind-down analysis for firms with net derivatives exceeding a given threshold. Another commenter recommended that the guidance include expectations for: roles and responsibilities in derivatives unwind, plan reporting regarding derivatives exposures, plan risk assessments in cross-border activity, barriers to swift unwind of derivatives activities booked outside the United States, and capabilities to generate detailed derivative reports. This commenter also argued that firms should specify plans to wind-down between affiliates and external [[Page 66400]] counterparties, as well as describe potential sale of some trading positions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \46\ Calculation: (1) $315 billion asset value less secured claim of $25 billion = $290 billion available to depositors and junior claims; (2) $290 billion available spread pro-rata across $300 billion depositor class; 60 percent insured deposits and 40 percent uninsured deposits; (3) $290 billion x .6 = $174 billion paid to insured depositors; $290 billion x .4 = $116 billion paid to uninsured depositors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- After reviewing the comments and considering the scope of derivatives and trading activities of domestic Category I, II, and III banking organizations,\47\ the agencies determined that the banking organizations that would be specified firms have limited derivatives and trading operations compared to the subset of biennial filers that are the subject of derivatives and trading guidance. The agencies also note that the Rule includes certain requirements regarding derivatives and trading activities with which all covered companies--including domestic triennial full filers--must comply, as well as the overall requirement to provide a strategic analysis describing the covered company's plan for orderly resolution.\48\ The agencies believe that for this set of covered companies, given their current activities, the topic of derivatives and trading activities is sufficiently addressed by the Rule. The agencies are therefore finalizing the guidance without including expectations on derivatives and trading activity for the specified firms. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \47\ See FR Y-15 Systemic Risk Report, 2nd quarter 2023 data. Publicly available at the National Information Center, https://www.ffiec.gov/NPW. See also Quarterly Report on Bank Trading and Derivatives Activities--Third Quarter 2023. Publicly available at https://www.occ.gov/publications-and-resources/publications/quarterly-report-on-bank-trading-and-derivatives-activities/index-quarterly-report-on-bank-trading-and-derivatives-activities.html. \48\ See 12 CFR 243.2 and 381.2; 12 CFR 243.5(c) and (e)(6)-(7), and 381.5(c) and (e)(6)-(7). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The agencies also recognize that derivatives activity or risk for domestic triennial full filers may change in the future. The agencies may consider the need for firm-specific derivatives and trading expectations in the future for specified firms that substantially increase their derivatives and trading activities or change in a way such that having a strategy to wind-down their derivatives portfolios is critical to their resolvability. J. Format and Structure of Plans; Assumptions This section of the proposal described the agencies' preferred presentation regarding the format, assumptions, and structure of resolution plans. Under the proposal, plans would have been expected to contain an executive summary, a narrative of the firm's resolution strategy, relevant technical appendices, and a public section as detailed in the Rule. The proposed format, structure, and assumptions were generally similar to those in the 2019 U.S. GSIB Guidance, except that the proposed guidance reflected the expectations that (a) a firm should support any assumptions that it will have access to the Discount Window and/or other borrowings during the period immediately prior to entering bankruptcy and clarified expectations around such assumptions, and (b) a firm should not assume the use of the systemic risk exception to the least-cost test in the event of a failure of an IDI requiring resolution under the FDI Act. In addition, for firms that adopt an MPOE resolution strategy, the proposal included the expectation that a plan should demonstrate and describe how the failure event(s) results in material financial distress, including consideration of the likelihood of the diminution the firm's liquidity and capital levels prior to bankruptcy. The proposal also included several questions about assumptions and whether to include answers to frequently asked questions. The agencies received one comment in response to a question posed regarding assumptions related to lending facilities, including the Discount Window. The commenter supported the proposed assumptions guidance regarding these facilities and recommended that the agencies consider providing additional guidance on assumptions related to the amount, timing, and limitations of liquidity that might become available from these sources. However, the additional guidance requested by the commenter is unnecessary, and the agencies are finalizing this section of the guidance as proposed with one clarification. Specifically, the proposed guidance regarding the relevant assumptions already includes references to timing and limitations of liquidity commensurate with the activities of firms subject to the guidance. As a clarification, the agencies have added a reference to Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBs) as a type of borrowing for which firms should provide support in their resolution plans if they assume access during the period immediately prior to entering bankruptcy. The agencies' experiences in 2023 showed that many IDIs depend heavily on FHLB funding in times of stress and, accordingly, the agencies expect firms to be prepared to support any assumptions around such reliance for resolution planning purposes. The final guidance also includes an expectation contained in the 2019 U.S. GSIB Guidance and the 2020 FBO Guidance regarding the parameters of economic forecasting in a resolution plan submission. Those guidance documents stated that a resolution plan should assume the Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test (DFAST) severely adverse scenario for the first quarter of the calendar year in which a resolution plan is submitted is the domestic and international economic environment at the time of the firm's failure and throughout the resolution process.\49\ While this assumption is similar to a provision in the Rule,\50\ the agencies believe it is important to provide guidance to firms about the timing of the required assumption in the Rule. The Board provides DFAST scenario information to the specified firms through the Board's public website.\51\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \49\ 2019 U.S. GSIB Guidance at 84 FR 1459; 2020 FBO Guidance at 85 FR 83578. \50\ 12 CFR 243.4(h)(1) and 381.4(h)(1). \51\ https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/dodd-frank-act-stress-test-publications.htm. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The agencies also received a comment recommending that more of firms' resolution plans be disclosed publicly to promote market discipline and specifically asking that the public portion of resolution plans describe potential acquirers of operations in the event of resolution. The Rule establishes at a high-level the required content of the public section of a resolution plan,\52\ and this final guidance clarifies the agencies' expectations with respect to that section. The agencies are mindful that the public disclosure of resolution plans, which may contain private commercial information, has both benefits and drawbacks, and the agencies believe that, at the moment, the Rule--revisions to which are outside the scope of this guidance--and the final guidance appropriately balance transparency with confidentiality. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \52\ 12 CFR 243.11(c) and 381.11(c). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The agencies are otherwise finalizing this section of the guidance as proposed.\53\ The agencies did not receive any comments in response to the proposal's request for comments about answers to frequently asked questions, and the agencies have not included those prior answers to frequently asked questions because these prior answers were requested by and prepared for a different set of firms. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \53\ The agencies also are clarifying one expectation in the Financial Statements and Projections subsection of the Format and Structure of Plans; Assumptions section of the guidance that could be construed to impose a requirement on the specified firms. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- K. Additional Comments Differentiating Resolution Plan Guidance The agencies received several general comments about whether the expectations in the proposal were suitably modified from expectations [[Page 66401]] included in past resolution plan guidance and whether the proposal appropriately distinguished between different types of triennial full filers. Several commenters contended that the proposed guidance did not sufficiently differentiate expectations among firms subject to resolution planning guidance. One commenter argued that section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the agencies to differentiate the content of the resolution planning guidance; the proposal was too similar to the 2019 U.S. GSIB Guidance; and expectations for the specified firms should be further differentiated based on size, risk, and other factors. Another commenter argued that the proposed guidance favors the MPOE resolution strategy by including fewer expectations for firms that adopt that strategy and recommended that final guidance for firms adopting an MPOE resolution strategy should be more aligned with guidance for resolution plan filers with an SPOE resolution strategy. While the differentiation requirement in section 165 of the Dodd- Frank Act does not apply to this non-binding resolution plan guidance, the guidance differentiates among covered companies, taking into consideration their size, complexity, and other risk-related factors; their resolution strategy, whether SPOE or MPOE; and whether they are domestic or foreign-based. The thresholds and risk-based indicators that form the basis of the risk-based category framework used by the Rule are designed to take into account an individual firm's particular activities and organizational footprint that may present significant challenges to an orderly resolution.\54\ The Rule, using those categories, defines triennial full filers as one cohort because the failure of a Category II or III banking organization could pose a threat to U.S. financial stability. Banking organizations in these two categories often have similar characteristics, such as organizational structures, and similar resolution strategies that benefit from similar resolution guidance. Accordingly, the agencies believe the guidance is equally appropriate for domestic Category II and III banking organizations. In addition, as discussed above, the regional bank failures in March 2023 demonstrated that the failure of banking organizations with $100 billion to $250 billion in total consolidated assets can be disruptive to U.S. financial stability. For these reasons, providing the guidance to domestic triennial full filers in that asset range is appropriate to prevent or mitigate risks to the financial stability of the United States. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \54\ See 2019 Federal Register Rule Publication at 84 FR 59197- 201. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Guidance for specified firms that adopt an SPOE resolution strategy is differentiated relative to guidance for Category I banking organizations (i.e., the 2019 U.S. GSIB Guidance), notably with the absence of derivatives and trading expectations, which are applicable to most of the U.S. GSIBs, and other operational guidance as well as reduced separability expectations. Other aspects of the SPOE guidance are appropriately similar to the 2019 U.S. GSIB Guidance because the successful execution of an SPOE resolution strategy benefits from the capabilities discussed in the guidance. The guidance for firms that adopt an MPOE resolution strategy includes substantially simpler expectations, relative to SPOE guidance and the 2019 U.S. GSIB Guidance, in the areas of capital, liquidity, governance mechanisms, operational, legal entity rationalization and separability, derivatives and trading expectations, and PCS. Having simpler expectations relative to SPOE guidance does not necessarily mean a firm adopting an MPOE strategy will encounter fewer challenges developing its resolution plan; regardless of the strategy chosen, the firm is responsible for providing adequate information and analysis to demonstrate its plan will facilitate an orderly resolution. Each firm remains free to choose the resolution strategy it believes would most effectively facilitate an orderly resolution, and the agencies are not suggesting that any firm change its resolution strategy, nor do the agencies identify a preferred strategy for a specific firm or set of firms.\55\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \55\ See infra section I.A, Resolution Plan Strategy, of this document for further discussion about why the agencies are differentiating expectations depending on whether a firm adopts an SPOE or MPOE resolution strategy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, resolution plan guidance for Category II and III banking organizations is adapted to whether a covered company is based in the United States or in a foreign jurisdiction, with dedicated guidance documents for each type of firm. The Rule differentiates between banking organizations based on home jurisdiction,\56\ and whether a banking organization is based in the United States can significantly impact its resolution strategy, resolution capabilities, and resolution planning. Accordingly, expectations for domestic and foreign-based triennial full filers are differentiated in the areas of capital, liquidity, governance mechanisms, shared services, separability, branches, and group-wide resolution plans. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \56\ See 12 CFR 243.5(a) and 381.5(a). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments About Resolution Planning and the Proposal The agencies received several general comments about resolution planning guidance. The agencies have considered these commenters' input but have made no modifications to the final guidance. One commenter expressed support for the proposed guidance, in part, because it reaffirms that bankruptcy is the preferred resolution strategy and would improve the quality of resolution plan submissions through enhanced information and assumptions, better enabling the resolution of a specified firm in an orderly manner. Another commenter praised the agencies' proposal for providing needed clarity and transparency on expectations for specified firms' resolution plans, and for making several improvements that will improve specified firms' resolution plans. Another commenter recommended that the agencies adopt the content of the guidance in the form of a legally binding and enforceable rule, in part due to the size and scope of specified firms, the importance of resolution planning, and the financial stability implications involved. This commenter also suggested that the large bank failures in 2023 demonstrated the need for improvement in banking organizations' resolution planning and the agencies' process for assessing these plans. Resolution planning is important to U.S. financial stability; however, the agencies have not made changes to the guidance in response to these comments. The Rule, which is legally enforceable, identifies the specific topics that must be addressed in resolution plans. In contrast, resolution plan guidance outlines the agencies' supervisory expectations and priorities and articulates the agencies' general views regarding appropriate resolution planning practices for the specified firms. The final guidance provides examples of resolution plan content and capabilities that the agencies generally consider consistent with effective resolution planning. This approach is consistent with resolution planning guidance provided to other covered companies in the past, including guidance for Category I banking organizations and certain foreign Category II banking organizations. A commenter argued that the agencies should allow for an iterative process for domestic triennial full filers to develop their strategies and capabilities, similar to the gradual maturation of Category I [[Page 66402]] banking organizations' resolution plans. This commenter also argued the agencies should provide more than one year for firms to incorporate the final guidance into their next resolution plan submissions and that the guidance should not be the basis for a deficiency. By statute and under the Rule, each resolution plan filer must submit a plan for orderly resolution under the Bankruptcy Code, and the agencies must assess the credibility of each plan. Each firm remains free to choose the resolution strategy it believes would most effectively facilitate an orderly resolution and the agencies are not suggesting that any firm change its resolution strategy, nor do the agencies identify a preferred strategy for a specific firm or set of firms. The standard of review for a resolution plan submission of a firm that transitions to a new strategy is the same as for any firm subject to the Rule. The agencies stated in the preamble to the 2019 revisions to the Rule that they would endeavor to finalize guidance a year in advance of the next applicable resolution plan submission date, and the agencies are extending the next resolution plan submission deadline for these firms to provide at least one year advanced notice of general guidance.\57\ The agencies also reaffirm that the guidance does not have the force and effect of law, and the agencies do not take enforcement actions or issue findings based on resolution planning guidance. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \57\ See 2019 Federal Register Publication at 84 FR 59204. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments Outside the Scope of Proposal The agencies received several comments outside the scope of the proposed guidance. One commenter urged the agencies to shorten the length between resolution plan submissions under the Rule, from three to two years, and evaluate key aspects of plans annually. This commenter also recommended the agencies create an independent committee to advise the agencies on resolution planning matters as well as require large banking organizations to hold more capital generally. Another commenter argued that any LTD requirements should reflect a banking organization's preferred resolution strategy and not push a banking organization to adopt a particular strategy while another commenter recommended finalizing the LTD proposal as proposed. A commenter also encouraged the FDIC to provide banking organizations at least one year to comply with any final IDI Rule. Another commenter also recommended that the agencies promote resolvability by requiring large corporations to hold term deposits at the specified firms. In addition, another commenter suggested including in the final guidance expectations related to green financing. The agencies have not made any changes to the guidance to address these comments. IV. Paperwork Reduction Act Certain provisions of the final guidance contain ``collections of information'' within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the agencies 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 agencies have requested and OMB has assigned to the agencies the respective control numbers shown. The information collections contained in the final guidance have been submitted to OMB for review and approval by the FDIC under section 3507(d) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) and section 1320.11 of OMB's implementing regulations (5 CFR part 1320). The Board reviewed the final guidance under the authority delegated to the Board by OMB and has approved these collections of information. The agencies did not receive any comments related to the PRA. The agencies have a continuing interest in the public's opinions of information collections. At any time, commenters may submit comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the addresses listed in the ADDRESSES caption in the proposed guidance notice. All comments will become a matter of public record. Written comments and recommendations for these information collections also should be sent within 30 days of publication of this document to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function. Collection title: Board: Reporting Requirements Associated with Regulation QQ. FDIC: Reporting Requirements Associated with Resolution Planning. OMB control number: Board 7100-0346; FDIC 3064-0210. Frequency: Triennial, Biennial, and on occasion. Respondents: Bank holding companies (including any foreign bank or company that is, or is treated as, a bank holding company under section 8(a) of the International Banking Act of 1978 and meets the relevant total consolidated assets threshold) with total consolidated assets of $250 billion or more, a bank holding companies with $100 billion or more in total consolidated assets with certain characteristics, and nonbank financial firms designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council for supervision by the Board. Current actions: The final guidance modifies certain provisions of the proposed guidance. For domestic firms, the final guidance eliminates expectations related to separability, reducing the average burden hours per response by 3,000 for domestic firms using an SPOE strategy and 975 for domestic firms using an MPOE strategy. The final guidance also clarifies expectations around operational shared services for firms using an SPOE resolution strategy and around the IDI Resolution Plan/Least Cost Test for all firms. Regarding operational shared services, the guidance clarifies that a firm's implementation plan to ensure continuity of shared services should include those that are material to the execution of the resolution strategy, such as reliance on outside bankruptcy counsel and consultants. Regarding the FDI Act's least-cost requirement and how it relates to expectations around IDI resolution, the agencies provided additional detail on how firms can develop and support the valuation of an IDI's assets and liabilities in an IDI resolution. The agencies do not anticipate these clarifications impacting the burden estimates. Historically, the Board and the FDIC have split the respondents for purposes of PRA clearances. As such, the agencies will split the change in burden as well. As a result of this split and the final revisions, there is a proposed net increase in the overall estimated burden hours of 14,922 hours for the Board and 14,304 hours for the FDIC. Therefore, the total Board estimated burden for its entire information collection would be 216,129 hours and the total FDIC estimated burden would be 210,844 hours. The following table presents only the change in the estimated burden hours, as amended by the final guidance, broken out by agency. The table does not include a discussion of the remaining estimated burden hours, [[Page 66403]] which remain unchanged.\58\ As shown in the table, the triennial full filers' resolution plan submissions would be estimated more granularly according to SPOE and MPOE resolution strategies. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \58\ In addition to the revisions to the estimations for triennial full filers, the agencies have revised the estimation for biennial filers from 40,115 hours per response to 39,550 hours per response to align with burden estimation methodology with what was used for triennial full filers under the final guidance. Specifically, the agencies removed a component for a biennial filer's analysis of its critical operations as part of its submission of targeted and full resolution plans, because this critical operations analysis is integrated in the preparation of such plans. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated FR QQ number of annual average hours annual burden respondents frequency per response hours ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Board Burdens ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Current Triennial Full: Complex Foreign......................... 1 1 9,777 9,777 Foreign and Domestic.................... 7 1 4,667 32,669 --------------------------------------------------------------- Current Total....................... .............. .............. .............. 42,446 Final Triennial Full: FBO SPOE *.............................. 2 1 11,848 23,696 FBO MPOE................................ 3 1 5,939 17,817 Domestic MPOE........................... 3 1 5,285 15,855 --------------------------------------------------------------- Final Total......................... .............. .............. .............. 57,368 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FDIC Burdens ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Current Triennial Full: Complex Foreign......................... 1 1 9,777 9,777 Foreign and Domestic.................... 6 1 4,667 28,002 --------------------------------------------------------------- Current Total....................... .............. .............. .............. 37,779 Final Triennial Full: FBO SPOE................................ 2 1 11,848 23,696 FBO MPOE................................ 3 1 5,939 17,817 Domestic MPOE........................... 2 1 5,285 10,570 --------------------------------------------------------------- Final Total......................... .............. .............. .............. 52,083 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * There are currently no domestic triennial full filers utilizing an SPOE strategy. Estimated hours per response for a domestic SPOE triennial full filer would be 10,535 hours. V. Text of the Final Guidance Guidance for Resolution Plan Submissions of Domestic Triennial Full Filers I. Introduction Section 165(d) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5365(d)) requires certain financial companies to report periodically to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the Board) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the FDIC) (together, the agencies) their plans for rapid and orderly resolution in the event of material financial distress or failure. On November 1, 2011, the agencies promulgated a joint rule implementing the provisions of Section 165(d).\1\ Subsequently, in November 2019, the agencies finalized amendments to the joint rule addressing amendments to the Dodd-Frank Act made by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act and improving certain aspects of the joint rule based on the agencies' experience implementing the joint rule since its adoption.\2\ Financial companies meeting criteria set out in the Rule must file a resolution plan (Plan) according to the schedule specified in the Rule. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Resolution Plans Required, 76 FR 67323 (Nov. 1, 2011). \2\ Resolution Plans Required, 84 FR 59194 (Nov. 1, 2019). The amendments became effective December 31, 2019. The ``Rule'' means the joint rule as amended in 2019. Terms not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Rule. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This document is intended to provide guidance to certain domestic financial companies required to submit Plans to assist their further development of a Plan for their 2025 and subsequent Plan submissions. Specifically, the guidance applies to any domestic covered company that is a triennial full filer under the Rule \3\ because it is subject to Category II or III standards in accordance with the Board's tailoring rule (specified firms or firms).\4\ The Plan for a specified firm would address the subsidiaries and operations that are domiciled in the United States as well as the foreign subsidiaries, offices, and operations of the covered company. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ See 12 CFR 243.4(b)(1) and 381.4(b)(1). \4\ Prudential Standards for Large Bank Holding Companies, Savings and Loan Holding Companies, and Foreign Banking Organizations, 84 FR 59032 (Nov. 1, 2019). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The document does not have the force and effect of law.\5\ Rather, it describes the agencies' expectations and priorities regarding the specified firms' Plans and the agencies' general views regarding specific areas where additional detail should be provided and where certain capabilities or optionality should be [[Page 66404]] developed and maintained to demonstrate that each firm has considered fully, and is able to mitigate, obstacles to the successful implementation of their resolution strategy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ See 12 CFR 262.7 and appendix A to 12 CFR part 262; 12 CFR part 302. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- When a domestic banking organization first becomes a specified firm,\6\ this document will apply to the firm's next resolution plan submission that is due at least 12 months after the date the firm becomes a specified firm. If a specified firm ceases to be subject to Category II or III standards, it will no longer be a specified firm, and this document would no longer apply to that firm. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ See 12 CFR 252.5(c)-(d). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In general, this document is organized around a number of key challenges in resolution (capital; liquidity; governance mechanisms; operational; legal entity rationalization; and insured depository institution resolution (IDI), if applicable) that apply across resolution plans, depending on their strategy. Additional challenges or obstacles may arise based on a firm's particular structure, operations, or resolution strategy. Each firm is expected to satisfactorily address these vulnerabilities in its Plan. In addition, each topic of this guidance is separated into expectations for a specified firm that adopts a single point of entry (SPOE) resolution strategy for its Plan and expectations for a specified firm that adopts a multiple point of entry (MPOE) resolution strategy for its Plan. Under the Rule, the agencies will review a Plan to determine if it satisfactorily addresses key potential challenges, including those specified below. If the agencies jointly decide that an aspect of a Plan presents a weakness that individually or in conjunction with other aspects could undermine the feasibility of the Plan, the agencies may determine jointly that the Plan is not credible or would not facilitate an orderly resolution under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The agencies may not take enforcement actions or issue findings based on this guidance. II. Capital SPOE The firm should have the capital capabilities necessary to execute its resolution strategy, including the modeling and estimation process described below. Resolution Capital Adequacy and Positioning (RCAP). In order to help ensure that a firm's material entities \7\ could operate while the parent company is in bankruptcy, the firm should have an adequate amount of loss-absorbing capacity to recapitalize those material entities. Thus, a firm should have outstanding a minimum amount of loss-absorbing capacity, including long-term debt, to help ensure that the firm has adequate capacity to meet that need at a consolidated level (external LAC). \8\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ The terms ``material entities,'' ``identified critical operations,'' and ``core business lines'' have the same meaning as in the Rule. \8\ Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity, Long-Term Debt, and Clean Holding Company Requirements for Systemically Important U.S. Bank Holding Companies and Intermediate Holding Companies of Systemically Important Foreign Banking Organizations, 82 FR 8266 (Jan. 24, 2017); Long-Term Debt Requirements for Large Bank Holding Companies, Certain Intermediate Holding Companies of Foreign Banking Organizations, and Large Insured Depository Institutions, 88 FR 64524 (Sept. 19, 2023). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A firm's external LAC should be complemented by appropriate positioning of loss-absorbing capacity within the firm (i.e., internal LAC), consistent with any applicable rules requiring prepositioned resources at IDIs in the form of long-term debt. After adhering to any requirements related to prepositioning long-term debt at IDIs, the positioning of a firm's remaining resources should balance the certainty associated with pre-positioning resources directly at material entities with the flexibility provided by holding recapitalization resources at the parent (contributable resources) to meet unanticipated losses at material entities. That balance should take account of both pre-positioning at material entities and holding resources at the parent, and the obstacles associated with each. With respect to material entities that are not U.S. IDIs subject to pre- positioned long-term debt requirements, the firm should not rely exclusively on either full pre-positioning or parent contributable resources to recapitalize such entities. The Plan should describe the positioning of resources within the firm, along with analysis supporting such positioning. Finally, to the extent that pre-positioned resources at a material entity are in the form of intercompany debt and there are one or more entities between that material entity and the parent, the firm should structure the instruments so as to ensure that the material entity can be recapitalized. Resolution Capital Execution Need (RCEN). To the extent necessitated by the firm's resolution strategy, material entities need to be recapitalized to a level that allows them to operate or be wound down in an orderly manner following the parent company's bankruptcy filing. The firm should have a methodology for periodically estimating the amount of capital that may be needed to support each material entity after the bankruptcy filing (RCEN). The firm's positioning of resources should be able to support the RCEN estimates. In addition, the RCEN estimates should be incorporated into the firm's governance framework to ensure that the parent company files for bankruptcy at a time that enables execution of the preferred strategy. The firm's RCEN methodology should use conservative forecasts for losses and risk-weighted assets and incorporate estimates of potential additional capital needs through the resolution period,\9\ consistent with the firm's resolution strategy. The RCEN methodology should be calibrated such that recapitalized material entities will have sufficient capital to maintain market confidence as required under the preferred resolution strategy. Capital levels should meet or exceed all applicable regulatory capital requirements for ``well-capitalized'' status and meet estimated additional capital needs throughout resolution. Material entities that are not subject to capital requirements may be considered sufficiently recapitalized when they have achieved capital levels typically required to obtain an investment-grade credit rating or, if the entity is not rated, an equivalent level of financial soundness. Finally, the methodology should be independently reviewed, consistent with the firm's corporate governance processes and controls for the use of models and methodologies. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ The resolution period begins immediately after the parent company bankruptcy filing and extends through the completion of the preferred resolution strategy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- MPOE N/A. III. Liquidity SPOE The firm should have the liquidity capabilities necessary to execute its preferred resolution strategy. For resolution purposes, these capabilities should include having an appropriate model and process for estimating and maintaining sufficient liquidity at or readily available to material entities and a methodology for estimating the liquidity needed to successfully execute the resolution strategy, as described below. Resolution Liquidity Adequacy and Positioning (RLAP). With respect to RLAP, the firm should be able to measure the stand-alone liquidity position of each material entity (including material entities that are non-U.S. branches)--i.e., the high-quality liquid assets (HQLA) at the material [[Page 66405]] entity less net outflows to third parties and affiliates--and ensure that liquidity is readily available to meet any deficits. The RLAP model should cover a period of at least 30 days and reflect the idiosyncratic liquidity profile and risk of the firm. The model should balance the reduction in frictions associated with holding liquidity directly at material entities with the flexibility provided by holding HQLA at the parent available to meet unanticipated outflows at material entities. Thus, the firm should not rely exclusively on either full pre-positioning or an expected contribution of liquid resources from the parent. The model \10\ should ensure that the parent holding company holds sufficient HQLA (inclusive of its deposits at the U.S. branch of the lead bank subsidiary) to cover the sum of all stand-alone material entity net liquidity deficits. The stand-alone net liquidity position of each material entity (HQLA less net outflows) should be measured using the firm's internal liquidity stress test assumptions and should treat inter-affiliate exposures in the same manner as third- party exposures. For example, an overnight unsecured exposure to an affiliate should be assumed to mature. Finally, the firm should not assume that a net liquidity surplus at one material entity could be moved to meet net liquidity deficits at other material entities or to augment parent resources. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ ``Model'' refers to the set of calculations estimating the net liquidity surplus/deficit at each legal entity and for the firm in aggregate based on assumptions regarding available liquidity, e.g., HQLA and third-party and interaffiliate net outflows. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Additionally, the RLAP methodology should take into account: (A) the daily contractual mismatches between inflows and outflows; (B) the daily flows from movement of cash and collateral for all inter- affiliate transactions; and (C) the daily stressed liquidity flows and trapped liquidity as a result of actions taken by clients, counterparties, key financial market utilities (FMUs), and foreign supervisors, among others. Resolution Liquidity Execution Need (RLEN). The firm should have a methodology for estimating the liquidity needed after the parent's bankruptcy filing to stabilize the surviving material entities and to allow those entities to operate post-filing. The RLEN estimate should be incorporated into the firm's governance framework to ensure that the firm files for bankruptcy in a timely way, i.e., prior to the firm's HQLA falling below the RLEN estimate. The firm's RLEN methodology should: (A) Estimate the minimum operating liquidity (MOL) needed at each material entity to ensure those entities could continue to operate post-parent's bankruptcy filing and/or to support a wind-down strategy; (B) Provide daily cash flow forecasts by material entity to support estimation of peak funding needs to stabilize each entity under resolution; (C) Provide a comprehensive breakout of all inter-affiliate transactions and arrangements that could impact the MOL or peak funding needs estimates; and (D) Estimate the minimum amount of liquidity required at each material entity to meet the MOL and peak needs noted above, which would inform the firm's board(s) of directors of when they need to take resolution-related actions. The MOL estimates should capture material entities' intraday liquidity requirements, operating expenses, working capital needs, and inter-affiliate funding frictions to ensure that material entities could operate without disruption during the resolution. The peak funding needs estimates should be projected for each material entity and cover the length of time the firm expects it would take to stabilize that material entity. Inter-affiliate funding frictions should be taken into account in the estimation process. The firm's forecasts of MOL and peak funding needs should ensure that material entities could operate through resolution consistent with regulatory requirements, market expectations, and the firm's post- failure strategy. These forecasts should inform the RLEN estimate, i.e., the minimum amount of HQLA required to facilitate the execution of the firm's strategy. The RLEN estimate should be tied to the firm's governance mechanisms and be incorporated into the playbooks as discussed below to assist the board of directors in taking timely resolution-related actions. MPOE The firm should have the liquidity capabilities necessary to execute its preferred resolution strategy. A Plan with an MPOE resolution strategy should include analysis and projections of a range of liquidity needs during resolution, including intraday; reflect likely failure and resolution scenarios; and consider the guidance on assumptions provided in Section VIII, Format and Structure of Plans; Assumptions. IV. Governance Mechanisms SPOE Playbooks and Triggers. A firm should identify the governance mechanisms that would ensure execution of required board actions at the appropriate time (as anticipated under the firm's preferred strategy) and include pre-action triggers and existing agreements for such actions. Governance playbooks should detail the board and senior management actions necessary to facilitate the firm's preferred strategy and to mitigate vulnerabilities, and should incorporate the triggers identified below. The governance playbooks should also include a discussion of: (A) The firm's proposed communications strategy, both internal and external; \11\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ External communications include those with U.S. and foreign authorities and other external stakeholders, such as large depositors and shareholders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (B) The boards of directors' fiduciary responsibilities and how planned actions would be consistent with such responsibilities applicable at the time actions are expected to be taken; (C) Potential conflicts of interest, including interlocking boards of directors; and (D) Any employee retention policy. All responsible parties and timeframes for action should be identified. Governance playbooks should be updated periodically for all entities whose boards of directors would need to act in advance of the commencement of resolution proceedings under the firm's preferred strategy. The firm should demonstrate that key actions will be taken at the appropriate time in order to mitigate financial, operational, legal, and regulatory vulnerabilities. To ensure that these actions will occur, the firm should establish clearly identified triggers linked to specific actions for: (A) The escalation of information to senior management and the board(s) to potentially take the corresponding actions at each stage of distress leading eventually to the decision to file for bankruptcy; (B) Successful recapitalization of subsidiaries prior to the parent's filing for bankruptcy and funding of such entities during the parent company's bankruptcy to the extent the preferred strategy relies on such actions or support; and [[Page 66406]] (C) The timely execution of a bankruptcy filing and related pre- filing actions.\12\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ Key pre-filing actions include the preparation of any emergency motion required to be decided on the first day of the firm's bankruptcy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These triggers should be based, at a minimum, on capital, liquidity, and market metrics, and should incorporate the firm's methodologies for forecasting the liquidity and capital needed to operate as required by the preferred strategy following a parent company's bankruptcy filing. Additionally, the triggers and related actions should be specific. Triggers linked to firm actions as contemplated by the firm's preferred strategy should identify when and under what conditions the firm, including the parent company and its material entities, would transition from business-as-usual (BAU) conditions to a stress period and from a stress period to the recapitalization/resolution periods. Corresponding escalation procedures, actions, and timeframes should be constructed so that breach of the triggers will allow prerequisite actions to be completed. For example, breach of the triggers needs to occur early enough to ensure that resources are available and can be downstreamed, if anticipated by the firm's strategy, and with adequate time for the preparation of the bankruptcy petition and first-day motions, necessary stakeholder communications, and requisite board actions. Triggers identifying the onset of stress and recapitalization/ resolution periods, and the associated escalation procedures and actions, should be discussed directly in the governance playbooks. Pre-Bankruptcy Parent Support. The Plan should include a detailed legal analysis of the potential state law and bankruptcy law challenges and mitigants to planned provision of capital and liquidity to the subsidiaries prior to the parent's bankruptcy filing (Support). Specifically, the analysis should identify potential legal obstacles and explain how the firm would seek to ensure that Support would be provided as planned. Legal obstacles include claims of fraudulent transfer, preference, breach of fiduciary duty, and any other applicable legal theory identified by the firm. The analysis also should include related claims that may prevent or delay an effective recapitalization, such as equitable claims to enjoin the transfer (e.g., imposition of a constructive trust by the court). The analysis should apply the actions contemplated in the Plan regarding each element of the claim, the anticipated timing for commencement and resolution of the claims, and the extent to which adjudication of such claim could affect execution of the firm's preferred resolution strategy. The analysis should include mitigants to the potential challenges to the planned Support. The Plan should identify the mitigant(s) to such challenges that the firm considers most effective. In identifying appropriate mitigants, the firm should consider the effectiveness of a contractually binding mechanism (CBM), pre-positioning of financial resources in material entities, and the creation of an intermediate holding company. Moreover, if the Plan includes a CBM, the firm should consider whether it is appropriate that the CBM should have the following: (A) Clearly defined triggers; (B) Triggers that are synchronized to the firm's liquidity and capital methodologies; (C) Perfected security interests in specified collateral sufficient to fully secure all Support obligations on a continuous basis (including mechanisms for adjusting the amount of collateral as the value of obligations under the agreement or collateral assets fluctuates); and (D) Liquidated damages provisions or other features designed to make the CBM more enforceable. The firm also should consider related actions or agreements that may enhance the effectiveness of a CBM. A copy of any agreement and documents referenced therein (e.g., evidence of security interest perfection) should be included in the Plan. The governance playbooks included in the Plan should incorporate any developments from the firm's analysis of potential legal challenges regarding the Support, including any Support approach(es) the firm has implemented. If the firm analyzed and addressed an issue noted in this section in a prior plan submission, the Plan may reproduce that analysis and arguments and should build upon it to at least the extent described above, including ensuring that, as with all other aspects of the Plan, it remains accurate and up to date. In preparing the analysis of these issues, firms may consult with law firms and other experts on these matters. The agencies do not object to appropriate collaboration between firms, including through trade organizations and with the academic community, to develop analysis of common legal challenges and available mitigants. MPOE N/A. V. Operational SPOE Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Activities Framework. Maintaining continuity of payment, clearing, and settlement (PCS) services is critical for the orderly resolution of firms that are either users or providers,\13\ or both, of PCS services. A firm should demonstrate capabilities for continued access to PCS services essential to an orderly resolution through a framework to support such access by: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ A firm is a user of PCS services if it accesses PCS services through an agent bank or it uses the services of a financial market utility (FMU) through its membership in that FMU or through an agent bank. A firm is a provider of PCS services if it provides PCS services to clients as an agent bank or it provides clients with access to an FMU or agent bank through the firm's membership in or relationship with that service provider. A firm is also a provider if it provides clients with PCS services through the firm's own operations (e.g., payment services or custody services). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Identifying clients,\14\ FMUs, and agent banks as key from the firm's perspective for the firm's material entities, identified critical operations, and core business lines, using both quantitative (volume and value) \15\ and qualitative criteria; --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ For purposes of this section, a client is an individual or entity, including affiliates of the firm, to whom the firm provides PCS services and any related credit or liquidity offered in connection with those services. \15\ In identifying entities as key, examples of quantitative criteria may include: for a client, transaction volume/value, market value of exposures, assets under custody, usage of PCS services, and any extension of related intraday credit or liquidity; for an FMU, the aggregate volumes and values of all transactions processed through such FMU; and for an agent bank, assets under custody, the value of cash and securities settled, and extensions of intraday credit. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mapping material entities, identified critical operations, core business lines, and key clients to both key FMUs and key agent banks; and Developing a playbook for each key FMU and key agent bank essential to an orderly resolution under its preferred resolution strategy that reflects the firm's role(s) as a user and/or provider of PCS services. The framework should address direct relationships (e.g., a firm's direct membership in an FMU, a firm's provision of clients with PCS services through its own operations, or a firm's contractual relationship with an agent bank) and indirect relationships (e.g., a firm's provision of clients with access to the relevant FMU or agent bank through the firm's membership in or relationship with that FMU or agent bank). Playbooks for Continued Access to PCS Services. The firm is expected to provide a playbook for each key FMU and key agent bank that addresses [[Page 66407]] considerations that would assist the firm and its key clients in maintaining continued access to PCS services in the period leading up to and including the firm's resolution. Each playbook should provide analysis of the financial and operational impact to the firm's material entities and key clients due to adverse actions that may be taken by a key FMU or a key agent bank and contingency actions that may be taken by the firm. Each playbook also should discuss any possible alternative arrangements that would allow continued access to PCS services for the firm's material entities, identified critical operations and core business lines, and key clients, while the firm is in resolution. The firm is not expected to incorporate a scenario in which it loses key FMU or key agent bank access into its preferred resolution strategy or its RLEN and RCEN estimates. The firm should continue to engage with key FMUs, key agent banks, and key clients, and playbooks should reflect any feedback received during such ongoing outreach. Content Related to Users of PCS Services. Individual key FMU and key agent bank playbooks should include: Description of the firm's relationship as a user with the key FMU or key agent bank and the identification and mapping of PCS services to material entities, identified critical operations, and core business lines that use those PCS services; Discussion of the potential range of adverse actions that may be taken by that key FMU or key agent bank when the firm is in resolution,\16\ the operational and financial impact of such actions on each material entity, and contingency arrangements that may be initiated by the firm in response to potential adverse actions by the key FMU or key agent bank; and --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\ Examples of potential adverse actions may include increased collateral and margin requirements and enhanced reporting and monitoring. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discussion of PCS-related liquidity sources and uses in BAU, in stress, and in the resolution period, presented by currency type (with U.S. dollar equivalent) and by material entity. [cir] PCS Liquidity Sources: These may include the amounts of intraday extensions of credit, liquidity buffer, inflows from FMU participants, and key client prefunded amounts in BAU, in stress, and in the resolution period. The playbook also should describe intraday credit arrangements (e.g., facilities of the key FMU, key agent bank, or a central bank) and any similar custodial arrangements that allow ready access to a firm's funds for PCS-related key FMU and key agent bank obligations (including margin requirements) in all currencies relevant to the firm's participation, including placements of firm liquidity at central banks, key FMUs, and key agent banks. [cir] PCS Liquidity Uses: These may include firm and key client margin and prefunding and intraday extensions of credit, including incremental amounts required during resolution. [cir] Intraday Liquidity Inflows and Outflows: The playbook should describe the firm's ability to control intraday liquidity inflows and outflows and to identify and prioritize time-specific payments. The playbook also should describe any account features that might restrict the firm's ready access to its liquidity sources. Content Related to Providers of PCS Services.\17\ Individual key FMU and key agent bank playbooks should include: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ Where a firm is a provider of PCS services through the firm's own operations, the firm is expected to produce a playbook for the material entities that provide those services, addressing each of the items described under ``Content Related to Providers of PCS Services,'' which include contingency arrangements to permit the firm's key clients to maintain continued access to PCS services. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Identification and mapping of PCS services to the material entities, identified critical operations, and core business lines that provide those PCS services, and a description of the scale and the way in which each provides PCS services; Identification and mapping of PCS services to key clients to whom the firm provides such PCS services and any related credit or liquidity offered in connection with such services; Discussion of the potential range of firm contingency arrangements available to minimize disruption to the provision of PCS services to its key clients, including the viability of transferring key client activity and any related assets, as well as any alternative arrangements that would allow the firm's key clients continued access to PCS services if the firm could no longer provide such access (e.g., due to the firm's loss of key FMU or key agent bank access), and the financial and operational impacts of such arrangements from the firm's perspective; Descriptions of the range of contingency actions that the firm may take concerning its provision of intraday credit to key clients, including analysis quantifying the potential liquidity the firm could generate by taking such actions in stress and in the resolution period, such as: (i) requiring key clients to designate or appropriately pre-position liquidity, including through prefunding of settlement activity, for PCS-related key FMU and key agent bank obligations at specific material entities of the firm (e.g., direct members of key FMUs) or any similar custodial arrangements that allow ready access to key clients' funds for such obligations in all relevant currencies of key clients of the firm's operations; (ii) delaying or restricting key client PCS activity; and (iii) restricting, imposing conditions upon (e.g., requiring collateral), or eliminating the provision of intraday credit or liquidity to key clients; and Descriptions of how the firm will communicate to its key clients the potential impacts of implementation of any identified contingency arrangements or alternatives, including a description of the firm's methodology for determining whether any additional communication should be provided to some or all key clients (e.g., due to the key client's BAU usage of that access and/or related intraday credit or liquidity), and the expected timing and form of such communication. Capabilities. The firm is expected to have and describe capabilities to understand, for each material entity, the obligations and exposures associated with PCS activities, including contractual obligations and commitments. The firm should be able to: Track the following items by: (i) material entity; and (ii) with respect to customers, counterparties, and agents and service providers, location and jurisdiction: [cir] PCS activities, with each activity mapped to the relevant material entities, identified critical operations, and core business lines; \18\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ 12 CFR 243.5(e)(12) and 381.5(e)(12). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [cir] Customers and counterparties for PCS activities, including values and volumes of various transaction types, as well as used and unused capacity for all lines of credit; \19\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [cir] Exposures to and volumes transacted with FMUs, nostro agents, and custodians; and \20\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ 12 CFR 252.34(h). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [cir] Services provided and service level agreements, as applicable, for other current agents and service providers (internal and external).\21\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \21\ 12 CFR 243.5(f)(l)(i) and 381.5(f)(1)(i). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assess the potential effects of adverse actions by FMUs, nostro agents, custodians, and other agents and service providers, including suspension or termination of membership or services, on the firm's operations and customers [[Page 66408]] and counterparties of those operations; \22\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ 12 CFR 252.34(f). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Develop contingency arrangements in the event of such adverse actions; \23\ and --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \23\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quantify the liquidity needs and operational capacity required to meet all PCS obligations, including any change in demand for and sources of liquidity needed to meet such obligations. Managing, Identifying, and Valuing Collateral. The firm is expected to have and describe its capabilities to manage, identify, and value the collateral that it receives from and posts to external parties and affiliates. Specifically, the firm should: Be able to query and provide aggregate statistics for all qualified financial contracts concerning cross-default clauses, downgrade triggers, and other key collateral-related contract terms-- not just those terms that may be impacted in an adverse economic environment--across contract types, business lines, legal entities, and jurisdictions; Be able to track both collateral sources (i.e., counterparties that have pledged collateral) and uses (i.e., counterparties to whom collateral has been pledged) at the CUSIP level on at least a t+1 basis; Have robust risk measurements for cross-entity and cross- contract netting, including consideration of where collateral is held and pledged; Be able to identify CUSIP and asset class level information on collateral pledged to specific central counterparties by legal entity on at least a t+1 basis; Be able to track and report on inter-branch collateral pledged and received on at least a t+1 basis and have clear policies explaining the rationale for such inter-branch pledges, including any regulatory considerations; and Have a comprehensive collateral management policy that outlines how the firm as a whole approaches collateral and serves as a single source for governance.\24\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \24\ The policy may reference subsidiary or related policies already in place, as implementation may differ based on business line or other factors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Management Information Systems. The firm should have the management information systems (MIS) capabilities to readily produce data on a legal entity basis and have controls to ensure data integrity and reliability. The firm also should perform a detailed analysis of the specific types of financial and risk data that would be required to execute the preferred resolution strategy and how frequently the firm would need to produce the information, with the appropriate level of granularity. The firm should have the capabilities to produce the following types of information, as applicable, in a timely manner and describe these capabilities in the Plan: Financial statements for each material entity (at least monthly); External and inter-affiliate credit exposures, both on- and off-balance sheet, by type of exposure, counterparty, maturity, and gross payable and receivable; Gross and net risk positions with internal and external counterparties; Guarantees, cross holdings, financial commitments and other transactions between material entities; Data to facilitate third-party valuation of assets and businesses, including risk metrics; Key third-party contracts, including the provider, provider's location, service(s) provided, legal entities that are a party to or a beneficiary of the contract, and key contractual rights (for example, termination and change in control clauses); Legal agreement information, including parties to the agreement and key terms and interdependencies (for example, change in control, collateralization, governing law, termination events, guarantees, and cross-default provisions); Service level agreements between affiliates, including the service(s) provided, the legal entity providing the service, legal entities receiving the service, and any termination/transferability provisions; Licenses and memberships to all exchanges and value transfer networks, including FMUs; Key management and support personnel, including dual- hatted employees, and any associated retention agreements; Agreements and other legal documents related to property, including facilities, technology systems, software, and intellectual property rights. The information should include ownership, physical location, where the property is managed and names of legal entities and lines of business that the property supports; and Updated legal records for domestic and foreign entities, including entity type and purpose (for example, holding company, bank, broker dealer, and service entity), jurisdiction(s), ownership, and regulator(s). Shared and Outsourced Services. The firm should maintain a fully actionable implementation plan to ensure the continuity of shared services that support identified critical operations or core business lines, or are material to the execution of the resolution strategy, and robust arrangements to support the continuity of shared and outsourced services, including, without limitation, appropriate plans to retain key personnel relevant to the execution of the firm's strategy. For example, specified firms should evaluate internal and external dependencies and develop documented strategies and contingency arrangements for the continuity or replacement of the shared and outsourced services that are necessary to maintain identified critical operations or core business lines, or are material to the execution of the resolution strategy. Examples may include personnel, facilities, systems, data warehouses, intellectual property, and counsel and consultants involved in the preparation for and filing of bankruptcy. Specified firms also should maintain current cost estimates for implementing such strategies and contingency arrangements. The firm should (A) maintain an identification of all shared services that support identified critical operations or core business lines, or are material to the execution of the resolution strategy; \25\ (B) maintain a mapping of how/where these services support its core business lines and identified critical operations; (C) incorporate such mapping into legal entity rationalization criteria and implementation efforts; and (D) mitigate identified continuity risks through establishment of service-level agreements (SLAs) for all shared services that support identified critical operations or core business lines, or are material to the execution of the resolution strategy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \25\ This should be interpreted to include data access and intellectual property rights. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SLAs should fully describe the services provided, reflect pricing considerations on an arm's-length basis where appropriate, and incorporate appropriate terms and conditions to (A) prevent automatic termination upon certain resolution-related events and (B) achieve continued provision of such services during resolution. The firm should also store SLAs in a central repository or repositories in a searchable format, develop and document contingency strategies and arrangements for replacement of critical shared services, and complete re-alignment or restructuring of activities within its corporate structure. In addition, the firm should ensure the financial resilience of internal shared service providers by maintaining working capital for six months (or through the period of [[Page 66409]] stabilization as required in the firm's preferred strategy) in such entities sufficient to cover contract costs, consistent with the preferred resolution strategy. The firm should identify all critical service providers and outsourced services that support identified critical operations or core business lines, or are material to the execution of the resolution strategy, and identify any that could not be promptly substituted. The firm should (A) evaluate the agreements governing these services to determine whether there are any that could be terminated upon commencement of any resolution despite continued performance, and (B) update contracts to incorporate appropriate terms and conditions to prevent automatic termination upon commencement of any resolution proceeding and facilitate continued provision of such services. Relying on entities projected to survive during resolution to avoid contract termination is insufficient to ensure continuity. In the Plan, the firm should document the amendment of any such agreements governing these services. Qualified Financial Contracts. The Plan should reflect how the early termination of qualified financial contracts triggered by the parent company's bankruptcy filing could impact the resolution of the firm's operations, including potential termination of any contracts that are not subject to statutory, contractual or regulatory stays of direct default or cross-default rights. A Plan should explain and support the firm's strategy for addressing the potential disruptive effects in resolution of early termination provisions and cross-default rights in existing qualified financial contracts at both the parent company and material entity subsidiaries. This discussion should address, to the extent relevant for the firm, qualified financial contracts that include limitations of standard contractual direct default and cross default rights by agreement of the parties. MPOE Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Activities Capabilities. The firm is expected to have and describe capabilities to understand, for each material entity, the obligations and exposures associated with PCS activities, including contractual obligations and commitments. For example, firms should be able to: As users of PCS services: [cir] Track the following items by: (i) material entity; and (ii) with respect to customers, counterparties, and agents and service providers, location and jurisdiction: [ssquf] PCS activities, with each activity mapped to the relevant material entities, identified critical operations, and core business lines; [ssquf] Customers and counterparties for PCS activities, including values and volumes of various transaction types, as well as used and unused capacity for all lines of credit; [ssquf] Exposures to and volumes transacted with FMUs, nostro agents, and custodians; and [ssquf] Services provided and service level agreements, as applicable, for other current agents and service providers (internal and external). [cir] Assess the potential effects of adverse actions by FMUs, nostro agents, custodians, and other agents and service providers, including suspension or termination of membership or services, on the firm's operations and customers and counterparties of those operations; [cir] Develop contingency arrangements in the event of such adverse actions; and [cir] Quantify the liquidity needs and operational capacity required to meet all PCS obligations, including intraday requirements. As providers of PCS services: [cir] Identify their PCS clients and the services they provide to these clients, including volumes and values of transactions; [cir] Quantify and explain time-sensitive payments; and [cir] Quantify and explain intraday credit provided. Managing, Identifying and Valuing Collateral. The firm is expected to have and describe its capabilities to manage, identify and value the collateral that it receives from and posts to external parties and affiliates, including tracking collateral received, pledged, and available at the CUSIP level and measuring exposures. Management Information Systems. The firm should have the management information systems (MIS) capabilities to readily produce data on a legal entity basis and have controls to ensure data integrity and reliability. The firm also should perform a detailed analysis of the specific types of financial and risk data that would be required to execute the preferred resolution strategy. The firm should have the capabilities to produce the following types of information, as applicable, in a timely manner and describe these capabilities in the Plan: Financial statements for each material entity (at least monthly); External and inter-affiliate credit exposures, both on- and off-balance sheet, by type of exposure, counterparty, maturity, and gross payable and receivable; Gross and net risk positions with internal and external counterparties; Guarantees, cross holdings, financial commitments and other transactions between material entities; Data to facilitate third-party valuation of assets and businesses, including risk metrics; Key third-party contracts, including the provider, provider's location, service(s) provided, legal entities that are a party to or a beneficiary of the contract, and key contractual rights (for example, termination and change in control clauses); Legal agreement information, including parties to the agreement and key terms and interdependencies (for example, change in control, collateralization, governing law, termination events, guarantees, and cross-default provisions); Service level agreements between affiliates, including the service(s) provided, the legal entity providing the service, legal entities receiving the service, and any termination/transferability provisions; Licenses and memberships to all exchanges and value transfer networks, including FMUs; Key management and support personnel, including dual- hatted employees, and any associated retention agreements; Agreements and other legal documents related to property, including facilities, technology systems, software, and intellectual property rights. The information should include ownership, physical location, where the property is managed and names of legal entities and lines of business that the property supports; and Updated legal records for domestic and foreign entities, including entity type and purpose (for example, holding company, bank, broker dealer, and service entity), jurisdiction(s), ownership, and regulator(s). Shared and Outsourced Services. The firm should maintain robust arrangements to support the continuity of shared and outsourced services that support any identified critical operations or are material to the execution of the resolution strategy, including appropriate plans to retain key personnel relevant to the execution of the firm's strategy. For example, specified firms should evaluate internal and external dependencies and develop documented strategies and contingency arrangements for the continuity or replacement of the shared and outsourced services that are necessary to maintain identified critical operations [[Page 66410]] or are material to the execution of the resolution strategy. Examples may include personnel, facilities, systems, data warehouses, intellectual property, and counsel and consultants involved in the preparation for and filing of bankruptcy. Specified firms also should maintain current cost estimates for implementing such strategies and contingency arrangements. The firm should: (A) maintain an identification of all shared services that support identified critical operations or are material to the execution of the resolution strategy; and (B) mitigate identified continuity risks through establishment of SLAs for all shared services supporting identified critical operations or are material to the execution of the resolution strategy. SLAs should fully describe the services provided and incorporate appropriate terms and conditions to: (A) prevent automatic termination upon certain resolution-related events; and (B) achieve continued provision of such services during resolution. The firm should identify all critical service providers and outsourced services that support identified critical operations or are material to the execution of the resolution strategy. Any of these services that cannot be promptly substituted should be identified in a firm's Plan. The firm should: (A) evaluate the agreements governing these services to determine whether there are any that could be terminated upon commencement of any resolution despite continued performance; and (B) update contracts to incorporate appropriate terms and conditions to prevent automatic termination upon commencement of any resolution proceeding and facilitate continued provision of such services. Relying on entities projected to survive during resolution to avoid contract termination is insufficient to ensure continuity. In the Plan, the firm should document the amendment of any such agreements governing these services. VI. Legal Entity Rationalization SPOE Legal Entity Rationalization Criteria (LER Criteria). A firm should develop and implement legal entity rationalization criteria that support the firm's preferred resolution strategy and minimize risk to U.S. financial stability in the event of the firm's resolution. LER Criteria should consider the best alignment of legal entities and business lines to improve the firm's resolvability under different market conditions. LER Criteria should govern the firm's corporate structure and arrangements between legal entities in a way that facilitates the firm's resolvability as its activities, technology, business models, or geographic footprint change over time. Specifically, application of the criteria should: (A) Facilitate the recapitalization and liquidity support of material entities, as required by the firm's resolution strategy. Such criteria should include clean lines of ownership, minimal use of multiple intermediate holding companies, and clean funding pathways between the parent and material operating entities; (B) Facilitate the sale, transfer, or wind-down of certain discrete operations within a timeframe that would meaningfully increase the likelihood of an orderly resolution of the firm, including provisions for the continuity of associated services and mitigation of financial, operational, and legal challenges to separation and disposition; (C) Adequately protect the subsidiary IDIs from risks arising from the activities of any nonbank subsidiaries of the firm (other than those that are subsidiaries of an IDI); and (D) Minimize complexity that could impede an orderly resolution and minimize redundant and dormant entities. These criteria should be built into the firm's ongoing process for creating, maintaining, and optimizing its structure and operations on a continuous basis. Finally, the Plan should include a description of the firm's legal entity rationalization governance process. MPOE Legal Entity Structure. A firm should maintain a legal entity structure that supports the firm's preferred resolution strategy and minimizes risk to U.S. financial stability in the event of the firm's failure. The firm should consider factors such as business activities; banking group structures and booking models and practices; and potential sales, transfers, or wind-downs during resolution. The Plan should describe how the firm's legal entity structure aligns core business lines and any identified critical operations with the firm's material entities to support the firm's resolution strategy. To the extent a material entity IDI relies upon an affiliate that is not the IDI's subsidiary during resolution, including for the provision of shared services, the firm should discuss its rationale for the legal entity structure and associated resolution risks and potential mitigants. The firm's corporate structure and arrangements among legal entities should be considered and maintained in a way that facilitates the firm's resolvability as its activities, technology, business models, or geographic footprint change over time. VII. Insured Depository Institution Resolution MPOE Least-cost requirement analysis. If the Plan includes a strategy that contemplates the separate resolution of a U.S. IDI that is a material entity, the Plan should explain how the resolution could be achieved in a manner that is consistent with the overall objective of the Plan to substantially mitigate the risk that the failure of the specified firm would have serious adverse effects on financial stability in the United States while also complying with the statutory and regulatory requirements governing IDI resolution. This explanation does not include an expectation that firms provide a complete least-cost analysis. A complete least-cost analysis would, for example, include a comparison of the preferred strategy for resolving an IDI that is a material entity against every other possible resolution method available for that IDI. To explain how a firm's preferred strategy could potentially enable the FDIC to resolve the failed bank in a manner consistent with the FDIC's statutory least-cost requirement, the firm could instead compare the estimated costs to the DIF of the firm's preferred resolution strategy to a payout liquidation and, for strategies involving a BDI, explain how the inclusion or exclusion of uninsured deposits within the BDI would impact the estimated overall costs to the DIF. Firms should address the following matters as applicable to their strategy: Payout Liquidation: If the Plan envisions a payout liquidation for the IDI, with or without use of a Deposit Insurance National Bank or a paying agent, the Plan should explain how the deposit payout and asset liquidation process would be executed in a manner that substantially mitigates the risk of serious adverse effects on U.S. financial stability. P&A Transaction: If the Plan assumes a weekend P&A strategy, the plan should first demonstrate the ready availability of this option under severely adverse economic scenario, assuming that markets are functioning and competitors are in a position to take on business. The Plan may demonstrate a weekend P&A strategy is available by discussing evidence of several potential buyers supported by information [[Page 66411]] indicating that these potential buyers could reasonably be expected to have sufficient financial resources to complete the transaction in a severely adverse scenario and the expertise to incorporate the business of the failed bank. The plan should also address how such a merger can be completed with these potential acquirers considering any applicable approvals that would be required for the proposed transaction. Additionally, a P&A strategy should explain how it either (1) results in no loss to the DIF or (2) despite its resulting in a loss to the DIF, the loss is less than would be incurred through a payout liquidation. All-Deposit BDI: If the Plan contemplates a strategy involving an all-deposit BDI, the Plan should include an analysis that shows that the incremental estimated cost to the DIF of transferring all uninsured deposits to the BDI is offset by the preservation of franchise value and other benefits connected to the uninsured deposits (such as the franchise value derived from retaining full banking relationships). BDI with Partial Uninsured Deposit Transfers: A Plan may demonstrate the feasibility of a strategy involving a BDI that assumes (1) all insured deposits or (2) only a portion of uninsured deposits (e.g. an advance dividend to uninsured depositors for a portion of their deposit claim) by showing that the incremental estimated cost to the DIF of transferring the portion of uninsured deposits to the BDI is offset by the preservation of franchise value connected to those uninsured deposits (such as the franchise value derived from retaining full banking relationships). In all cases, the Plan should discuss how the implementation of the Plan's resolution strategy, including the impact on any depositors whose accounts are not transferred in whole or in part to a BDI, would not be likely to create the risk of serious adverse effects on U.S. financial stability. Valuation. Regardless of the strategy chosen, the Plan should demonstrate reasonable and well-supported assumptions that support the valuation of the failed IDI's assets and business franchise under the firm's preferred strategy that are drawn from comparable transactions or other inputs observable in the marketplace. A firm's franchise value is generally understood to be the value of the bank as an operating company relative to the value of the firm's individual assets minus its liabilities. In assessing the franchise value of the firm's business, the Plan could provide support through relevant inputs such as the revenue generated by the account relationships; the efficiencies in administrative costs associated with servicing large deposits/large relationships; the elimination of barriers to entry or the reduction in customer acquisition costs; growth history and prospects for the products or business activity; market trading or sales multiples; or any other factors the firm believes appropriate. Asset values should be representative of the bank's asset mix under the appropriate economic conditions and of sufficient distress as to result in failure. Exit from BDI. A Plan should include a discussion of the eventual exit from the BDI. A Plan could support the feasibility of an exit strategy by, for example, describing an actionable process, based on historical precedent or otherwise supportable projections, that winds down certain businesses, includes the sale of assets and the transfer of deposits to one or multiple acquirers, or culminates in a capital markets transaction, such as an initial public offering or a private placement of securities. VIII. Format and Structure of Plans; Assumptions SPOE & MPOE Format of Plan Executive Summary. The Plan should contain an executive summary consistent with the Rule, which must include, among other things, a concise description of the key elements of the firm's strategy for an orderly resolution. In addition, the executive summary should include a discussion of the firm's assessment of any impediments to the firm's resolution strategy and its execution, as well as the steps it has taken to address any identified impediments. Narrative. The Plan should include a strategic analysis consistent with the Rule. This analysis should take the form of a concise narrative that enhances the readability and understanding of the firm's discussion of its strategy for an orderly resolution in bankruptcy or other applicable insolvency regimes (Narrative). Appendices. The Plan should contain a sufficient level of detail and analysis to substantiate and support the strategy described in the Narrative. Such detail and analysis should be included in appendices that are distinct from and clearly referenced in the related parts of the Narrative (Appendices). Public Section. The Plan must be divided into a public section and a confidential section consistent with the requirements of the Rule. Other Informational Requirements. The Plan must comply with all other informational requirements of the Rule. The firm may incorporate by reference previously submitted information as provided in the Rule. Guidance Regarding Assumptions 1. The Plan should be based on the current state of the applicable legal and policy frameworks. Pending legislation or regulatory actions may be discussed as additional considerations. 2. The firm must submit a Plan that does not rely on the provision of extraordinary support by the United States or any other government to the firm or its subsidiaries to prevent the failure of the firm.\26\ The firm should not submit a Plan that assumes the use of the systemic risk exception to the least-cost test in the event of a failure of an IDI requiring resolution under the FDI Act. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \26\ 12 CFR 243.4(h)(2) and 381.4(h)(2). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. The firm should not assume that it will be able to sell identified critical operations or core business lines, or that unsecured funding will be available immediately prior to filing for bankruptcy. 4. The Plan should assume the Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test (DFAST) severely adverse scenario for the first quarter of the calendar year in which the Plan is submitted is the domestic and international economic environment at the time of the firm's failure and throughout the resolution process. 5. The resolution strategy may be based on an idiosyncratic event or action, including a series of compounding events. The firm should justify use of that assumption, consistent with the conditions of the economic scenario. 6. Within the context of the applicable idiosyncratic scenario, markets are functioning and competitors are in a position to take on business. If a firm's Plan assumes the sale of assets, the firm should take into account all issues surrounding its ability to sell in market conditions present in the applicable economic condition at the time of sale (i.e., the firm should take into consideration the size and scale of its operations as well as issues of separation and transfer.). 7. For a firm that adopts an MPOE resolution strategy, the Plan should demonstrate and describe how the failure event(s) results in material financial distress.\27\ In particular, the Plan should consider the likelihood that there would be a diminution of the firm's liquidity buffer in the stress [[Page 66412]] period prior to filing for bankruptcy from high unexpected outflows of deposits and increased liquidity requirements from counterparties. Though the immediate failure event may be liquidity-related and associated with a lack of market confidence in the financial condition of the covered company or its material legal entity subsidiaries prior to the final recognition of losses, the demonstration and description of material financial distress may also include depletion of capital. Therefore, the Plan should also consider the likelihood of the depletion of capital. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \27\ See Section 11(c)(5) of the FDI Act, codified at 11 U.S.C. 1821(c)(5), which details grounds for appointing the FDIC as conservator or receiver of an IDI. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. The firm should not assume any waivers of section 23A or 23B of the Federal Reserve Act in connection with the actions proposed to be taken prior to or in resolution. 9. The Plan should support any assumptions that the firm will have access to the Discount Window and/or other borrowings during the period immediately prior to entering bankruptcy. To the extent the firm assumes use of the Discount Window, Federal Home Loan Banks, and/or other borrowings, the Plan should support that assumption with a discussion of the operational testing conducted to facilitate access in a stress environment, placement of collateral, and the amount of funding accessible to the firm. The firm may assume that its depository institutions will have access to the Discount Window only for a few days after the point of failure to facilitate orderly resolution. However, the firm should not assume its subsidiary depository institutions will have access to the Discount Window while critically undercapitalized, in FDIC receivership, or operating as a bridge bank, nor should it assume any lending from a Federal Reserve credit facility to a non-bank affiliate. Financial Statements and Projections. The Plan should include the actual balance sheet for each material entity and the consolidating balance sheet adjustments between material entities as well as pro forma balance sheets for each material entity at the point of failure and at key junctures in the execution of the resolution strategy. It should also include statements of projected sources and uses of funds for the interim periods. The pro forma financial statements and accompanying notes in the Plan should clearly evidence the failure trigger event; the Plan's assumptions; and any transactions that are critical to the execution of the Plan's preferred strategy, such as recapitalizations, the creation of new legal entities, transfers of assets, and asset sales and unwinds. Material Entities. Material entities should encompass those entities, including foreign offices and branches, which are significant to the maintenance of an identified critical operation or core business line. If the abrupt disruption or cessation of a core business line might have systemic consequences to U.S. financial stability, the entities essential to the continuation of such core business line should be considered for material entity designation. Material entities should include the following types of entities: 1. Any U.S.-based or non-U.S. affiliates, including any branches, that are significant to the activities of an identified critical operation. 2. Subsidiaries or foreign offices whose provision or support of global treasury operations, funding, or liquidity activities (inclusive of intercompany transactions) is significant to the activities of an identified critical operation. 3. Subsidiaries or foreign offices that provide material operational support in resolution (key personnel, information technology, data centers, real estate or other shared services) to the activities of an identified critical operation. 4. Subsidiaries or foreign offices that are engaged in derivatives booking activity that is significant to the activities of an identified critical operation, including those that conduct either the internal hedge side or the client-facing side of a transaction. 5. Subsidiaries or foreign offices engaged in asset custody or asset management that are significant to the activities of an identified critical operation. 6. Subsidiaries or foreign offices holding licenses or memberships in clearinghouses, exchanges, or other FMUs that are significant to the activities of an identified critical operation. For each material entity (including a branch), the Plan should enumerate, on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, the specific mandatory and discretionary actions or forbearances that regulatory and resolution authorities would take during resolution, including any regulatory filings and notifications that would be required as part of the preferred strategy, and explain how the Plan addresses the actions and forbearances. The Plan should describe the consequences for the covered company's resolution strategy if specific actions in a non-U.S. jurisdiction were not taken, delayed, or forgone, as relevant. IX. Public Section SPOE & MPOE The purpose of the public section is to inform the public's understanding of the firm's resolution strategy and how it works. The public section should discuss the steps that the firm is taking to improve resolvability under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The public section should provide background information on each material entity and should be enhanced by including the firm's rationale for designating material entities. The public section should also discuss, at a high level, the firm's intra-group financial and operational interconnectedness (including the types of guarantees or support obligations in place that could impact the execution of the firm's strategy). The discussion of strategy in the public section should broadly explain how the firm has addressed any deficiencies, shortcomings, and other key vulnerabilities that the agencies have identified in prior plan submissions. For each material entity, it should be clear how the strategy provides for continuity, transfer, or orderly wind-down of the entity and its operations. There should also be a description of the resulting organization upon completion of the resolution process. The public section may note that the Plan is not binding on a bankruptcy court or other resolution authority and that the proposed failure scenario and associated assumptions are hypothetical and do not necessarily reflect an event or events to which the firm is or may become subject. By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. By order of the Board of Directors. Dated at Washington, DC, on August 9, 2024. James P. Sheesley, Assistant Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-18191 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P; 6714-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:24.977214

