On March 29, 2021, OPM published a notice at 86 FR 16401 in the Federal Register to revise the normal cost percentages under the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS) Act of 1986, Public Law 99-335, 100 Stat. 514, as amended, based on economic assumptions and demographic factors adopted by the Board of Actuaries of the Civil Service Retirement System. By statute under 5 U.S.C. 8461(i), the revisions to the actuarial assumptions require corresponding changes in factors used to produce actuarially equivalent benefits when required by the FERS Act.

Section 843.309 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, regulates the payment of the basic employee death benefit. Under 5 U.S.C. 8442(b), the basic employee death benefit may be paid to a surviving spouse as a lump sum or as an equivalent benefit in 36 installments. These rules amend 5 CFR 843.309(b)(2) to conform the factor used to convert the lump sum to 36-installment payments with the revised economic assumptions.

Section 843.311 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, regulates the benefits for the survivors of separated employees under 5 U.S.C. 8442(c). This section provides a choice of benefits for eligible current and former spouses. If the current or former spouse is the person entitled to the unexpended balance under the order of precedence under 5 U.S.C. 8424, he or she may elect to receive the unexpended balance instead of an annuity. If the separated employee died before having attained the minimum retirement age, the annuity commences on the day the deceased separated employee would have been eligible for an unreduced annuity as specified under this section. If the current or former spouse instead elects to receive an adjusted annuity beginning on the day after the death of the separated employee, the annuity is reduced using the factors in appendix A to subpart C of part 843 to make the annuity actuarially equivalent to the present value of the annuity that the spouse or former spouse otherwise would have received. These rules amend appendix A to subpart C of part 843 to conform the factors to the revised actuarial assumptions.

OPM has examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563, which directs 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). A regulatory impact analysis must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects of $100 million or more in any one year. This rule was not designated as a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866.

The Office of Personnel Management certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

We have examined this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that this rule will not have any negative impact on the rights, roles and responsibilities of State, local, or tribal governments.

This regulation meets the applicable standard set forth in Executive Order 12988.

This rule will not result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ) requires rules (as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804) to be submitted to Congress before taking effect. OPM will submit to Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States a report regarding the issuance of this action before its effective date, as required by 5 U.S.C. 801. OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this is not a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number.

This rule involves an OMB approved collection of information subject to the PRA Application for Death Benefits (FERS)/Documentation and Elections in Support of Application for Death Benefits when Deceased was an Employee at the Time of Death (FERS), 3206-0172. The public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 60 minutes per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The total burden hour estimate for this form is 16,751 hours. The systems of record notice for this collection is: OPM SORN CENTRAL-1-Civil Service Retirement and Insurance Records.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Office of Personnel Management proposes to amend 5 CFR part 843 as follows:

On June 4, 2021, DOE published an RFI seeking data and information that could enable the agency to determine whether DOE should propose a “no-new-standard” determination because a more stringent standard: Would not result in a significant savings of energy; is not technologically feasible; is not economically justified; or any combination of the foregoing. 86 FR 29964. On June 18, 2021, an interested party in the matter, AHAM, requested a 30-day extension of the public comment period for the RFI. 1 AHAM asked for this additional time given that comments on DOE's preliminary technical support document for clothes dryers are also due on July 6, 2021. In addition, AHAM commented that the industry is spending a considerable amount of time responding to proposals from Natural Resources Canada related to five categories of home appliances, as well as DOE's proposed test procedure for direct heating equipment. AHAM stated that it understands and appreciates that DOE is working to move quickly on a number of rulemakings to satisfy the President's climate objectives as well as advance rulemakings that have missed statutory deadlines. AHAM noted that the statutory deadline for dehumidifiers is a year away and, thus, asserted that a brief delay in the comment period should not negatively impact DOE's ability to meet this deadline, nor should it detract from DOE's ability to catch up on other rulemakings, but it would significantly assist AHAM and its members in providing quality input on DOE's RFI.

DOE has reviewed the request and is extending the comment period to allow additional time for interested parties to submit comments. As noted, the RFI was issued as part of the preliminary stage of a rulemaking to consider amendments to the energy conservation standards for dehumidifiers. If DOE determines that amended energy conservation standards may be appropriate, additional notices will be published ( e.g., a notice of proposed rulemaking), providing interested parties additional opportunity to submit comments. As such, DOE has determined that a 15-day extension is sufficient for this preliminary stage. Therefore, DOE is extending the comment period to July 21, 2021.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on June 25, 2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

DOE established an early assessment review process to conduct a more focused analysis that would allow DOE to determine, based on statutory criteria, whether an amended test procedure is warranted. The purpose of this review is to limit the resources, from both DOE and stakeholders, committed to rulemakings that will not satisfy the requirements in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”), 1 that an amended test procedure more accurately or fully comply with the requirement that the test procedure produces results that measure energy use during a representative average use cycle or period of use for the product, and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. See 85 FR 8626, 8653-8654 (Feb. 14, 2020).

As part of the early assessment, DOE publishes an RFI in the Federal Register , announcing that DOE is initiating a rulemaking proceeding and soliciting comments, data, and information on whether an amended test procedure would more accurately measure energy use during a representative average use cycle or reduce testing burden. Based on the information received in response to the RFI and DOE's own analysis, DOE will determine whether to proceed with a rulemaking for an amended test procedure.

If DOE makes an initial determination based upon available evidence that an amended test procedure would not meet the applicable statutory criteria, DOE would engage in notice and comment rulemaking before issuing a final determination that an amended test procedure is not warranted.

Conversely, if DOE makes an initial determination that an amended test procedure would satisfy the applicable statutory criteria, DOE would undertake the preliminary stages of a rulemaking to issue an amended test procedure. Beginning such a rulemaking, however, would not preclude DOE from later making a determination that an amended test procedure would not satisfy the requirements in EPCA, based upon the full suite of DOE's analyses. Id. at 85 FR 8654.

EPCA, among other things, authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B  2 of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. These products include dehumidifiers, the subject of this RFI. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(13); 42 U.S.C. 6295 (cc))

The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).

Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))

The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of those consumer products (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))

EPCA requires that the test procedure for dehumidifiers be based on the test criteria used under the ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Dehumidifiers developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as in effect on August 8, 2005, unless revised by DOE pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6293. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(13)) Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))

EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE review test procedures for all covered products, including dehumidifiers, to determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use cycle or period of use and not be unduly burdensome to conduct (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)) DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information to inform its decision in satisfaction of this 7-year review requirement.

DOE last amended the test procedure for dehumidifiers on July 31, 2015 (“July 2015 Final Rule”), to provide technical clarifications and improve repeatability of the test procedure. 80 FR 45802. The July 2015 Final Rule also established a new test procedure for dehumidifiers at appendix X1 that, among other things, established separate provisions for testing whole-home dehumidifiers. Id. DOE's test procedures for dehumidifiers are prescribed at Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 430, subpart B, appendix X1 (“appendix X1”). Manufacturers were not required to use appendix X1 until the compliance date of a subsequent amendment to the energy conservation standards for dehumidifiers. On June 13, 2016, DOE published a final rule establishing amended energy conservation standards for dehumidifiers, for which compliance was required beginning June 13, 2019. 81 FR 38338.

DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information during the early assessment review to inform its decision, consistent with its obligations under EPCA, as to whether the Department should proceed with an amended test procedure rulemaking. Accordingly, in the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues on which it seeks input to determine whether, and if so how, amended test procedures for dehumidifiers would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements in EPCA that test procedures be reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy use during a representative average use cycle or period of use, without being unduly burdensome to conduct (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)).