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18309

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66412-66413] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18309] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank [[Page 66413]] 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 https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in paragraph 7 of the Act. 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 August 30, 2024. A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Ivan Hurwitz, Head of Bank Applications) 33 Liberty Street, New York, NY 10045-0001. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]: 1. The D'Angelo Family Trust, with George D'Angelo and Dahlia D'Angelo, as trustees, all of Old Greenwich, Connecticut; to acquire voting shares of First Greenwich Financial, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of First Bank of Greenwich, both of Cos Cob, Connecticut. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Michele Taylor Fennell, Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. 2024-18309 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:25.005207

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18269

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66413] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18269] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2024-N-3028] Cubist Pharmaceuticals LLC; Withdrawal of Approval of a New Drug Application for ENTEREG (Alvimopan) Capsules, 12 Milligrams AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is withdrawing approval of a new drug application (NDA) for ENTEREG (alvimopan) Capsules, 12 milligrams (mg), held by Cubist Pharmaceuticals LLC, 126 East Lincoln Ave., Rahway, NJ 07065 (Cubist). Cubist notified the Agency in writing that the drug product was no longer marketed and requested that the approval of the application be withdrawn. DATES: Approval is withdrawn as of September 16, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly Lehrfeld, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6226, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301- 796-3137, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Cubist has informed FDA that ENTEREG (alvimopan) Capsules, 12 mg is no longer marketed and has requested that FDA withdraw approval of NDA 021775 under the process in Sec. 314.150(c) (21 CFR 314.150(c)). Cubist has also, by its request, waived its opportunity for a hearing. Withdrawal of approval of an application or abbreviated application under Sec. 314.150(c) is without prejudice to refiling. Therefore, approval of NDA 021775, and all amendments and supplements thereto, is hereby withdrawn as of September 16, 2024. Approval of the entire application is withdrawn, including any strengths and dosage forms included in the application but inadvertently missing from this notice. Introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of ENTEREG (alvimopan) Capsules, 12 mg without an approved NDA violates sections 505(a) and 301(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(a) and 331(d)). Any ENTEREG (alvimopan) Capsules, 12 mg, that is in inventory on September 16, 2024 may continue to be dispensed until the inventories have been depleted or the drug products have reached their expiration dates or otherwise become violative, whichever occurs first. Dated: August 12, 2024. Lauren K. Roth, Associate Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. 2024-18269 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:25.053132

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18268

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66413-66415] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18268] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2024-N-1090] Ryan Stabile: Final Debarment Order AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing an order under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) debarring Ryan Stabile for a period of 15 years from importing or offering for import any drug into the United States. FDA bases this order on a finding that Mr. Stabile was convicted of three felony counts under Federal law: one count of conspiracy and two counts of introduction of misbranded drugs with intent to defraud/mislead. The factual basis supporting Mr. Stabile's conviction, as described below, is conduct relating to the importation into the United States of a drug or controlled substance. Mr. Stabile was given notice of the proposed debarment and was given an opportunity to request a hearing to show why he should not be debarred. As of June 7, 2024 (30 days after receipt of the notice), Mr. Stabile had not responded. Mr. Stabile's failure to respond and request a hearing constitutes a waiver of his right to a hearing concerning this matter. DATES: This order is applicable August 15, 2024. ADDRESSES: Any application by Mr. Stabile for termination of debarment under section 306(d)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(d)(1)) may be submitted at any time as follows: Electronic Submissions Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. An application submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your application will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your application does not include any [[Page 66414]] confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your application, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov. If you want to submit an application with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the application as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions''). Written/Paper Submissions Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. For a written/paper application submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your application, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked, and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.'' Instructions: All applications must include the Docket No. FDA- 2024-N-1090. Received applications will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 240-402-7500. Confidential Submissions--To submit an application with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your application only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states ``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of your application. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf. Docket: For access to the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 240-402- 7500. Publicly available submissions may be seen in the docket. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaime Espinosa, Division of Compliance and Enforcement, Office of Policy, Compliance, and Enforcement, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, 240-402-8743, or [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Section 306(b)(1)(D) of the FD&C Act permits debarment of an individual from importing or offering for import any drug into the United States if FDA finds, as required by section 306(b)(3)(C) of the FD&C Act, that the individual has been convicted of a felony for conduct relating to the importation into the United States of any drug or controlled substance. On February 14, 2024, Mr. Stabile was convicted as defined in section 306(l)(1) of the FD&C Act in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts when the court accepted his plea of guilty and entered judgment against him for the offenses of conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371, and two counts of introduction of misbranded drugs with intent to defraud/mislead in violation of 21 U.S.C 331(a) and 333(a)(2) (sections 301(a) and 303(a)(2) of the FD&C Act). The underlying facts supporting the conviction are as follows: As contained in the indictment and plea agreement, Mr. Stabile owned the companies Ultra Vulgar Media, LLC and Supplements for Work (S4W). S4W sold nootropics, a class of drugs and supplements claiming to enhance mood and cognitive functioning. Tianeptine, when sold as a mood enhancer or as a nootropic, or when otherwise intended to treat or mitigate a disease or to affect the structure or any function of the human body, is a drug within the meaning of section 201(g)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)), and a prescription drug within the meaning of section 503(b)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 353(b)(1)). A drug is misbranded under section 503(b)(1) of the FD&C Act if it is a prescription drug dispensed without the prescription of a practitioner licensed by law to administer such drugs. A drug is also misbranded under section 502(f)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)) if its labeling does not bear adequate directions for use. Mr. Stabile and S4W operated several websites where Mr. Stabile knowingly sold various forms of tianeptine, which were not approved by the FDA. Although Mr. Stabile's websites displayed statements that the tianeptine being sold was for research purposes only, and not intended for human consumption, Mr. Stabile sold it to customers for those customers' personal use. Mr. Stabile sold tianeptine without requiring the prescription of a practitioner licensed by law to administer prescription drugs. In addition, the tianeptine Mr. Stabile sold was not labeled with adequate directions for use. Mr. Stabile and his coconspirators smuggled the tianeptine into the United States from a supplier in China and had the supplier send shipments to Mr. Stabile or his coconspirators at several post office boxes Mr. Stabile controlled. Mr. Stabile and his coconspirators gave his supplier in China instructions on steps they could take to mislabel packages of tianeptine in order to evade U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) detection. Through Mr. Stabile's illegal smuggling and distribution of tianeptine, he earned at least $1,833,922.13. Beginning in December 2017, some of the packages of tianeptine Mr. Stabile and his coconspirators imported were intercepted and seized by CBP. In an effort to have CBP release the packages, Mr. Stabile and his coconspirators filed a petition to have a package of tianeptine released, which falsely represented that the package was mislabeled and that the tianeptine was for research and development only. FDA sent Mr. Stabile, by certified mail, on May 3, 2024, a notice proposing to debar him for a 15-year period from importing or offering for import any drug into the United States. The proposal was based on a finding under section 306(b)(3)(C) of the FD&C Act that Mr. Stabile's felony convictions under Federal law for conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371, and two counts of introduction of misbranded drugs with intent to defraud/mislead in violation of sections 301(a) and 303(a)(2) of the FD&C Act, were for conduct relating to the importation of any drug or controlled substance into the United States because Mr. Stabile illegally imported tianeptine from China and then distributed tianeptine in [[Page 66415]] interstate commerce. In proposing a debarment period, FDA weighed the considerations set forth in section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act that it considered applicable to Mr. Stabile's offense and concluded that the offense warranted the imposition of a 15-year period of debarment. The proposal informed Mr. Stabile of the proposed debarment and offered him an opportunity to request a hearing, providing him 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter in which to file the request, and advised him that failure to request a hearing constituted a waiver of the opportunity for a hearing and of any contentions concerning this action. Mr. Stabile received the proposal and notice of opportunity for a hearing on May 8, 2024. Mr. Stabile failed to request a hearing within the timeframe prescribed by regulation and has, therefore, waived his opportunity for a hearing and waived any contentions concerning his debarment (21 CFR part 12). II. Findings and Order Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Office of Human and Animal Food Operations, under section 306(b)(3)(C) of the FD&C Act, under authority delegated to the Assistant Commissioner, finds that Mr. Ryan Stabile has been convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the importation into the United States of any drug or controlled substance. FDA finds that the offense should be accorded a debarment period of 15 years as provided by section 306(c)(2)(A)(iii) of the FD&C Act. As a result of the foregoing finding, Mr. Stabile is debarred for a period of 15 years from importing or offering for import any drug into the United States, effective (see DATES). Pursuant to section 301(cc) of the FD&C Act, the importing or offering for import into the United States of any drug by, with the assistance of, or at the direction of Mr. Stabile is a prohibited act. Dated: August 12, 2024. Lauren K. Roth, Associate Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. 2024-18268 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:25.108812

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18265

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66415-66416] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18265] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket Nos. FDA-2024-E-0187, FDA-2024-E-0188, FDA-2024-E-0189, FDA- 2024-E-0190, and FDA-2024-E-0191] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; MIEBO AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for MIEBO and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product. DATES: Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION) are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by October 15, 2024. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by February 11, 2025. See ``Petitions'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more information. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of October 15, 2024. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are received on or before that date. Electronic Submissions Submit electronic comments in the following way: Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov. 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''). Written/Paper Submissions Submit written/paper submissions as follows: Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. 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.'' Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket Nos. FDA-2024-E-0187, FDA-2024-E-0188, FDA-2024-E-0189, FDA-2024-E-0190, and FDA-2024-E-0191 for ``Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; MIEBO.'' Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 240-402-7500. 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 https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management [[Page 66416]] Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as ``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in accordance with Sec. 10.20 (21 CFR 10.20) and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf. Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-402-7500. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug or biological product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive. A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: a testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B). FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product, MIEBO (perfluorohexyloctane). MIEBO is indicated for treatment of the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for MIEBO (U.S. Patent Nos. 10,058,615; 10,369,117; 10,449,164; 10,576,154; 11,357,738) from Novaliq GmbH, and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated January 30, 2024, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of MIEBO represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period. II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for MIEBO is 2,018 days. Of this time, 1,693 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 325 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates: 1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: November 9, 2017. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date the investigational new drug application became effective was on November 9, 2017. 2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505 of the FD&C Act: June 28, 2022. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug application (NDA) for MIEBO (NDA 216675) was initially submitted on June 28, 2022. 3. The date the application was approved: May 18, 2023. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 216675 was approved on May 18, 2023. This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 231 days, 748 days, 814 days, 853 days, or 1,024 days of patent term extension. III. Petitions Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, as specified in Sec. 60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period. To meet its burden, the petition must comply with all the requirements of Sec. 60.30, including but not limited to: must be timely (see DATES), must be filed in accordance with Sec. 10.20, must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation, and must certify that a true and complete copy of the petition has been served upon the patent applicant. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30. Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are required) to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Dated: August 12, 2024. Lauren K. Roth, Associate Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. 2024-18265 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:25.178786

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18263

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66416-66417] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18263] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2024-N-0008] Science Board to the Food and Drug Administration Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Science Board to the Food and Drug Administration. The Science Board provides advice to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and other appropriate officials on specific, complex scientific [[Page 66417]] and technical issues important to FDA and its mission, including emerging issues within the scientific community. Additionally, the Science Board provides advice to the Agency on keeping pace with technical and scientific developments, including in regulatory science, input into the Agency's research agenda, and on upgrading its scientific and research facilities and training opportunities. It will also provide, where requested, expert review of Agency-sponsored intramural and extramural scientific research programs. The meeting will be open to the public. DATES: The meeting will be held virtually on October 7, 2024, from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. Eastern Time. ADDRESSES: All meeting participants will be heard, viewed, captioned, and recorded for this advisory committee meeting via an online teleconferencing and/or video conferencing platform. Answers to commonly asked questions about FDA advisory committee meetings may be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rakesh Raghuwanshi, Office of the Chief Scientist, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 3309, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-4769, [email protected]; or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last-minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the Agency's website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda: The meeting presentations will be heard, viewed, captioned, and recorded through an online teleconferencing platform. The Science Board to FDA will receive an update from the New Alternative Methods subcommittee and will hear details about FDA's reorganization scheduled for implementation on October 1, 2024, that includes significant updates to the Office of the Chief Scientist and the creation of a unified Human Foods Program. FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available on FDA's website at the time of the advisory committee meeting. Background material and the link to the online teleconference and/or video conference meeting will be available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link. The meeting will include slide presentations with audio components to allow the presentation of materials in a manner that most closely resembles an in-person advisory committee meeting. Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. All electronic and written submissions to the Docket (see ADDRESSES) on or before September 30, 2024, will be provided to the committee. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. Eastern Time. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before September 20, 2024. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by September 23, 2024. For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at [email protected] or 301-796-4540. FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Rakesh Raghuwanshi (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7 days in advance of the meeting. FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings. Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). This meeting notice also serves as notice that, pursuant to 21 CFR 10.19, the requirements in 21 CFR 14.22(b), (f), and (g) relating to the location of advisory committee meetings are hereby waived to allow for this meeting to take place using an online meeting platform. This waiver is in the interest of allowing greater transparency and opportunities for public participation, in addition to convenience for advisory committee members, speakers, and guest speakers. The conditions for issuance of a waiver under 21 CFR 10.19 are met. Dated: August 12, 2024. Lauren K. Roth, Associate Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. 2024-18263 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:25.219888

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18277

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66417-66420] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18277] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2024-N-3379] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Laboratory Accreditation for Analyses of Foods AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on FDA's Laboratory Accreditation for Analyses of Foods (LAAF). DATES: Either electronic or written comments on the collection of information must be submitted by October 15, 2024. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing [[Page 66418]] system will accept comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of October 15, 2024. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are received on or before that date. Electronic Submissions Submit electronic comments in the following way: Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov. 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''). Written/Paper Submissions Submit written/paper submissions as follows: Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. 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.'' Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2024-N-3379 for ``Laboratory Accreditation for Analyses of Food.'' Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 240-402-7500. 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 https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as ``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf. Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-402-7500. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JonnaLynn Capezzuto, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A- 12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-3794, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. ``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document. With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology. Laboratory Accreditation for Analysis of Foods--21 CFR Part 1, Subpart R OMB Control Number 0910-0898--Extension This information collection helps to support implementation of FDA's statutory and regulatory authority governing our laboratory accreditation for analysis of foods program under Section 422 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 350k) and 21 CFR part 1, subpart R. FDA has statutory authority to establish a program for the testing of food by accredited laboratories; to establish a publicly available registry of recognized accreditation bodies and laboratories recognized by an accreditation body; and to require reports of any changes that would affect the recognition of such accreditation body or the accreditation of such laboratory. The regulations require respondents to maintain and electronically submit certain test results, reports, notifications, and other records to FDA. The submissions can be made through the FURLS Laboratory Accreditation for Analyses of Foods Program portal (FDA Industry Systems). User guides for the Accreditation Bodies and Accredited Laboratories can be found at the following links: https://www.fda.gov/media/156097/download?attachment and https://www.fda.gov/media/161685/download?attachment. The laboratory accreditation program helps fulfill [[Page 66419]] FDA's mandate to ensure the safety of the U.S. food supply and protect U.S. consumers by administering appropriate oversight of certain food testing that is of importance to public health. It also helps ensure that the testing is done in accordance with appropriate model standards, which will help produce consistently reliable and valid test results. You may access additional information about the laboratory accreditation program at: https://www.fda.gov/food/food-safety-modernization-act-fsma/fda-recognized-accreditation-bodies-laboratory-accreditation-analyses-foods-laaf-program. The public registry is available at https://datadashboard.fda.gov/ora/fd/laaf.htm. Respondents to the information collection are accreditation bodies seeking recognition from FDA, recognized accreditation bodies, laboratories seeking accreditation from recognized accreditation bodies, and accredited laboratories. Participation in this program is voluntary for laboratories and accreditation bodies; however, only recognized accreditation bodies would be able to accredit laboratories to conduct food testing as specified in the regulations. FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows: Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\ \2\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of 21 CFR section; activity Number of responses per Total annual Average burden Total hours respondents respondent responses per response ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sec. Sec. 1.1113 and 8 44 352 2.2068 (2 hours 776.8 1.1114; Accreditation bodies and 12 minutes). (ABs) application for recognition (one-time submission). Sec. Sec. 1.1113 and 1.1114; ABs--application for renewal of recognition. Sec. 1.1123; ABs--reports, notifications, and documentation requirements. Sec. 1.1116(a) and (b); ABs-- 1 3 3 3............... 9 notices of intent to relinquish, records custodian. Sec. Sec. 1.1138 and 160 63.5 10,160 1.8051(1 hour 18,340 1.1139; laboratories-- and 49 minutes). submission of application for LAAF-accreditation (one-time submission). Sec. Sec. 1.1149(a) and 1.1152(c)(1), (2); laboratories--submission of sampling plan, sample collection report, and sampler qualifications. Sec. Sec. 1.1152(d) and 1.1153(a); laboratories-- qualification to submit abridged analytical reports (one-time submission). Sec. 1.1153; laboratories-- abridged analytical reports submissions. Sec. 1.1149(c); laboratories--advance notice of sampling submissions. Sec. 1.1152(f); laboratories--immediate notification. Sec. 1.1140(a); 2 3 6 1............... 6 laboratories--notices of intent to relinquish, records custodian. Sec. 1.1152(c)(4) and (5); 50 5 250 1.5 (1 hour and 375 laboratories--validation and 30 minutes). verification studies submissions. Sec. Sec. 1.1142; 1.1171; 1 1 1 1............... 1 1.1173; and 1.1174; requests in response to FDA action. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total..................... .............. .............. 10,772 ................ 19,508 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. \2\ Totals may not sum due to rounding. Table 2--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\ \2\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of Average burden 21 CFR section; activity Number of records per Total annual per Total hours recordkeepers recordkeeper records recordkeeping ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sec. 1.1113; recordkeeping 8 2 8 22.............. 176 associated with ISO/IEC 17011:2017. Sec. 1.1124; ABs--additional recordkeeping requirements a recognized accreditation body must maintain, for 5 years after the date of creation of the records, records created while it is recognized demonstrating its compliance with this subpart. Sec. 1.1138; laboratories-- 9 1 9 91.06 (91 hours 820 becoming accredited to ISO/ and 4 minutes). IEC 17025:2017 (one-time); Laboratories adding ISO 17025 to become LAAF-accredited. [[Page 66420]] Sec. 1.1138; laboratories-- 160 2 320 450.765 (450 144,245 maintaining ISO/IEC 17025: hours and 46 2017 accreditation. minutes). Sec. 1.1154; laboratories-- additional recordkeeping requirements; a LAAF- accredited laboratory must maintain, for 5 years after the date of creation, records created and received while it is LAAF-accredited that relate to compliance with this subpart. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total..................... .............. .............. 345 ................ 145,241 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. \2\ Totals may not sum due to rounding. The burden we attribute to reporting and recordkeeping activities is assumed to be distributed among the individual elements of the respective information collection activities. Although we have not received a notice of intent to relinquish records since the last approval of this information collection, we include one response for the purpose of estimating burden. New information technology applications have more accurately calculated the number of food testing laboratories seeking accreditation and as a result the number of respondents to the information collection decreased (from 170 respondents in the currently approved collection to 160 respondents). Consequently, we have adjusted our burden estimate, which results in a decrease of 227 responses and 9,303 burden hours from the currently approved information collection. Dated: August 12, 2024. Lauren K. Roth, Associate Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. 2024-18277 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:25.279138

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18289

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66420-66422] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18289] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Findings of research misconduct have been made against Richard L. Eckert, Ph.D. (Respondent), who was a Professor, Chair of the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, and Deputy Director of the University of Maryland and Stewart Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Maryland, Baltimore (UMB). Respondent engaged in research misconduct in research supported by U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) funds, specifically National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grants R01 CA211909, R01 CA184027, R01 CA131074, R01 CA131064, R01 CA092201, R01 CA109196, P30 CA134274, and P30 CA043703, National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS), NIH, grants R21 AR065266, R01 AR046494, R01 AR053851, R01 AR060388, P30 AR039750, R01 AR041456, R01 AR049713, and R01 AR045357, National Eye Institute (NEI), NIH, grants P30 EY011373 and T32 EY007157, and National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), NIH, grant R01 GM043751. The questioned research was included in two (2) grant applications submitted for PHS funds, specifically R01 CA233450-01 and R01 CA233450-01A1 submitted to NCI, NIH. The administrative actions, including debarment for a period of eight (8) years, were implemented beginning on August 1, 2024, and are detailed below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheila Garrity, JD, MPH, MBA, Director, Office of Research Integrity, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 240, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8200. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case: Richard L. Eckert, Ph.D., University of Maryland, Baltimore (UMB): Based on the report of an investigation conducted by UMB and additional analysis conducted by ORI in its oversight review, ORI found that Dr. Richard L. Eckert (Respondent), former Professor, Chair of the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, and Deputy Director of the University of Maryland and Stewart Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center, UMB, engaged in research misconduct in research supported by PHS funds, specifically NCI, NIH, grants R01 CA211909, R01 CA184027, R01 CA131074, R01 CA131064, R01 CA092201, R01 CA109196, P30 CA134274, and P30 CA043703, NIAMS, NIH, grants R21 AR065266, R01 AR046494, R01 AR053851, R01 AR060388, P30 AR039750, R01 AR041456, R01 AR049713, and R01 AR045357, NEI, NIH, grants P30 EY011373 and T32 EY007157, and NIGMS, NIH, grant R01 GM043751. The questioned research was included in two (2) grant applications submitted for PHS funds, specifically R01 CA233450-01 and R01 CA233450-01A1 submitted to NCI, NIH. ORI found that Respondent engaged in research misconduct by intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly falsifying and/or fabricating data in the following thirteen (13) published papers and two (2) PHS grant applications: Inhibition of YAP function overcomes BRAF inhibitor resistance in melanoma cancer stem cells. Oncotarget. 2017 Nov 22; 8(66):110257-110272. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.22628 (hereafter referred to as ``Oncotarget 2017''). The Bmi-1 helix-turn and ring finger domains are required for Bmi-1 antagonism of (-) epigallocatechin-3-gallate suppression of skin cancer cell survival. Cell Signal. 2015 Jul;27(7):1336-44. doi: 10.1016/j.cellsig.2015.03.021 (hereafter referred to as ``Cell Signal 2015''). Erratum in: Cell Signal. 2021 Jun;82:109952. doi: 10.1016/ j.cellsig.2021.109952. P38[delta] regulates p53 to control p21Cip1 expression in human epidermal keratinocytes. J Biol Chem. 2014 Apr 18; 289(16):11443- 11453. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M113.543165 (hereafter referred to as ``J Biol Chem. 2014''). [[Page 66421]] Methylosome protein 50 and PKC[delta]/p38[delta] protein signaling control keratinocyte proliferation via opposing effects on p21Cip1 gene expression. J Biol Chem. 2015 May 22;290(21):13521-30. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M115.642868 (hereafter referred to as ``J Biol Chem. 2015''). Transamidase site-targeted agents alter the conformation of the transglutaminase cancer stem cell survival protein to reduce GTP binding activity and cancer stem cell survival. Oncogene. 2017 May 25;36(21):2981-2990. doi: 10.1038/onc.2016.452 (hereafter referred to as ``Oncogene 2017''). Erratum in: Oncogene. 2021 Apr;40(13):2479-2481. doi: 10.1038/s41388-021-01709-5. Suppression of AP1 transcription factor function in keratinocyte suppresses differentiation. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36941. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036941 (hereafter referred to as ``PLoS One 2012''). Retraction in: PLoS One. 2021 Feb 11;16(2):e0247222. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247222. Suppressing AP1 factor signaling in the suprabasal epidermis produces a keratoderma phenotype. J Invest Dermatol. 2015 Jan;135(1):170-180. doi: 10.1038/jid.2014.310 (hereafter referred to as ``J Invest Dermatol. 2015''). Erratum in: J Invest Dermatol. 2021 Jul; 141(7):1862. doi: 10.1016/j.jid.2021.05.008. Protein kinase C (PKC) delta suppresses keratinocyte proliferation by increasing p21(Cip1) level by a KLF4 transcription factor-dependent mechanism. J Biol Chem. 2011 Aug 19; 286(33):28772- 28782. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M110.205245 (hereafter referred to as ``J Biol Chem. 2011''). The Bmi-1 polycomb protein antagonizes the (-)- epigallocatechin-3-gallate-dependent suppression of skin cancer cell survival. Carcinogenesis. 2010 Mar;31(3):496-503. doi: 10.1093/carcin/ bgp314 (hereafter referred to as ``Carcinogenesis 2010''). PKC-delta and -eta, MEKK-1, MEK-6, MEK-3, and p38-delta are essential mediators of the response of normal human epidermal keratinocytes to differentiating agents. J Invest Dermatol. 2010 Aug;130(8):2017-30. doi: 10.1038/jid.2010.108 (hereafter referred to as ``J Invest Dermatol. 2010''). Sulforaphane suppresses PRMT5/MEP50 function in epidermal squamous cell carcinoma leading to reduced tumor formation. Carcinogenesis. 2017 Aug 1;38(8):827-836. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgx044 (hereafter referred to as ``Carcinogenesis 2017''). Erratum in: Carcinogenesis. 2023 Oct 20;44(7):626-627. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgad044. Localization of the TIG3 transglutaminase interaction domain and demonstration that the amino-terminal region is required for TIG3 function as a keratinocyte differentiation regulator. J Invest Dermatol. 2008 Mar;128(3):517-29. doi: 10.1038/sj.jid.5701035 (hereafter referred to as ``J Invest Dermatol. 2008''). Transglutaminase interaction with [alpha]6/[beta]4- integrin stimulates YAP1-Dependent [Delta]Np63[alpha] stabilization and leads to enhanced cancer stem cell survival and tumor formation. Cancer Res. 2016 Dec 15;76(24):7265-7276. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-16-2032 (hereafter referred to as ``Cancer Res. 2016''). R01 CA233450-01, ``Sulforaphane suppression of PRMT5 epigenetics to reduce cancer stem cell survival,'' submitted to NCI, NIH, on 01/26/2018, administratively withdrawn by NCI on 07/01/2020 R01 CA233450-01A1, ``Sulforaphane suppression of PRMT5 epigenetics to reduce cancer stem cell survival,'' submitted to NCI, NIH, on 10/30/2018, administratively withdrawn by NCI on 03/01/2021 Specifically, ORI found that Respondent intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly falsified and/or fabricated Western blot image data and microscopy image data by: using images representing unrelated experiments, with or without manipulating them, and falsely relabeling them as data representing different proteins and/or experimental results as follows: --In Figure 3F of Oncotarget 2017, the bands in rows 4 and 7 of the A375-PLX-R right-side panel, representing expression of TAZ-P (row 4) and ERK1/2 (row 7), are falsified and/or fabricated by using unrelated bands from a source image representing different proteins in an unrelated experiment --In Figure 2B of J Biol Chem. 2014, the bands in row 2 in the top panel, representing MEK3 expression in normal human keratinocytes (KERn) infected with Ad5-EV, Ad5-MEK3, and Ad5-PKC[delta] (from left to right), are falsified and/or fabricated by compiling unrelated bands from a source image representing p44 expression in an unrelated experiment --In Figure 2B of J Biol Chem. 2014, the bands in row 3 in the top panel, representing p38[delta] expression in KERn infected with Ad5-EV, Ad5-MEK3, and Ad5-PKC[delta] (from left to right), are falsified and/or fabricated by compiling unrelated bands from a source image representing [beta]-actin expression in an unrelated experiment --In Figure 1B of J Biol Chem. 2015, the bands in rows 1-3 in the upper panel, representing expression of MEP50 (row 1), FLAG (row 2), and [beta]-actin (row 3), are falsified and/or fabricated by compiling different bands from source images representing expression of different proteins in unrelated experiments --In Figure 7C of J Biol Chem. 2011, the bands in row 2 in the right panel, representing p21\Cip1\ expression under treatments of Control- siRNA or hKLF4-siRNA, are falsified and/or fabricated by using unrelated bands from a source image representing p21 expression in cells treated with Ad5-EV or Ad5-PKCd --In Figure 1B of PLoS One 2012, the bands in row 1, representing TAM67-FLAG expression, are falsified and/or fabricated by using unrelated bands from a source image representing CyclinA expression --In Figure 2C of PLoS One 2012, the bands in rows 3 and 4, representing negative expression of junB (row 3) and junD (row 4), are falsified and/or fabricated by using blank areas that were far from the target molecular weight in a source image --In Figure 6a of J Invest Dermatol. 2015, the bands 1-4 in the bottom row, representing [beta]-Actin expression under treatments of Loricrin, TAM67-rTA, and/or Dox, are falsified and/or fabricated by: --[rtarr8] using 3 bands from a source image representing [beta]-actin expression in an unrelated experiment for bands 1-3 --[rtarr8] duplicating band 3 to create band 4 --In Figure 1B of Carcinogenesis 2010, the bands in rows 1, 2, and 5 in the left panel, representing expression of Ezh2 (row 1), H3 K27-3M (row 2), and [beta]-actin (row 5) in two different cell types treated with 60 [micro]M EGCG, are falsified and/or fabricated by using unrelated bands from a source image representing expression of the same proteins under an unrelated experiment --In Carcinogenesis 2010, the bands in row 3 in the right panel of Figure 1B and the bands 1-5 in row 3 in the upper panel of Figure 2A are falsified and/or fabricated by using unrelated bands from a source image. Specifically: --[rtarr8] the bands 1-4 in the upper panel of Figure 2A, representing Ezh2 expression treated with 0, 10, 20, and 40 [micro]M EGCG are used from the bands representing the same protein [[Page 66422]] but treated with different doses of EGCG in the source image --[rtarr8] the bands 1 and 5 in the upper panel of Figure 2A, representing Ezh2 expression, are reused and relabeled in the bands in Figure 1B, row 3 in the right panel to represent Suz12 expression --In Figure 4A of Carcinogenesis 2010, the bands in rows 6 and 7, representing expression of cyclin E (row 6) and cyclin A (row 7) in cells treated with 60 [micro]m EGCG plus other reagents, are falsified and/or fabricated by reusing and relabeling the bands from a source image representing cyclin E expression in cells treated with 150 [micro]m EGCG plus other reagents --In Figure 7a of J Invest Dermatol. 2008: --[rtarr8] bands 1 and 5 (including the empty lanes) in the COX4 panel, representing expression of COX4 treated with EV (band 1) and TIG3 1-134 (band 5), are falsified and/or fabricated by reusing a band labeled as TGI C377 sample 3 from the primary data --[rtarr8] band 8 (including the empty lanes) in the Cytochrome c panel, representing expression of Cytochrome c treated with TIG3 124- 164, is falsified and/or fabricated by using an unrelated band from unknown source reusing the same source images, with or without manipulating them to conceal their similarities, and falsely relabeling them as data representing different proteins or experimental results as follows: --In Figure 2 of Cell Signal 2015, two control samples in the bottom panel, representing cells in tAd5-FLAG-hBmi[Delta]RF condition (left) and tAd5-FLAG-hBmi-1[Delta]HT condition (right), are reused from different fields of a same source image --In J Biol Chem. 2014, Figure 2B, bands 2 and 3 in row 1 of 3rd panel, representing ATF2-P expression, and Figure 6C, bands 1 and 2 in row 2 of the 3rd panel, representing p38[alpha] expression, are identical --In J Biol Chem. 2014, Figure 2C, bands 1 and 3 in row 3 of the upper panel, representing MEK3 expression, and Figure 6C, bands 1 and 2 in row 2 of the top panel, representing p38[alpha] expression, are identical --In Figure 3C of Oncogene 2017, band 9, representing TG2 expression treated with total CP4d, is falsified and/or fabricated by reusing and relabeling band 3, representing TG2 expression treated with NC9 (total) in the same figure --In Carcinogenesis 2010, Figure 3C, the bands in row 2, representing [beta]-actin expression, and Figure 4C, the bands in row 3, representing procaspase 9 expression, are identical --In Figure 7b of J Invest Dermatol. 2010, the bands in the upper panel, representing expression of MEKK1 and its [beta]-Actin control, are falsified and/or fabricated by reusing and relabeling the bands in the middle panel, representing expression of MEK6 and its --[beta]-Actin control in the same figure --In Figure 1D of Carcinogenesis 2017, Figure 5B of R01 CA233450-01 and Figure 3B of R01 CA233450-01A1, the bands in rows 3 in both the upper and bottom panels, representing H4 expression, are falsified and/or fabricated by reusing and relabeling the same source images that are used for the bands in row 2 in Figure 3J of Carcinogenesis 2017, representing PRMT5 expression --In Figure 1c of J Invest Dermatol. 2008, the background area between molecular weight 20-45 in the TIG3 (41-164) lanes of the right panel is falsified and/or fabricated by reusing and relabeling the background area of TIG3 WT group with flipping --In Figure 1c of J Invest Dermatol. 2008, the bands in lanes 7-8 of the left panel, representing expression of TIG3 monomer under TIG3 (100-164) condition, are falsified and/or fabricated by reusing and relabeling the bands in lanes 9-10 of the left panel, representing expression of TIG3 monomer under TIG3 (41-164) condition --In Cancer Res. 2016, bands 2-3 in the bottom row in Figure 3C, representing [beta]-actin expression treated with Integrin [alpha]6- siRNA (band 2) and Integrin [beta]4-siRNA (band 3), and bands 1-2 in the bottom row in Figure 3D, representing [beta]-actin expression treated with Control-siRNA (band 1) and FAK-siRNA (band 2), are identical manipulating the data to exclude the band from a source image to falsely show a favorable result in Figure 2C of PLoS One 2012 by erasing the band in the left lane of the top row to falsely represent a lack of TAM67-FLAG expression Respondent entered into a Voluntary Exclusion Agreement (Agreement) and voluntarily agreed to the following: (1) Respondent will exclude himself voluntarily for a period of eight (8) years beginning on August 1, 2024 (the ``Exclusion Period'') from any contracting or subcontracting with any agency of the United States Government and from eligibility for or involvement in nonprocurement or procurement transactions referred to as ``covered transactions'' in 2 CFR parts 180 and 376 (collectively the ``Debarment Regulations''). (2) During the Exclusion Period, Respondent will not apply for, permit his name to be used on an application for, receive, or be supported by funds of the United States Government and its agencies made available through contracts, subcontracts, or covered transactions. (3) During the Exclusion Period, Respondent will exclude himself voluntarily from serving in any advisory or consultant capacity to PHS including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee. (4) Respondent will request that the following papers be corrected or retracted: Oncotarget 2017 Nov 22;8(66):110257-110272. doi: 10.18632/ oncotarget.22628. J Biol Chem. 2014 Apr 18;289(16):11443-11453. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M113.543165. J Biol Chem. 2015 May 22;290(21):13521-30. doi: 10.1074/ jbc.M115.642868. J Biol Chem. 2011 Aug 19;286(33):28772-28782. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M110.205245. Carcinogenesis 2010 Mar;31(3):496-503. doi: 10.1093/ carcin/bgp314. J Invest Dermatol. 2008 Mar; 128(3):517-29. doi: l 0.1038/ sj.jid.5701035. J Invest Dermatol. 2010 Aug;130(8):2017-30. doi: 10.1038/ jid.2010.108. Cancer Res. 2016 Dec 15;76(24):7265-7276. doi: 10.1158/ 0008-5472.CAN-16-2032. Respondent will copy ORI and the Research Integrity Officer at UMB on the correspondence with the journals. Dated: August 12, 2024. Sheila Garrity, Director, Office of Research Integrity, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health. [FR Doc. 2024-18289 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-31-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:25.356382

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18250

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66423-66424] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18250] [[Page 66423]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-0361. Proposed Project: National Survey on Drug Use and Health (OMB No. 0930- 0110) The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) is a survey of the U.S. civilian, non-institutionalized population aged 12 years old or older. The data are used to provide estimates of substance use and mental illness at the national, state, and substate levels. NSDUH data also help to identify the extent of substance use and mental illness among different subgroups, estimate trends over time, and determine the need for treatment services. The results are used by SAMHSA, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), Federal Government agencies, and other organizations and researchers to establish policy, direct program activities, and better allocate resources. For the 2025 NSDUH, SAMHSA is proposing to change the name of the study to the National Household Survey on Behavioral Health (NHSBH) to emphasize the inclusion of the long-standing mental health-related survey elements and to clarify for key stakeholders the full content of the survey's questions and data. The proposed name change will facilitate participant, researcher, and public understanding that the NSDUH is focused on both drug use but also mental health. The current name of the survey does not specifically capture questionnaire items across substance use and mental health, both separately and as co- occurring conditions. In addition, the name change will better align the survey with SAMHSA's mission. The survey's name is currently well recognized by those in the community, states, and academia, and this recognition comes from the quality of the established information provided. The continuing excellence of the information provided is anticipated to re-establish the recognition of the survey with the new name. It is anticipated that changing the name of the survey will highlight, in addition to substance, mental health components. SAMHSA is committed to addressing any concerns with a name change that may lead to confusion and/or misperception among some stakeholders and the general public, which could affect participation in the survey, misinterpretation of changes with the survey's content or purpose, or difficulty locating the pertinent information about the study's results. Nonetheless, these potential stakeholder responses and challenges will be addressed by emphasizing the significance of a name that reflects the complete content of the survey. A new name may also facilitate discussions on substance use and co-occurring mental health disorders. Efforts will be made to promote, market, and educate about the well-established quality and applicability of the survey results. These efforts may spark enhanced interest in the survey and the uptake of the results in publications and reports. As with all NSDUH/NHSDA \1\ surveys conducted since 1999, the sample size of the NSDUH main study for 2025 will be sufficient to permit prevalence estimates for each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia. The total annual burden estimate for the NSDUH main study is shown below in Table 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Prior to 2002, the NSDUH was referred to as the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA). Table 1--Annualized Estimated Burden for 2025 NSDUH ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of Responses per Total number Hours per Total burden Instrument respondents respondent of responses response hours ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Household Screening............. 285,894 1 285,894 0.083 23,729 Interview....................... 67,507 1 67,507 1.008 68,047 Screening Verification.......... 6,004 1 6,004 0.067 402 Interview Verification.......... 7,088 1 7,088 0.067 475 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total....................... 366,493 .............. 366,493 .............. 92,653 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mental Illness Calibration Study In addition, the Mental Illness Calibration Study (MICS) will continue to be embedded within the NSDUH main study for the remainder of 2024 to recalibrate the estimates of serious mental illness (SMI) for the NSDUH using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), fifth edition (DSM-5) criteria published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). The 2023 and 2024 MICS will be sampled from the main study NSDUH using completed mental health items as screeners. During MICS data collection from January 2023 through December 2024, approximately 17,180 NSDUH adult main study interview respondents (aged 18+) will be selected for a follow-up clinical interview at the end of the main study interview in order to produce a final sample size of at least 4,000 adult MICS follow-up clinical interviews (2,000 interviews per year). These follow-up clinical interviews will be conducted virtually via Zoom (video and/or phone) within four weeks following the NSDUH main study interview using the NetSCID, a computerized version of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 (SCID) that calculates skip logic in real-time based on responses. Many of the procedures and protocols in the MICS are based upon those previously employed as part of the 2008-2012 NSDUH Mental Health Surveillance Study (approved as an add-on to NSDUH under OMB No. 0930- 0110). The total annual burden for the 2023 and 2024 MICS was approved [[Page 66424]] under previous NSDUH ICRs (OMB No. 0930-0110). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function. Alicia Broadus, Public Health Advisor. [FR Doc. 2024-18250 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:25.475640

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18192

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66424-66427] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18192] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, SAMHSA will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer at (240) 276-0361. Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including leveraging automated data collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Proposed Project: Revision to the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant and Substance Use Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Services Block Grant FY 2026-2027 Plan and Report Guide (OMB No. 0930- 0168) SAMHSA is requesting approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a revision of the 2026-2027 Community Mental Health Services Block Grant (MHBG) and Substance Use Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Services Block Grant (SUPTRS) Application Plan and Report Guide. Currently, the SUPTRS BG and the MHBG differ on a number of their practices (e.g., data collection at individual or aggregate levels) and statutory authorities (e.g., method of calculating MOE, stakeholder input requirements for planning, set asides for specific populations or programs, etc.). Historically, the Centers within SAMHSA that administer these block grants have had different approaches to application requirements and reporting. To compound this variation, states have different structures for accepting, planning, and accounting for the block grants and the prevention set aside within the SUPTRS BG. As a result, how these dollars are spent and what is known about the services and clients that receive these funds varies by block grant and by State. SAMHSA has conveyed that block grant funds must be directed toward four purposes: (1) to fund priority treatment and support services for individuals without insurance or who cycle in and out of health insurance coverage; (2) to fund those priority treatment and support services not covered by Medicaid, Medicare, or private insurance offered through the exchanges and that demonstrate success in improving outcomes and/or supporting recovery; (3) to fund universal, selective and indicated prevention activities and services that align with SAMHSA's six prevention strategies; and (4) to collect performance and outcome data to determine the ongoing effectiveness of behavioral health prevention, treatment and recovery support services and to plan the implementation of new services on a nationwide basis. States will need help to meet future challenges associated with the implementation and management of an integrated physical health, mental health, and addiction service system. SAMHSA has established standards and expectations that will lead to an improved system of care for individuals with or at risk of mental and substance use disorders. Therefore, this application package continues to fully exercise SAMHSA's existing authority regarding states, U.S. territories, freely associated states, and the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians' (subsequently referred to as ``states'') use of block grant funds as they fully integrate behavioral health services into the broader health care continuum. Consistent with previous applications, the FY 2026-2027 application has required sections and other sections where additional information is requested. The FY 2026-2027 application requires states to submit a face sheet, a table of contents, a behavioral health assessment and plan, reports of expenditures and persons served, an executive summary, and funding agreements and certifications. In addition, SAMHSA is requesting information on key areas that are critical to the states' success in addressing health care equity. Therefore, as part of this block grant planning process, states should identify promising or effective strategies as well as technical assistance needed to implement the strategies identified in their plans for FYs 2026 and 2027. SAMHSA has made changes to the Block Grant Plan and Report requirements for FFY 2026 and 2027. These changes are necessary to ensure that funds are spent in an appropriate and timely manner. Adjustments were made to pre-existing tables in the plan and report. Proposed revisions for substance use disorder treatment services in the FY 26-27 SUPTRS BG Plan and Report include revisions related to removal of stigmatizing language, with the deletion of the term 'abuse', and replacement with the term `use', per the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023. The Plan and Report also include the universal adoption of 'Recovery Support Services' as a stand-alone category for SUPTRS BG Plan and Report tables. These changes affect Plan Tables 1, 2b, 4b, and 6b, and Report Tables 1, 2, 4, 6, 7. Editorial and minor stylistic changes have been made to tables and language. Footnotes have been revised that define the COVID-19 and ARP Supplemental Funding expenditure periods, including the addition of explicit instructions on the second No Cost Extension (NCE) for the COVID-19 funding, and the expiration date for the ARP funding. Finally, the SUPTRS BG Report Table 11c has been revised to reflect the Number of Persons Admitted to Treatment by Sexual Orientation and Race/ Ethnicity, in a reporting format that is compatible with the format and content of the comparable CMHS table for the MHBG. Proposed revisions for prevention services in the FY 26-27 SUPTRS BG Plan include those revisions that are related to a more intentional use of language, with strengthened statements with the addition of statistics, and added language to reinforce the interrelatedness between mental health and substance use. There is also reinforcement of SUPTRS BG primary prevention set-aside funds to support [[Page 66425]] universal, selective, and/or indicated substance use prevention strategies. Updated tables ensure consistency in Tables 5a-5c for both Plans and Reports, and updated language for substances in Table 5c. The term `abstinence' has been removed from the Prevention National Outcome Measures (NOMs) to better reflect current terminology. Report Tables 31 and 32 have been combined into a new Report Table 31, which reduces burden for grantees and removes redundant, obsolete reporting requirements. Gender categories in Table 31 have been updated to align with CSAT gender categories. On the MHBG portion of the Plan, the changes are the addition of one planning table--MHBG Plan Table 4a: State Agency Planned Budget for MHBG and the addition of a new section to the Environmental Factors and Plan section--Uniform Reporting System and Mental Client-Level Data (MH-CLD)/Mental Health Treatment Episode Data Set (MH-TEDS). Minor revisions were made for clarification to other sections. On the MHBG report, the only changes are the addition of one new table (Table 4B) and the addition of data definitions in the appendix. The additional tables should not require excessive effort as all data will already be collected by the states for the additional funding efforts. While the statutory deadlines and block grant award periods remain unchanged, SAMHSA encourages states to turn in their application as early as possible to allow for a full discussion and review by SAMHSA. Applications for the MHBG-only are due no later than September 1, 2025. The application for SUPTRS BG-only is due no later than October 1, 2025. A single application for MHBG and SUPTRS BG combined is due no later than September 1, 2025. Estimates of Annualized Hour Burden The estimated annualized burden for the uniform application will remain 33,493 hours since most revisions have been made for clarification and the combining of tables will not change the burden. Burden estimates are broken out in the following tables showing burden separately for Year 1 and Year 2. Year 1 includes the estimates of burden for the uniform application and annual reporting. Year 2 includes the estimates of burden for the recordkeeping and annual reporting. The reporting burden remains constant for both years. Table 1--Estimates of Application and Reporting Burden for Year 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Authorizing Number of Number of legislation Authorizing Implementing Number of responses per hours per Total hours SUPTRS BG legislation MHBG regulation respondents year response -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Substance Use Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Services (SUPTRS BG) and Community Mental Health Services (MHBG) Block Grant -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reporting:..................... Standard Form and ................. ................. .............. .............. .............. .............. Content. 42 U.S.C. 300x- ................. ................. .............. .............. .............. .............. 32(a). SUPTRS BG...................... Annual Report.... ................. ................. .............. .............. .............. 11,190 42 U.S.C. 300x- ................. 45 CFR 96.122(f). 60 1 .............. .............. 52(a). 42 U.S.C. 300x-30- ................. ................. 5 1 .............. .............. b. 42 U.S.C. 300x- ................. 45 CFR 96.134(d). 60 1 .............. .............. 30(d)(2). MHBG........................... Annual Report.... ................. ................. .............. .............. .............. 11,003 ................. 42 USC Sec. ................. 59 1 .............. .............. 300x-6(a). ................. 42 U.S.C. 300x- ................. .............. .............. .............. .............. 52(a). ................. 42 U.S.C. 300x- ................. 59 1 .............. .............. 4(b)(3)B. State Plan ................. ................. .............. .............. .............. .............. (Covers 2 years). SUPTRS BG elements............. 42 U.S.C. 300x- ................. 45 CFR 60 1 .............. .............. 22(b). 96.124(c)(1). 42 U.S.C. 300x-23 ................. 45 CFR 96.126(f). 60 1 .............. .............. 42 U.S.C. 300x-27 ................. 45 CFR 96.131(f). 60 1 .............. .............. 42 U.S.C. 300x- ................. 45 CFR 96.122(g). 60 1 120 7,230 32(b). MHBG elements.................. ................. 42 U.S.C. 300x- ................. 59 1 120 7,109 1(b). ................. 42 U.S.C. 300x- ................. 59 1 .............. .............. 1(b)(2). ................. 42 U.S.C. 300x- ................. 59 1 .............. .............. 2(a). Waivers.......... ................. ................. .............. .............. .............. 3,240 42 U.S.C. 300x- ................. ................. 20 1 .............. .............. 24(b)(5)(B). 42 U.S.C. 300x- ................. 45 CFR 96.132(d). 5 1 .............. .............. 28(d). 42 U.S.C. 300x- ................. 45 CFR 96.134(b). 10 1 .............. .............. 30(c). 42 U.S.C. 300x- ................. ................. 1 1 .............. .............. 31(c). [[Page 66426]] 42 U.S.C. 300x- ................. ................. 7 1 .............. .............. 32(c). ................. 42 U.S.C. 300x- ................. 10 .............. .............. .............. 32(e). ................. 42 U.S.C. 300x- ................. 10 .............. .............. .............. 2(a)(2). ................. 42 U.S.C 300x- ................. 10 .............. .............. .............. 4(b)(3). ................. 42 U.S.C 300x- ................. 7 .............. .............. .............. 6(b). Recordkeeping.................. 42 U.S.C. 300x-23 42 U.S.C. 300x-3. 45 CFR 96.126(c). 60/59 1 20 1,200 42 U.S.C. 300x-25 ................. 45 CFR 10 1 20 200 96.129(a)(13). 42 U.S.C 300x-65. ................. 42 CFR Part 54... 60 1 20 1,200 --------------------------------------------------------------- Combined Burden............ ................. ................. ................. .............. .............. .............. 42,373 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Report 300x-52(a)--Requirement of Reports and Audits by States--Report 300x-30(b)--Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Regarding State Expenditures-- Exclusion of Certain Funds (SUPTRS BG) 300x-30(d)(2)--MOE--Noncompliance--Submission of Information to Secretary (SUPTRS BG) State Plan--SUPTRS BG 300x-22(b)--Allocations for Women 300x-23--Intravenous Substance Abuse 300x-27--Priority in Admissions to Treatment 300x-29--Statewide Assessment of Need 300x-32(b)--State Plan State Plan--MHBG 42 U.S.C. 300x-1(b)--Criteria for Plan 42 U.S.C. 300x-1(b)(2)--State Plan for Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for Certain Individuals--Criteria for Plan--Mental Health System Data and Epidemiology 42 U.S.C. 300x-2(a)--Certain Agreements--Allocations for Systems Integrated Services for Children Waivers--SUPTRS BG 300x-24(b)(5)(B)--Human Immunodeficiency Virus--Requirement regarding Rural Areas 300x-28(d)--Additional Agreements 300x-30(c)--MOE 300x-31(c)--Restrictions on Expenditure of Grant--Waiver Regarding Construction of Facilities 300x-32(c)--Certain Territories 300x-32(e)--Waiver amendment for 1922, 1923, 1924 and 1927 Waivers--MHBG 300x-2(a)(2)--Allocations for Systems Integrated Services for Children 300x-6(b)--Waiver for Certain Territories Recordkeeping 300x-23--Waiting list 300x-25--Group Homes for Persons in Recovery from Substance Use Disorders 300x-65--Charitable Choice Table 2--Estimates of Application and Reporting Burden for Year 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of Number of Number of responses per hours per Total hours respondent year response ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reporting: SUPTRS BG................................... 60 1 187 11,220 MHBG........................................ 59 1 187 11,033 Recordkeeping................................... 60/59 1 40 2,360 --------------------------------------------------------------- Combined Burden......................... .............. .............. .............. 24,613 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The total annualized burden for the application and reporting is 33,493 hours (42,373 + 24,613 = 66,986/2 years = 33,493). Link for the application: http://www.samhsa.gov/grants/block-grants. [[Page 66427]] Send comments to SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, 5600 Fisher Lane, Room 15E45, Rockville, MD 20852 OR email him a copy at [email protected]. Written comments should be received by October 15, 2024. Alicia Broadus, Public Health Advisor. [FR Doc. 2024-18192 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:25.516184