EPCA defines a dehumidifier as a self-contained, electrically operated, and mechanically encased assembly consisting of—(1) a refrigerated surface (evaporator) that condenses moisture from the atmosphere; (2) a refrigerating system, including an electric motor; (3) an air-circulating fan; and (4) a means for collecting or disposing of the condensate. (42 U.S.C. 6291(34)) In codifying a regulatory definition of “dehumidifier,” DOE interpreted the statutory definition as excluding portable air conditioners, room air conditioners, and packaged terminal air conditioners. 10 CFR 430.2. Products meeting this definition are subject to DOE's regulations for testing, certifying, and complying with energy conservation standards.

In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE established definitions for two dehumidifier configurations: “portable dehumidifiers” and “whole-home dehumidifiers.” 80 FR 45802, 45805. A “portable dehumidifier” is a dehumidifier designed to operate within the dehumidified space without ducting (although means may be provided for optional duct attachment). 10 CFR 430.2. A “whole-home dehumidifier” is a dehumidifier designed to be installed with ducting to deliver return process air to its inlet and dehumidified process air to one or more locations in the dehumidified space. Id.

Issue 1: DOE seeks comment on whether the current definitions of “dehumidifier,” “portable dehumidifier,” and “whole-home dehumidifier” require amendment, and if so, how the terms should be defined.

Issue 2: DOE requests comment on whether the existing equipment definitions specified in 10 CFR 430.2 for dehumidifiers require amendments to distinguish further between portable and whole-home units. If they do, DOE seeks information on what identifying characteristics may be included in potential amended definitions to differentiate better between the two configurations.

Dehumidifiers are tested in accordance with appendix X1, which incorporates American National Standard Institute (“ANSI”)/Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (“AHAM”) Standard DH-1-2008, “Dehumidifiers,” (“ANSI/AHAM DH- 1-2008”), with modification. In part, the DOE test procedure specifies a different dry- bulb temperature (65 degrees Fahrenheit (“°F”) for portable dehumidifiers and 73 °F for whole-home dehumidifiers) than ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2008, while still maintaining the relative humidity specified by ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2008. See Section 4.1.1 of appendix.

X1. Appendix X1 also includes instructions regarding instrumentation, condensate collection, control settings, setup, and ducting for whole-home dehumidifiers. See Sections 3.1.2.2; 3.1.1.4; 3.1.1.5; 3.1.1.1; and 3.1.3 of appendix X1.

Under the current test procedure, there is a single method to measure a dehumidifier's product capacity. A unit's capacity is the volume of water, in pints, the unit removes from the ambient air per day, normalized to a standard ambient temperature and relative humidity. See Section 2.14 of appendix X1. The Integrated Energy Factor (“IEF”), representing the efficiency of the unit expressed in liters per kilowatt-hour, is the ratio between the capacity and the combined amount of energy consumed by the unit in dehumidification mode and standby and/or off mode(s), adjusted for the representative number of hours per year spent in each mode. See Section 5.4 of appendix X1.

As discussed, the dehumidifier test procedure at appendix X1 references ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2008, an industry test procedure for dehumidifiers, with modification. In 2017, AHAM published a revision to ANSI/AHAM DH-1 (“ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2017”). ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2017 includes provisions for testing dehumidifier energy use in off-cycle, inactive, and off modes, and for including energy consumption in those modes in efficiency calculations. ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2017 also made other changes. First, it lowered the standard dry-bulb temperature condition for dehumidifiers from 80 °F (as in ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2008) to 65 °F (with the required wet-bulb temperature changing accordingly to maintain the same relative humidity).

Second, it tightened the maximum allowed variation for dry-bulb and wet-bulb temperature readings from 2.0 °F to 1.0 °F and from 1.0 °F to 0.5 °F, respectively. Third, it added guidance for instrumentation setup, multiple air-intakes and control settings.

Issue 3: DOE seeks comment on whether the references to ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2008 at appendix X1 should be updated to the most current version, ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2017.

Issue 4: DOE requests comment and information on whether, and if so, how updating the references in appendix X1 to ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2017 would impact the measured energy efficiency of dehumidifiers tested under the current DOE test procedure.

Issue 5: DOE requests comment on the impact on test burden were DOE to reference ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2017.