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18253

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66427-66429] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18253] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-0361. Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Proposed Project: SAMHSA Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic-- Expansion (CCBHC-E) Grant Program Evaluation (OMB No. 0930-XXXX)--New Collection In FY 2022, SAMHSA awarded two new cohorts of its CCBHC-Expansion program, one for clinics interested in becoming CCBHCs that need planning and support to come into compliance with CCBHC Certification Criteria, and another for established CCBHCs seeking to expand, improve, and advance their services. The purpose of the CCBHC-E grants is to address problems of access, coordination, and quality of behavioral health care by establishing a standard definition and criteria for organizations certified as CCBHCs to ensure that all service recipients have access to a common set of comprehensive, coordinated services, with the ultimate goal of decreasing disparities in care and outcomes across communities. SAMHSA is requesting clearance for eleven data collection instruments and forms related to the implementation and impact studies to be conducted as part of an evaluation of these cohorts. Data collected in this evaluation will help SAMHSA assess the degree to which activities at the clinic level and systems level affect the development, implementation, and sustainment of CCBHCs consistent with the certification criteria and the impacts of model adoption on client outcomes. 1. SAMHSA has developed a grantee web survey that will be administered twice to all 298 grant project directors, once during a first option year and again during a third option year. The survey consists of 76 questions the first time it is administered and 68 questions the second time it is administered. The survey includes mostly binary or multiple-choice response options and a limited number of open-ended questions. The survey will enable respondents to complete the data collection instrument at a location and time of their choice, and its built-in editing checks and programmed skips will reduce response errors. SAMHSA estimates the web survey will take no more than 45 minutes to complete and expects a 100 percent response rate, for a total of 298 completed grantee surveys at each time of administration. Grantees will provide valuable insights into their experience with the CCBHC model; if they are not conducted, SAMHSA will not have adequate information to evaluate the extent to which Planning, Development, and Implementation (PDI) grantees come into full compliance with the certification criteria and Improvement and Advancement (IA) grantees sustain the model in a manner that is consistent with the CCBHC certification criteria. 2. SAMHSA has developed a protocol for annual interviews with all 26 grantee Government Project Officers (GPOs) during three option years. Interviews will last approximately one hour and focus on the types of support grantees need to successfully implement the model in the future and identify specific components of the certification criteria that were challenging for grantees to implement. SAMHSA will offer to conduct individual interviews or meet with groups of GPOs during regularly scheduled meetings. GPOs will provide valuable insights into CCBHC model implementation and factors that facilitate or impede implementation; if they are not conducted, SAMHSA will not glean essential insights into contextual factors that affect implementation of the CCBHC model, including adaptations grantees make to the model to align with their local service delivery system, grantee characteristics that might contribute to successful implementation, and the types of support grantees need to successfully implement the model in the future and the specific components of the certification criteria that were challenging for grantees to implement. 3. SAMHSA has developed a protocol for interviews with representatives from 50 organizations that support adults, youth, and family members with lived experience over the course of the first three option years. Interviews will last approximately one hour. State consumer, youth, and family member organizations will provide valuable insights into their own involvement in the planning and development of the model in respective states, and the perspectives of adults and youth who received CCBHC services and their families on various aspects of the CCBHC model; if they are not conducted, SAMHSA will not adequately understand how these organizations contributed to the planning and development of the model, how CCBHCs tailored services to the diverse needs of communities, and how people with lived experience might refine the model to fill gaps in care. 4. SAMHSA has developed a protocol for interviews with a sample of 120 grantee project directors during option years 1 and 3 (i.e., approximately 60 interviews in each year). Interviews will last approximately one hour. Grantees will provide valuable insights into CCBHC model implementation nuances that cannot be captured via the grantee survey alone; if they are not conducted, SAMHSA will not adequately understand how grantees initially plan to use funding to develop or improve CCBHC program-specific activities in response to the community needs assessment, and successes and challenges expanding services and increasing access to care, and how they eventually progress toward meeting the goals of Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) efforts and plans for sustainability. [[Page 66428]] 5. SAMHSA has developed a protocol for interviews with clinic leadership from a sample of 50 strategically selected grantees for site visits during the first three option years. Positions of leadership include project directors, medical directors, and/or quality improvement directors. Interviews will last approximately one hour. Clinic leaders will provide valuable insights into understanding their experiences and perspectives as they implement the CCBHC model; if they are not conducted, SAMHSA will not adequately understand the more granular, on-the-ground impacts of model implementation. 6. SAMHSA has developed a protocol for interviews with frontline clinic staff from a sample of 50 strategically selected grantees for site visits. Clinic staff positions include mental health and substance use providers, case managers, and peer mentors/support personnel. Interviews will last approximately one hour. Clinic staff will provide valuable insights into understanding their experiences and perspectives as the site implements the CCBHC model; if they are not conducted, SAMHSA will not adequately understand the impacts of model implementation from the perspective of the clinic staff. 7. SAMHSA has developed a protocol for interviews with representatives of CCBHC partners from a sample of 50 strategically selected grantees for site visits, including designated collaborating organizations (DCOs) and Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs). Interviews will last approximately one hour. Clinic partner organizations will provide valuable insights into understanding their experiences and perspectives; if they are not conducted, SAMHSA will not adequately understand how partnerships with DCOs and OTPs function, how care is coordinated between entities, and how CCBHCs maintain clinical responsibility for DCO services. 8. SAMHSA has developed a protocol for focus groups with people 18 and older who receive CCBHC services from a sample of 50 strategically selected grantees for site visits. Focus groups will last approximately one hour and consist of 8-10 adult clients, who will provide valuable insights into understanding their experience of CCBHC services; if they are not conducted, SAMHSA will not be able to adequately synthesize and present similar or different perspectives among diverse stakeholders from a common clinic. 9. SAMHSA has developed a protocol for focus groups with people under 18 who receive CCBHC services. Focus groups will last approximately one hour and consist of 8-10 youth clients, who will provide valuable insights into understanding their experience of CCBHC services; if they are not conducted, SAMHSA will not be able to adequately synthesize and present similar or different perspectives among diverse stakeholders from a common clinic. 10. SAMHSA has developed a protocol for focus groups with parents and caregivers of youth who receive CCBHC services. Focus groups will last approximately one hour and consist of 8-10 parents and caregivers of youth clients, who will provide valuable insights into understanding their experience of CCBHC services; if they are not conducted, SAMHSA will not be able to adequately synthesize and present similar or different perspectives among diverse stakeholders from a common clinic. 11. SAMHSA has developed a protocol for in-person interviews with a sample of clients who receive CCBHC services. The interview consists of 33 questions and will take place on no more than three occasions at the same time as National Outcome Measures (NOMs) data collection. Interviews will last approximately 15 minutes. If they are not conducted, the evaluation team will not have adequate information to evaluate longitudinal changes in client-level outcomes pertaining to substance use, mental health symptomology and functioning, and recovery, as these dimensions are not captured in the NOMs data with sufficient sensitivity to detect change over time. It is essential to obtain information directly from the clients of CCBHC services to understand how implementation of the model affects their access to care and experiences with care. The estimated response burden is as follows: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number Average burden Total Total hour Type of respondent Number of responses per per response burden Average cost burden respondents respondent (in hours) hours hourly wage \a\ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Grantee survey................................................... 298 2 0.75 447 $59.07 $26,404.29 GPO interviews................................................... 26 3 1 78 45.85 3,576.30 Consumer & family member organization interviews................. 50 1 1 50 29.14 1,457.00 Grantee phone/virtual interviews................................. 120 1 1 120 59.07 7,088.40 Clinic leadership interviews..................................... \b\ 150 1 1 150 59.07 8,860.50 Clinic staff interviews.......................................... \c\ 250 1 1 250 49.19 12,297.50 Clinic partner interviews........................................ \d\ 150 1 1 150 61.26 9,189.00 Adult client focus groups........................................ \e\ 500 1 1 500 22.26 11,130.00 Youth client focus groups........................................ \f\ 400 1 1 400 N/A N/A Parents/caregivers of youth clients focus groups................. \g\ 400 1 1 400 22.26 8,904.00 Client interview................................................. 45,700 3 0.25 34,275 22.26 762,961.50 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total........................................................ \h\ 47,999 .............. .............. 36,820 ........... 851,868.50 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \a\ Total respondent cost is calculated as number of respondents x number of responses per respondent x average burden per response in hours x average hourly wage. \b\ 3 respondents per site x 50 site visits = 150 total respondents. \c\ 5 respondents per site x 50 site visits = 250 total respondents. \d\ 3 respondents per site x 50 site visits = 150 total respondents. \e\ 10 respondents per site x 50 site visits = 500 total respondents. \f\ 8 respondents per site x 50 site visits = 400 total respondents. \g\ 8 respondents per site x 50 site visits = 400 total respondents. \h\ Estimated number of total unique respondents; some respondents, such as project directors, will overlap across the data collection activities. [[Page 66429]] Send comments to SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 15E-57A, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857 OR email a copy to [email protected]. Written comments should be received by October 15, 2024. Alicia Broadus, Public Health Advisor. [FR Doc. 2024-18253 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:25.594853

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18316

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66429-66430] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18316] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, email the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer at [email protected]. Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Proposed Project: SAMHSA Unified Client-Level Performance Reporting Tool (SUPRT)--(OMB No. 0930-NEW) The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) is the agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that leads public health efforts to advance the behavioral health of the nation. SAMHSA is seeking approval for the new SAMHSA Unified Client-level Performance Reporting Tool (SUPRT) to modify the existing Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) and Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) Client-Level Performance Instruments into a streamlined, multi-component SAMHSA Client-Level Performance Tool. Currently, over 7,500 grantees across a range of prevention, harm reduction, treatment, and recovery support discretionary grant programs report program performance data into SAMHSA's Performance Accountability and Reporting System (SPARS) that serves as a central data repository. SPARS also functions as a performance management system that captures information on the substance use and mental health services delivered via the range of SAMHSA's discretionary grants. SAMHSA has historically required grantees to collect much of the client-level information in SPARS using a prescribed series of questions in long complex instruments. This is not the totality of data tools SAMHSA uses, however, to collect performance data on its discretionary grant programs. SAMHSA uses data collected, depending on the grant program, at the client-level, but also through aggregate program performance tools, required narrative performance progress reports, or a combination of these. This notice informs the public of SAMHSA's intent to develop and implement a new streamlined client-level performance tool that will allow SAMHSA to continue to meet Government Performance and Results Modernization Act (GPRAMA) of 2010 reporting requirements, reduce the scope and associated burden of questions requiring responses directly from clients, and limit the amount of client-level detail reported by grantees. The proposed new client-level performance tool will involve streamlining questions from the currently used client-level performance reporting tools, as well as incorporating select new measures/questions into a multi-component client-level tool. With this change, SAMHSA will provide guidance specifying which items SAMHSA expects grantees to ask directly of clients and those for which grantees may use alternate data sources for gathering and reporting client-level data. This new, streamlined client-level performance tool will reduce client and grantee reporting burden and enhance consistency of the collected performance data. This tool also reflects diverse stakeholder feedback SAMHSA obtained through multiple listening sessions conducted with key stakeholders and will incorporate findings of cognitive testing to improve clarity of the measures. This performance tool will align with, and strengthen, SAMHSA's complementary evaluation activities of its discretionary grant programs providing client services. SAMHSA will use the data collected through the new streamlined client-level performance tool for both annual reporting required by GPRAMA, grantee monitoring, and continuous improvement of its discretionary grant programs. The information collected through this process will allow SAMHSA to (1) monitor and report on implementation and overall performance of the associated grant programs; (2) advance SAMHSA's proposed performance goals; and (3) assess the accountability and performance of its discretionary grant programs, focused on efforts that promote mental health, prevent substance use, and provide treatments and supports to foster recovery. Through the proposed new, streamlined single client-level performance tool, SAMHSA seeks to (1) improve the utility of client- level performance tools while decreasing burden; (2) standardize and utilize tested questions across programs wherever possible; and, (3) elicit programmatic information that helps inform the impact of discretionary grant programs on the achievement of SAMHSA's Strategic Priority Area goals and objectives (https://www.samhsa.gov/about-us/strategic-plan). Furthermore, this effort is designed to align performance reporting requirements with the measurement activities of other federal agencies (e.g., the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the U.S. Census Bureau; the Office of Management and Budget; etc.) to the extent possible. To meet these goals, data from the new client-level performance tool for SAMHSA's discretionary grants can be used to delineate who is served, how they are served, what services they receive, and how the program impacts the progress of clients in terms of mental health and substance use issues. The tool reflects SAMHSA's goals to elicit pertinent program data that can be used to inform current and future programs and practices and respond to stakeholders, congressional, and other agency inquiries. The proposed structure of the new tool will be one that is streamlined and multi-component with client-level information collected and reported at varying frequencies. The first component will be composed of standardized questions about demographic information (asked directly of clients at baseline only) and social determinants of health (asked directly of clients at baseline and [[Page 66430]] annually as instructed by SAMHSA); the second component will contain standardized recovery, quality of life, and client goal measures as impacted by services received (also asked of clients at baseline and reassessment during the first year of a grant, then annually as instructed by SAMHSA); and the third component will consist of a streamlined set of questions describing clients' behavioral health history, screening and diagnosis items, and services provided to clients (as reported at the client-level by the grantee using alternate data sources that already may be in use for other purposes, for example an electronic health or medical record). Question(s) about services provided to the client will only be required at reassessment and annually for some programs as instructed by SAMHSA. Currently, the tool and final burden table are still under development and will be available as part of the 30-Day FRN. However, SAMHSA expects that use of the multi-component tool will result in a significant decrease in burden for client and grantee annualized reporting, not only because of the streamlining of questions, but also because not all items will be required at every data collection time point. For example, SAMHSA anticipates that the services provided item will not be required to report at baseline, only reassessment and, for some programs, annually. SAMHSA is also finalizing a revised policy on when reassessments are expected to occur, recognizing that a one-size fits all approach may not be appropriate for all client-focused grant programs. SAMHSA is conducting testing to establish a better estimate of the time it will take to complete the information collection given the varying degree of direct client involvement across the new tool's components and grantee use of alternate data sources for a portion of the tool. At this point, SAMHSA estimates that approximately 1500 client-focused grantees annually will use the tool and with a burden hour estimate per assessment that ranges from 0.13 to 0.27 for each of the three tool components. SAMHSA's goal is to develop a new performance tool that is streamlined and will significantly reduce burden compared to the current performance tools. Send comments to the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 15E45, Rockville, Maryland 20857, OR email a copy to [email protected]. Written comments should be received by October 15, 2024. Alicia Broadus, Public Health Advisor. [FR Doc. 2024-18316 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:25.659957

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18204

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66430-66432] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18204] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-6481-N-02] Notice of HUD Vacant Loan Sales (HVLS 2025-1) AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing--Federal Housing Commissioner, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This notice announces HUD's intention to competitively offer approximately 2,700 home equity conversion mortgages (HECM, or reverse mortgage loans) secured by vacant properties with an updated loan balance of approximately $746 million. The sale will consist of due and payable Secretary-held reverse mortgage loans. The mortgage loans consist of first liens secured by single family, vacant residential properties, where all borrowers are deceased, and no borrower is survived by a non-borrowing spouse. The Secretary will prioritize up to 50 percent of the offered assets for award to nonprofit organizations or governmental entity bidders with a documented housing mission. This notice also generally describes the bidding process for the sale and certain entities who are ineligible to bid. This is the thirteenth sale offering of its type and will be held on October 16, 2024. DATES: For this sale action, the Bidder's Information Package (BIP) will be made available to qualified bidders on or about September 11, 2024. Bids for the HVLS 2025-1 sale will be accepted on the Bid Date of October 16, 2024 prior to 1:00 p.m. ET (Bid Date). HUD anticipates that award(s) will be made on or about October 21, 2024 (the Award Date). ADDRESSES: To become an eligible bidder and receive the BIP for the October sale, prospective bidders must complete, execute, and submit a Confidentiality Agreement and Qualification Statement acceptable to HUD. The documents will be available in preview form with free login on the Transaction Specialist (TS), Falcon Capital Advisors, website: http://www.falconassetsales.com. This website contains information and links to register for the sale and electronically complete and submit documents. If you cannot submit electronically, please submit executed documents via mail or facsimile to Falcon Capital Advisors: Falcon Capital Advisors, 427 N Lee Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, Attention: Glenn Ervin, HUD HVLS Loan Sale Coordinator eFax: 1-202-393-4125. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Lucey, Director, Office of Asset Sales, Room 9216, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone 202-708-2625, extension 3927 (this is not a toll-free number) or at [email protected]. HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals with speech or communication disabilities. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/telecommunications-relay-service-trs. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces HUD's intention to sell due and payable Secretary-held reverse mortgage loans in HVLS 2025-1. HUD is offering approximately 2,700 reverse mortgage notes with an updated loan balance of approximately $746 million. The mortgage loans consist of first liens secured by single family, vacant residential properties, where all borrowers are deceased, and no borrower is survived by a non-borrowing spouse. A listing of the mortgage loans will be included in the due diligence materials made available to eligible bidders. The mortgage loans will be sold without FHA insurance and with servicing released. HUD will offer eligible bidders an opportunity to bid competitively on the mortgage loans. The Bidding Process The BIP describes in detail the procedure for bidding in HVLS 2025- 1. The BIP also includes the applicable standardized non-negotiable Conveyance, Assignment and Assumption Agreements for HVLS 2025-1 (CAAs). The CAAs will contain first look requirements and mission outcome goals. HUD will evaluate the bids submitted and determine the successful bids, in terms of the best value to HUD, in its sole and absolute discretion. If a bidder is successful, it will be required to submit a deposit which will be calculated based upon the total dollar value of the bidder's potential award. [[Page 66431]] Award will be contingent on receiving the deposit in the timeframe outlined in the bid deposit confirmation. The deposit amount will be applied to the sale price on the settlement date. This notice provides some of the basic terms of sale. The CAAs will be released in the BIP or BIP Supplement, as applicable. These documents provide comprehensive contractual terms and conditions to which eligible bidders will acknowledge and agree. To ensure a competitive bidding process, the terms of the bidding process and the CAAs are not subject to negotiation. Due Diligence Review The BIP describes how eligible bidders may access the due diligence materials remotely via a high-speed internet connection. Mortgage Loan Sale Policy HUD reserves the right to remove mortgage loans from a sale at any time prior to the Award Date and the settlement date for the mortgage loans. HUD also reserves the right to reject any and all bids, in whole or in part, and include any unsold reverse mortgage loans from the HVLS 2025-1 sale in a later sale. Deliveries of mortgage loans will occur in conjunction with settlement and servicing transfer no later than 60 days after the Award Date. The reverse mortgage loans offered for sale were insured by and were assigned to HUD pursuant to section 255 of the National Housing Act, as amended. The sale of the reverse mortgage loans is pursuant to HUD's authority in section 204(g) of the National Housing Act. Mortgage Loan Sale Procedure HUD selected an open competitive whole-loan sale as the method to sell the reverse mortgage loans for this specific sale transaction. For the HVLS 2025-1 sale, HUD has determined that this method of sale optimizes HUD's return on the sale of these reverse mortgage loans, affords the greatest opportunity for all eligible bidders to bid on the reverse mortgage loans, and provides the quickest and most efficient vehicle for HUD to dispose of the due and payable reverse mortgage loans. Bidder Ineligibility In order to bid in HVLS 2025-1 as an eligible bidder, a prospective bidder must complete, execute, and submit a Confidentiality Agreement, a Qualification Statement (HUD-9611), and an Addendum for Nonprofit and Government Pools and Sub-pools (HUD-9612), as applicable that is acceptable to HUD. Eligible bidders seeking to be awarded loans on a priority basis must submit the Confidentiality Agreement, Qualification Statement (HUD-9611), and Addendum for Nonprofit and Government Pools and Sub-pools (HUD-9612), and Housing Mission Supplemental Certification, that is acceptable to HUD. The Confidentiality Agreement, Qualification Statement (HUD Form 9611), Qualification Statement Addendum for Nonprofit and Government Pools and Sub-Pools (HUD Form 9612), Housing Mission Supplemental Certification, if applicable, collectively are the ``Qualification Statement Documents.'' In the Qualification Statement, the prospective bidder must disclose its key employees, including officers, directors and other decision makers and provide certain representations and warranties regarding the prospective bidder, including (i) the prospective bidder's board of directors, (ii) the prospective bidder's direct parent, (iii) the prospective bidder's subsidiaries, (iv) any related entity with which the prospective bidder shares a common officer, director, subcontractor or sub-contractor who has access to Confidential Information as defined in the Confidentiality Agreement or is involved in the formation of a bid transaction (collectively the ``Related Entities''), and (v) the prospective bidder's repurchase lenders. The prospective bidder is ineligible to bid on any of the reverse mortgage loans included in HVLS 2025-1 if the prospective bidder, its Related Entities, or its repurchase lenders, are any of the following, unless other exceptions apply as provided for in the Qualification Statement. 1. An individual or entity that is currently debarred, suspended, or excluded from doing business with HUD pursuant to the Governmentwide Suspension and Debarment regulations at 2 CFR parts 180 and 2424; 2. An individual or entity that is currently suspended, debarred, or otherwise restricted by any department or agency of the federal government or of a state government from doing business with such department or agency; 3. An individual or entity that is currently debarred, suspended, or excluded from doing mortgage related business, including having a business license suspended, surrendered or revoked, by any federal, state, or local government agency, division, or department; 4. An entity that has had its right to act as a Government National Mortgage Association (``Ginnie Mae'') issuer terminated and its interest in mortgages backing Ginnie Mae mortgage-backed securities extinguished by Ginnie Mae; 5. An individual or entity that is in violation of its neighborhood stabilizing outcome obligations or post-sale reporting requirements under a Conveyance, Assignment and Assumption Agreement executed a past sale; 6. An employee of HUD's Office of Housing, a member of such employee's household, or an entity owned or controlled by any such employee or member of such an employee's household with household to be inclusive of the employee's father, mother, stepfather, stepmother, brother, sister, stepbrother, stepsister, son, daughter, stepson, stepdaughter, grandparent, grandson, granddaughter, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in- law, first cousin, the spouse of any of the foregoing, and the employee's spouse; 7. A contractor, subcontractor, and/or consultant or advisor (including any agent, employee, partner, director, or principal of any of the foregoing) who performed services for or on behalf of HUD in connection with the sale; 8. An individual or entity that knowingly acquired or will acquire prior to the sale date material non-public information, other than that information which is made available to Bidder by HUD pursuant to the terms of this Qualification Statement, about mortgage loans offered in the sale; 9. An individual or entity which knowingly employs or uses the services of an employee of HUD's Office of Housing (other than in such employee's official capacity); or 10. An individual or entity that knowingly uses the services, directly or indirectly, of any person or entity ineligible under 1 through 10 to assist in preparing any of its bids on the mortgage loans. The Qualification Statement has additional representations and warranties which the prospective bidder must make, including but not limited to the representation and warranty that the prospective bidder or its Related Entities are not and will not knowingly use the services, directly or indirectly, of any person or entity that is, any of the following (and to the extent that any such individual or entity would prevent the prospective bidder from making the following representations, such individual or entity has been removed from participation in all activities related to this sale and has no ability to influence or control individuals involved in formation of a bid for this sale): [[Page 66432]] (1) An entity or individual is ineligible to bid on any included reverse mortgage loan or on the pool containing such reverse mortgage loan because it is an entity or individual that: (a) Serviced or held such reverse mortgage loan at any time during the six-month period prior to the bid, or (b) Is any principal of any entity or individual described in the preceding sentence; (c) Any employee or subcontractor of such entity or individual during that six-month period; or (d) Any entity or individual that employs or uses the services of any other entity or individual described in this paragraph in preparing its bid on such reverse mortgage loan. In addition, for those eligible bidders seeking to be awarded mortgage loans on a priority basis and signing the Housing Mission Supplemental Certification, each prospective bidder must provide documentation and certify that its charitable or government purpose has a qualifying housing mission and that its participation in the sale is a furtherance of that housing mission. Freedom of Information Act Requests HUD reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to disclose information regarding HVLS 2025-1, including, but not limited to, the identity of any successful qualified bidder and its bid price or bid percentage for any pool of loans or individual loan, upon the closing of the sale of all the mortgage loans. Even if HUD elects not to publicly disclose any information relating to HVLS 2025-1, HUD will disclose any information that HUD is obligated to disclose pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and all regulations promulgated thereunder. Scope of Notice This notice applies to HVLS 2025-1 and does not establish HUD's policy for the sale of other mortgage loans. Julia R. Gordon, Assistant Secretary for Housing--Federal Housing Commissioner. [FR Doc. 2024-18204 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:25.763869

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18208

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66432-66434] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18208] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-HQ-OC-2024-N038; FVWF97820900000-XXX-FF09W13000 and FVWF54200900000-XXX-FF09W13000; OMB Control Number 1018-0088] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget; National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (FHWAR) AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are proposing to revise a currently approved information collection. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 16, 2024. ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function. Please provide a copy of your comments to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB (JAO/3W), 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041- 3803 (mail); or by email to [email protected]. Please reference ``1018- 0088'' in the subject line of your comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request additional information about this information collection request (ICR), contact Madonna L. Baucum, Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, by email at [email protected], or by telephone at (703) 358-2503. 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. You may also view the ICR at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), all information collections require approval under the PRA. 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. As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again inviting the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following: (1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of response. On January 3, 2024, we published in the Federal Register (89 FR 384) a notice of our intent to request that OMB approve this information collection. In that notice, we solicited comments for 60 days, ending on March 4, 2024. In an effort to increase public awareness of, and participation in, our public commenting processes associated with information collection requests, the Service also published the Federal Register notice on Regulations.gov (Docket FWS- HQ-WSFR-2023-0231) to provide the public with an additional method to submit comments (in addition to the typical U.S. mail submission method). We received the following comments in response to that notice: Comment 1: Electronic comment received 01/03/2024, via Regulations.gov (FWS-HQ-WSFR-2023-0231-0002) from Jean Publie, who [[Page 66433]] stated this is a propaganda survey and hunting is insane. Agency Response to Comment 1: This comment did not address the information collection requirements; therefore, no response is required. Comment 2: Electronic comment received 01/03/2024, via Regulations.gov (FWS-HQ-WSFR-2023-0231-0003) from Holly Huchko, Sport Fish Restoration Coordinator/ESA Specialist, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Ms. Huchko stated information should be collected both by mail and digital format, and the freshwater/saltwater fishing split for coastal States needs to continue to be collected. Agency Response to Comment 2: The methodology for the 2027 FHWAR is responsive to the needs identified in this comment. Oregon and other coastal States will continue to receive data on the number of freshwater/saltwater anglers within their respective State, free of cost. Comment 3: Anonymous comment received 03/03/2024, via Regulations.gov (FWS-HQ-WSFR-2023-0231-0004) stating that hunting and fishing should not be encouraged, and that animal lives should be spared. Agency Response to Comment 3: This comment did not address the information collection requirements; therefore, no response is required. Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. 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. Abstract: The information collected for the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (FHWAR, or National Survey) assists the Fish and Wildlife Service in administering the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration grant programs. The FHWAR, conducted about every 5 years since 1955, is a comprehensive survey of anglers, hunters, and wildlife watchers and includes information on their participation and how much they spend on these activities in the United States. The FHWAR provides up-to-date information on the uses and demands for wildlife-related recreation resources and a basis for developing and evaluating programs and projects to meet existing and future needs. We collect the information in conjunction with carrying out our responsibilities under the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 777-777m) and the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669-669i). Under these Acts, we provide approximately $1 billion in grants annually to States for projects that support sport fish and wildlife management and restoration, including: Improvement of fish and wildlife habitats, Fishing and boating access, Fish stocking, and Hunting and fishing opportunities. We also provide grants for aquatic education and hunter education, maintenance of completed projects, and research into problems affecting fish and wildlife resources. These projects help to ensure that the American people have adequate opportunities for fish and wildlife recreation. We conduct the survey about every 5 years. The 2027 FHWAR survey will be the 15th conducted since 1955. We coordinate the survey at the States' request, which is made through the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. We will contract with a data collector to collect the information using internet, telephone, or mail-in paper- and-pencil instrument (PAPI). Respondents are invited to take the survey with a mailed letter. The data collector will select a sample of sportspersons and wildlife watchers from a household screen and conduct three detailed interviews during the survey year. The survey collects information on the number of days of participation, and expenditures for trips and equipment. Information on the characteristics of participants includes age, income, sex, education, race, and State of residence. The Freshwater/ Saltwater Ratio Questionnaire is designed to get freshwater and saltwater fishing data for coastal States. The Service's Wildlife and Sportfish Restoration Program is required to divide fishing management funds according to the ratio of freshwater and saltwater anglers in each coastal State. Federal and State agencies use information from the survey to make policy decisions related to fish and wildlife restoration and management. Participation patterns and trend information help identify present and future needs and demands. Land management agencies use the data on expenditures and participation to assess the value of wildlife- related recreational uses of natural resources. Wildlife-related recreation expenditure information is used to estimate the impact on the economy and to support the dedication of tax revenues for fish and wildlife restoration programs. Proposed Revision Pre-test: Cognitive Interviews--We anticipate the need to conduct web-based cognitive interviews prior to the next FHWAR. The cognitive interviews will enable the research team to identify problems with survey items and with the organization and order of items in the instrument. We expect the data from the cognitive interviews to reveal potential sources of response error in the National Survey and to inform the redesign efforts. The objective of the cognitive interviews is to test and refine the proposed instruments from the full survey, with particular focus on the revised questions on bounding, expenditure reporting, and 5-year recall of activities. We will use the results of this research to refine the survey instruments in preparation for fielding the next National Survey (likely to be held in 2027 or 2028). Respondents will have the option to pause/resume the pretest as they work through the questionnaire. We anticipate a maximum of 70 respondents will participate in the web-based study. Respondents will be individuals who have participated in fishing, hunting, and wildlife-watching activities in within 1 year of the cognitive interviews. Respondents will be adults ages 18 and over and children ages 16 and 17 who participate with the consent of a parent or guardian. The participants will represent a range of demographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender, education level, State of residence). We plan to recruit a non-probability sample of respondents for this research. The Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies will work with State fish and wildlife directors to obtain lists of license holders. The data collector will send an invitation via email or text message to invite license holders to participate in a survey. Further, the data collector will place advertisements on Facebook in selected geographies in order to recruit individuals interested in being interviewed and will disseminate information about the study through word of mouth. People responding to an invitation to participate in the research will complete a brief eligibility screening to determine whether they have recently participated in fishing, hunting, or wildlife watching activities and to collect household composition and demographic information. Potential participants will also be asked whether other household [[Page 66434]] members would be interested in participating in the study. Adult participants for screener interviews will be household members who would likely complete a screener questionnaire, such as a head of household or adult sportsperson or wildlife watcher. We plan to request that a screener respondent (a respondent who finished the screen interview), or another household member aged 16 and up who participates in fishing, hunting, or wildlife watching activities, complete the wave questionnaires. In addition, two to three respondents who do not participate in the relevant activities will be recruited for interviews in order to test the functioning of the instruments with non- participants. Title of Collection: National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (FHWAR). OMB Control Number: 1018-0088. Form Number: None. Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved information collection. Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals/households. Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary. Frequency of Collection: We estimate the pre-test/cognitive interviews to begin in 2025 or 2026. The results will be used to inform the next full survey estimated to be conducted in 2027, or possibly 2028. Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: None. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Median Estimated completion Activity number of time per Estimated household response burden hours * responses (minutes) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Screener Survey: Screener: Web............................................... 27,639 9 4,146 Screener: Phone............................................. 1,000 15 250 Screener: PAPI.............................................. 31,361 10 5,227 Wave 1 Survey: Wave Questionnaires: Web.................................... 43,068 13 9,331 Wave Questionnaires: Phone.................................. 833 22 305 Wave Questionnaires: PAPI................................... 6,972 14 1,627 Wave 2 Survey: Wave Questionnaires: Web.................................... 32,173 13 6,971 Wave Questionnaires: Phone.................................. 833 22 305 Wave Questionnaires: PAPI................................... 3,645 14 851 Wave 3 Survey: Wave Questionnaires: Web.................................... 46,773 13 10,134 Wave Questionnaires: Phone.................................. 950 22 348 Wave Questionnaires: PAPI................................... 11,811 14 2,756 Wave 3 Coastal Freshwater/Saltwater Ratio Questionnaire..... 13,500 3 675 Pre-test/Cognitive Interviews (NEW)............................. 70 70 82 ----------------------------------------------- Grand Total:............................................ 220,628 .............. 43,008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Rounded. 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 authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Madonna Baucum, Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 2024-18208 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:25.823162

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18278

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66434-66440] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18278] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of the Secretary [220D2641EA; DS61800000; DEA100000.000000. DX61801; OMB Control Number 1093-0012] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Application Requirements for States and Tribes To Apply for Orphaned Well Site Plugging, Remediation, and Restoration Funding Consideration, and Ongoing State and Tribal Reporting Requirements for Funding Recipients AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior. ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Office of the Secretary of the Interior (Interior), through the Orphaned Wells Program Office (OWPO), proposes to revise an OMB- approved information collection. DATES: Interested parties are invited to submit comments on or before September 16, 2024. ADDRESSES: Written comments for the proposed information collection should be submitted to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. This particular information collection can be found by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function. Please provide a copy of any submitted comments to Jeffrey Parrillo, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240, or by email to [email protected]. Please reference ``OMB Control Number 1093-0012 Orphaned Wells Program Office'' in the subject line of any comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request additional information about this proposed information collection, please contact Ron Lev, Management [[Page 66435]] and Program Analyst, OWPO, by email at [email protected], or by phone at (771) 233-5722. 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 information request can also be viewed at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the PRA and 5 CFR 1320.10, Interior is again providing the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps Interior assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand Interior's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. 1. Prior 60-Day Public Comment Period That Ran Through July 1, 2024 A Federal Register notice was published on May 2, 2024, which solicited comments on this proposed information collection. See 89 FR 35849. Interested parties were invited to submit comments on or before July 1, 2024. One Tribal Nation stated it did not have concerns with the proposed information collection. A total of 13 other parties jointly submitted comments, which are discussed immediately below. 2. Comments Submitted by the 13 Parties and Interior's Response Public comments: The commenters recommended that the Consolidated Workplan be expanded to request more information on States' definitions of orphaned well, and processes for recouping remediation costs and redeeming financial assurances. The commenters reasoned that this is necessary because, for State and private lands, Interior did not provide a standardized definition of the term orphaned well. The commenters also stated that ``This absence of a standardized definition has created opportunities for states--intentionally or otherwise--to use federal grant funds to plug wells for which there is a solvent, financially responsible party.'' Interior's Response: As part of their applications or technical reports, States generally submit the information discussed by the commenters. States are also required to maintain records that support the contents of their applications, including showing the that the actions are consistent with the State's submitted certifications concerning the use of available financial assurance to cover plugging, reclamation, and restoration costs. States are also required to maintain records that demonstrate that the uses of awarded federal funds are consistent with the BIL and other federal law and authorities. The term orphaned well is defined in Section 40601(a)(5) of the BIL. For State or private lands, the statutory definition of orphaned wells adopts the applicable definition under state law. Interior's approach is consistent with the text of the BIL. While Interior defers to State law as to what constitutes an orphaned well, States that use awarded federal funds to plug non- orphaned wells may be subject to negative consequences. Similarly, States failing to use available financial assurance to cover the cost of plugging, remediation, and/or reclamation may also be subject to negative consequences. Public comments: The commenters requested that Interior collect additional information concerning costs of plugging wells, contracting processes, qualifications of contractors, and the actual well plugging practices. Interior's Response: Interior receives relevant information concerning State law and other authorities that concern well-plugging practices. Interior requires that a State with established and documented well plugging standards and regulations require their contractors to meet those standards and regulations. For States that do not have established well plugging standards, Interior requires that the work meet or exceed the plugging standards in either 43 CFR 3172.12, for onshore wells, or 30 CFR part 250, for offshore wells. Interior also monitors awarded funds, consistent with 2 CFR part 200 and other federal law and authorities, and samples wells to verify that contractors adhered to the relevant plugging standards. Interior intends to collect well plugging standards and procedures and reward States for strengthening those standards and procedures. Interior may also collect State program information that concerns orphaned wells, including contracting procedures, the qualification of contractors, and the costs of plugging, reclamation, and/or restoration. Public comments: For Plugging Standards RIG applications, the commenters suggested that Interior collect additional information that concerns State documentation of plug quality and integrity. Similarly, for Program Standards RIG applications, the commenters suggested that Interior collect additional information with respect to State financial assurance requirements. Interior's Response: Interior proposes to collect State requirements for plug quality and integrity as part of its Plugging Standards RIG program. Interior also proposes to collect information on whether a State adopts full-cost well financial assurance requirements, and information on whether a State's financial assurance requirements account for field or area risks, technical risks, financial risks, and/ or aggregate risks associated with multiple-well assurance for Program Standards RIGs. Public comments: In addition to the information discussed in the previous comments, the commenters suggest that Interior collect information that concerns State plugging and idling triggers and requirements of well transfers. The commenters also suggested additional items for the two Scoresheets. Interior's Response: In 2021, the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC) published Idle and Orphan Oil and Gas Wells: State and Provincial Regulatory Strategies. The 2021 IOGCC report stated that ``the primary purpose of this report is to help states and provinces evaluate their idle- and orphan-well programs and identify useful regulatory tools and strategies from other jurisdictions.'' The 2021 IOGCC report updated a 2019 report, which the IOGCC stated ``served as a useful reference in the development of federal legislation.'' On October 20, 2023, Request for Information to Inform the Orphaned Wells Program Office's Development of Regulatory Improvement Grants Under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was published in the Federal Register (RFI). See 88 FR 72528. A total of 20 parties submitted responses to the RFI, including the IOGCC, 13 states, 5 environmental groups, and 1 anonymous party. Interior utilized comments it received in response to the RFI, the 2021 IOGCC report, and other IOGCC reports to develop the two RIG programs. Consequently, Interior considers the categories and subcategories under which States are evaluated as part of the two programs to be comprehensive. Public comments: For the Consolidated Workplan, the 13 commenters supported the remaining 22 items, which are not discussed above. The commenters also supported the remaining 9 Plugging Standards RIG and [[Page 66436]] 7 Program Standards RIG items that Interior proposes to collect. Interior's Response: Interior appreciates the commenters' support of Interior's efforts to develop and administer financial assistance programs to create a legacy of environmental stewardship. 3. 30-Day Public Comment Period As part of Interior's continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, it is again soliciting comments from the public and other federal agencies on the proposed information collection request that is described below. Interior is especially interested in public comment addressing the following: (1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of Interior's estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) How might Interior minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of response. Comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including any address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in a comment, a commenter should be aware that the entire comment--including any personal identifying information--may be made publicly available at any time. While a commenter can request the withholding of personal identifying information from public review, Interior cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so. Abstract: Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58) (November 15, 2021), which is also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), Section 40601, ``Orphaned well site plugging, remediation, and restoration,'' amends Section 349 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15907). Section 40601 designates Interior as the key agency responsible for implementing grant and other financial assistance programs for applicable government entities to fund plugging, remediation, and reclamation of orphaned wells and well sites located on lands covered by the BIL. The associated investments will rebuild America's critical infrastructure, tackle the climate crisis, advance environmental justice, and drive the creation of good-paying union jobs. Interior will issue financial assistance through grant awards to State and Tribal governments under Assistance Listing (CFDA) program 15.018 Energy Community Revitalization Program (ECRP). With respect to Tribal In Lieu of Grant Assistance, OWPO will coordinate with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The authority for the above assistance is the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Division D, Title VI, Section 40601. The types of assistance contained in Section 40601 are as follows: 1. Initial Grants to States 2. Formula Grants to States 3. Performance Grants to States, which includes: Regulatory Improvement Grants to States Matching Grants to States 4. Grants to Tribes and Tribal In Lieu of Grant Assistance The BIL requires Interior to collect information necessary to ensure that awarded grant and other funds authorized by this legislation are used in accordance with the BIL, Office of Management and Budget Guidance for Grants and Agreements (i.e., 2 CFR part 200) and other applicable federal law and authorities. Interior anticipates that information will be collected by the OWPO, which has and will issue guidance concerning the above assistance programs. Interior seeks OMB approval of the proposed information collection to manage and monitor financial assistance applications and awards to ensure that States and Tribes comply with the BIL, 2 CFR part 200, and other applicable federal law and authorities. Consolidated Workplan Interior proposes to collect the following from all State and Tribal grant applicants, unless noted otherwise, as part of each entity's consolidated workplan: (a) An applicant's process for determining a well has been orphaned, including what efforts will be made to redeem financial assurances or otherwise recoup remediation costs from any responsible parties; (b) A description of an applicant's plugging standards, including the witnessing requirements (e.g., qualifications of witness, documentation); (c) An applicant's prioritization process for evaluating and ranking orphan wells and associated surface reclamation, including criteria, weighting, and how such prioritization will address resource and financial risk, public health and safety, potential environmental harm (including methane emissions where applicable), and other land use priorities; (d) If no prioritization process currently exists, an applicant's description of its plans to develop and implement a prioritization process; (e) Details of how a State applicant will identify and address any disproportionate burden of adverse human health or environmental effects of orphaned wells on disadvantaged communities, low-income communities, and Tribal and indigenous communities; (f) How applicants will identify and incorporate into their work plans health, safety, habitat, and environmental benefits of plugging, remediating, or reclamation of orphaned wells (Proposed revision); (g) The methodology to be used by the applicant to measure and track methane and other gases associated with orphaned wells, including how the applicant will confirm the effectiveness of plugging activities in reducing or eliminating such emissions; (h) The methodology to be used by the applicant to measure and track contamination of groundwater and surface water associated with orphaned wells, including how the applicant will confirm the effectiveness of plugging activities in reducing or eliminating such contamination; (i) The methodology to be used to decommission or remove associated pipelines, facilities, and infrastructure and to remediate soil and restore habitat that has been degraded due to the presence of orphaned wells and associated infrastructure; (j) Methods the applicant will use to solicit recommendations from local officials and the public regarding the prioritization of well plugging and site remediation activities, and any other processes the applicant will use to solicit feedback on the program from local officials and the public; (k) Latitude/Longitude and all other data elements and associated units of measure as indicated in State and Tribal data reporting templates. See the Data Associated with Wells Plugged Using Federal BIL Funds portion of this proposed information collection; (l) How the applicant will use funding to locate currently undocumented orphaned wells; (m) Plans the applicant has to engage third parties in partnerships around well plugging and site remediation, or [[Page 66437]] any existing similar partnerships the applicant currently belongs to; (n) Training programs, registered apprenticeships, and local and economic hire agreements for workers the applicant intends to conduct or fund in well plugging or site remediation; (o) Plans the applicant has to support opportunities for all workers, including workers underrepresented in well plugging or site remediation, to be trained and placed in good-paying jobs directly related to the project; (p) For State applicants, plans the State applicant has to incorporate equity for underserved communities into their planning, including supporting the expansion of high-quality, good paying jobs through workforce development programs and incorporating workforce strategy into project development; (q) Procedures the applicant will use to coordinate with federal, State, or Tribal agencies to determine whether efficiencies may exist by combining field survey, plugging, or surface remediation work across lands covered by the BIL; (r) The applicant's authorities to enter private property, or an applicant's procedures to obtain landowner consent to enter private property, in the event that any wells to be plugged will be accessed from privately owned surface; (s) A work schedule covering the period of performance for the grant; (t) If applicable, a federally approved Indirect Cost Rate Agreement or statement regarding applicant's intention to negotiate or utilize the de minimis rate; (u) How an applicant will assist Interior to ensure that activities funded by the grant it applied for will comply with relevant federal law and authorities, such as the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), and the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (NHPA) (Proposed revision); (v) For Performance Grants, how a State applicant will place a higher priority on the use of the federal funds to lower unemployment in the State, including workforce development activities related to orphaned well plugging, remediation, and reclamation (Proposed revision); and (w) For Performance Grants, how a State applicant will place a higher priority on the use of the federal funds to improve economic conditions in economically distressed areas of the State, provided that the use of the funds is related to orphaned well plugging, remediation, and reclamation (Proposed revision). Regulatory Improvement Grants--State Applicants Only (Proposed Revision) Under Section 40601(c)(5)(E)(i), a Regulatory Improvement Grant (RIG) may be awarded to an eligible State if either: (1) ``The State has strengthened plugging standards and procedures designed to ensure that wells located in the State are plugged in an effective manner that protects groundwater and other natural resources, public health and safety, and the environment'' (Plugging Standards RIG); or (2) ``The State has made improvements to State programs designed to reduce future orphaned well burdens, such as financial assurance reform, alternative funding mechanisms for orphaned well programs, and reforms to programs relating to well transfer or temporary abandonment'' (Program Standards RIG). In addition to a consolidated workplan, and other information required from RIG applicants that is discussed in this proposed information collection, Interior proposes to collect the following from applicants. For Plugging Standards RIGs: Interior proposes to collect from Plugging Standards RIG applicants information pertaining to their statutes, regulations, policies, and procedures, which were implemented during the 10-year period specified in the BIL, that demonstrate the ``State has strengthened plugging standards and procedures designed to ensure that wells located in the State are plugged in an effective manner that protects groundwater and other natural resources, public health and safety, and the environment.'' The list, (a) through (j), below, are examples of information Interior proposes to collect. In determining whether a ``State has strengthened plugging standards and procedures,'' Interior may request additional types of information. (a) Drilling well construction, and the resulting actual or anticipated positive effects, or documentation, that demonstrate the State's intent to ensure that wells located in the State are plugged in an effective manner that protects groundwater and other natural resources, public health and safety, and the environment. (b) Allowable well control equipment to manage actions of perforating, cutting/pulling of casing, or retrieving seal assemblies, and the resulting actual or anticipated positive effects, or documentation, that demonstrate the State's intent to ensure that wells located in the State are plugged in an effective manner that protects groundwater and other natural resources, public health and safety, and the environment. (c) Allowable barrier types, and the resulting actual or anticipated positive effects, or documentation, that demonstrate the State's intent to ensure that wells located in the State are plugged in an effective manner that protects groundwater and other natural resources, public health and safety, and the environment. (d) Allowable barrier placement locations, and the resulting actual or anticipated positive effects, or documentation, that demonstrate the State's intent to ensure that wells located in the State are plugged in an effective manner that protects groundwater and other natural resources, public health and safety, and the environment. (e) Allowable barrier placement techniques, and the resulting actual or anticipated positive effects, or documentation, that demonstrate the State's intent to ensure that wells located in the State are plugged in an effective manner that protects groundwater and other natural resources, public health and safety, and the environment. (f) Wellbore integrity and barrier verification, and the resulting actual or anticipated positive effects, or documentation, that demonstrate the State's intent to ensure that wells located in the State are plugged in an effective manner that protects groundwater and other natural resources, public health and safety, and the environment. (g) Spacer medium between well barriers, and the resulting actual or anticipated positive effects, or documentation, that demonstrate the State's intent to ensure that wells located in the State are plugged in an effective manner that protects groundwater and other natural resources, public health and safety, and the environment. (h) Wellbore capping requirements, and the resulting actual or anticipated positive effects, or documentation, that demonstrate the State's intent to ensure that wells located in the State are plugged in an effective manner that protects groundwater and other natural resources, public health and safety, and the environment. (i) Plugging procedure approval requirements, plugging procedure changes, plugging operations notification requirements, post-plugging reporting requirements, alternative materials or methods, and the resulting actual or anticipated positive effects of these changes, or documentation, that demonstrate the State's intent to ensure that wells located in the State are plugged in an effective manner that [[Page 66438]] protects groundwater and other natural resources, public health and safety, and the environment. (j) Internal inspection and oversight, and long-term monitoring of plugged wells processes, and the resulting actual or anticipated positive effects, or documentation, that demonstrate the State's intent to ensure that wells located in the State are plugged in an effective manner that protects groundwater and other natural resources, public health and safety, and the environment. For Program Standards RIGs: Interior proposes to collect from Program Standards RIG applicants information pertaining to their statutes, regulations, policies, and procedures, which were implemented during the 10-year period specified in the BIL, that demonstrate the ``State has made improvements to State programs designed to reduce future orphaned well burdens, such as financial assurance reform, alternative funding mechanisms for orphaned well programs, and reforms to programs relating to well transfer or temporary abandonment.'' The list, (a) through (g), below, are examples of information Interior proposes to collect. In determining whether a ``State has made improvements to State programs designed to reduce future orphaned well burdens,'' Interior may request additional types of information. (a) Liable parties, scope of liability, and state access (e.g., non-operator liable parties, predecessor in interest liability, and state targeting of liable parties through increased or enhanced enforcement), and the resulting actual or anticipated positive effects, or documentation, that demonstrate the State's intent to reduce future orphaned well burdens. (b) Transfers of interest (e.g., notice of transfer to state from transferor and transferee, state assessment of transferor and/or transferee, and transferor maintenance of assurance), and the resulting actual or anticipated positive effects, or documentation, that demonstrate the State's intent to reduce future orphaned well burdens. (c) Financial Assurance (e.g., bonding adjusted for field, well, or operator risks), and the resulting actual or anticipated positive effects, or documentation, that demonstrate the State's intent to reduce future orphaned well burdens, including considerations for idle, marginal, and producing wells. (d) Non-assurance State financial protections and plugging incentives (e.g., fees, taxes, penalties (including increased or enhanced enforcement), and incentives), and the resulting actual or anticipated positive effects, or documentation, that demonstrate the State's intent to reduce future orphaned well burdens, including considerations for idle, marginal, and producing wells. (e) Reporting and public notice of orphaned or potentially orphaned wells (e.g., reporting mechanisms, for responsible parties, online notice of aggregate financial assurance, and online notice of marginal, orphaned, and all other wells by responsible party), and the resulting actual or anticipated positive effects, or documentation, that demonstrate the State's intent to reduce future orphaned well burdens, including considerations for idle, marginal, and producing wells. (f) Consideration for air, groundwater, and other natural resources, as well as public safety and environmental justice (e.g., considerations for surface and groundwater or soil, including hazardous materials or other contamination, special considerations for oil and gas wells converted to water wells, and considerations for public safety and environmental justice), and the resulting actual or anticipated positive effects, or documentation, that demonstrate the State's intent to reduce future orphaned well burdens, including considerations for idle, marginal, and producing wells. (g) Orphaned-wells-related internal and external workforce development (e.g., State internal workforce enhancements, State contracting process, and oversight of State vendors, including certificate programs), and the resulting actual or anticipated positive effects, or documentation, that demonstrate the State's intent to reduce future orphaned well burdens. For both Plugging Standards and Program Standards Applications: For all Plugging Standards and Program Standards RIG applicants, Interior also proposes to collect the following: Scoring Template: A list of questions related to the specific type of RIG they are applying for in a scoring template (e.g., ``Yes'' or ``No''). Applicants will also need to provide support for the scoring template that they submit. Interior will use the requested information to determine grant eligibility, including eligible amount, and to ensure that program objectives are being met, evaluate the applicant's readiness to obligate grant funds, and evaluate the applicant's approach to execute grant objectives and the grant-funded work that will be monitored by Interior. Grant Applications Interior proposes to collect the following additional elements from applicants: Standard forms (SF) from the SF-424 Series: Applicants must submit the following SF-424 series of forms: [cir] SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance; [cir] SF-424A, Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs or SF-424C, Budget Information for Construction Programs; [cir] SF-424B, Assurances for Non-Construction Programs, or SF- 424D, Assurances for Construction Programs; [cir] SF-428, Tangible Personal Property Report; and [cir] SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, when applicable. Indirect Cost Statement: If requesting reimbursement for indirect costs, all applicants must include in their application a statement regarding how they anticipate charging indirect costs. Budget Narrative and/or Template: Applicants must provide a narrative and/or template that describes and justifies, with sufficient detail, the requested budget items and costs, and provides a description of how the applicant determined its totals by cost category in their application (Proposed revision). Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA): When applicable, a copy of the applicant's current federal-agency-approved Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement is required. Single Audit Reporting Statement: All U.S. governmental entities and non-profit applicants must submit a statement regarding their single audit reporting status. Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Applicants must notify the Interior in writing of any actual or potential conflicts of interest known at the time of application or that may arise during the life of this award, in the event the Interior makes an award to the entity. Certification Statement: State applicants for the Initial Grant part of this program must provide a signed State Certification statement consistent with Section 40601(c)(3)(A)(ii)(III) or 40601(c)(3)(A)(i)(II) of the BIL. State and Tribal Applicants may also be required to submit other certifications for other grant programs, consistent with guidance issued by the OWPO. Tribal in Lieu of Grant Assistance Requests--Tribal Applicants Only (Proposed Revision) Tribes, in lieu of grant assistance, may request that Interior administer and carry out plugging, remediation, and reclamation activities related to eligible orphaned wells on behalf of the Tribe. Interior proposes to collect the [[Page 66439]] following information to evaluate and administer such requests: A letter of request for assistance, from the Tribe, bearing the signature of the authorized representative of the Tribe's governing body; A description of activities (e.g., plugging and abandonment, remediation, and/or reclamation) for which the Tribe is requesting assistance; A brief description of the Tribe's territories, including the number and locations of known orphan wells; and A summary of known supporting data or information, including existing inventories and assessments and environmental compliance documents. Amendments For many budget and program plan revisions, 2 CFR part 200 requires recipients submit revision requests to the federal awarding agency in writing for prior approval. Interior reviews such requests received to determine the eligibility and allowability of new or revised activities and costs and approves certain items of cost. Reporting/Recordkeeping Requirements To ensure that activities funded by Section 40601 are consistent with the BIL, 2 CFR part 200, and other federal law and authorities, Interior proposes to collect the following information from all grant and other funding recipients: Financial Reports: Recipients are required to submit all financial reports on the Standard Form 425, Federal Financial Report. Recipients must submit financial reports in accordance with 2 CFR part 200. The frequency of submission may vary but will typically be annually or semi-annually. Interior, however, may require submission of financial reports more frequently in certain circumstances, such as where more frequent reporting is necessary for the effective monitoring of the federal award or could significantly affect program outcomes (Frequency is proposed revision). Performance Reports: Recipients must submit performance reports in accordance with 2 CFR part 200. This information is necessary for Interior to track accomplishments and performance-related data. Interior uses these reports to ensure that the recipient is accomplishing its work on schedule, and to identify any problems that the recipient may be experiencing in accomplishing the work. While the frequency of performance reporting may vary, recipients typically will be required to submit their performance reports annually or semi- annually. Interior, however, may require the submission of these reports more frequently in certain circumstance, such as where more frequent reporting is necessary for the effective monitoring of the federal award or could significantly affect program outcomes (Frequency is proposed revision). Performance reports must include: [cir] A comparison of actual accomplishments to the goals and objectives established for the reporting period, the results/findings, or both; [cir] If the goals and objectives were not met, the reasons why, including analysis and explanation of cost overruns or high unit costs compared to the benefit received to reach an objective; [cir] Performance trend data and analysis to be used by the awarding program to monitor and assess recipient and federal awarding program performance; [cir] Consolidated long-term work plan and accomplishments updates, when award is part of a large scale or long-term effort funded under multiple awards over time; and [cir] Other information that Interior requires to track State and Tribal accomplishments, collect performance-related data, identify and risks and failure to achieve certain milestones, and is otherwise necessary to ensure that the State's or Tribe's actions comply with the relevant guidance issued by the OWPO (Proposed revision). Final 15-month Report for State Initial Grants: As required in the BIL, State recipients under the Initial Grants part of the program must submit a report no later than 15 months after the date on which the State receives the funds, describing the means by which the State used the funds in accordance with its application and certification, and including the reporting parameters described in this guidance. Recordkeeping Requirements: Recipients must retain financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other records pertinent to a federal award, per 2 CFR part 200 requirements. Data Associated with Wells Plugged Using Federal BIL Funds: Recipients must periodically provide data, which upon Interior's request, may include pictures, video, or other media, for any well plugged with BIL funds. This may include data associated with reclamation or restoration of land or infrastructure associated with a well (Proposed revision). Upon request, but no more frequently than annually, recipients must submit requested information related to aggregate orphaned-well data (e.g., the total number of documented orphaned wells located in a State, and the rationale for why the orphaned well inventory has increased or decreased during a certain time period). Interior will use this information to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs funded by the BIL. Information Concerning State or Tribal Unmet Needs: When requested, States and Tribes must submit requested information related to unmet needs for orphaned well plugging, the decommission or removal of the associated infrastructure, and the restoration and reclamation of the lands, surface water, ground water, or other natural resources that are impacted or potentially impacted. States or Tribes may also be required to provide information regarding employment and economically distressed areas, or environmental justice (Proposed revision). Compliance with Environmental and Other Statutes: Recipients must submit information to Interior to allow Interior to ensure that federal BIL funds are utilized in a manner that is consistent applicable federal law, such as the ESA and NHPA, and other authorities and policy (Proposed revision). Change in RIG Eligibility (Scoring Template): During the ten-year period that begins on the date of receipt of the grant funds, each RIG recipient must periodically (e.g., annually) submit an updated Scoring Template. This submission will allow Interior to ensure that the State recipient is not required to reimburse Interior for all or a portion of its RIG for ``failure to maintain protections,'' under Section 40601(c)(5)(E)(iii). Recipients will also be required to submit documentation that supports any changes between the submitted Scoring Template and the one that was previously submitted (Proposed revision). Interior also proposes to rename the information collection from Application Requirement for States to Apply for Orphaned Well Site Plugging, Remediation, and Restoration Grant Consideration to Application Requirements for States and Tribes to Apply for Orphaned Well Site Plugging, Remediation, and Restoration Funding Consideration, and Ongoing State and Tribal Reporting Requirements for Funding Recipients (Proposed revision). Title of Collection: Application Requirements for States and Tribes to Apply for Orphaned Well Site Plugging, Remediation, and Restoration Funding Consideration, and Ongoing State and Tribal Reporting Requirements for Funding Recipients. OMB Control Number: 1093-0012. [[Page 66440]] Form Number: None. Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection. Respondents/Affected Public: Up to 92 (27 State and 65 Tribal governments). Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 524 (relating to 9 different activities). Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1,011 (relating to 9 different activities). Estimated Completion Time per Annual Response: Varies from 1 to 40 hours, depending on activity. Total Estimated Number of One-Time Respondents: 54 (relating to 2 different activities). Total Estimated Number of One-time Responses: 108 (relating to 2 different activities). Estimated Completion Time per One-time Response: Varies from 1 to 24 hours, depending on activity. Total Estimated Number of Tribal In Lieu of Grant Respondents: 3. Total Estimated Number of Tribal In Lieu of Grant Responses: 3. Estimated Completion Time per One-time Response: 8 hours. Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit. Frequency of Collection: On occasion. Total Estimated Annual Non-hour Burden Cost: None. 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 authority for this action is the PRA and 5 CFR 1320.10. Jeffrey Parrillo, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. 2024-18278 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4334-63-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:25.963906

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18314

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66440] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18314] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [BLM_NV_FRN_MO#4500179583] Notice of Application for Withdrawal Extension for Base Camp and Opportunity for Public Meeting; Nevada AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The United States Air Force (USAF) has filed an application requesting that the Secretary of the Interior extend the withdrawal established by Public Land Order (PLO) No. 7634 for an additional 20- year period. PLO No. 7634 withdrew 1,979 acres of public lands from settlement, sale, location, or entry under the general land laws, including the United States mining laws, but not from leasing under the mineral leasing laws, subject to valid existing rights, for a period of 20 years and reserved the land for use by the USAF to protect support facilities for the safe and secure operation of national defense activities at the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR). This notice advises the public of a 90-day opportunity to comment on the withdrawal extension application and to request a public meeting. DATES: Comments and request for a public meeting must be received by November 13, 2024. ADDRESSES: All comments and meeting requests should be sent to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Office, 1340 Financial Blvd., Reno, NV 89502. Also, comments will be available for public review at the Tonopah Field Office, P.O. Box 911 (1553 South Main Street), Tonopah, NV 89049, during regular business hours 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edison Garcia, Land Law Examiner, Nevada State Office, at (775) 861-6530, email: [email protected]. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or Tele Braille) 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The withdrawal established by PLO No. 7634 on May 6, 2005 (70 FR 24114) will expire on May 5, 2025. The purpose of the withdrawal and reservation is for the USAF to protect support facilities for the safe and secure operation of national defense activities at the NTTR. The purpose for this withdrawal warrants its extension. The legal land description and acreage figure described in PLO No. 7634 is revised herein to reflect the BLM Cadastral Survey's Specification for Descriptions of Land. The revised land description does not change the footprint of the lands originally withdrawn by PLO No. 7634. The 1,979 acres of public lands are located in central Nye County, approximately 60 miles east of Tonopah, Nevada. Public access to these lands has been restricted since the 1960s. Recreation, mining, and other uses are open on public lands surrounding the 1,979 acres. The 1,979 acres withdrawn by PLO No. 7634 are legally described as: Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada A parcel of land situated in T. 5 N., R. 50 E., partially unsurveyed, T. 5 N., R. 51 E., and T. 6 N., R. 51 E., and being more particularly described as follows: From the northwest corner of section 12, T. 5 N., R. 50 E., Proceed southeast 1,874.10 feet on a bearing of 155[deg]48'00'' to starting point; Thence southeast 5,551.20 feet on a bearing of 122[deg]54'00''; Thence northeast 15,530.30 feet on a bearing of 33[deg]18'00''; Thence northwest 5,551.20 feet on a bearing of 302[deg]54'00''; Thence southwest 15,530.30 feet on a bearing of 213[deg]18'00'' to the starting point, excepting Tybo Road. The area described contains approximately 1,979 acres. There is no suitable alternative site. No water rights would be needed to fulfill the purpose of this withdrawal extension. 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 personally identifiable information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask the BLM in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Notice is hereby given that an opportunity for a public meeting is afforded in connection with the application for withdrawal extension. All interested persons who desire a public meeting for the purpose of being heard on the USAF application must submit a written request to the State Director, BLM Nevada State Office, at the address in the ADDRESSES section, within 90 days from the date of publication of this notice. If the authorized officer determines that a public meeting will be held, a notice of the date, time, and place will be published in the Federal Register, local newspapers, and on the BLM website at www.blm.gov at least 30 days before the scheduled date of the meeting. This withdrawal extension application will be processed in accordance with the regulations set forth in 43 CFR 2310.4. (Authority: 43 CFR 2310.4) Jon K. Raby, State Director. [FR Doc. 2024-18314 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4331-21-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:25.997563

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18312

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66441] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18312] [[Page 66441]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [BLM_NV_FRN_MO#4500179582] Notice of Application for Withdrawal Extension for Halligan Mesa and Opportunity for Public Meeting; Nevada AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The United States Air Force (Air Force) has filed an application requesting the Secretary of the Interior extend the withdrawal at Halligan Mesa for an additional 20 years. In 1985, Public Land Order (PLO) No. 6591 withdrew approximately 600 acres of public lands from settlement, sale, location, or entry under the general land laws, including the United States mining laws, but not the mineral leasing laws, subject to valid existing rights for a period of 20 years, and reserved the land for the use of the Air Force for a communication site and support facilities. In 2005, PLO No. 7360 extended the withdrawal as related to approximately 264 of those acres for an additional 20 years. This notice advises the public of a 90-day opportunity to comment on the withdrawal extension application and to request a public meeting. DATES: Comments and request for a public meeting must be received by November 13, 2024. ADDRESSES: All comments and meeting requests should be sent to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Office, 1340 Financial Blvd. Reno Nv 89502. Also, comments will be available for public review at the Tonopah Field Office, P.O. Box 911 (1553 South Main Street), Tonopah, NV 89049, during regular business hours 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edison Garcia, BLM Nevada State Office, at (775) 861-6530, email: [email protected]. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or Tele Braille) 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The withdrawal of Parcel ``B,'' which was withdrawn by PLO No. 6591 (50 FR 10965-10966, March 19, 1985) and extended by PLO No. 7630 (70 FR 18424, April 11, 2005), and serialized as N-35951, expires on April 11, 2025, unless the withdrawal is extended. The purpose of the withdrawal is to protect a communications site and support facilities. Fulfillment of the purpose of this withdrawal requires that it be extended. The legal land description and acreage described in PLO No. 6591, Parcel B, extended by PLO No. 7630, is revised to reflect the BLM Cadastral Survey's Specification for Descriptions of Land. The revised land description does not change the footprint of the Parcel B lands originally withdrawn by PLO No. 6591; however, the number of acres included in the boundary of the Parcel B lands originally withdrawn has been computed to total approximately 264 acres. The approximately 264 acres of public lands withdrawn and reserved for Air Force use at Parcel B are located in central Nye County, approximately 77 miles east of Tonopah, on Halligan Mesa, Nevada. Public access to these lands has been restricted since the 1960s; however, public lands surrounding these 264 acres are open to recreation, mining, and other uses. The 264 acres are legally described as: Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada Tps. 7 and 8 N., R. 52 E., unsurveyed, Parcel 1 Commencing at the northeast corner section 36, T. 8 N., R. 51 E., Thence, east, a distance of 8,580 feet; Thence south, a distance of 2,640 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence west, a distance of 660 feet; Thence south, a distance of 660 feet; Thence west, a distance of 660 feet; Thence south, a distance of 2,640 feet; Thence west, a distance of 660 feet; Thence south, a distance of 3,300 feet; Thence east, a distance of 1,980 feet; Thence north, a distance of 6,600 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Parcel 2 From a point beginning 1.5 miles from junction with Highway 6, 5,254 lineal feet of northerly access road to include a 100-foot width on both sides of centerline of said road which extends to the south boundary of Parcel B. (Passes through T. 7 N., R. 52 E., Sections 5 and 8). The area described contains approximately 264 acres, as computed from the metes and bounds description and the dimensions of the access road. This legal description differs from the legal description in PLO No. 7630, which was altered from the original description in PLO No. 6591. See PLO No. 6591 for a detailed metes and bounds description for Parcel B (Note: The withdrawal for Parcel A is not included in this notice). The purpose of the withdrawal extension is to continue the reservation of lands for the Air Force for a communications site and support facilities. There is no suitable alternative site. No water rights would be needed to fulfill the purpose of this withdrawal extension. 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 personally identifiable information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask the BLM in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Notice is hereby given that an opportunity for a public meeting is afforded in connection with the application for withdrawal extension. All interested persons who desire a public meeting for the purpose of being heard on the application for withdrawal extension must submit a written request to the State Director, Nevada State Office, at the address in the ADDRESSES section, within 90 days from the date of publication of this notice. If the authorized officer determines that a public meeting will be held, a notice of the date, time, and place will be published in the Federal Register, local newspapers, and on the BLM website at www.blm.gov at least 30 days before the scheduled date of the meeting. This withdrawal extension application will be processed in accordance with the regulations set forth in 43 CFR 2310.4. (Authority: 43 CFR 2310.4) Jon K. Raby, State Director. [FR Doc. 2024-18312 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4331-21-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:26.058604

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18313

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66442] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18313] [[Page 66442]] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-1396] Certain Medical Programmers With Printed Circuit Boards, Components Thereof, and Products and Systems for Use With the Same; Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting Complainants' Motion To Amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (``ID'') (Order No. 11) of the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') granting complainants' motion to amend the complaint to correct a typographical error on the cover page and the notice of investigation (``NOI'') to change the plain language description of the accused products in the above-captioned investigation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Hadorn, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3179. Copies of non- confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help accessing EDIS, please email [email protected]. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal, telephone (202) 205-1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on April 3, 2024, based on a complaint filed by Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic Logistics, LLC, and Medtronic USA, Inc., all of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Medtronic Puerto Rico Operations Co. of Juncos, Puerto Rico (collectively, ``Medtronic''). 89 FR 23043-44 (Apr. 3, 2024). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges 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, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain medical programmers with printed circuit boards, components thereof, and products and systems for use with the same by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,712,540 and 9,174,059. Id. at 23043. The complaint further alleges that a domestic industry exists. Id. The NOI named one respondent: Axonics, Inc. (``Axonics'') of Irvine, California. Id. at 23044. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (``OUII'') is also named as a party. Id. On June 25, 2024, Medtronic filed a motion to amend the complaint and NOI to (i) correct a typographical error on the cover page of the complaint by substituting ``UNITED'' in place of ``MUNITED,'' and (ii) change the NOI's plain language description of the accused products-- which presently reads ``sacral neuromodulation systems to control neurostimulators surgically implanted into a human patient, incorporating medical programmers and printed circuit boards used in same''--by substituting ``components thereof, and'' in place of ``incorporating.'' On July 5, 2024, Axonics filed a response to the motion opposing the amendment to the NOI, but not opposing the amendment to the complaint. Also on July 5, 2024, OUII filed a response in support of the motion. On July 11, 2024, the ALJ issued the subject ID granting the motion. The ID finds that, in accordance with Commission Rule 210.14(b) (19 CFR 210.14(b)), good cause exists for amending the complaint and NOI as requested by Medtronic and neither the parties nor the public interest will be prejudiced. ID at 1, 3. No petitions for review of the subject ID were filed. The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. The complaint is amended to substitute ``UNITED'' in place of ``MUNITED,'' and the NOI is amended so that the plain language description of the accused products reads ``sacral neuromodulation systems to control neurostimulators surgically implanted into a human patient, components thereof, and medical programmers and printed circuit boards used in same.'' The Commission vote for this determination took place on August 12, 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. Issued: August 12, 2024. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2024-18313 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:26.114181