Issue 6: DOE specifically requests feedback on the reduction of the maximum-allowed temperature variation in ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2017, the potential test burden increase from this change, and any effects on reliability or reproducibility of results.

Issue 7: DOE requests information on whether any modifications to ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2017, other than modifications consistent with those made to ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2008 in the current DOE test procedure, would be needed to ensure that DOE's test procedure produces results that are representative of an average use cycle and is not unduly burdensome to conduct.

DOE is aware that dehumidifiers are available on the United States market that incorporate variable-speed compressors; i.e., “variable-speed dehumidifiers.” Variable-speed dehumidifiers can avoid compressor cycling efficiency losses by modulating the compressor speed to match the amount of dehumidification required for a room. These units also avoid condensate re-evaporation into the ambient room air, which can occur when a dehumidifier cycles off its compressor but not its fan during off-cycle mode. The current test procedure in appendix X1 does not capture these “cycling losses” for single-speed dehumidifiers (and avoidance of such losses for variable-speed dehumidifiers) because the test unit operates at full capacity throughout the test.

In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE considered a load-based test which would capture cycling behavior in dehumidifiers with single-speed compressors or speed modulation for variable-speed dehumidifiers. The load-based test would involve adding moisture to the test chamber at a fixed rate and allowing the control system of the dehumidifier to respond to changing moisture levels in the room. 80 FR 45802, 45809. DOE elected not to adopt a load-based test for the dehumidifier test procedure in the July 2015 Final Rule, due to concerns about the potential increase in test burden. Id. at 80 FR 45810.

Issue 8: DOE seeks data on single-speed dehumidifiers: (1) Their energy use when cycling on and off due to varying relative humidity in the room, (2) the extent of re-evaporation when operating in off-cycle mode, and (3) the effect of re-evaporation on dehumidification mode efficiency.

Issue 9: DOE seeks feedback and data regarding any alternative test methods that may produce results that are more representative of variable-speed dehumidifier energy consumption, including, but not limited to, a load-based test approach.

Issue 10: DOE is also interested in information about the nature and extent of the test burden associated with a load-based test for dehumidifiers.

Appendix X1, with reference to Section 4 “Instrumentation” of ANSI/AHAM DH-1-2008, requires dehumidifiers with a single air intake to be monitored with an aspirating-type psychrometer  3 perpendicular to, and one foot in front of, the unit; and, in the case of multiple air intakes, to be monitored with a separate sampling tree. See Sections 3.1.1, 3.1.1.2, 3.1.1.3 of appendix X1. In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE considered whether certain psychrometer configuration issues, such as variable levels of residual heat from the psychrometer fan and variable air velocity influencing the accuracy of temperature sensors, were detrimental to test repeatability. 80 FR 45812-45813. As discussed in the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE was unable to determine whether any repeatability improvements are associated with adjusting the fan location in relation to the dry-bulb and wet-bulb temperature sensors, or with tightening the air velocity requirements through the psychrometer. DOE also did not have sufficient data to quantify the burdens associated with such requirements. Id. at 80 FR 45813.

Additionally, since publication of the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE has received feedback from a testing laboratory that use of a sampling tree ducted to an aspirating psychrometer is a common configuration for testing of other refrigerant-based products, and that placing the psychrometer itself in front of the test unit may impede the instrument's ability to effectively monitor the inlet air conditions. In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE considered a proposal to require sampling trees for testing all dehumidifiers, regardless of the number of air intakes, for consistency and repeatability. However, based on available data, DOE was unable to conclude at that time that the use of a sampling tree would be more reliable than the psychrometer-only approach. Id. at 80 FR 45812-45813.

Issue 11: DOE seeks data on the effect of residual heat from the psychrometer fan and the effects of psychrometer air velocity on temperature measurement repeatability when using a psychrometer, rather than a humidity sensor, under the current (appendix X1) test procedure.

DOE seeks information and data on measures that can be employed to minimize any such effects when using a psychrometer, as well as information regarding the repeatability of measurements when such measures are used.

Issue 12: DOE requests comment on any potential test burden increases associated with additional requirements regarding psychrometer fan placement and orientation relative to the temperature sensors, and any burden associated with reducing the acceptable psychrometer air velocity range.

Issue 13: DOE requests comment on whether it would be appropriate to require, or to allow, sampling trees to be used with aspirating psychrometers regardless of the number of air intakes for a given model, including any data confirming repeatability and especially repeatability relative to using an aspirating psychrometer without a sampling tree.

DOE notes that many types of household products ( e.g. refrigerators, dryers, room air conditioners) are now equipped with “connected” functionality, such as mobile alerts/messages, remote control, and energy information and demand response capabilities to support future smart grid interconnection. DOE is aware that certain manufacturers have incorporated some of these features, such as WiFi capability, into dehumidifiers. On September 17, 2018, DOE published an RFI on the emerging smart technology appliance and equipment market. 83 FR 46886. In that RFI, DOE sought information to better understand market trends and issues in the emerging market for appliances and commercial equipment that incorporate smart technology. DOE's intent in issuing the RFI was to ensure that DOE did not inadvertently impede such innovation in fulfilling its statutory obligations in setting efficiency standards for covered products and equipment. DOE seeks comments, data and information on the issues presented in the RFI as they may apply to dehumidifiers.

Issue 14: DOE requests data on the prevalence of connected functionality in dehumidifiers currently on the market in the United States.

Issue 15: DOE requests information on whether the current test procedures for dehumidifiers impede the ability of manufacturers to provide smart technology operations on dehumidifiers.

Appendix X1 requires that any fresh-air inlet on a whole-home dehumidifier be capped and sealed during testing. See Section 3.1.3 of appendix X1. In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE determined that, while sealing the fresh-air inlet on dehumidifiers designed to operate with the fresh-air intake open may negatively impact capacity and efficiency, those effects are not significant enough to warrant the added test burden of providing separate fresh-air inflow. 80 FR 45811. DOE also noted the lack of data regarding representative consumer use of fresh-air inlet ducts for whole-home dehumidifiers.

Issue 16: DOE requests data about the prevalence of fresh-air inlet use among whole-home dehumidifier consumers.

Issue 17: DOE seeks feedback on the test burden increases associated with adding another air-stream in the testing configuration to account for the fresh-air inlet on those whole-home dehumidifiers equipped with such a feature.

In addition to the issues identified earlier in this document, DOE welcomes comment on any other aspect of the existing test procedures for dehumidifiers.

DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by July 30, 2021, comments and information on matters addressed in this notice and on other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of amended test procedures for dehumidifiers. These comments and information will aid in the development of a test procedure notice of proposed rulemaking for dehumidifiers if DOE determines that amended test procedures may be appropriate for these products.

Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.

However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Following this instruction, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (“CBI”)). Comments submitted through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.

DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.

Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via email will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.

Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. No faxes will be accepted.

Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.

Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time.

Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked confidential including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email to Dehumidifier2019TP0026@ee.doe.gov. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).

DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of the process for developing test procedures and energy conservation standards. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the comment period in each stage of this process. Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the process. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and information about this process should contact Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on June 25, 2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

On May 13, 2021, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) published in the Federal Register a proposal to amend Regulation II to clarify that the requirement that each debit card transaction must be able to be processed on at least two unaffiliated payment card networks applies to card-not-present transactions, clarify the requirements that Regulation II imposes on debit card issuers to ensure that at least two unaffiliated payment card networks have been enabled for debit card transactions, and standardize and clarify the use of certain terminology. 1

The proposal provided for a comment period ending on July 12, 2021. Since the publication of the proposal, the Board has received comments requesting a 30-day extension of the comment period. An extension of the comment period will provide additional opportunity for interested parties to analyze the proposal and prepare and submit comments. Therefore, the Board is extending the end of the comment period for the proposal from July 12, 2021 to August 11, 2021.