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18240

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66442-66452] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18240] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division United States v. Legends Hospitality Parent Holdings, LLC; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), that a proposed Final Judgment, Stipulation, and Competitive Impact Statement have been filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in United States of America v. Legends Hospitality Parent Holdings, LLC, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-05927-JPC (S.D.N.Y.). On August 5, 2024, the United States filed a Complaint alleging that Legends violated section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, also commonly known as the Hart- Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (``section 7A'' or ``HSR Act'') in connection with its proposed acquisition of ASM Global, Inc. The Complaint alleges Legends assumed unlawful control of ASM Global, Inc. prior to the expiration of the mandatory waiting period imposed by the HSR Act, and that Legends was continually in violation of the HSR Act each day beginning at least on December 7, 2023, until the waiting period ended on May 29, 2024. The proposed Final Judgment, filed at the same time as the Complaint, requires Legends Hospitality to pay a $3.5 million civil penalty for violation of the HSR Act and bars recurrence of the challenged conduct on penalty of contempt. It additionally requires Legends to appoint an antitrust compliance officer at its expense, to conduct compliance training, to certify compliance with the Final Judgment, to maintain a whistleblower protection policy, and to provide the United States inspection and interview rights to assess compliance with the Final Judgment. Copies of the Complaint, proposed Final Judgment, and Competitive Impact Statement are available for inspection on the Antitrust Division's website at http://www.justice.gov/atr and at the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Copies of these materials may be obtained from the Antitrust Division upon request and payment of [[Page 66443]] the copying fee set by Department of Justice regulations. Public comment is invited within 60 days of the date of this notice. Such comments, including the name of the submitter, and responses thereto, will be posted on the Antitrust Division's website, filed with the Court, and, under certain circumstances, published in the Federal Register. Comments should be submitted in English and directed to Owen Kendler, Chief, Financial Services, FinTech, and Banking Section, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street NW, Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20530 (email address: [email protected]). Suzanne Morris, Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division. United States District Court Southern District of New York United States of America, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 450 Fifth Street NW, Washington, DC 20530, Plaintiff, v. Legends Hospitality Parent Holdings, LLC, 61 Broadway, 24\th\ Floor, New York, New York 10006, Defendant. Case No. 1:24-cv-5927-JPC Complaint The United States of America brings this civil action to obtain equitable and monetary relief in the form of civil penalties against the Defendant, Legends Hospitality Parent Holdings, LLC (``Legends'') for violating the premerger notification and waiting period requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (``HSR Act''), and alleges as follows: I. Introduction 1. The HSR Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, is an essential part of modern antitrust enforcement. It requires the buyer and seller of voting securities or assets in excess of a certain value to notify the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission prior to consummating the acquisition, and to observe a suspensory waiting period after the notification is filed. A buyer could ``acquire'' assets without taking formal legal title, for instance by exerting operational control over the assets or otherwise obtaining ``beneficial ownership.'' The HSR Act's advance notice and waiting period requirements ensure that the parties to a proposed transaction continue to operate separately and independently during review, preventing anticompetitive acquisitions from harming consumers before the United States has had the opportunity to review them according to the procedures established by Congress in the Clayton Act. A buyer that prematurely takes beneficial ownership of assets, sometimes referred to as ``gun jumping,'' is subject to statutory penalties for each day it is in violation. II. Jurisdiction, Venue, and Interstate Commerce 2. This Complaint is filed and these proceedings are instituted under Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, added by Title II of the HSR Act, to recover civil penalties for violations of that section and other relief. 3. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to Section 7A(g) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(g), and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1337(a), 1345 and 1355. 4. The Defendant has consented to personal jurisdiction and venue in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for purposes of this action. 5. Legends is engaged in commerce, or in activities affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 7A(a)(1) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(a)(1). III. The Defendant 6. Defendant Legends is a global venue services company headquartered in New York, New York. It is majority-owned by Sixth Street Partners, its minority owners include the New York Yankees and the Dallas Cowboys, and it has a strategic partnership with The Kroenke Group. Legends focuses predominantly on food and beverage services, feasibility studies, project development, and sales. IV. Waiting Period Requirements of the HSR Act 7. The HSR Act requires certain acquiring persons, and certain persons whose voting securities are acquired, to file notifications with the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission and to observe a waiting period before consummating certain acquisitions of voting securities or assets. 15 U.S.C. 18a (a) and (b). Of relevance here, the notice and waiting requirements apply if, as a result of the acquisition, the acquiring person will ``hold'' assets or voting securities above the HSR Act's size of transaction threshold. 8. Pursuant to Section (d)(2) of the HSR Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(d)(2), the Federal Trade Commission promulgated rules to carry out the purpose of the HSR Act. 16 CFR 801-803. 9. Section 801. 1(c) of the HSR Rules, 16 CFR 801.1(c) defines ``hold'' to mean ``beneficial ownership, whether direct, or indirect through fiduciaries, agents, controlled entities or other means.'' 10. Section 7A(g)(1) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(g)(1), states that any person, or any officer, director, or partner thereof, who fails to comply with any provision of the HSR Act is liable to the United States for a civil penalty for each day during which the person is in violation. Pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-74, 701 (further amending the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990), and Federal Trade Commission Rule 1.98, 16 CFR 1.98, 89 FR 1,445 (Jan. 10, 2024), the maximum amount of civil penalty relevant to this Complaint is $51,744 per day. V. The Acquisition and the Defendant's Unlawful Conduct 11. Legends and ASM Global, Inc. (``ASM'') began acquisition discussions in January 2023. ASM is a venue services company primarily focused on venue management, i.e. providing services related to the day-to-day operations of a venue like event booking, operations, sanitation, and security among other services. On November 3, 2023, Legends agreed to purchase ASM for $2.325 billion (``Acquisition''). On November 6, 2023, Legends filed its HSR notice with the Department of Justice. 12. The Acquisition exceeded thresholds established by the HSR Act and did not qualify for any of the HSR Act's exemptions. Consequently, the Acquisition was subject to the premerger and notification requirements of the HSR Act. The applicable waiting period, which was extended by the issuance of requests for additional information on January 8, 2024, expired on May 29, 2024.\1\ During this statutory waiting period, the HSR Act \2\ required Legends and ASM to continue to operate as separate and independent entities while the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice conducted a pre-consummation antitrust review of the Acquisition. Legends, however, failed to adhere to its statutory obligation and assumed unlawful control of ASM prior to the expiration of the HSR waiting period. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Legends and ASM agreed to not close the Acquisition during the pendency of the Department of Justice's investigation. \2\ Other antitrust laws also can apply to pre-closing conduct of transaction parties. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. In May 2023, Legends won the right to manage a city-owned arena in California upon the expiration of ASM's management lease on July 31, 2024. ASM also competed for this opportunity. As part of its bid for the California arena, Legends submitted a [[Page 66444]] detailed transition plan that included key milestone dates for booking, operations, human resources, engineering, sanitation, production, security, event staffing and other services. Absent the Acquisition, Legends was planning to provide those services itself to the arena. 14. Due to the Acquisition with ASM, however, Legends decided to have ASM provide those services instead. After submitting its HSR filing, but before the expiration of the HSR waiting period, Legends decided that ASM would continue to operate the California arena. For example, on December 7, 2023, Legends and ASM signed an initial agreement whereby ASM would book third-party events for the California arena instead of Legends. Further, on April 9, 2024, Legends decided that ASM would continue providing venue management services for the California arena instead of transitioning the arena to Legends. 15. The purpose and intent of Legends' pre-closing conduct in connection with the California arena also are informed by aspects of Legends' course of conduct in connection with ASM, including conduct before and after submitting the HSR filing. 16. For example, while Legends and ASM were in discussions around the Acquisition, but before the HSR filing, Legends sought to discuss competitive bidding strategies with ASM. In August 2023, Legends learned that a city in North Carolina was planning to issue an RFP for management of an existing entertainment complex, including an arena and other venues. A senior Legends executive emailed Legends' then-CEO noting, ``I assume we would rather have ASM chase this?'' The then-CEO informed another executive, ``we will find out if ASM is bidding as don't want to both be bidding,'' and set a calendar reminder for himself to speak with a senior ASM executive about the North Carolina RFP. 17. In addition, in early 2023, Legends and ASM learned that a university was planning to develop a new arena. Both Legends and ASM initially took steps to form separate, independent bids for the new arena. However, after Legends and ASM were in discussions around the Acquisition, their posture changed, such that in May 2023 they decided that they would instead try to bid together. While constructing their joint bid, Legends and ASM exchanged competitively sensitive information surrounding the arena development project. 18. Legends and ASM engaged in similar behavior for a different proposed university arena. Prior to Acquisition negotiations, Legends and ASM were pursuing independent actions to try to win the development of the new arena. This posture changed in 2024, when, during the HSR waiting period, Legends and ASM pursued plans to submit a joint bid and exchange related information. VI. Violation of Section 7A of the Clayton Act 19. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 18 as if set forth fully herein. 20. Legends' acquisition of ASM was subject to Section 7A premerger notification and waiting-period requirements. 21. Legends obtained beneficial ownership of ASM prior to observing the applicable waiting period in violation of Section 7A. 22. Accordingly, Defendant was continuously in violation of the requirements of the HSR Act each day beginning at least on December 7, 2023, until the waiting period was terminated on May 29, 2024. VII. Request for Relief Wherefore, Plaintiff requests: (a) that the Court adjudge and decree that Defendant violated the HSR Act and was in violation during the period of 175 days beginning on December 7, 2023, and ending on May 29, 2024; (b) order that Defendant pay to the United States an appropriate civil penalty as provided by the HSR Act, 15 U.S.C. 18(a)(g)(1), the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-74, 701 (further amending the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note), and 16 CFR 1.98(a); (c) that the Court enjoin Defendant from any future violations of the HSR Act; (d) that the Court award the Plaintiff its costs of this suit; and, (e) that the Court order such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper to redress and prevent recurrence of the alleged violations and to dissipate their anticompetitive effects. Dated this 5th day of August, 2024. Respectfully submitted, For Plaintiff United States of America Jonathan S. Kanter, Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust. Doha G. Mekki, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust. Andrew J. Forman, Deputy Assistant Attorney General. Hetal J. Doshi, Deputy Assistant Attorney General. Ryan Danks, Director of Civil Enforcement. Catherine K. Dick, Acting Director of Litigation. Owen M. Kendler, Chief, Financial Services, Fintech & Banking Section. Meagan K. Bellshaw, Assistant Chief, Financial Services, Fintech & Banking Section. Sarah H. Licht, Assistant Chief, Financial Services, Fintech & Banking Section. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Collier T. Kelley Aseem Chipalkatti Alex Cohen William H. Jones II Brittney Dimond Michael G. Mclellan Trial Attorneys United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 450 Fifth Street NW, Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20530, Telephone: (202) 445- 9737, Facsimile: (202) 514-7308, Email: [email protected]. Attorneys for the United States United States District Court Southern District of New York United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Legends Hospitality Parent Holdings, LLC, Defendant. Case No. 1:24-cv-5927 [Proposed] Final Judgment Whereas, Plaintiff, United States of America, filed its Complaint on August 5, 2024, alleging that Defendant Legends Hospitality Parent Holdings, LLC violated Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, commonly known as the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (the ``Hart-Scott-Rodino Act''); And whereas, the United States and Defendant have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without the taking of testimony, without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and without this Final Judgment constituting any evidence against or admission by any party relating to any issue of fact or law; And whereas, Defendant agrees to undertake certain actions and refrain from certain conduct for the purpose of resolving the claims alleged in the Complaint; And whereas, Defendant represents that the relief required by this Final Judgment can and will be made and that Defendant will not later raise a claim of hardship or difficulty as grounds for asking the Court to modify any provision of this Final Judgment; Now therefore, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed: [[Page 66445]] I. Jurisdiction The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and each of the parties to this action. The Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted against Defendant under Section 7A of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18a). II. Definitions As used in this Final Judgment: A. ``Legends'' or ``Defendant'' means Defendant Legends Hospitality Parent Holdings, LLC, a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in New York, New York, its successors and assigns, subsidiaries, divisions, groups, partnerships, joint ventures, and officers, managers, and employees. For the avoidance of doubt: (1) ``Legends'' shall include ASM Global Parent, Inc., following its acquisition by Legends Hospitality Parent Holdings, LLC; and (2) this provision applies only to subsidiaries, partnerships, or joint ventures in which Legends has a partial (more than 50%) or total ownership or control. Any ownership or control interest held jointly by Legends and any parent or owner of Legends shall be attributed to Legends and aggregated with Legends' ownership or control. B. ``Agreement'' means any agreement, contract, or mutual understanding, whether formal or informal, written, or unwritten. C. ``Bid'' or ``Bidding'' means any offer or response to a Request for Proposal, Request for Submission, Request for Information, Request for Qualifications, or any other similar request, relating to a contract or other arrangement (including extensions or renewals of any existing contract or other arrangement) to provide services to an existing or potential venue. D. ``Collaboration Agreement'' means any Agreement by and among Defendant and any Competitor to collaborate or team in offering or providing Venue Development Services or to act as the Venue Manager. ``Collaboration Agreement'' does not include contracting for services where Legends is acting as the agent of a client or acting pursuant to a contract with a client. E. ``Communicate'' or ``Communicating'' and ``Communication(s)'' means to provide, send, discuss, circulate, exchange, request, or solicit information, whether directly or indirectly, and regardless of the means by which it is accomplished, including orally or by written or recorded means of any kind, including electronic communications, emails, chats or other ephemeral messages, facsimiles, telephone communications, voicemails, text messages, audio recordings, meetings, interviews, correspondence, exchange of written or recorded information, face-to-face meetings, or social media. F. ``Competitively Sensitive Information'' means any non-public information of Defendant or any Competitor, including information relating to negotiating positions, tactics, or strategy; pricing or pricing strategies; Bids or Bidding strategies; intentions to Bid or not to Bid; decisions to Bid; whether a Bid was or was not submitted; and costs, revenues, profits, or margins. G. ``Competitor'' means any Person (other than Defendant) engaged in, or that Defendant's executives or senior managers know is considering engaging in, any of Defendant's present or future lines of business, including food and beverage or hospitality services, venue management, project management, sponsorship, and/or sales of premium seating. H. ``Covered Person'' means: (i) any employee or agent of Defendant whose principal job responsibilities include the sales, client outreach, or the negotiation of terms or development of f Bids or proposals for services to Venues (other than employees or agents whose responsibilities are entirely clerical or limited to document preparation); (ii) all General Managers of any Venue managed by Defendant (iii) Defendant's Chief Executive Officer and each of his or her direct reports; (iv) members of Defendant's Board of Directors; and (v) designated Board observers. I. ``Including'' means including, but not limited to. J. ``Negotiation and Interim Period'' means the period between the commencement of negotiations with respect to an offer to enter into a Transaction, and the date when negotiations are abandoned or when any resulting Transaction is consummated or abandoned. K. ``Person'' means any natural person, corporation, company, partnership, joint venture, firm, association, sole proprietorship, agency, board, authority, commission, office, institution, university, municipality, governmental entity, or other business or legal entity, whether private or governmental. L. ``Transaction'' means any Agreement to acquire any voting securities, assets, or non-corporate interests, form a joint venture, settle litigation, or license intellectual property with any Person where such Agreement is reportable under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976. M. ``Venue'' means a facility that hosts publicly ticketed live events, including stadiums, arenas, convention centers, amphitheaters, clubs, and theaters. N. ``Venue Development Services'' means managing, investing, or financing the development, construction, or renovation of venues. ``Venue Development Services'' does not include feasibility or market studies. O. ``Venue Manager'' means the primary entity that manages a venue, including by providing services necessary to operate the venue, such as administration, operations, concert and live event booking, finance and accounting, marketing, human resources, housekeeping, security, parking, and/or production services. III. Applicability This Final Judgment applies to Defendant, as defined above, and all other Persons in active concert or participation with Defendant who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment. IV. Civil Penalty Under Section 7A of the Clayton Act A. Within thirty (30) days of entry of this Final Judgment, Defendant must pay a civil penalty in the amount of $3,500,000. Payment of the civil penalty must be made by wire transfer of funds or cashier's check. Prior to making a wire transfer, Defendant must contact the Budget and Fiscal Section of the Antitrust Division's Executive Office at [email protected] for instructions. A payment made by cashier's check, must be made payable to the United States Department of Justice--Antitrust Division and delivered to: Chief, Budget & Fiscal Section Executive Office, Antitrust Division United States Department of Justice Liberty Square Building, 450 5th Street NW, Room 3016, Washington, DC 20530. B. In the event of a default or delay in payment, interest at the rate of eighteen (18) percent per annum will accrue from the date of the default to the date of payment. V. Prohibited Conduct A. Defendant may not, directly or indirectly, during any Negotiation and Interim Period of a Transaction or in connection with an actual or potential Collaboration Agreement: 1. Share Competitively Sensitive Information with any Competitor; 2. Communicate with any Competitor concerning any Competitively Sensitive Information relating to a Bid or Bidding, including whether to Bid or not to Bid; [[Page 66446]] 3. Agree with any Competitor to participate in any joint Bid, collaborative Bid, cooperative Bid, or shared Bid for any contract, opportunity, or arrangement or for a part of any contract, opportunity, or arrangement; or 4. Agree with any Competitor that Defendant or any Competitor will not Bid for any contract, opportunity, or arrangement or for a part of any contract, opportunity, or arrangement. B. The prohibitions in Paragraph V.A. apply to Defendant's Communicating, Agreeing, or sharing through any third-party agent or third-party consultant working at Defendant's instruction, direction, or request. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Final Judgment prohibits Defendant from engaging in conduct in Paragraphs V.A.1-4 above in connection with a Collaboration Agreement if Defendant first secures advice of antitrust counsel and consults with the Antitrust Compliance Officer, see infra Section VI, and obtains advanced written permission from Defendant's Chief Executive Officer or General Counsel. For avoidance of doubt, nothing in the Final Judgment, including compliance with this Paragraph V.C., precludes the United States from investigating or, if appropriate, bringing action against Defendant or any other person for violations of any antitrust law. VI. Required Conduct A. Within ten (10) days of entry of this Final Judgment, Defendant must appoint or employ an Antitrust Compliance Officer, and identify to the United States the Antitrust Compliance Officer's name, business address, telephone number, and email address. Within forty-five (45) days of a vacancy in Defendant's Antitrust Compliance Officer position, Defendant shall appoint a replacement, and shall identify to the United States the Antitrust Compliance Officer's name, business address, telephone number, and email address. Defendant's initial and replacement appointment of an Antitrust Compliance Officer is subject to the approval of the United States in its sole discretion. Defendant is responsible for all costs and expenses related to the Antitrust Compliance Officer. B. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for the first 120 days following entry of the Final Judgment, Defendant may retain outside counsel as an Antitrust Compliance Officer, subject to the approval of the United States in its sole discretion. C. Unless otherwise agreed by the United States, the Antitrust Compliance Officer must have the following minimum qualifications: 1. be an active member in good standing of the bar in any U.S. jurisdiction; and 2. at least five years' experience in legal matters, including at least five years' experience with antitrust matters. D. Defendant may appoint or retain one or more Reserve Antitrust Compliance Officers meeting the qualifications set forth in VI.C to perform duties of the Antitrust Compliance Officer when the Antitrust Compliance Officer is not available. Defendant's initial and replacement appointment of a Reserve Antitrust Compliance Officer is subject to the approval of the United States in its sole discretion. E. The Antitrust Compliance Officer must, directly or through employees or counsel working at the Antitrust Compliance Officer's direction: 1. within thirty (30) days of entry of this Final Judgment, furnish to each Covered Person a copy of this Final Judgment, the Competitive Impact Statement filed by the United States with the Court, and an explanatory cover letter prepared by Defendant providing reasonable notice of the meaning and requirements of this Final Judgment, with notice provided to the United States; 2. brief and distribute a copy of this Final Judgment and the Competitive Impact Statement to any Person who succeeds to a position of a Covered Person, and provide reasonable notice of the meaning and requirements of this Final Judgment and the antitrust laws, within sixty (60) days of such succession; obtain from each Covered Person, within thirty (30) days of that Person's receipt of this Final Judgment, a certification that he or she (i) has read and, to the best of his or her ability, understands and agrees to abide by the terms of this Final Judgment; (ii) is not aware of any violation of this Final Judgment that has not been reported to the Antitrust Compliance Officer; and (iii) understands that any Person's failure to comply with this Final Judgment may result in an enforcement action for civil or criminal contempt of court against Defendant and/or any Person who violates this Final Judgment; 3. provide an Annual Antitrust Compliance Training to all Covered Persons and members of Defendant's Board of Directors on the meaning and requirements of this Final Judgment, the antitrust laws, and guidelines governing: i. Sharing of Competitively Sensitive Information with any Competitor; ii. Communication with any Competitor concerning any Competitively Sensitive Information relating to a Bid or Bidding, including whether to Bid or not to Bid; iii. Agreeing with any Competitor to participate in any joint Bid, collaborative Bid, cooperative Bid, or shared Bid for any contract, opportunity, or arrangement or for a part of any contract, opportunity, or arrangement; or iv. Agreeing with any Competitor that Defendant or any Competitor will not Bid for any contract, opportunity, or arrangement or for a part of any contract, opportunity, or arrangement. Successors to Covered Persons must be provided an Annual Antitrust Compliance Training within sixty (60) days of such succession. 4. obtain from each Covered Person or successor, within thirty (30) days of that person's Annual Antitrust Compliance Training, a certification that he or she (i) attended the training and reviewed the training materials, and (ii) is not aware of any violation of this Final Judgment that has not been reported to the Antitrust Compliance Officer; 5. maintain until four years following the expiration of this Final Judgment and furnish to the United States within ten days if requested to do so: i. a list identifying all employees having received the notices and compliance training required under Paragraphs VI.E.2, VI.E.3, and VI.E.5, and the dates on which the employees received the notices and training; ii. copies of all Annual Antitrust Compliance Training materials; and iii. copies of all certifications and other materials required to be issued under Paragraph VI.E; iv. a record of certifications received pursuant to this Section; v. a copy of Defendant's whistleblower policy; and vi. a record of all reports received pursuant to Paragraph VI.F. and VI.G. 6. annually communicate to all Covered Persons and all other employees that they must disclose to the Antitrust Compliance Officer, without reprisal, information concerning any potential violation of this Final Judgment or the antitrust laws; and 7. by not later than ninety (90) calendar days after entry of this Final Judgment and annually thereafter, file written reports with the United States affirming that Defendant is in compliance with its obligations under this Final Judgment, including the [[Page 66447]] training requirements under Paragraph VI.E.5; F. If an officer, director, or executive of Defendant or a member of its Board of Directors learns of a potential violation of this Final Judgment or the antitrust laws by Defendant, he or she must promptly notify the Antitrust Compliance Officer. G. Immediately upon the Antitrust Compliance Officer's learning of any violation or potential violation of any of the terms of this Final Judgment or the antitrust laws, Defendant must investigate and, in the event of a violation, must cease or modify the activity to comply with this Final Judgment and the antitrust laws. Defendant must maintain all documents as kept in the ordinary course discussed with, provided to, reviewed, or requested by the Antitrust Compliance Officer in connection with any reported violation or potential violation of this Final Judgment or in connection with any violation or potential violation of the antitrust laws reported to the Antitrust Compliance Officer pursuant to Paragraph VI.F. for four years following the expiration of this Final Judgment. H. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the Antitrust Compliance Officer's learning of any potential violation of any of the terms of this Final Judgment, Defendant must file with the United States a statement describing the potential violation, including a description of all steps taken by Defendant to remedy the potential violation. I. Defendant must have its Chief Executive Officer and its General Counsel certify in writing to the United States, no later than ninety (90) calendar days after this Final Judgment is entered and then annually on the anniversary of the date of the entry of this Final Judgment, that Defendant has complied with the provisions of this Final Judgment. J. Defendant must maintain a whistleblower protection policy that provides any employee may disclose, without reprisal or adverse consequences for such disclosure, to the Antitrust Compliance Officer information concerning any violation or potential violation by Defendant of this Final Judgment or the antitrust laws. VII. Compliance Inspection A. For the purposes of determining or securing compliance with this Final Judgment or of any related orders such as the Stipulation and Order, or of determining whether this Final Judgment should be modified or vacated, upon written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, and reasonable notice to Defendant, Defendant must permit, from time to time and subject to legally recognized privileges, authorized representatives, including agents retained by the United States: 1. to have access during Defendant's office hours to inspect and copy, or at the option of the United States, to require Defendant to provide electronic copies of all books, ledgers, accounts, records, data, and documents in the possession, custody, or control of Defendant relating to any matters contained in this Final Judgment; and 2. to interview, either informally or on the record, or depose Defendant's officers, employees, or agents, who may have their individual counsel present, relating to any matters contained in this Final Judgment. The interviews must be subject to the reasonable convenience of the interviewee and without restraint or interference by Defendant. B. Upon the written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, Defendant must submit written reports or respond to written interrogatories, under oath if requested, relating to any matters contained in this Final Judgment. VIII. Public Disclosure A. No information or documents obtained pursuant to any provision this Final Judgment may be divulged by the United States to any person other than an authorized representative of the executive branch of the United States, except in the course of legal proceedings to which the United States is a party, including grand-jury proceedings, for the purpose of securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or as otherwise required by law. B. In the event of a request by a third party, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, for disclosure of information obtained pursuant to any provision of this Final Judgment, the Antitrust Division will act in accordance with that statute, and the Department of Justice regulations at 28 CFR part 16, including the provision on confidential commercial information, at 28 CFR 16.7. Defendant submitting information to the Antitrust Division should designate the confidential commercial information portions of all applicable documents and information under 28 CFR 16.7. Designations of confidentiality expire 10 years after submission, ``unless the submitter requests and provides justification for a longer designation period.'' See 28 CFR 16.7(b). C. If at the time that Defendant furnishes information or documents to the United States pursuant to any provision of this Final Judgment, Defendant represents and identifies in writing information or documents for which a claim of protection may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Defendant marks each pertinent page of such material, ``Subject to claim of protection under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,'' the United States must give Defendant 10 calendar days' notice before divulging the material in any legal proceeding (other than a grand jury proceeding). IX. Retention of Jurisdiction The Court retains jurisdiction to enable any party to this Final Judgment to apply to the Court at any time for further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out or construe this Final Judgment, to modify any of its provisions, to enforce compliance, and to punish violations of its provisions. X. Enforcement of Final Judgement A. The United States retains and reserves all rights to enforce the provisions of this Final Judgment, including the right to seek an order of contempt from the Court. Defendant agrees that in a civil contempt action, a motion to show cause, or a similar action brought by the United States relating to an alleged violation of this Final Judgment, the United States may establish a violation of this Final Judgment and the appropriateness of a remedy therefor by a preponderance of the evidence, and Defendant waives any argument that a different standard of proof should apply. B. This Final Judgment should be interpreted to give full effect to the procompetitive purposes of the antitrust laws, including Section 7A of the Clayton Act, and to restore the competition the United States alleges was harmed by Defendant. Defendant agrees that it may be held in contempt of, and that the Court may enforce, any provision of this Final Judgment that, as interpreted by the Court in light of these procompetitive principles and applying ordinary tools of interpretation, is stated specifically and in reasonable detail, whether or not it is clear and unambiguous on its face. In any such interpretation, the terms of this Final Judgment should not be construed against either party as the drafter. C. In an enforcement proceeding in which the Court finds that Defendant has violated this Final Judgment, the United States may apply to the Court for [[Page 66448]] an extension of this Final Judgment, together with other relief that may be appropriate. In connection with a successful effort by the United States to enforce this Final Judgment against Defendant, whether litigated or resolved before litigation, Defendant agrees to reimburse the United States for the fees and expenses of its attorneys, as well as all other costs including experts' fees, incurred in connection with that effort to enforce this Final Judgment, including in the investigation of the potential violation. D. For a period of four years following the expiration of this Final Judgment, if the United States has evidence that Defendant violated this Final Judgment before it expired, the United States may file an action against Defendant in this Court requesting that the Court order: (1) Defendant to comply with the terms of this Final Judgment for an additional term to be determined by the Court; (2) all appropriate contempt remedies; (3) additional relief needed to ensure the Defendant complies with the terms of this Final Judgment; and (4) fees or expenses as called for by this Section X. XI. Expiration of Final Judgement Unless the Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment will expire seven (7) years from the date of its entry if Defendant has paid the civil penalty in full, except that if Defendant is found to violate this Final Judgment, either by the Court or by stipulation of the parties, the United States may move to extend the Final Judgment. XII. Reservation of Rights This Final Judgment addresses only the claims stated in the Complaint against Defendant, which solely alleges violations of 7A of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18a). The United States reserves all rights for any other claims against the Defendant. This Final Judgment thus does not in any way affect or address any other charges or claims that may be filed by the United States. XIII. Public Interest Determination Entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest. The parties have complied with the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16, including by making available to the public copies of this Final Judgment and the Competitive Impact Statement, public comments thereon, and any response to comments by the United States. Based upon the record before the Court, which includes the Competitive Impact Statement and, if applicable, any comments and response to comments filed with the Court, entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest. Date: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- [Court approval subject to procedures of Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon. John P. Cronan, United States District Judge. United States District Court Southern District of New York United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Legends Hospitality Parent Holdings, LLC, Defendant. Case No. 1:24-cv-5927-JPC Competitive Impact Statement Table of Contents I. NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE PROCEEDING II. DESCRIPTION OF THE EVENTS GIVING RISE TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION A. Background B. Legends' Alleged Unlawful Conduct III. EXPLANATION OF THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT A. Civil Penalty B. Prohibited Conduct C. Required Conduct D. Enforcement of Final Judgment IV. REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO POTENTIAL PRIVATE PLAINTIFFS V. PROCEDURES AVAILABLE FOR MODIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT VII. STANDARD OF REVIEW UNDER THE APPA FOR THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT VIII. DETERMINATIVE DOCUMENTS Table of Authorities Statutes 15 U.S.C. 15 15 U.S.C. 16 15 U.S.C. 18a Cases United States v. Abitibi-Consolidated Inc., 584 F. Supp. 2d 162 (D.D.C. 2008) United States v. Alex. Brown & Sons, Inc., 963 F. Supp. 235 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) United States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 552 F. Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1982) United States v. Apple, Inc., 889 F. Supp. 2d 623 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) United States v. ArcherDaniels-Midland Co., 272 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2003) United States v. Bechtel Corp., 648 F.2d 660 (9th Cir. 1981) United States v. InBev N.V./S.A., No. 08-1965, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84787 (D.D.C. Aug. 11, 2009) United States v. Int'l Bus. Mach. Corp., 163 F.3d 737, 740 (2d Cir. 1998) United States v. Iron Mountain, Inc., 217 F. Supp. 3d 146, 152-53 (D.D.C. 2016) United States v. Keyspan, 763 F. Supp. 2d 633, 637-38 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448 (D.C. Cir. 1995) United States v. Morgan Stanley, 881 F. Supp. 2d 563, 567 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) United States v. SBC Commc'ns, Inc., 489 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2007) United States v. US Airways Grp., Inc., 38 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2014) Other Authorities 119 Cong. Rec. 24, 598 (1973) (statement of Sen. Tunney) In accordance with the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 16(b)-(h) (the ``APPA'' or ``Tunney Act''), the United States of America files this Competitive Impact Statement related to the proposed Final Judgment filed in this civil antitrust proceeding. I. Nature and Purpose of the Proceeding On November 3, 2023, defendant Legends Hospitality Parent Holdings, LLC (``Legends'') announced it had agreed to acquire ASM Global, Inc. (``ASM'') for $2.35 billion (``Acquisition''). The transaction exceeded the thresholds established by Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 18a, also commonly known as the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (``Section 7A'' or ``HSR Act''), and therefore required Legends and ASM to notify the federal antitrust agencies of the Acquisition and observe a waiting period before Legends could take control of ASM's business. The HSR Act \3\ required Legends and ASM to continue operating separately and independently during the post- notification waiting period while the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice conducted a pre-consummation antitrust review of the Acquisition. The waiting period did not expire until May 29, 2024.\4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ Other antitrust laws also can apply to pre-closing conduct of transaction parties. \4\ Legends and ASM agreed to not close the Acquisition during the pendency of the Department of Justice's investigation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Instead of preserving ASM as an independent business, however, the Complaint alleges that Legends engaged in ``gun-jumping'' by assuming unlawful control of ASM prior to the expiration of the HSR waiting period, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 18a, and that Legends was continually in violation of the HSR Act each day beginning at least on December 7, 2023, until the waiting period ended on May 29, 2024. The United States and the defendant have reached a proposed settlement that eliminates the need for a trial in this case. To resolve the HSR Act violation, the proposed Final Judgment requires Legends to pay a civil penalty of $3.5 million. The proposed Final Judgment also enjoins Legends from engaging in certain behavior and requires Legends to [[Page 66449]] implement behavioral changes to deter future HSR Act violations. The United States and Legends have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered after compliance with the APPA. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment will terminate this action, except that the Court will retain jurisdiction to construe, modify, or enforce the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment and to punish violations thereof. II. Description of the Events Giving Rise to the Alleged Violation A. Background Legends is headquartered in New York, New York and primarily focuses on providing food and beverage services, feasibility studies, project development, and sales services to venues. ASM, in turn, primarily provides venue management services (i.e. a bundle of related services necessary to operate a venue) \5\ to venues that outsource management responsibilities to a third party. While Legends and ASM's core offerings are different, certain lines of business overlap. Both Legends and ASM conduct business throughout the United States and globally. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Core venue management services include concert and live event booking, finance and accounting, marketing, human resources, housekeeping, security, parking, event services, production services, and technology services. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Venue owners (or owners of planned venues) often issue bid solicitations when seeking vendors or managers to develop, provide services to, or operate the venue. Vendors (including ASM and Legends) respond to these solicitations, creating a competitive bidding process. Depending on the nature of the services solicited, vendors submitting bids in response to an RFP or similar solicitation may respond either individually or as part of a team whose members offer complementary products necessary to fulfill the RFP. For example, architects, developers, venue managers and others may create a team to provide a comprehensive response to an RFP seeking both development and management services. Competition between individual firms or teams leads to increased revenue, lower costs, and higher quality services for venues. B. Legends' Alleged Unlawful Conduct In May 2023, Legends won the rights to provide venue management services to a city-owned arena in California. Legends' work would begin after the July 31, 2024, expiration of incumbent ASM's management lease. ASM also competed for this opportunity. Legends' winning bid contained a detailed transition plan outlining key milestone dates for tasks necessary to effectuate the management shift. Absent the Acquisition, Legends was planning to provide those services itself to the arena. Due to the Acquisition of ASM, however, Legends decided to have ASM provide those services instead. After submitting its HSR filing, but before the expiration of the HSR waiting period, Legends decided that ASM would continue to operate the California arena. Accordingly, on December 7, 2023, Legends and ASM signed an initial agreement whereby ASM would book third-party events for the arena. Further, on April 9, 2024, Legends decided that ASM would continue providing venue management services for the California arena instead of transitioning the arena to Legends. The purpose and intent of Legends' pre-closing conduct in connection with the California arena also are informed by aspects of Legends' course of conduct in connection with ASM, including conduct before and after submitting the HSR filing. For example, while Legends and ASM were in discussions around the Acquisition but before the HSR filing, Legends sought to discuss competitive bidding strategies with ASM. In August 2023, Legends learned that a city in North Carolina was planning to issue an RFP for management of an existing entertainment complex, including an arena and other venues. A senior Legends executive emailed Legends' then-CEO noting, ``I assume we would rather have ASM chase this?'' The then-CEO informed another executive, ``we will find out if ASM is bidding as don't want to both be bidding,'' and set a calendar reminder for himself to speak with a senior ASM executive about the North Carolina RFP. In addition, in early 2023, Legends and ASM learned that a university was planning to develop a new arena. Both Legends and ASM initially took steps to form separate independent bids for the new arena. However, after Legends and ASM were in discussions around the Acquisition, their posture changed, such that in May 2023 they decided that they would instead try to bid together. While constructing their joint bid, Legends and ASM exchanged competitively sensitive information surrounding the arena development project. Legends and ASM engaged in similar behavior in 2024 for a different proposed university arena. Prior to the Acquisition negotiations, Legends and ASM took independent actions to win the development of the new arena. This posture changed in 2024, when, during the HSR waiting period, Legends and ASM pursued plans to submit a joint bid and exchange related information. III. Explanation of the Proposed Final Judgement The relief required by the proposed Final Judgment will appropriately address the violation alleged in the Complaint, penalize Legends, and deter others from violating the HSR Act. The proposed Final Judgment imposes a civil penalty for violation of the HSR Act and bars recurrence of the challenged conduct on penalty of contempt. It additionally requires Legends to appoint an antitrust compliance officer at its expense, to conduct compliance training, to certify compliance with the Final Judgment, to maintain a whistleblower protection policy, and to provide the United States inspection and interview rights to assess compliance with the Final Judgment. A. Civil Penalty Under Section 7A(g)(1) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(g)(1), any person who fails to comply with the HSR Act is liable to the United States for a civil penalty of not more than $51,744 for each day that person is in violation of the act.\6\ The Complaint alleges that defendant was in violation of the HSR Act beginning at least on December 7, 2023, until the expiration of the statutory waiting period on May 29, 2024. The United States accepted $3.5 million--an amount that is less than the maximum penalty permitted under the HSR Act--as an appropriate civil penalty for settlement purposes. A lower penalty is appropriate because of Legends' demonstrated willingness to take corrective internal action and because it is willing to resolve the matter by the proposed Final Judgment, thereby avoiding the risks and costs associated with a prolonged investigation and litigation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-74, 701 (further amending the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990), and Federal Trade Commission Rule 1.98, 16 CFR 1.98, 89 FR 1,445 (Jan. 10, 2024) (increasing maximum penalty to $51,744 per day). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Prohibited Conduct Paragraphs V(A) & V(B) of the Final Judgment are designed to prevent future violations of the antitrust laws during a pending transaction. Under these provisions, Legends is prohibited from, during any negotiation and interim [[Page 66450]] period \7\ of a transaction \8\ or in connection with an actual or potential collaboration agreement,\9\ and except as otherwise permitted by the Final Judgment: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ ``Negotiation and Interim Period'' means the period between the commencement of negotiations with respect to an offer to enter into a Transaction, and the date when negotiations are abandoned or when any resulting Transaction is consummated or abandoned. Final Judgement, ] II(J). \8\ ``Transaction'' means any Agreement to acquire any voting securities, assets, or non-corporate interests, form a joint venture, settle litigation, or license intellectual property with any Person where such Agreement is reportable under the Hart-Scott- Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976. Final Judgement, ] II(L). \9\ ``Collaboration Agreement'' means any Agreement by and among Defendant and any Competitor to collaborate or team in offering or providing Venue Development Services or to act as the Venue Manager. ``Collaboration Agreement'' does not include contracting for services where Legends is acting as the agent of a client or acting pursuant to a contract with a client. Final Judgment, ] II(D). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sharing competitively sensitive information with any competitor; Communicating with any competitor concerning any competitively sensitive information relating to a bid or bidding, including whether to bid or not to bid; Agreeing with any competitor to participate in any joint bid, collaborative bid, cooperative bid, or shared bid for any contract, opportunity, or arrangement or for a part of any contract, opportunity, or arrangement; or Agreeing with any competitor that Legends or any competitor will not bid for any contract, opportunity, or arrangement or for a part of any contract, opportunity, or arrangement. Paragraphs V(A) & V(B) apply to communicating, agreeing, or sharing directly, indirectly, and through any third-party agent or consultant working at Legends' instruction, direction, or request. Paragraph V(C) provides a limited exception permitting Legends to engage in the conduct prohibited by Paragraph V(A) in connection with a collaboration agreement, provided that Legends first secures advice of antitrust counsel, consults with the antitrust compliance officer (see Sec. III(C), infra), and obtains advance written permission from its CEO or General Counsel. Although certain communications in connection with a collaboration agreement may be permissible under certain circumstances, this internal review and approval provision ensures that, in light of Defendant's conduct, it will not take future actions that may reduce competition without first conducting a thorough antitrust review. Finally, Paragraph V(C) explains that nothing in the proposed Final Judgment precludes the United States from investigating or, if appropriate, bringing action against Legends or anyone else for violating the antitrust laws. C. Required Conduct Under Paragraphs VI(A)-VI(D) of the proposed Final Judgment, Legends must appoint or employ, at its expense, an experienced antitrust lawyer to serve as Legends' antitrust compliance officer. Legends will identify its proposed antitrust compliance officer or any replacement officer to the United States, which will have sole discretion to approve or disapprove the designation. Paragraphs VI(E)- VI(H) outline the antitrust compliance officer's required duties, which include providing all covered persons \10\ with copies of the Final Judgment (as entered) and of this Competitive Impact Statement; ensuring that all covered persons receive training on the requirements of the Final Judgment and certify that they have done so; filing written reports affirming Legends' compliance with the Final Judgment; and disclosing to the United States any violations of the Final Judgment or of the antitrust laws and the steps Legends took to remedy the potential violation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ Paragraph II(H) of the Final Judgment defines covered persons as ``(i) any employee or agent of Defendant whose principal job responsibilities include the sales, client outreach, or the negotiation of terms or development of Bids or proposals for services to Venues (other than employees or agents whose responsibilities are entirely clerical or limited to document preparation); (ii) all General Managers of any Venue managed by Defendant (iii) Defendant's Chief Executive Officer and each of his or her direct reports; (iv) members of Defendant's Board of Directors; and (v) designated Board observers.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In addition, Paragraph VI(J) of the Final Judgment obligates Legends to maintain an antitrust whistleblower program through which employees may identify potential violations of the Final Judgment or of the antitrust laws without fear of reprisal. To ensure compliance, Paragraph VI(I) requires both Legends' CEO and its General Counsel to annually certify Legends' compliance with the Final Judgment. Paragraph VII(A) grants authorized personnel from the United States the right to access Legends' files and interview its personnel upon request. D. Enforcement of Final Judgment The proposed Final Judgment also contains provisions designed to make enforcement of the Final Judgment as effective as possible. Paragraph X(A) provides that the United States retains and reserves all rights to enforce the Final Judgment, including the right to seek an order of contempt from the Court, and Section IX retains this Court's jurisdiction over any enforcement proceedings. Under the terms of Paragraph X(A), Legends has agreed that, in any civil contempt action, any motion to show cause, or any similar action brought by the United States regarding an alleged violation of the Final Judgment, the United States may establish the violation and the appropriateness of any remedy by a preponderance of the evidence and that Legends has waived any argument that a different standard of proof should apply. This provision aligns the standard for compliance with the Final Judgment with the standard of proof that applies to the underlying offense that the Final Judgment addresses. Paragraph X(D) entitles the United States to file an enforcement action up to four years after the expiration of the Final Judgment (if, for example, the United States discovers a violation after the Final Judgment's expiration). In addition, to compensate American taxpayers for any costs associated with the investigation and enforcement of violations of a proposed Final Judgment, Paragraph X(C) obligates Legends to reimburse the United States for any attorneys' fees, experts' fees, or costs incurred in connection with any successful enforcement effort, including enforcement efforts resolved before litigation. To further aid enforcement, Paragraph X(B) underscores that the proposed Final Judgment is intended to remedy the loss of competition the United States alleges was harmed by Legends' conduct. Legends agrees that it will abide by the proposed Final Judgment and that it may be held in contempt of the Court for failing to comply with any provision of the proposed Final Judgment that is stated specifically and in reasonable detail, as interpreted in light of this procompetitive purpose. Finally, Section XI of the proposed Final Judgment provides that the Final Judgment will expire seven years from the date of its entry if Legends has paid the civil penalty in full, but also authorizes the United States to move to extend the Final Judgment's term if Legends is found by the Court to have violated the Final Judgment (or stipulates that it has done so). IV. Remedies Available to Potential Private Plaintiffs Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15, provides that any person who has been injured as a result of conduct prohibited by the antitrust laws may bring suit in federal court to recover [[Page 66451]] three times the damages the person has suffered, as well as costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment neither impairs nor assists the bringing of any private antitrust damage action. Under the provisions of Section 5(a) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(a), the proposed Final Judgment has no prima facie effect in any subsequent private lawsuit that may be brought against Defendant. V. Procedures Available for Modification of the Proposed Final Judgement The United States and Legends have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered by the Court after compliance with the provisions of the APPA, provided that the United States has not withdrawn its consent. See Stipulation and Proposed Order, ] II(A). The APPA conditions entry upon the Court's determination that the proposed Final Judgment is in the public interest. The APPA provides a period of at least 60 days preceding the effective date of the proposed Final Judgment within which any person may submit to the United States written comments regarding the proposed Final Judgment. Any person who wishes to comment should do so within 60 days of the date of publication of this Competitive Impact Statement in the Federal Register, or within 60 days of the first date of publication in a newspaper of the summary of this Competitive Impact Statement, whichever is later. All comments received during this period will be considered by the U.S. Department of Justice, which remains free to withdraw its consent to the proposed Final Judgment at any time before the Court's entry of the Final Judgment. The comments and the response of the United States will be filed with the Court. In addition, the comments and the United States' responses will be published in the Federal Register unless the Court agrees that the United States instead may publish them on the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division's internet website. Written comments should be submitted in English to: Owen M. Kendler, Chief, Financial Services, Fintech & Banking Section, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice, 450 Fifth St. NW, Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20530. Section IX of the proposed Final Judgment provides that the Court retains jurisdiction over this action, and that the parties may apply to the Court for any order necessary or appropriate for the modification, interpretation, or enforcement of the Final Judgment. VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Final Judgment As an alternative to the proposed Final Judgment, the United States considered a full trial on the merits involving the alleged HSR Act violation against Defendant. The United States is satisfied, however, that the relief required by the proposed Final Judgment is important and meaningful while also avoiding the time, expense, and uncertainty of a full trial on the merits. VII. Standard of Review Under the APPA for the Proposed Final Judgement Under the Clayton Act and APPA, proposed Final Judgments, or ``consent decrees,'' in antitrust cases brought by the United States are subject to a 60-day comment period, after which the Court shall determine whether entry of the proposed Final Judgment ``is in the public interest.'' 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1); see also United States v. Int'l Bus. Mach. Corp., 163 F.3d 737, 740 (2d Cir. 1998). In making that determination, the Court, in accordance with the statute as amended in 2004, is required to consider: (A) the competitive impact of such judgment, including termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and modification, duration of relief sought, anticipated effects of alternative remedies actually considered, whether its terms are ambiguous, and any other competitive considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such judgment that the court deems necessary to a determination of whether the consent judgment is in the public interest; and (B) the impact of entry of such judgment upon competition in the relevant market or markets, upon the public generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial. 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1)(A) & (B); see generally United States v. Keyspan, 763 F. Supp. 2d 633, 637-38 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (discussing Tunney Act standards). In considering these statutory factors, the Court's inquiry is necessarily a limited one as the government is entitled to ``broad discretion to settle with the defendant within the reaches of the public interest.'' United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1461 (D.C. Cir. 1995); accord United States v. Alex. Brown & Sons, Inc., 963 F. Supp. 235, 238 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), aff'd sub nom. United States v. Bleznak, 153 F.3d 16 (2d Cir. 1998) (citing Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1460); Keyspan, 763 F. Supp. 2d at 637 (same). Under the APPA a court considers, among other things, the relationship between the remedy secured and the specific allegations set forth in the government's complaint, whether the decree is sufficiently clear, whether enforcement mechanisms are sufficient, and whether the decree may positively harm third parties. See Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1458-62. With respect to the adequacy of the relief secured by the decree, `` `[t]he Court's function is not to determine whether the proposed [d]ecree results in the balance of rights and liabilities that is the one that will best serve society, but only to ensure that the resulting settlement is `within the reaches of the public interest.' ' '' United States v. Morgan Stanley, 881 F. Supp. 2d 563, 567 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (citing Alex. Brown & Sons, 963 F. Supp. at 238) (internal quotations omitted) (emphasis in original). In making this determination, `` `[t]he [c]ourt is not permitted to reject the proposed remedies merely because the court believes other remedies are preferable. [Rather], the relevant inquiry is whether there is a factual foundation for the government's decisions such that its conclusions regarding the proposed settlement are reasonable.' '' Morgan Stanley, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 567 (citing United States v. Abitibi-Consolidated Inc., 584 F. Supp. 2d 162, 165 (D.D.C. 2008)); see also United States v. Apple, Inc., 889 F. Supp. 2d 623, 631 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); Alex. Brown & Sons, 963 F. Supp. at 238.\11\ The government's predictions about the efficacy of its remedies are entitled to deference. Apple, 889 F. Supp. 2d at 631 (citation omitted); Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (noting the need for courts to be ``deferential to the government's predictions as to the effect of the proposed remedies''); United States v. ArcherDaniels-Midland Co., 272 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2003) (noting that the court should grant due respect to the United States' prediction as to the effect of proposed remedies, its perception of the market structure, and its views of the nature of the case); United States v. Iron Mountain, Inc., 217 F. Supp. 3d 146, 152- 53 (D.D.C. 2016) (``In evaluating objections to settlement agreements under the [[Page 66452]] Tunney Act, a court must be mindful that [t]he government need not prove that the settlements will perfectly remedy the alleged antitrust harms[;] it need only provide a factual basis for concluding that the settlements are reasonably adequate remedies for the alleged harms.'') (internal quotations omitted). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ See also United States v. Bechtel Corp., 648 F.2d 660, 666 (9th Cir. 1981) (``The balancing of competing social and political interests affected by a proposed antitrust consent decree must be left, in the first instance, to the discretion of the Attorney General.''); see generally Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (discussing whether ``the remedies [obtained in the decree are] so inconsonant with the allegations charged as to fall outside of the `reaches of the public interest' ''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ``[A] proposed decree must be approved even if it falls short of the remedy the court would impose on its own, as long as it falls within the range of acceptability or is `within the reaches of public interest.' '' United States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 552 F. Supp. 131, 151 (D.D.C. 1982); Apple, 889 F. Supp. 2d at 637 n.10; see also United States v. U.S. Airways Grp., Inc., 38 F. Supp. 3d 69, 74 (D.D.C. 2014) (noting that room must be made for the government to grant concessions in the negotiation process for settlements) (citing Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461); Morgan Stanley, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 568 (approving the consent decree even though the court may have imposed a greater remedy). To meet this standard, ``it is necessary only that the submissions provide an ample `factual foundation for the government's decisions such that its conclusions regarding the proposed settlement are reasonable.' '' Apple, 889 F. Supp. 2d at 639 (citing Keyspan, 763 F. Supp. 2d at 637- 38). Moreover, a court's role under the APPA is limited to reviewing the remedy in relationship to the violations that the United States has alleged in its Complaint and the APPA does not authorize a court to ``construct [its] own hypothetical case and then evaluate the decree against that case.'' Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459; see also Morgan Stanley, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 567 (``A court must limit its review to the issues in the complaint and give `due respect to the [Government's] perception of . . . its case.' '') (citing Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461); United States v. InBev N.V./S.A., No. 08-1965, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *20 (D.D.C. Aug. 11, 2009) (``[T]he `public interest' is not to be measured by comparing the violations alleged in the complaint against those the court believes could have, or even should have, been alleged.''). Because the ``court's authority to review the decree depends entirely on the government's exercising its prosecutorial discretion by bringing a case in the first place,'' it follows that ``the court is only authorized to review the decree itself,'' and not to ``effectively redraft the complaint'' to inquire into other matters that the United States did not pursue. Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459-60. Courts cannot look beyond the complaint in making the public interest determination unless the complaint underlying the decree is drafted so narrowly such that its entry would appear `` `to make a mockery of judicial power.' '' Apple, 889 F. Supp. 2d at 631 (citing United States v. SBC Commc'ns, Inc., 489 F. Supp. 2d 1, 14 (D.D.C. 2007)). In its 2004 amendments to the APPA, Congress made clear its intent to preserve the practical benefits of utilizing consent decrees in antitrust enforcement, adding the unambiguous instruction that ``[n]othing in this section shall be construed to require the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to require the court to permit anyone to intervene.'' 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(2); see also Apple, 889 F. Supp. 2d at 633 (declining to hold evidentiary hearing and finding ``[a] hearing would serve only to delay the proceedings unnecessarily.''); U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 75 (indicating that a court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing or to permit intervenors as part of its review under the Tunney Act). The language wrote into the statute what Congress intended when it enacted the Tunney Act in 1974, as Senator Tunney explained: ``[t]he court is nowhere compelled to go to trial or to engage in extended proceedings which might have the effect of vitiating the benefits of prompt and less costly settlement through the consent decree process.'' 119 Cong. Rec. 24, 598 (1973) (statement of Sen. Tunney). Rather, the procedure for the public interest determination is left to the discretion of the court, with the recognition that the court's ``scope of review remains sharply proscribed by precedent and the nature of Tunney Act proceedings.'' SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 11; see also Apple, 889 F. Supp. 2d at 632 (``[P]rosecutorial functions vested solely in the executive branch could be undermined by the improper use of the APPA as an antitrust oversight provision.'') (citation omitted). A court can make its public interest determination based on the competitive impact statement and response to public comments alone. Apple, 889 F. Supp. 2d at 633; U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 75. VIII. Determinative Documents There are no determinative materials or documents within the meaning of the APPA that were considered by the United States in formulating the proposed Final Judgment. Dated: August 9, 2024 Respectfully submitted, ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Collier T. Kelley Meagan K. Bellshaw Michael G. McLellan U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 450 5th St. NW, Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20530, Telephone: (202) 445-9737, Email: [email protected]. [FR Doc. 2024-18240 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-11-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:26.166345