FCA's purpose in this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is to gather public input to:

• Ensure that each FCS bank operates under a comprehensive liquidity framework, so it consistently maintains adequate liquidity to cover all of its potential obligations, including unfunded commitments and other material contingent liabilities, under stressful conditions;

• Assess if, and to what extent, the Basel III International framework for liquidity risk measurement, standards and monitoring (hereafter “Basel III Liquidity Framework”), issued by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), and regulations of the Federal banking regulatory agencies (FRBAs) implementing this framework for banking organizations should influence revisions to FCA's existing liquidity framework;  1

• Determine if the Basel III Liquidity Framework is appropriate for FCS banks, and evaluate the impacts of augmenting FCA's existing liquidity framework to incorporate appropriate aspects of the Basel III Liquidity Framework and the FBRAs' implementation of the framework;  2 and

• Determine the respective costs and benefits of updating FCA's liquidity framework for FCS banks.

In 1916, Congress created the System to provide permanent, stable, affordable, and reliable sources of credit and related services to American agricultural and aquatic producers. The System currently consists of 3 Farm Credit Banks, 1 agricultural credit bank, 66 agricultural credit associations, 1 Federal land credit association, service corporations, and the Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation (Funding Corporation). 3 Farm Credit banks (which include both the Farm Credit Banks and the agricultural credit bank) issue System-wide consolidated debt obligations in the capital markets through the Funding Corporation, 4 which enable the System to extend short-, intermediate-, and long-term credit and related services to farmers, ranchers, aquatic producers and harvesters, their cooperatives, rural utilities, exporters of agricultural commodities products, and capital equipment, farm-related businesses, and certain rural homeowners. 5 The System's enabling statute is the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (Act). 6

In many respects, the FCS is different from other lenders. In contrast to most commercial banks and other financial institutions, the System lends primarily to agriculture and other eligible borrowers in rural areas. Unlike most other lenders, FCS banks and associations are cooperatives that are owned and controlled by their member-borrowers. Their common equity is not publicly traded. The System also funds its operations differently than most commercial lenders. FCS banks and associations are not depository institutions, and for this reason, System-wide debt securities, not deposits, are the System's primary source for funding loans to agricultural producers, their cooperatives, and other eligible borrowers. Although section 4.2(a) of the Act authorizes FCS banks to borrow from commercial banks and other lending institutions, lines of credit with such lenders are only used as a secondary source of liquidity.

As a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), the System depends on continuing access to the capital markets to obtain the funds necessary to extend credit to agriculture, aquaculture, rural utilities, and rural housing in both good and bad economic times. If access to the capital markets becomes impeded for any reason, FCS banks must have enough readily available funds and assets that can be quickly converted into cash to continue operations and pay maturing obligations. Unlike commercial banks, the System does not have a lender of last resort and does not have a guaranteed line of credit from the U.S. Treasury or the Federal Reserve.

As part of our ongoing efforts to ensure the FCS banks have sufficient liquidity to fund operations in the event of market disruptions, and in light of updated guidance and regulations published by the BCBS and FBRAs, we are soliciting comments on the best ways to enhance FCA's existing liquidity framework.

FCA regulations governing System banks' liquidity were last substantially updated in 2013 in response to the 2008 financial crisis. 7 FCA proposed amendments to its liquidity requirements in 2011 to improve the quality of liquidity and bolster the ability of the System banks to fund their operations during times of economic, financial, or market adversity. 8 At the time, FCA considered the Basel III Liquidity Framework that was published in September 2008 and December 2010, 9 but decided not to adopt the Basel III liquidity ratios. The final rule incorporated the liquidity coverage principles of Basel III as appropriate to the System, improved the System's ability to withstand market disruptions by strengthening liquidity management practices at Farm Credit banks, and enhanced the liquidity of assets in their liquidity reserves. The objectives of our 2013 liquidity final rule  10 were to:

• Improve the capacity of FCS banks to pay their obligations and fund their operations by maintaining adequate liquidity to withstand various market disruptions and adverse economic or financial conditions;