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18182

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66452-66453] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18182] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Respiratory Protection Program at Coal Mines ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited. DATES: The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before September 16, 2024. ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review-- Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Howell by telephone at 202- 693-6782, or by email at [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this information collection is to collect four types of information from coal mine operators: revised standard operating procedures (SOPs), American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) recordkeeping, fit test records, and emergency respirator inspection records. The mine operator uses the information to properly issue respiratory protection to coal miners who need to use personal protective equipment where accepted engineering controls measures have not been developed or when necessary, by the nature of work involved (for example, while establishing controls or occasional entry into hazardous [[Page 66453]] atmospheres to perform maintenance or investigation). Fit-testing records are used to ensure that a respirator worn by an individual is the same brand, model, and size respirator that was worn when that individual successfully passed a fit-test. Records of emergency respirator inspection are used to ensure that respirators are in proper working order when needed. MSHA uses the information to determine compliance with the standard specified in 30 CFR 72.710. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on May 1, 2024 (89 FR 35250). Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. Agency: DOL-MSHA. Title of Collection: Respiratory Protection Program at Coal Mines. OMB Control Number: 1219-0NEW. Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits. Number of Respondents: 1,106. Frequency: Annual. Number of Responses: 19,908. Annual Burden Hours: 11,060 hours. Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0. (Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D)). Michael Howell, Senior Paperwork Reduction Act Analyst. [FR Doc. 2024-18182 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-43-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:26.200188

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18184

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66453-66454] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18184] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration [OMB Control No. 1219-0096] Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Underground Retorts AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor. ACTION: Request for public comments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Department of Labor (DOL), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre- clearance request for comment to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed 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. The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is soliciting comments on the information collection entitled Underground Retorts. DATES: All comments must be received on or before October 15, 2024. ADDRESSES: Comments concerning the information collection requirements of this notice may be sent by any of the methods listed below. Please note that late comments received after the deadline will not be considered. Federal E-Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments for docket number MSHA-2024-0013. Mail/Hand Delivery: DOL-MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th Street South, 4th Floor West, Arlington, VA 22202-5452. Before visiting MSHA in person, call 202-693- 9455 to make an appointment, in keeping with the Department of Labor's COVID-19 policy. Special health precautions may be required. MSHA will post all comments as well as any attachments, except for information submitted and marked as confidential, in the docket at https://www.regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: S. Aromie Noe, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at [email protected] (email); (202) 693-9440 (voice); or (202) 693-9441 (facsimile). These are not toll-free numbers. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Section 103(h) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended (Mine Act), 30 U.S.C. 813(h), authorizes the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) to collect information necessary to carry out its duty in protecting the safety and health of miners. Further, section 101(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. 811(a), authorizes the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) to develop, promulgate, and revise as may be appropriate, improved mandatory health or safety standards for the protection of life and prevention of injuries in coal, metal, and nonmetal mines. In order to fulfill the statutory mandates to promote miners' health and safety, MSHA requires the collection of information entitled Underground Retorts. The information collection addressed by this notice is intended to ensure that combustible gases at underground oil shale mines are kept at acceptable levels and do not expose miners to explosive or other hazardous conditions. Title 30 CFR 57.22401 sets forth safety requirements for using a retort to extract oil from shale in underground metal and nonmetal I-A and I-B mines (mines that operate in a combustible ore and either liberate methane or have the potential to liberate methane based on the history of the mine or the geological area in which the mine is located). Prior to ignition of underground retorts, mine operators must submit a written ignition operation plan to the MSHA District Manager for the area where the mine is located. The ignition operation plan must contain site-specific safeguards and safety procedures for the underground areas of the mine which are affected by the retorts. The required contents listed in 30 CFR 57.22401(b) include: (1) Acceptable levels of combustible gases and oxygen in retort off-gases during start-up and during burning; levels at which corrective action will be initiated; levels at which personnel will be removed from the retort areas, from the mine, and from endangered surface areas; and the conditions for reentering the mine; (2) Specifications and locations of off-gas monitoring procedures and equipment; (3) Specifications for construction of retort bulkheads and seals, and their locations; (4) Procedures for ignition of a retort and for reignition following a shutdown; and (5) Details of area monitoring and alarm systems for hazardous gases and [[Page 66454]] actions to be taken to ensure safety of personnel. II. Desired Focus of Comments MSHA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to Underground Retorts. MSHA is particularly interested in comments that: Evaluate whether the 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 MSHA's estimate of the burden of the 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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The information collection request will be available on https://www.regulations.gov. MSHA cautions the commenter against providing any information in the submission that should not be publicly disclosed. Full comments, including personal information provided, will be made available on https://www.regulations.gov and https://www.reginfo.gov. The public may also examine publicly available documents at DOL- MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances, 201 12th Street South, 4th Floor West, Arlington, VA 22202-5452. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 4th Floor via the West elevator. Before visiting MSHA in person, call 202-693-9455 to make an appointment, in keeping with the Department of Labor's COVID-19 policy. Special health precautions may be required. Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION section of this notice. III. Current Actions This information collection request concerns provisions for Underground Retorts. MSHA has updated the data with respect to the number of respondents, responses, time burden, and burden costs supporting this information collection request from the previous information collection request. Type of Review: Extension, without change, of a currently approved collection. Agency: Mine Safety and Health Administration. OMB Number: 1219-0096. Affected Public: Business or other for-profit. Number of Annual Respondents: 1. Frequency: On occasion. Number of Annual Responses: 1. Annual Time Burden: 160 hours. Annual Other Burden Costs: $0. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included 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 be available at https://www.reginfo.gov. Song-ae Aromie Noe, Certifying Officer, Mine Safety and Health Administration. [FR Doc. 2024-18184 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-43-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:26.223561

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18181

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66454-66455] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18181] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration [OMB Control No. 1219-0103] Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Notification of Methane Detected in Underground Metal and Nonmetal Mine Atmospheres AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor. ACTION: Request for public comments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Department of Labor (DOL), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre- clearance request for comment to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed 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. The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is soliciting comments on the information collection entitled Notification of Methane Detected in Underground Metal and Nonmetal Mine Atmospheres. DATES: All comments must be received on or before October 15, 2024. ADDRESSES: Comments concerning the information collection requirements of this notice may be sent by any of the methods listed below. Please note that late comments received after the deadline will not be considered. Federal E-Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments for docket number MSHA-2024-0016. Mail/Hand Delivery: DOL-MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th Street South, 4th Floor West, Arlington, VA 22202-5452. Before visiting MSHA in person, call 202-693- 9455 to make an appointment, in keeping with the Department of Labor's COVID-19 policy. Special health precautions may be required. MSHA will post all comments as well as any attachments, except for information submitted and marked as confidential, in the docket at https://www.regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: S. Aromie Noe, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at [email protected] (email); (202) 693-9440 (voice); or (202) 693-9441 (facsimile). These are not toll-free numbers. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Section 103(h) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended (Mine Act), 30 U.S.C. 813(h), authorizes MSHA to collect information necessary to carry out its duty in protecting the safety and health of miners. Further, section 101(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. 811(a), authorizes the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) to develop, promulgate, and revise, as may be appropriate, improved mandatory health or safety standards for the protection of life and prevention of injuries in coal, metal and nonmetal mines. In order to fulfil the statutory mandates to protect miners' health and safety, MSHA requires the collection of information entitled Notification of Methane Detected in Underground Metal and Nonmetal Mine Atmospheres. The information collection addressed by this notice is intended to ensure that all underground mines, and the surface mills of Subcategory I-C mines (gilsonite), protect miners against the hazards of methane and dusts containing volatile matter. Methane is a flammable gas found in underground mines in the United States. Although methane is often associated with underground coal mines, it also occurs in some metal and nonmetal (MNM) mines. Under 30 CFR [[Page 66455]] 57.22003, underground MNM mines are categorized according to the potential to liberate methane. Methane is a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas, and it tends to rise to the roof of a mine because it is lighter than air. Although methane itself is nontoxic, its presence reduces the oxygen content by dilution when mixed with air and, consequently, can act as an asphyxiant when present in large quantities. Methane may enter the mining environment from a variety of sources including fractures, faults, or shear zones overlying or underlying the strata that surround the ore body, or from the ore body itself. It may occur as an occluded gas within the ore body. Methane mixed with air is explosive in the range of 5 to 15 percent, provided that 12 percent or more oxygen is present at room temperature. The presence of dust containing volatile matter in the mine atmosphere may further elevate the explosive potential of methane in a mine. Section 103(i) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. 813(i), requires additional inspections to be conducted at mines depending on the amount of methane liberated from a mine. i. Notifications to MSHA Under 30 CFR 57.22004(c), mine operators of underground MNM mines must notify MSHA as soon as possible if any of the following events occur: (a) there is an outburst that results in 0.25 percent or more methane in the mine atmosphere, (b) there is a blowout that results in 0.25 percent or more methane in the mine atmosphere, (c) there is an ignition of methane, or (d) air sample results indicate 0.25 percent or more methane in the mine atmosphere of a I-B, I-C, II-B, V-B, or Category VI mine. Under 30 CFR 57.22231 and 57.22239, mine operators must notify MSHA immediately if methane reaches 2.0 percent in a Category IV mine or if methane reaches 0.25 percent in the mine atmosphere of a Subcategory I- B, II-B, V-B, or VI mine as defined in section 57.22003. Under 30 CFR 57.22231, underground MNM mine operators are required to make changes to improve ventilation if methane reaches 0.25 percent in the mine atmosphere. Under 30 CFR 57.22239, if methane reaches 2.0 percent in the mine atmosphere, mine operators are required to withdraw all persons, other than competent persons necessary to make ventilation changes, from the mine until methane is reduced to less than 0.5 percent in a Category IV mine. Although the standards do not specify how MSHA is to be notified, MSHA anticipates that the notifications would be made by telephone. ii. Records of Weekly Certification Under 30 CFR 57.22229(a) and 57.22230(a), the mine atmosphere must be tested for methane and/or carbon dioxide at least once every seven days by a competent person or atmospheric monitoring system, or a combination of both. Under 30 CFR 57.2229, underground MNM mines categorized as I-A, III, and V-A mines are required to test the atmosphere for both methane and carbon dioxide. Under 30 CFR 57.22230, underground MNM mines categorized as II-A mines are required to test the atmosphere for methane. Under 30 CFR 57.22229(d) and 57.22230(c), the person performing the tests must certify by signature and date that the tests have been conducted. Certifications of examinations shall be kept for at least one year and made available to authorized representatives of the Secretary. iii. Informing All Affected Miners Under 30 CFR 57.22229(c) and 57.22230(b), mine operators must inform affected miners and take corrective actions when examinations disclose hazardous conditions. II. Desired Focus of Comments MSHA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to Notification of Methane Detected in Underground Metal and Nonmetal Mine Atmospheres. MSHA is particularly interested in comments that: Evaluate whether the 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 MSHA's estimate of the burden of the 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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The information collection request will be available on https://www.regulations.gov. MSHA cautions the commenter against providing any information in the submission that should not be publicly disclosed. Full comments, including personal information provided, will be made available on https://www.regulations.gov and https://www.reginfo.gov. The public may also examine publicly available documents at DOL- MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances, 201 12th Street South, 4th Floor West, Arlington, VA 22202-5452. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 4th Floor via the West elevator. Before visiting MSHA in person, call 202-693-9455 to make an appointment, in keeping with the Department of Labor's COVID-19 policy. Special health precautions may be required. Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. III. Current Actions This information collection request concerns provisions for Notification of Methane Detected in Underground Metal and Nonmetal Mine Atmospheres. MSHA has updated the data with respect to the number of respondents, responses, time burden, and burden costs supporting this information collection request from the previous information collection request. Type of Review: Extension, without change, of a currently approved collection. Agency: Mine Safety and Health Administration. OMB Number: 1219-0103. Affected Public: Business or other for-profit. Number of Annual Respondents: 4. Frequency: On occasion. Number of Annual Responses: 213. Annual Time Burden: 18 hours. Annual Other Burden Costs: $0. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included 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 be available at https://www.reginfo.gov. Song-ae Aromie Noe, Certifying Officer, Mine Safety and Health Administration. [FR Doc. 2024-18181 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-43-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:26.296566

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18323

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66456-66457] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18323] [[Page 66456]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Docket No. OSHA-2011-0185] Vehicle-Mounted Elevating and Rotating Work Platforms (Aerial Lifts); Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor. ACTION: Request for public comments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Vehicle-Mounted Elevating and Rotating Work Platforms (Aerial Lifts). The purpose of the requirements is to reduce workers' risk of death or serious injury by ensuring that aerial lifts are in safe operating condition. DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by October 15, 2024. ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments electronically at https://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting comments. Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through the websites. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection through the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350 (TTY (877) 889-5627) for assistance in locating docket submissions. Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and OSHA docket number (OSHA-2011-0185) for the Information Collection Request (ICR). OSHA will place all comments, including any personal information, in the public docket, which may be made available online. Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about submitting personal information such as social security numbers and birthdates. For further information on submitting comments, see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seleda Perryman, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone (202) 693-2222. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Department of Labor, as part of the continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, the collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of effort in obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657). The following sections describe who uses the information collected under each requirement, as well as how they use it. Manufacturer's Certification of Modifications (Sec. 1910.67(b)(2)). The Standard requires that when aerial lifts are ``field modified'' for uses other than those intended by the manufacturer, the manufacturer or other equivalent entity, such as a nationally recognized testing laboratory, must certify in writing that the modification is in conformity with all applicable provisions of ANSI A92.2-1969 and the OSHA standard and that the modified aerial lift is at least as safe as the equipment was before modification. Employers are to maintain the certification record and make it available to OSHA compliance officers upon request. This record provides assurance to employers, workers, and compliance officers that the modified aerial lift is safe for use, thereby preventing failure while workers are being elevated. The certification record also provides the most efficient means for the compliance officers to determine that an employer is complying with the Standard. II. Special Issues for Comment OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues: Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions to protect workers, including whether the information is useful; The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information, and transmission techniques. III. Proposed Actions OSHA is requesting that OMB extend the approval of the information collection requirements contained in Vehicle-Mounted Elevating and Rotating Work Platforms (Aerial Lifts). There are no adjustment or program changes associated with this package. OSHA is requesting that the burden hours remain the same. OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend the approval of the information collection requirements. Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection. Title: Vehicle-Mounted Elevating and Rotating Work Platforms (Aerial Lifts). OMB Control Number: 1218-0230. Affected Public: Business or other for-profits. Number of Respondents: 1,000. Number of Responses: 1,000. Frequency of Responses: On occasion. Average Time per Response: One minute. Estimated Total Burden Hours: 20. Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0. IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and Internet Access to Comments and Submissions You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) electronically at https://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal; or (2) by facsimile (fax), if your comments, including attachments, are not longer [[Page 66457]] than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693- 1648. All comments, attachments, and other material must identify the agency name and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA- 2011-0185). You may supplement electronic submission by uploading document files electronically. Comments and submissions are posted without change at https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal information such as social security numbers and dates of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download from this website. All submission, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the https://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and access the docket is available at the website's ``User Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627) for information about materials not available from the website, and for assistance in using the internet to locate docket submissions. V. Authority and Signature James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393). Signed at Washington, DC, on July 29, 2024. James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. [FR Doc. 2024-18323 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:26.346768

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18209

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66457-66458] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18209] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 11006611; NRC-2024-0139] Perma-Fix Northwest Richland, Inc.; Export License Application AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Opportunity to provide comments, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is considering issuing an export license (XW033), requested by Perma-Fix Northwest Richland, Inc (PFNW) by application dated June 18, 2024. The application seeks the NRC's approval to return residual radioactive waste to the country of origin, Mexico. The NRC is providing notice of the opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition to intervene on PFNW's application. DATES: Submit comments by September 16, 2024. A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by September 16, 2024. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website: Federal rulemaking website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2024-0139. Address questions about Docket IDs in Regulations.gov to Stacy Schumann; telephone: 301-415-0624; email: [email protected]. For technical questions contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Email comments to: [email protected]. If you do not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact us at 301-415-1677. Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301-415-1101. Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Jones, Office of International Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 0001; telephone: 404-997-4443; email: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to NRC-2024-0139 or Docket No. 11006611 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by the following methods: Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2024-0139. NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, at 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The export license application is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML24205A240. NRC's PDR: The PDR, where you may examine and order copies of publicly available documents, is open by appointment. To make an appointment to visit the PDR, please send an email to [email protected] or call 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern time (ET), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. B. Submitting Comments The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (https://www.regulations.gov). Please include NRC-2024-0139 or Docket No. 11006611 in your comment submission. The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information. If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS. II. Discussion On June 18, 2024, PFNW submitted an application to the NRC for a license to export treated radioactive waste of Mexican origin. The source of the waste is the Comisi[oacute]n Federal de Electricidad (CFE) Laguna Verde Nuclear Power Plant (CFE LVNPP), located in Veracruz, Mexico. PFNW intends to receive shipment of incoming waste consisting [[Page 66458]] of liquid, solids, contaminated personal protective equipment, paper, plastic, glass, and combustible waste generated by the research projects at the power plant. PFNW will treat the waste by thermal processing, stabilization, and solidification. Residual ash, residual metal, and noncombustible material would then be exported back to Mexico for disposal. Resultant contaminants to be exported will include cobalt 60 (Co-60), cesium-137 (Cs-137), tritium (H-3), manganese-54 (Mn-54), zinc-65 (Zn-65), cobalt-58 (Co-58), carbon-14 (C-14), iron-55 (Fe-55), nickel-63 (Ni-63), strontium-90 (Sr-90), techneticum-99 (Tc- 99), plutonium-241 (Pu-241), and americium-241 (Am 241) in the form of residual ash and residual metal or non-combustible material, not to exceed 0.119 terabecquerels (TBq). PFNW requests an expiration date of December 1, 2030. In accordance with paragraph 110.70(b) of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), the NRC is providing notice of the receipt of the application; providing the opportunity to submit written comments concerning the application; and providing the opportunity to request a hearing or petition for leave to intervene, for a period of 30 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. A hearing request or petition for leave to intervene must include the information specified in 10 CFR 110.82(b). Any request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene shall be served by the requestor or petitioner in accordance with 10 CFR 110.89(a), either by delivery, by mail, or filed with the NRC electronically in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012). Detailed guidance on electronic submissions is located in the ``Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML13031A056) and on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket. The information concerning this application for an export license is as follows. NRC Export License Application ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Application Information ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name of Applicant............ Perma-Fix Northwest Richland, Inc. Date of Application.......... June 18, 2024. Date Received................ July 24, 2024. Application No............... XW033. Docket No.................... 11006611. ADAMS Accession No........... ML24205A240. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Description of Material ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Material Type................ Low-level radioactive waste contaminated with Co-60, Cs-137, H-3, Mn-54, Zn-65, Co-58, C-14, Fe-55, Ni-63, Sr-90, Tc-99, Pu-241, and Am 241 in the form of residual ash and residual metal or non- combustible material. The incoming material will include liquid, solids, contaminated personal protective equipment, paper, plastic, glass, and combustible waste generated by the Laguna Verde Nuclear Power Plant, located in Veracruz, Mexico. Total Quantity............... Not to exceed 0.119 TBq. End Use...................... Storage and ultimate disposal of low- level radioactive waste. Country of Destination....... Mexico. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated: August 9, 2024. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. David L. Skeen, Director, Office of International Programs. [FR Doc. 2024-18209 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:26.396588

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18252

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66458-66459] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18252] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. MC2024-488 and CP2024-495; MC2024-489 and CP2024-496; MC2024-490 and CP2024-497; MC2024-491 and CP2024-498; MC2024-492 and CP2024-499] New Postal Products AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: 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. DATES: Comments are due: August 16, 2024. ADDRESSES: Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at http://www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Docketed Proceeding(s) I. Introduction The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list. Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the [[Page 66459]] Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request. The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (http://www.prc.gov). Non-public portions of the Postal Service's request(s), if any, can be accessed through compliance with the requirements of 39 CFR 3011.301.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See Docket No. RM2018-3, Order Adopting Final Rules Relating to Non-Public Information, June 27, 2018, Attachment A at 19-22 (Order No. 4679). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern Market Dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3030, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern Competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II. II. Docketed Proceeding(s) 1. Docket No(s).: MC2024-488 and CP2024-495; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Parcel Select Contract 61 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: August 8, 2024; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR 3035.105; Public Representative: Almaroof Agoro; Comments Due: August 16, 2024. 2. Docket No(s).: MC2024-489 and CP2024-496; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage Contract 296 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: August 8, 2024; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR 3035.105; Public Representative: Almaroof Agoro; Comments Due: August 16, 2024. 3. Docket No(s).: MC2024-490 and CP2024-497; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage Contract 297 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: August 8, 2024; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR 3035.105; Public Representative: Arif Hafiz; Comments Due: August 16, 2024. 4. Docket No(s).: MC2024-491 and CP2024-498; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage Contract 207 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: August 8, 2024; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR 3035.105; Public Representative: Arif Hafiz; Comments Due: August 16, 2024. 5. Docket No(s).: MC2024-492 and CP2024-499; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage Contract 208 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: August 8, 2024; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR 3035.105; Public Representative: Arif Hafiz; Comments Due: August 16, 2024. This Notice will be published in the Federal Register. Erica A. Barker, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-18252 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:26.436855

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18235

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66459] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18235] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTAL SERVICE Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: 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. DATES: Date of required notice: August 15, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 299 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-497, CP2024-504. Sean Robinson, Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. [FR Doc. 2024-18235 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:26.491085

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18228

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66459] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18228] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTAL SERVICE Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: 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. DATES: Date of required notice: August 15, 2024 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 8, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 208 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-492, CP2024-499. Sean C. Robinson, Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. [FR Doc. 2024-18228 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:26.509722

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18217

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66459-66460] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18217] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTAL SERVICE Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: 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. DATES: Date of required notice: August 15, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] hereby [[Page 66460]] gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 8, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 297 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-490, CP2024-497. Sean Robinson, Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. [FR Doc. 2024-18217 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:26.560121

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18233

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66460] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18233] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTAL SERVICE Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: 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. DATES: Date of required notice: August 15, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 213 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-500, CP2024-507. Sean C. Robinson, Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. [FR Doc. 2024-18233 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:26.611280

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18222

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66460] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18222] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTAL SERVICE Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: 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. DATES: Date of required notice: August 15, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 6, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 202 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-483, CP2024-490. Sean C. Robinson, Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. [FR Doc. 2024-18222 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:26.638939

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18232

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66460] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18232] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTAL SERVICE Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: 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. DATES: Date of required notice: August 15, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 212 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-499, CP2024-506. Sean C. Robinson, Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. [FR Doc. 2024-18232 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:26.670816

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18224

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66460] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18224] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTAL SERVICE Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: 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. DATES: Date of required notice: August 15, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 7, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 204 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-485, CP2024-492. Sean C. Robinson, Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. [FR Doc. 2024-18224 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:26.701100

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18215

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66460-66461] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18215] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTAL SERVICE Product Change--Parcel Select Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: 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. DATES: Date of required notice: August 15, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 8, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Parcel Select Contract 61 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at [[Page 66461]] www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-488, CP2024-495. Sean Robinson, Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. [FR Doc. 2024-18215 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:26.742711

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18225

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66461] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18225] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTAL SERVICE Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: 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. DATES: Date of required notice: August 15, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 7, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 205 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-486, CP2024-493. Sean C. Robinson, Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. [FR Doc. 2024-18225 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:26.750586

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18227

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66461] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18227] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTAL SERVICE Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: 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. DATES: Date of required notice: August 15, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 8, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 207 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-491, CP2024-498. Sean C. Robinson, Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. [FR Doc. 2024-18227 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:26.788367

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18230

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66461] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18230] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTAL SERVICE Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: 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. DATES: Date of required notice: August 15, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 210 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-494, CP2024-501. Sean C. Robinson, Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. [FR Doc. 2024-18230 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:26.813683

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18236

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66461] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18236] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTAL SERVICE Product Change--Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: 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. DATES: Date of required notice: August 15, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 791 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-495, CP2024- 502. Sean C. Robinson, Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. [FR Doc. 2024-18236 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:26.837657

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18218

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66461] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18218] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTAL SERVICE Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: 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. DATES: Date of required notice: August 15, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 5, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 198 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-478, CP2024-485. Sean C. Robinson, Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. [FR Doc. 2024-18218 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:26.869049

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18220

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66461-66462] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18220] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTAL SERVICE Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. [[Page 66462]] ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: 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. DATES: Date of required notice: August 15, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 6, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 200 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-480, CP2024-487. Sean C. Robinson, Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. [FR Doc. 2024-18220 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:26.887651

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18234

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66462] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18234] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTAL SERVICE Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: 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. DATES: Date of required notice: August 15, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 298 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-496, CP2024-503. Sean Robinson, Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. [FR Doc. 2024-18234 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:26.974487

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18229

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66462] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18229] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTAL SERVICE Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: 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. DATES: Date of required notice: August 15, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 209 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-493, CP2024-500. Sean C. Robinson, Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. [FR Doc. 2024-18229 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:27.076129

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18223

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66462] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18223] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTAL SERVICE Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: 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. DATES: Date of required notice: August 15, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 7, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 203 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-484, CP2024-491. Sean C. Robinson, Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. [FR Doc. 2024-18223 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:27.099575

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18216

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66462] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18216] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTAL SERVICE Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: 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. DATES: Date of required notice: August 15, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 8, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 296 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-489, CP2024-496. Sean Robinson, Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. [FR Doc. 2024-18216 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:27.123568

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18231

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66462-66463] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18231] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTAL SERVICE Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: 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. DATES: Date of required notice: August 15, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] hereby [[Page 66463]] gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 211 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-498, CP2024-505. Sean C. Robinson, Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. [FR Doc. 2024-18231 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:27.217255

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18226

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66463] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18226] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTAL SERVICE Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: 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. DATES: Date of required notice: August 15, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 7, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 205 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-487, CP2024-494. Sean C. Robinson, Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. [FR Doc. 2024-18226 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:27.289925

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18219

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66463] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18219] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTAL SERVICE Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: 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. DATES: Date of required notice: August 15, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 6, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 199 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-479, CP2024-486. Sean C. Robinson, Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. [FR Doc. 2024-18219 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:27.328393

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18221

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66463] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18221] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POSTAL SERVICE Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: 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. DATES: Date of required notice: August 15, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 6, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 201 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-481, CP2024-488. Sean C. Robinson, Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. [FR Doc. 2024-18221 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:27.355437

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18195

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66463-66465] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18195] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-100687; File No. SR-PEARL-2024-31] Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX Pearl Options Fee Schedule August 9, 2024. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that on July 31, 2024, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX Pearl'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Pearl Options Fee Schedule (``Fee Schedule''). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at https://www.miaxglobal.com/markets/us-options/pearl-options/rule-filings at MIAX Pearl's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 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. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to amend the exchange grouping of options exchanges within the routing fee table in Section [[Page 66464]] (1)(b) of the Fee Schedule, Fees for Customer Orders Routed to Another Options Exchange, to reflect the recent addition of a new national securities exchange, MIAX Sapphire, LLC (``MIAX Sapphire'') \3\, to be listed in the routing fee table. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective August 1, 2024. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 100539 (July 15, 2024), 89 FR 58848 (July 19, 2024) (File No. 10-240) (order approving application of MIAX Sapphire, LLC for registration as a national securities exchange). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Background Currently, the Exchange assesses routing fees based upon (i) the origin type of the order; (ii) whether or not it is an order for standard option classes in the Penny Interval Program \4\ (``Penny classes'') or an order for standard option classes which are not in the Penny Interval Program (``Non-Penny classes'') (or other explicitly identified classes); and (iii) to which away market it is being routed. This assessment practice is identical to the routing fees assessment practice currently utilized by the Exchange's affiliates, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX Options'') and MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX Emerald''). This is also similar to the methodology utilized by the Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe BZX Options''), a competing options exchange, in assessing routing fees. Cboe BZX Options has exchange groupings in its fee schedule, similar to those of the Exchange, whereby several exchanges are grouped into the same category dependent upon the order's origin type and whether it is a Penny or Non-Penny class.\5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ See Exchange Rule 510(c). \5\ See Cboe U.S. Options Fee Schedules, BZX Options, effective July 15, 2024, ``Fee Codes and Associated Fees,'' at https://www.cboe.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As a result of the anticipated launch of MIAX Sapphire in the third quarter of 2024, the Exchange has determined to amend the exchange groupings of options exchanges within the routing fee table to include MIAX Sapphire and the anticipated associated costs of routing customer orders to MIAX Sapphire for execution. The impact of this proposed change will be increased routing options for Members.\6\ The Exchange notes that routing through the Exchange is optional and that Members will continue to be able to choose where to route applicable Member orders. Under this proposed change, the Exchange will not amend the fees associated with the exchange groupings. This proposal merely seeks to add MIAX Sapphire to the exchange groupings as described in the routing fee table below. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See Exchange Rule 100. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- According, with the proposed change, the routing fee table will be as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Description Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Routed, Priority Customer, Penny Program, to: NYSE American, $0.15 Cboe, Cboe EDGX Options, MIAX, Nasdaq PHLX (except SPY), Nasdaq MRX, MIAX Sapphire..................................... Routed, Priority Customer, Penny Program, to: BOX.............. 0.30 Routed, Priority Customer, Penny Program, to: NYSE Arca 0.65 Options, Cboe BZX Options, Cboe C2, Nasdaq GEMX, Nasdaq ISE, NOM, Nasdaq PHLX (SPY only), MIAX Emerald, Nasdaq BX Options, MEMX.......................................................... Routed, Priority Customer, Non-Penny Program, to: NYSE 0.15 American, BOX, Cboe, Cboe EDGX Options, MIAX, Nasdaq PHLX, Nasdaq MRX, MIAX Sapphire..................................... Routed, Priority Customer, Non-Penny Program, to: NYSE Arca 1.00 Options, Cboe BZX Options, Cboe C2, Nasdaq GEMX, NOM, MIAX Emerald, Nasdaq BX Options, Nasdaq ISE, MEMX.................. Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, Penny 0.65 Program, to: NYSE American, NYSE Arca Options, Cboe BZX Options, BOX, Cboe, Cboe C2, Cboe EDGX Options, Nasdaq GEMX, Nasdaq ISE, Nasdaq MRX, MIAX Emerald, MIAX, NOM, Nasdaq PHLX, Nasdaq BX Options, MEMX, MIAX Sapphire........................ Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, Non- 1.00 Penny Program, to: NYSE American, MIAX, Cboe, Nasdaq PHLX, Cboe EDGX Options, NOM........................................ Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, Non- 1.15 Penny Program, to: Cboe C2, BOX, MIAX Sapphire................ Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, Non- 1.25 Penny Program, to: NYSE Arca Options, Nasdaq GEMX, Nasdaq MRX, MIAX Emerald, MEMX............................................ Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, Non- 1.40 Penny Program, to: Cboe BZX Options, Nasdaq ISE, Nasdaq BX Options....................................................... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In determining to amend its routing fee table to determine which category MIAX Sapphire belongs to the Exchange took into account anticipated transaction fees and rebates assessed by the away markets to which the Exchange routes orders, as well as the Exchange's clearing costs, administrative, regulatory, and technical costs associated with routing orders to an away market. The Exchange uses unaffiliated routing brokers to route orders to the away markets; the costs associated with the use of these services are included in the routing fees specified in the Fee Schedule. This routing fee structure is not only similar to the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX Options and MIAX Emerald, but is also comparable to the structure in place on at least one other competing options exchange, Cboe BZX Options.\7\ The Exchange's routing fee structure approximates the Exchange's costs associated with routing orders to away markets. The per-contract transaction fee amount associated with each grouping closely approximates the Exchange's all-in cost (plus an additional, non- material amount) \8\ to execute that corresponding contract at that corresponding exchange. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ The Cboe BZX Options fee schedule is similar to the Exchange's Fee Schedule in that it has exchange groupings, whereby several exchanges are grouped into the same category. See supra note 5. \8\ This amount is to cover de minimis differences/changes to away market fees (i.e., minor increases or decreases) that would not necessitate a fee filing by the Exchange to re-categorize the away exchange into a different grouping. Routing fees are not intended to be a profit center for the Exchange and the Exchange's goal regarding routing fees and expenses is to be as close as possible to net neutral. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Exchange notes that in determining whether to adjust certain groupings of options exchanges in the routing fee table, the Exchange considered the transaction fees assessed by away markets, and determined to amend the grouping of exchanges that assess transaction fees for routed orders within a similar range. This same logic and structure applies to all of the groupings in the routing fee table. By utilizing the same structure that is utilized by the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX Options and MIAX Emerald, the Exchange's Members will be assessed routing fees in a similar manner. The Exchange notes that its affiliates, MIAX Options and MIAX Emerald, will file to [[Page 66465]] make the same proposed routing fee changes contained herein. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \10\ in particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \11\ in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers and dealers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Exchange believes the proposed change to add MIAX Sapphire to the exchange groupings of options exchanges within the routing fee table furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act and is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed change will continue to apply in the same manner to all Members that are subject to routing fees. The Exchange believes the proposed change to add MIAX Sapphire to the routing fee table of exchange groupings furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act and is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and is not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed change seeks to recoup costs that will be incurred by the Exchange when routing customer orders to MIAX Sapphire on behalf of Members and does so in the same manner to all Members that are subject to routing fees. The costs to the Exchange to route orders to away markets for execution primarily includes transaction fees and rebates assessed by the away markets to which the Exchange routes orders, in addition to the Exchange's clearing costs, administrative, regulatory and technical costs. The Exchange believes that the proposed addition of MIAX Sapphire to the exchange groupings would increase the routing options available to Members. The per-contract transaction fee amount associated with each grouping approximates the Exchange's all-in cost (plus an additional, non-material amount) to execute the corresponding contract at the corresponding exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all Members' orders in Penny classes and Non-Penny classes routed to MIAX Sapphire will be uniformly assessed the corresponding fee. B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition 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 Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change to add MIAX Sapphire to the routing fee table will impose any burden on intramarket competition. Rather, the Exchange believes that the proposal will promote competition by increasing the available away markets to which Members can route orders to. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \13\ thereunder. 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IV. Solicitation of Comments 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: Electronic Comments Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or Send an email to [email protected]. Please include file number SR-PEARL-2024-31 on the subject line. Paper Comments 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-PEARL-2024-31. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-PEARL-2024-31 and should be submitted on or before September 5, 2024. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.\14\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-18195 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:27.379540

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18198

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66466] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18198] [[Page 66466]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [SEC File No. 270-126, OMB Control No. 3235-0287] Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Form 4-- Statement of Changes in Beneficial Ownership of Securities Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-2736 Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval. Under Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) every person who is directly or indirectly the beneficial owner of more than 10 percent of any class of any equity security (other than an exempted security) which registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78l), or who is a director or an officer of the issuer of such security (collectively ``insiders''), must file a statement with the Commission reporting their ownership. Form 4 is a statement to disclose changes in an insider's ownership of securities. The information is used for the purpose of disclosing the equity holdings of insiders of reporting companies. Approximately 186,052 insiders file Form 4 annually and it takes approximately 0.5 hours to prepare for a total of 93,026 annual burden hours (0.5 hours per response x 186,052 responses). Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication by October 15, 2024. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Please direct your written comment to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Oluwaseun Ajayi, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to: [email protected]. Dated: August 9, 2024. Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-18198 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:27.452000

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18167

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66466] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18167] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [SEC File No. 270-659, OMB Control No. 3235-0723] Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Form 1-Z Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-2736 Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval. Form 1-Z (17 CFR 239.94) is used to report terminated or completed offerings or to suspend the duty to file ongoing reports under Regulation A, an exemption from registration under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C 77a et seq.). The purpose of the Form 1-Z is to collect empirical data for the Commission on offerings conducted under Regulation A that have terminated or completed, to indicate to the Commission that issuers that have conducted Tier 2 offering are suspending their duty to file reports under Regulation A and to provide such information to the investing public. We estimate that approximately 51 issuers file Form 1-Z annually. We estimate that Form 1-Z takes approximately 1.5 hours to prepare. We estimate that 100% of the 1.5 hours per response is prepared by the company for a total annual burden of 77 hours (1.5 hours per response x 51 responses). Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication by October 15, 2024. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Please direct your written comment to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Oluwaseun Ajayi, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to: [email protected]. Dated: August 9, 2024. Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-18167 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:27.574782

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18170

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66466-66467] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18170] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [SEC File No. 270-563, OMB Control No. 3235-0693] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension: Rules 17g- 8 and 17g-9 Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-2736 Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit an extension for this current collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for approval. Rules 17g-8 and 17g-9 (17 CFR 240.17g-8 and 17 CFR 240.17g-9) set forth collection of information requirements. Rule 17g-8 requires nationally recognized statistical rating [[Page 66467]] organizations (``NRSROs'') to establish, maintain, enforce, and document policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to achieve the objectives articulated in the rule. Generally, these policies and procedures pertain to (i) the procedures and methodologies NRSROs use to determine credit ratings, and (ii) the symbols, numbers, or scores NRSROs use to denote credit ratings.\1\ Rule 17g-8 also requires that the policies and procedures an NRSRO is required to establish, maintain, and enforce pursuant to Section 15E(h)(4)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 must, at a minimum, include policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve the objectives articulated in the rule.\2\ Rule 17g-9 requires each NRSRO to establish, maintain, enforce, and document standards of training, experience, and competence for the individuals it employs to participate in the determination of credit ratings that are reasonably designed to achieve the objective that the NRSRO produces accurate credit ratings.\3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See 240.17g-8(a) and (b). \2\ See 240.17g-8(c). \3\ See 240.17g-9. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on Commission staff's experience, it is estimated that the total annual burden for NRSROs to comply with Rule 17g-8 and Rule 17g-9 is 1,450 hours and 34,658 hours, respectively. The Commission further estimates that these annual hour burdens will result in a total annual cost with respect to Rule 17g-8 of $539,400 and with respect to Rule 17g-9 of $12,951,746. These costs are attributable to costs NRSROs may incur in completing updates and other activities relating to the policies and procedures adopted pursuant to Rule 17g-8 and the standards adopted pursuant to Rule 17g-9, and in conducting the periodic testing of credit analysts pursuant to standards adopted under Rule 17g-9. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice by September 16, 2024 to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii) Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Oluwaseun Ajayi, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an email to: [email protected]. Dated: August 9, 2024. Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-18170 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:27.694319

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18201

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66467-66470] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18201] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-100683; File No. SR-SAPPHIRE-2024-13] Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX Sapphire LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Establish a Fee Schedule August 9, 2024. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that on August 6, 2024, MIAX Sapphire, LLC (``MIAX Sapphire'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange is filing a proposal to establish a Fee Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') for fees and rebates applicable to participants trading options on and/or using services provided by MIAX Sapphire. MIAX Sapphire will commence operations as a national securities exchange registered under Section 6 of the Act \3\ on August 12, 2024.\4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f. \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 100539 (July 15, 2024), 89 FR 58848 (July 19, 2024) (File No. 10-240) (order approving application of MIAX Sapphire, LLC for registration as a national securities exchange). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be operative on August 12, 2024. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at https://www.miaxglobal.com/markets/us-options/miax-sapphire/rule-filings, at the Exchange's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 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. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Definitions The Exchange has included a Definitions section at the beginning of its Fee Schedule. The purpose of the Definitions section is to streamline the Fee Schedule by placing many of the defined terms used in the Fee Schedule in one location at the beginning of the Fee Schedule. Many of the defined terms are also defined in the Exchange Rules, particularly in Exchange Rule 100. Any defined terms that are also defined or otherwise explained in the Exchange Rules contain a cross reference to the relevant Exchange Rule. The Exchange notes that other exchanges have Definitions sections in their respective fee schedules,\5\ and the Exchange believes that including a Definitions section in the front of the Exchange's Fee Schedule makes the Fee Schedule more user-friendly. The Exchange notes that the proposed definitions to be included in the Definitions section of the Exchange's Fee Schedule are substantially similar to those definitions found in the Fee Schedule of the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX Pearl''), with the following few exceptions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 70200 (August 14, 2013), 78 FR 51242 (August 20, 2013)(SR-Topaz-2013-10); 76453 (November 17, 2015), 80 FR 72999 (November 23, 2015)(SR-EDGX-2015- 56); 80061 (February 17, 2017), 82 FR 11676 (February 24, 2017)(SR- PEARL-2017-10); and 85393 (March 21, 2019), 84 FR 11599 (March 27, 2019)(SR-EMERALD-2019-15). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The MIAX Sapphire term ``Full Service MEO Port'' is defined in the [[Page 66468]] same fashion as the term ``Full Service MEO Port--Bulk'' is defined in the Definitions section of the MIAX Pearl Options Fee Schedule. The MIAX Sapphire term `` `Dedicated' cross-connect'' is integrated into the definition of ``cross connect'' in the Definitions section of the MIAX Sapphire Fee Schedule and is identical to the definition of ```Dedicated' cross-connect'' used in the Definitions section of the Fee Schedule of the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX Emerald''). The MIAX Sapphire term ``MENI'' described in the Definitions section of the MIAX Sapphire Fee Schedule provides a more fulsome description of the MIAX Express Network Interconnect than the definition provided in the MIAX Pearl Options Fee Schedule. The MIAX Sapphire term ``Purge Ports'' is defined in the same fashion as the term ``MEO Purge Ports'' is defined in the Definitions section of the MIAX Pearl Options Fee Schedule. These minor deviations from the established definitions of like terms in the MIAX Pearl Options Fee Schedule are de minimis in nature and not reflective of new functionality being introduced on the MIAX Sapphire Exchange. Routing Fees MIAX Sapphire proposes to assess Routing Fees in order to recoup costs incurred by MIAX Sapphire when routing orders to various away markets. The Exchange notes that the proposed fees are substantially similar to those of the Exchange's affiliates, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX''), MIAX Pearl, and MIAX Emerald.\6\ The amount of the applicable fee is based upon (i) the Origin type of the order, (ii) whether it is an order for an option in a Penny or Non- Penny class (or other explicitly identified classes) and (iii) to which away market it is being routed, according to the following table: \7\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ See MIAX Fee Schedule, Section (1) (c), Fees for Customer Orders Routed to Another Options Exchange, MIAX Pearl Options Fee Schedule, Section (1) (b), Fees for Customer Orders Routed to Another Options Exchange, and MIAX Emerald Options Fee Schedule, Section (1) (b), Fees for Customer Orders Routed to Another Options Exchange. \7\ This is similar to the methodologies utilized by the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX, MIAX Pearl, and MIAX Emerald in assessing Routing Fees. See id. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Description Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Routed, Priority Customer, Penny Program, to: NYSE $0.15 American, Cboe, Cboe EDGX Options, MIAX, Nasdaq PHLX (except SPY), Nasdaq MRX............................... Routed, Priority Customer, Penny Program, to: BOX....... 0.30 Routed, Priority Customer, Penny Program, to: NYSE Arca 0.65 Options, Cboe BZX Options, Cboe C2, Nasdaq GEMX, Nasdaq ISE, NOM, Nasdaq PHLX (SPY only), MIAX Pearl, MIAX Emerald, Nasdaq BX Options, MEMX....................... Routed, Priority Customer, Non-Penny Program, to: NYSE 0.15 American, BOX, Cboe, Cboe EDGX Options, MIAX, Nasdaq PHLX, Nasdaq MRX....................................... Routed, Priority Customer, Non-Penny Program, to: NYSE 1.00 Arca Options, Cboe BZX Options, Cboe C2, Nasdaq GEMX, NOM, MIAX Pearl, MIAX Emerald, Nasdaq BX Options, Nasdaq ISE, MEMX....................................... Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, 0.65 Penny Program, to: NYSE American, NYSE Arca Options, Cboe BZX Options, BOX, Cboe, Cboe C2, Cboe EDGX Options, Nasdaq GEMX, Nasdaq ISE, Nasdaq MRX, MIAX, MIAX Pearl, MIAX Emerald, NOM, Nasdaq PHLX, Nasdaq BX Options, MEMX.......................................... Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, 1.00 Non-Penny Program, to: NYSE American, MIAX, Cboe, Nasdaq PHLX, Cboe EDGX Options, NOM.................... Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, 1.15 Non-Penny Program, to: Cboe C2, BOX.................... Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, 1.25 Non-Penny Program, to: NYSE Arca Options, Nasdaq GEMX, Nasdaq MRX, MIAX Pearl, MIAX Emerald, MEMX............. Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, 1.40 Non-Penny Program, to: Cboe BZX Options, Nasdaq ISE, Nasdaq BX Options...................................... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In determining its proposed Routing Fees, the Exchange took into account transaction fees and rebates assessed by the away markets to which the Exchange routes orders, as well as the Exchange's clearing, administrative, regulatory, and technical costs associated with routing orders to an away market. The Exchange uses unaffiliated routing brokers to route orders to the away markets; the costs associated with the use of these services are included in the Routing Fees specified in the Fee Schedule. These fees are substantially similar to the Exchange's affiliates.\8\ Additionally, this Routing Fees structure is substantially similar to the Exchange's affiliates as well,\9\ and is also comparable to the fee structure in place on at least one other options exchange, Cboe BZX Options.\10\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ See supra note 6. \9\ See supra note 7. \10\ See Cboe U.S. Options Fee Schedules, BZX Options, Fee Codes and Associated Fees, available at https://www.cboe.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/. The Cboe BZX fee schedule has exchange groupings, whereby several exchanges are grouped into the same category, dependent on the order's Origin type and whether it is a Penny or Non-Penny Pilot class. For example, Cboe BZX fee code RQ covers routed customer orders in Penny classes to NYSE Arca Options, Cboe C2, Nasdaq ISE, Nasdaq GEMX, MIAX Emerald, MIAX Pearl, NOM or MEMX, with a single fee of $0.85 per contract. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Exchange is proposing to have ten different exchange groupings, based on the exchange, order type, and option class. The Exchange believes that having these groupings will allow the Exchange to approximate its costs associated with routing orders to away markets. The per-contract transaction fee amount associated with each grouping closely approximates the Exchange's all-in cost (plus an additional, non-material amount) to execute that corresponding contract at that corresponding exchange. For example, to execute a Priority Customer order in a Penny Pilot symbol at NYSE American costs the Exchange approximately $0.15 a contract. Since this is also the approximate cost to execute that same order at Cboe, the Exchange is able to group NYSE American and Cboe together in the same grouping. The Exchange notes that in determining the appropriate groupings, the Exchange considered the transaction fees and rebates assessed by away markets, and grouped exchanges together that assess transaction fees for routed orders within a similar range. This same logic and structure applies to all of the groupings in the proposed Routing Fees table. By utilizing the same structure that is utilized by the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX, MIAX Pearl, and MIAX Emerald, those members which are also Members \11\ of the Exchange, will be assessed Routing Fees in the same amount and manner, which the Exchange believes will minimize any confusion as to the method of assessing Routing Fees between the four exchanges. The Exchange notes that this proposal is identical to the structure of the routing [[Page 66469]] fee table and the fees assessed by the Exchange's affiliates.\12\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization that is registered with the Exchange pursuant to Chapter II of MIAX Sapphire Rules for purposes of trading on the Exchange as an ``Electronic Exchange Member'' or ``Market Maker.'' Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See Exchange Rule 100. \12\ See supra note 7. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal to establish its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \13\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \14\ in particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \15\ in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers and dealers. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) \16\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5) [sic]. \15\ 15 U.S.C 78f(b)(5). \16\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Definitions The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \17\ in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers and dealers. The Exchange believes providing a Definitions section in its Fee Schedule protects investors and the public interest by clarifying terms and locating them in a dedicated section of the Fee Schedule for ease of reference, thereby reducing the chance of confusion. Additionally, the Exchange notes that the proposed definitions are substantially similar to those of the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX Pearl Options, and are intended to ensure that the Fee Schedule is clear and unambiguous. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ 15 U.S.C 78f(b)(5). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Routing Fees The Exchange believes the proposal to establish routing fees and a routing fee structure of groupings of options exchanges within the routing fee table furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act and is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and not unfairly discriminatory because all Members that are subject to routing fees are treated in a uniform manner. The Exchange believes the proposed routing fee table exchange groupings furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act and is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and is not unfairly discriminatory as the proposal change seeks to recoup costs that are incurred by the Exchange when routing Priority and Public Customer Orders to away markets on behalf of Members and does so in the same manner for all Members that are subject to routing fees and therefore is not discriminatory and furthers just and equitable principles of trade. The costs to the Exchange to route orders to away markets for execution primarily includes transaction fees assessed by the away markets to which the Exchange routes orders, in addition to the Exchange's clearing, administrative, regulatory and technical costs. The Exchange believes that the proposed Routing Fees are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they seek to recoup costs incurred by MIAX Sapphire when routing orders to various away markets. In determining its proposed Routing Fees, the Exchange took into account transaction fees and rebates assessed by the away markets to which the Exchange routes orders, as well as the Exchange's clearing costs, administrative, regulatory, and technical costs associated with routing orders to an away market. The Exchange uses unaffiliated routing brokers to route orders to the away markets; the costs associated with the use of these services are included in the Routing Fees specified in the Fee Schedule. This Routing Fees structure is not only similar to the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX, MIAX Pearl, and MIAX Emerald,\18\ but is also comparable to the structure in place on at least one other options exchange, Cboe BZX Options.\19\ The Exchange believes that having ten groupings for its proposed routing fees is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will be able to better approximate its costs associated with routing orders to away markets. The per-contract transaction fee amount associated with each grouping closely approximates the Exchange's all- in cost (plus an additional, non-material amount) to execute that corresponding contract at that corresponding exchange. The Exchange notes that in determining the appropriate groupings, the Exchange considered the transaction fees and rebates assessed by away markets, and grouped exchanges together that assess transaction fees for routed orders within a similar range. This same logic and structure applies to all of the groupings in the proposed Routing Fees table. By utilizing the same structure that is utilized by the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX, MIAX Pearl, and MIAX Emerald, those members which are also Members of the Exchange will be assessed Routing Fees in the same manner, which the Exchange believes will minimize any confusion as to the method of assessing Routing Fees between the four exchanges. This proposal is identical to the routing fee tables of the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX, MIAX Pearl, and MIAX Emerald.\20\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ See supra note 7. \19\ See supra note 10. \20\ See supra note 7. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition 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. MIAX Sapphire's proposed fees, as described herein, are comparable to fees charged by its affiliates, MIAX, MIAX Pearl, and MIAX Emerald,\21\ for the same service. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \21\ See supra note 6. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Definitions The Exchange does not believe that its proposal to adopt a Definitions section to its Fee Schedule imposes any unnecessary burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed definitions are designed to improve the clarity and precision of the Exchange's Fee Schedule and are not competitive in nature. Routing Fees The Exchange does not believe that its proposal to adopt a Routing Fees imposes any unnecessary burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange's Routing Fees reflect the [[Page 66470]] costs and fees incurred by the Exchange when routing orders to away markets on behalf of Members and are applied in a uniform manner to all similarly situated Members. Additionally, the Exchange notes that at least one other options exchange employs a similar routing fee structure.\22\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ See supra note 10. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that at least one other options exchange approximates its routing costs in a manner similar to that of the Exchange.\23\ Additionally, 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 16 other options exchanges. Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has more than 16% of the market share.\24\ Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of option order flow. 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.\25\ The fact that this market is competitive has also long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. SEC, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchanges possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers' . . .'' \26\ Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that its proposal imposes any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \23\ See supra note 10. \24\ See ``Market Share/MTD AVERAGE'', available at https://www.miaxglobal.com/ (data as of 7/1/2024-7/12/2024). \25\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005). \26\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2006-21)). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\27\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \28\ thereunder. 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). \28\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IV. Solicitation of Comments 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: Electronic Comments Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or Send an email to [email protected]. Please include file number SR-SAPPHIRE-2024-13 on the subject line. Paper Comments 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-SAPPHIRE-2024-13. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-SAPPHIRE-2024-13 and should be submitted on or before September 5, 2024. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.\29\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-18201 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:27.715267

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18199

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66470-66471] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18199] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-100681; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2024-028] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the Hashdex Nasdaq Crypto Index US ETF Under Nasdaq Rule 5711(d) August 9, 2024. On June 17, 2024, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities [[Page 66471]] Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade shares of the Hashdex Nasdaq Crypto Index US ETF under Nasdaq Rule 5711(d), Commodity-Based Trust Shares. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on July 2, 2024.\3\ The Commission has received no comments on the proposal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4. \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 100434 (June 26, 2024), 89 FR 54868. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The 45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change is August 16, 2024. The Commission is extending this 45-day time period. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the issues raised therein. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ designates September 30, 2024, as the date by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NASDAQ-2024-028). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.\6\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-18199 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:27.754331

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18202

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66471-66473] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18202] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-100685; File No. SR-MIAX-2024-31] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule August 9, 2024. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that on July 31, 2024, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Fee Schedule (``Fee Schedule''). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at https://www.miaxglobal.com/markets/us-options/all-options-exchanges/rule-filings, at MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 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. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to amend the exchange grouping of options exchanges within the routing fee table in Section (1)(c) of the Fee Schedule, Fees for Customer Orders Routed to Another Options Exchange, to reflect the recent addition of a new national securities exchange, MIAX Sapphire, LLC (``MIAX Sapphire''),\3\ to be listed in the routing fee table. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective August 1, 2024. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 100539 (July 15, 2024), 89 FR 58848 (July 19, 2024) (File No. 10-240) (order approving application of MIAX Sapphire, LLC for registration as a national securities exchange). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Background Currently, the Exchange assesses routing fees based upon (i) the origin type of the order; (ii) whether or not it is an order for standard option classes in the Penny Interval Program \4\ (``Penny classes'') or an order for standard option classes which are not in the Penny Interval Program (``Non-Penny classes'') (or other explicitly identified classes); and (iii) to which away market it is being routed. This assessment practice is identical to the routing fees assessment practice currently utilized by the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX Pearl'') and MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX Emerald''). This is also similar to the methodology utilized by the Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe BZX Options''), a competing options exchange, in assessing routing fees. Cboe BZX Options has exchange groupings in its fee schedule, similar to those of the Exchange, whereby several exchanges are grouped into the same category dependent upon the order's origin type and whether it is a Penny or Non-Penny class.\5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ See Exchange Rule 510(c). \5\ See Cboe U.S. Options Fee Schedules, BZX Options, effective July 15, 2024, ``Fee Codes and Associated Fees,'' at https://www.cboe.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As a result of the anticipated launch of MIAX Sapphire in the third quarter of 2024, the Exchange has determined to amend the exchange groupings of options exchanges within the routing fee table to include MIAX Sapphire and the anticipated associated costs of routing customer orders to MIAX Sapphire for execution. The impact of this proposed change will be increased routing options for Members.\6\ The Exchange notes that routing through the Exchange is optional and that Members will continue to be able to choose where to route applicable Member orders. Under [[Page 66472]] this proposed change, the Exchange will not amend the fees associated with the exchange groupings. This proposal merely seeks to add MIAX Sapphire to the exchange groupings as described in the routing fee table below. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See Exchange Rule 100. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- According, with the proposed change, the routing fee table will be as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Description Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Routed, Priority Customer, Penny Program, to: NYSE American, $0.15 Cboe, Cboe EDGX Options, Nasdaq PHLX (except SPY), Nasdaq MRX, MIAX Sapphire................................................. Routed, Priority Customer, Penny Program, to: BOX.............. 0.30 Routed, Priority Customer, Penny Program, to: NYSE Arca 0.65 Options, Cboe BZX Options, Cboe C2, Nasdaq GEMX, Nasdaq ISE, NOM, Nasdaq PHLX (SPY only), MIAX Emerald, MIAX Pearl, Nasdaq BX Options, MEMX.............................................. Routed, Priority Customer, Non-Penny Program, to: NYSE 0.15 American, BOX, Cboe, Cboe EDGX Options, Nasdaq PHLX, Nasdaq MRX, MIAX Sapphire............................................ Routed, Priority Customer, Non-Penny Program, to: NYSE Arca 1.00 Options, Cboe BZX Options, Cboe C2, MIAX Pearl, MIAX Emerald, Nasdaq GEMX, NOM, Nasdaq BX Options, Nasdaq ISE, MEMX......... Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, Penny 0.65 Program, to: NYSE American, NYSE Arca Options, Cboe BZX Options, BOX, Cboe, Cboe C2, Cboe EDGX Options, Nasdaq GEMX, Nasdaq ISE, Nasdaq MRX, MIAX Pearl, MIAX Emerald, NOM, Nasdaq PHLX, Nasdaq BX Options, MEMX, MIAX Sapphire.................. Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, Non- 1.00 Penny Program, to: NYSE American, Cboe, Nasdaq PHLX, Cboe EDGX Options, NOM.................................................. Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, Non- 1.15 Penny Program, to: Cboe C2, BOX, MIAX Sapphire................ Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, Non- 1.25 Penny Program, to: NYSE Arca Options, Nasdaq GEMX, Nasdaq MRX, MIAX Pearl, MIAX Emerald, MEMX................................ Routed, Public Customer that is not a Priority Customer, Non- 1.40 Penny Program, to: Cboe BZX Options, Nasdaq ISE, Nasdaq BX Options....................................................... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In determining to amend its routing fee table to determine which category MIAX Sapphire belongs to the Exchange took into account anticipated transaction fees and rebates assessed by the away markets to which the Exchange routes orders, as well as the Exchange's clearing costs, administrative, regulatory, and technical costs associated with routing orders to an away market. The Exchange uses unaffiliated routing brokers to route orders to the away markets; the costs associated with the use of these services are included in the routing fees specified in the Fee Schedule. This routing fees structure is not only similar to the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX Pearl and MIAX Emerald, but is also comparable to the structure in place at Cboe BZX Options,\7\ a competing options exchange. The Exchange's routing fee structure approximates the Exchange's costs associated with routing orders to away markets. The per-contract transaction fee amount associated with each grouping closely approximates the Exchange's all- in cost (plus an additional, non-material amount) \8\ to execute that corresponding contract(s) at that corresponding exchange. The Exchange notes that in determining whether to include certain exchanges in a certain groupings of options exchanges in the routing fee table, the Exchange considered the transaction fees and rebates assessed by away markets, and determined to amend the grouping of exchanges that assess transaction fees for routed orders within a similar range. This same logic and structure applies to all of the groupings in the routing fee table. By utilizing the same structure that is utilized by the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX Pearl and MIAX Emerald, the Exchange's Members will be assessed routing fees in a similar manner. The Exchange believes that this structure will minimize any confusion as to the method of assessing routing fees between the three exchanges. The Exchange notes that its affiliates, MIAX Pearl and MIAX Emerald, will file to make the same proposed routing fee changes contained herein. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ The Cboe BZX Options fee schedule is similar to the Exchange's Fee Schedule in that it has exchange groupings, whereby several exchanges are grouped into the same category. See supra note 5. \8\ This amount is to cover de minimis differences/changes to away market fees (i.e., minor increases or decreases) that would not necessitate a fee filing by the Exchange to re-categorize the away exchange into a different grouping. Routing fees are not intended to be a profit center for the Exchange and the Exchange's target regarding routing fees and expenses is to be as close as possible to net neutral. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \10\ in particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \11\ in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers and dealers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Exchange believes the proposed change to add MIAX Sapphire to the exchange groupings of options exchanges within the routing fee table furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act and is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed change will continue to apply in the same manner to all Members that are subject to routing fees. The Exchange believes the proposed change to add MIAX Sapphire to the routing fee table of exchange groupings furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act and is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and is not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed change seeks to recoup costs that will be incurred by the Exchange when routing customer orders to MIAX Sapphire on behalf of Members and does so in the same manner to all Members that are subject to routing fees. The costs to the Exchange to route orders to away markets for execution primarily includes transaction fees and rebates assessed by the away markets to which the Exchange routes orders, in addition to the Exchange's clearing costs, administrative, regulatory and technical costs. The Exchange believes that the proposed addition of MIAX Sapphire to the exchange groupings would increase the routing options available to Members. The per-contract transaction fee amount associated with each grouping approximates the Exchange's all-in cost (plus an [[Page 66473]] additional, non-material amount) to execute the corresponding contract at the corresponding exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all Members' orders in Penny classes and Non-Penny classes routed to MIAX Sapphire will be uniformly assessed the corresponding fee. B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition 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 Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change to add MIAX Sapphire to the routing fee table will impose any burden on intramarket competition. Rather, the Exchange believes that the proposal will promote competition by increasing the available away markets to which Members can route orders to. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \13\ thereunder. 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IV. Solicitation of Comments 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: Electronic Comments Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or Send an email to [email protected]. Please include file number SR-MIAX-2024-31 on the subject line. Paper Comments 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-MIAX-2024-31. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-MIAX-2024-31 and should be submitted on or before September 5, 2024. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.\14\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-18202 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:27.866107

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18200

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66473-66477] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18200] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-100682; File No. SR-CboeEDGA-2024-031] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule Related to the Standard Rebate and Volume Tiers August 9, 2024. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that on August 1, 2024, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change 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 (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/edga/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 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. [[Page 66474]] A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule applicable to its equities trading platform (``EDGA Equities'') by: (1) modifying the standard rebate for orders that remove liquidity in securities priced at or above $1.00; (2) modifying certain Add/Remove Volume Tiers; and (3) discontinuing certain Add/Remove Volume Tiers. The Exchange proposes to implement these changes effective August 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,\3\ no single registered equities exchange has more than 16% of the market share. Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly competitive market, no single equities exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order flow. The Exchange in particular operates a ``Taker-Maker'' model whereby it pays credits to members that remove liquidity and assesses fees to those that add liquidity. The Exchange's Fee Schedule sets forth the standard rebates and rates applied per share for orders that remove and provide liquidity, respectively. Currently, for orders in securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange provides a standard rebate of $0.0014 per share for orders that remove liquidity and assesses a fee of $0.0030 per share for orders that add liquidity.\4\ For orders in securities priced below $1.00, the Exchange does not assess any fees or provide any rebates for orders that add or remove liquidity.\5\ Additionally, in response to the competitive environment, the Exchange also offers tiered pricing which provides Members opportunities to qualify for higher rebates or reduced fees where certain volume criteria and thresholds are met. Tiered pricing provides an incremental incentive for Members to strive for higher tier levels, which provides increasingly higher benefits or discounts for satisfying increasingly more stringent criteria. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary, Month-to-Date (July 29, 2024), available at https://www.cboe.com/us/equities/market_statistics/. \4\ See EDGA Equities Fee Schedule, Standard Rates. \5\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Standard Rates Currently, the Exchange offers standard rebates to remove liquidity for orders appended with fee codes 6,\6\ BB,\7\ N,\8\ and W.\9\ The Exchange now proposes to revise the standard rebate associated with securities priced at or above $1.00 from $0.00140 per share to $0.00160 per share for orders appended with fee codes 6, BB, N, or W. There is no proposed change in the rebate amount provided for securities priced below $1.00. The purpose of increasing the standard rebate associated with fee codes 6, BB, N, and W in securities priced at or above $1.00 is for business and competitive reasons, as the Exchange believes that increasing such rebate as proposed has the potential to make the Exchange more competitive in attracting orders designed to remove volume. The Exchange notes that the standard rebate remains competitive and continues to be more favorable for Members than the standard rebate provided by competing exchanges.\10\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ Fee code 6 is appended to orders that remove liquidity from EDGA during the pre and post market in securities listed on all tapes. \7\ Fee code BB is appended to orders that remove liquidity from EDGA in Tape B securities. \8\ Fee code N is appended to orders that remove liquidity from EDGA in Tape C securities. \9\ Fee code W is appended to orders that remove liquidity from EDGA in Tape A securities. \10\ See e.g., BYX Equity Fee Schedule, Standard Rates (the standard rebate provided to orders that remove liquidity is $0.00020); Nasdaq BX Fee Schedule (orders that remove liquidity are assessed a fee of $0.0007 unless certain volume thresholds are met). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Add/Remove Volume Tiers Under footnote 7 of the Fee Schedule, the Exchange currently offers various Add/Remove Volume Tiers. In particular, the Exchange offers four Add/Remove Volume Tiers that each provide a reduced fee for Members' qualifying orders yielding fee codes 3,\11\ 4,\12\ B,\13\ V,\14\ and Y \15\ where a Member reaches certain add or remove volume- based criteria.\16\ The Exchange now proposes to modify the criteria associated with Add Volume Tier 2. The current criteria for Add Volume Tier 2 is as follows: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ Fee code 3 is appended to orders that add liquidity to EDGA in the pre and post market in Tape A or Tape C securities. \12\ Fee code 4 is appended to orders that add liquidity to EDGA in the pre and post market in Tape B securities. \13\ Fee code B is appended to orders that add liquidity to EDGA in Tape B securities. \14\ Fee code V is appended to orders that add liquidity to EDGA in Tape A securities. \15\ Fee code Y is appended to orders that add liquidity to EDGA in Tape C securities. \16\ For the sake of clarity with additional proposed changes discussed infra, the Exchange will refer to the Add/Remove Volume Tiers applicable to fee codes 3, 4, B, V, and Y as the ``Add Volume Tiers'' as Members who satisfy these tiers are assessed a fee to add liquidity to the Exchange. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Add Volume Tier 2 provides a reduced fee of $0.0016 per share for securities priced at or above $1.00 to qualifying orders (i.e., orders yielding fee codes 3, 4, B, V, or Y) where a Member adds or removes an ADV \17\ >=0.50% of the TCV \18\ or Members adds or removes an ADV >=52,000,000. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ ADV means average daily volume calculated as the number of shares added to, removed from, or routed by, the Exchange, or any combination or subset thereof, per day. ADV is calculated on a monthly basis. \18\ TCV means total consolidated volume calculated as the volume reported by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a consolidated transaction reporting plan for the month for which the fees apply. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The proposed criteria for Add Volume Tier 2 is as follows: Add Volume Tier 2 provides a reduced fee of $0.0016 per share for securities priced at or above $1.00 to qualifying orders (i.e., orders yielding fee codes 3, 4, B, V, or Y) where a Member adds or removes an ADV >=0.35% of the TCV or Member adds or removes an ADV >=35,000,000. Additionally, under footnote 7, the Exchange offers three Add/ Remove Volume Tiers that each provide an enhanced rebate for Members' qualifying orders yielding fee codes N, W, 6 and BB where a Member reaches certain add or remove volume-based criteria.\19\ The Exchange now proposes to modify the enhanced rebate associated with Remove Volume Tier 1. Currently, the Exchange provides an enhanced rebate of $0.0018 per share for securities priced at or above $1.00 to qualifying orders (i.e., orders yielding fee codes N, W, 6 and BB) that satisfy the criteria of Remove Volume Tier 1. The Exchange proposes to increase the enhanced rebate from $0.0018 to $0.0020 per share for securities priced at or above $1.00 to qualifying orders (i.e., orders yielding fee codes N, W, 6 and BB) that satisfy the criteria of Remove Volume Tier 1. This change is being made for business and competitive reasons, as the Exchange believes that [[Page 66475]] increasing the enhanced rebate as proposed could make the Exchange more competitive in attracting orders that remove volume in a manner consistent with the Exchange's overall pricing philosophy of encouraging added liquidity. The Exchange does not propose to modify the criteria associated with Remove Volume Tier 1. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to discontinue Remove Volume Tiers 2-3 as the Exchange no longer wishes to, nor is required to, maintain such tiers. More specifically, the proposed change removes these tiers as the Exchange would rather redirect future resources and funding into other programs and tiers intended to incentivize increased order flow. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ For the sake of clarity with the proposed changes to the Add Volume Tiers discussed supra, the Exchange will refer to the Add/Remove Volume Tiers applicable to fee codes N, W, 6, and BB as the ``Remove Volume Tiers'' as Members who satisfy these tiers receive an enhanced rebate for adding liquidity to the Exchange. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Exchange believes that the proposed modification to Add Volume Tier 2 and the proposed increase to the enhanced rebate associated with Remove Volume Tier 1 will incentivize Members to add volume to and remove volume from the Exchange, thereby contributing to a deeper and more liquid market, which benefits all market participants and provides greater execution opportunities on the Exchange. While the proposed criteria of Add Volume Tier 2 is slightly easier to achieve than the current criteria, the Exchange believes that the criteria continues to be commensurate with the reduced fees offered by the Exchange, is a reflection of current market trends, and will continue to encourage Members to submit order flow to the Exchange. Similarly, the Exchange believes that the proposed increased enhanced rebate remains commensurate with the existing criteria for Remove Volume Tier 1 and will encourage Members to submit liquidity-removing orders to the Exchange. 2. Statutory Basis 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.\20\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \21\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \22\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers as well as Section 6(b)(4) \23\ as it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its facilities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). \22\ Id. \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As described above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The Exchange believes that its proposal to: (1) modify the standard rebate for orders that remove liquidity in securities priced at or above $1.00 and (2) modify certain Add/Remove Volume tiers reflects a competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would enhance market quality to the benefit of all Members. Specifically, the Exchange's proposal to modify Add Volume Tier 2 is not a significant departure from existing criteria, is reasonably correlated to the reduced fees offered by the Exchange and other competing exchanges,\24\ and will continue to incentivize Members to submit order flow to the Exchange. The criteria proposed by the Exchange is intended to reflect current market trends while continuing to encourage Members to submit order flow to the Exchange. Further, the Exchange's proposal to modify the enhanced rebate associated with Remove Volume Tier 1 is not a significant departure from existing enhanced rebates, is reasonably correlated to the enhanced rebates offered by the Exchange and other competing exchanges,\25\ and will continue to incentivize Members to submit order flow to the Exchange. Additionally, the Exchange notes that relative volume-based incentives and discounts have been widely adopted by exchanges,\26\ including the Exchange,\27\ and are reasonable, equitable and non-discriminatory because they are open to all Members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to (i) the value to an exchange's market quality and (ii) associated higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns. Competing equity exchanges offer similar tiered pricing structures, including schedules of rebates and fees that apply based upon members achieving certain volume and/or growth thresholds, as well as assess similar fees or rebates for similar types of orders, to that of the Exchange. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \24\ See NYSE National, Inc., Schedule of Fees and Rebates, Rates for Adding Liquidity (Per Share), available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/regulation/nyse/NYSE_National_Schedule_of_Fees.pdf. \25\ See Nasdaq BX Fee Schedule, Rebate to Remove Liquidity. \26\ See e.g., BYX Equities Fee Schedule, Footnote 1, Add/Remove Volume Tiers. \27\ See e.g., EDGA Equities Fee Schedule, Footnote 7, Add/ Remove Volume Tiers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In particular, the Exchange believes its proposal to modify Add Volume Tier 2 and Remove Volume Tier 1 is reasonable because the tiers will be available to all Members and provide all Members with an opportunity to receive a reduced fee or increased enhanced rebate. The Exchange further believes that modified Add Volume Tier 2 and Remove Volume Tier 1 will provide a reasonable means to encourage adding liquidity to and removing liquidity from the Exchange and to incentivize Members to continue to provide volume to the Exchange by offering them an additional opportunity to receive a reduced fee or increased enhanced rebate on qualifying orders. An overall increase in activity would deepen the Exchange's liquidity pool, offers additional cost savings, support the quality of price discovery, promote market transparency and improve market quality, for all investors. Further, the Exchange believes that its proposal to modify the standard rebate associated with securities priced at or above $1.00 is reasonable, equitable, and consistent with the Act because such change is designed to make the Exchange more competitive in attracting orders that remove liquidity. The proposed increased standard rebate of $0.00160 per share is reasonable and appropriate because it remains competitive with the standard rebate offered by other exchanges.\28\ The Exchange further believes that the proposed increase to the standard rebate associated with securities priced at or above $1.00 is not unfairly discriminatory because it applies to all Members equally, in that all Members will receive the higher standard rebate [[Page 66476]] upon submitting orders appended with fee codes 6, BB, N, or W. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \28\ Supra note 10. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Exchange believes that its proposal to eliminate current Remove Volume Tiers 2-3 is reasonable because the Exchange is not required to maintain these tiers nor is it required to provide Members an opportunity to receive enhanced rebates. The Exchange believes its proposal to eliminate these tiers is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it applies to all Members (i.e., the tiers will not be available for any Member). The Exchange also notes that the proposed rule change to remove these tiers merely results in Members not receiving an enhanced rebate, which, as noted above, the Exchange is not required to offer or maintain. Furthermore, the proposed rule change to eliminate current Remove Volume Tiers 2-3 enables the Exchange to redirect resources and funding into other programs and tiers intended to incentivize increased order flow. The Exchange believes the proposed modified Add Volume Tier 2 is reasonable as it does not represent a significant departure from the criteria currently offered in the fee schedule. The Exchange also believes that the proposal represents an equitable allocation of fees and rebates and is not unfairly discriminatory because all Members will be eligible for the revised tier and have the opportunity to meet the tier's criteria and receive the corresponding reduced fee if such criteria are met. Without having a view of activity on other markets and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether these proposed rule changes would definitely result in any Members qualifying for the new proposed tiers. While the Exchange has no way of predicting with certainty how the proposed changes will impact Member activity, based on the prior month's volume, the Exchange does not anticipate that at any Member will be able to satisfy proposed Add Volume Tier 2. The Exchange also notes that the proposed changes will not adversely impact any Member's ability to qualify for reduced fees or enhanced rebates offered under other tiers. Should a Member not meet the proposed new criteria, the Member will merely not receive that corresponding reduced fee. B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes would encourage the submission of additional order flow to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, execution incentives and enhanced execution opportunities, as well as price discovery and transparency for all Members. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes further the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition among orders, which promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.'' The Exchange believes the proposed rule changes do not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the proposed change to Add Volume Tier 2 and proposed increase to the enhanced rebate of Remove Volume Tier 1 will apply to all Members equally in that all Members are eligible for the tiers, have a reasonable opportunity to meet the tiers' criteria and will receive the reduced fee or increased enhanced rebate on their qualifying orders if such criteria are met. The Exchange does not believe the proposed change burdens competition, but rather, enhances competition as it is intended to increase the competitiveness of EDGA by amending existing pricing incentives in order to attract order flow and incentivize participants to increase their participation on the Exchange, providing for additional execution opportunities for market participants and improved price transparency. Greater overall order flow, trading opportunities, and pricing transparency benefits all market participants on the Exchange by enhancing market quality and continuing to encourage Members to send orders, thereby contributing towards a robust and well- balanced market ecosystem. The Exchange believes the proposed elimination of Remove Volume Tiers 2-3 do not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the proposed change to eliminate the Remove Volume Tiers 2-3 will not impose any burden on intramarket competition because the changes apply to all Members uniformly, as the tiers will no longer be available to any Member. Further, the Exchange believes the proposed increased standard rebate associated with orders that remove liquidity in securities priced at or above $1.00 does not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rebate associated with orders that remove liquidity in securities priced at or above $1.00 would apply to all Members equally in that all Members are eligible for the revised standard rebate and all Members would be subject to the same associated rebate for removing liquidity from the Exchange in securities priced at or above $1.00. As a result, any Member can decide to remove liquidity (or not remove liquidity) based on the associated rebate that the Exchange proposes to amend. Additionally, the increased rebate is designed to make the Exchange more competitive by offering an increased rebate to orders that remove liquidity from the Exchange. 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 17% of the market share.\29\ Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order flow. Indeed, 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. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \30\ The fact that this market is competitive has also long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers [[Page 66477]] and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers' . . . .''.\31\ Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its proposed fee change imposes any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \29\ Supra note 3. \30\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005). \31\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006- 21)). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \32\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \33\ thereunder. 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 will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). \33\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IV. Solicitation of Comments 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: Electronic Comments Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or Send an email to [email protected]. Please include file number SR-CboeEDGA-2024-031 on the subject line. Paper Comments 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-CboeEDGA-2024-031. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-CboeEDGA-2024-031 and should be submitted on or before September 5, 2024. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.\34\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-18200 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:28.035651

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18197

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Pages 66477-66478] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18197] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-100690; File No. SR-CboeBYX-2024-004] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Definition of Retail Order, and Codify Interpretations and Policies Regarding Permissible Uses of Algorithms by RMOs August 9, 2024. On January 25, 2024, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend the definition of Retail Order,\3\ and codify interpretations and policies regarding permissible uses of algorithms by Retail Member Organizations.\4\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on February 13, 2024.\5\ On March 21, 2024, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\6\ the Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.\7\ On May 13, 2024, the Commission instituted proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \8\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\9\ On July 10, 2024, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, which replaced and superseded the proposed rule change as originally filed. On July 17, 2024, the Exchange withdrew Amendment No. 1. On August 7, 2024, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change (SR-CboeBYX-2024-004). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4. \3\ The term ``Retail Order'' is defined in Exchange Rule 11.24(a)(2). \4\ The term ``Retail Member Organization'' (or ``RMO'') is defined in Exchange Rule 11.24(a)(1) to mean a member of the Exchange (or a division thereof) that has been approved by the Exchange under Exchange Rule 11.24 to submit Retail Orders. \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 99489 (February 7, 2024), 89 FR 10138 (``Notice''). The Commission has not received any comments on the proposed rule change. \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 99819, 89 FR 21294 (March 27, 2024). \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 100113 (May 13, 2024), 89 FR 43488 (May 17, 2024). [[Page 66478]] --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.\10\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-18197 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:28.113095

FR

FR-2024-08-15/2024-18196

Federal Register Volume 89 Issue 158 (August 15, 2024)

United States National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2024)] [Notices] [Page 66478] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 2024-18196] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-100689; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2024-007] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Definition of Retail Order, and Codify Interpretations and Policies Regarding Permissible Uses of Algorithms by RMOs August 9, 2024. On January 25, 2024, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend the definition of Retail Order,\3\ and codify interpretations and policies regarding permissible uses of algorithms by Retail Member Organizations.\4\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on February 13, 2024.\5\ On March 21, 2024, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\6\ the Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.\7\ On May 13, 2024, the Commission instituted proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \8\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\9\ On July 10, 2024, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, which replaced and superseded the proposed rule change as originally filed. On July 17, 2024, the Exchange withdrew Amendment No. 1. On August 7, 2024, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change (SR-CboeBZX-2024-007). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4. \3\ The term ``Retail Order'' is defined in Exchange Rule 11.25(a)(2). \4\ The term ``Retail Member Organization'' (or ``RMO'') is defined in Exchange Rule 11.25(a)(1) to mean a member of the Exchange (or a division thereof) that has been approved by the Exchange under Exchange Rule 11.25 to submit Retail Orders. \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 99488 (February 7, 2024), 89 FR 10121 (``Notice''). The Commission has not received any comments on the proposed rule change. \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 99815, 89 FR 21290 (March 27, 2024). \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 100115 (May 13, 2024), 89 FR 43491 (May 17, 2024). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.\10\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2024-18196 Filed 8-14-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

usgpo

2024-10-08T13:26:28.166559