• Strengthen liquidity management at all FCS banks;

• Enhance the liquidity of assets that System banks hold in their liquidity reserves;

• Require FCS banks to maintain a three-tiered liquidity reserve. The first tier of the liquidity reserve must consist of a sufficient amount of cash and cash-like instruments to cover each bank's financial obligations for 15 days. The second and third tiers of the liquidity reserve must contain cash and highly liquid instruments that are sufficient to cover the bank's obligations for the next 15 and subsequent 60 days, respectively;

• Establish a supplemental liquidity buffer that a bank can draw upon during an emergency and is sufficient to cover the bank's liquidity needs beyond 90 days; and

• Strengthen each bank's Contingency Funding Plan (CFP).

As explained in the preamble to the 2013 final rule, the amendments to § 615.5134 incorporated many of the principles that the BCBS and the FBRAs have articulated on liquidity management because many of these fundamental concepts apply to all financial institutions, including FCS banks. The comprehensive supervisory approach developed by the BCBS and the FBRAs effectively strengthens both the liquidity reserves and the liquidity risk management practices at regulated financial institutions.

FCA's update created three levels of liquid assets (levels 1, 2, and 3) which are similar to, but not exactly the same as, the three levels of high-quality liquid assets (HQLA) established in the Basel III Liquidity Framework (levels 1, 2a, and 2b) and used in the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR). 11 In addition, FCA's framework adopted core concepts of the FBRA's rules, including the supplemental liquidity buffer, specific policies and internal controls that combat liquidity risk, and CFPs based in part on the results of liquidity stress tests.

The Basel III Liquidity Framework is not the only basis for the existing liquidity regulation. The regulation was also based upon the System's own initiatives to improve liquidity management as well as the FCA's experiences from examining liquidity risk management at Farm Credit banks and the Funding Corporation. In this context, the regulation implemented the best practices available for liquidity management at FCS banks at the time.

The Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation (FCSIC) may use its Insurance Fund as a backup source of liquidity for System banks through its assistance authorities. 12 Additionally, subsequent to FCA adopting the rule, FCSIC entered into an agreement with the Federal Financing Bank (FFB) for a $10 billion line of credit. 13 Pursuant to this agreement, the FFB may advance funds to FCSIC when exigent market circumstances  14 make it extremely doubtful that: The Funding Corporation can issue new System-wide debt obligations to repay maturing obligations; and one or more insured System banks will be able to pay maturing debt obligations without selling available liquidity reserve assets at a material loss. If necessary, FCSIC would use the funds advanced by the FFB to increase amounts in its Insurance Fund to provide assistance to the System banks until market conditions improve. 15

The decision whether to provide assistance, including seeking funds from the FFB, is at the discretion of FCSIC, and each funding obligation of the FFB is subject to various terms and conditions and, as a result, there can be no assurance that funding would be available if needed by the System. This FCSIC-FFB revolving credit facility is subject to annual renewal. Additionally, the agreement only applies during exigent market circumstances, and can only be used if the amount needed to repay maturing System-wide insured debt obligations will exceed available Insurance Fund reserves. As such, FCA does not consider potential FCSIC assistance, including additional amounts available through its agreement with the FFB, when determining liquidity requirements or completing examinations of liquidity and related management practices at FCS institutions.

FCA has closely monitored how the FBRAs have adjusted Basel III and applied it to the institutions they supervise since 2013. In response to these developments and more recent adverse market conditions, FCA believes it is appropriate to consider updates to the existing FCA liquidity framework. 16

Our current liquidity regulation § 615.5134, which we finalized in 2013, responded to the 2008 financial crisis. More specifically, this regulation improves the System's liquidity management and bolsters the ability of the System banks to fund their operations during times of economic, financial, or market adversity. At the time, FCA considered the Basel III Liquidity Framework and how to tailor it to the unique circumstances of System banks. The FBRAs had not yet enacted regulations that implemented Basel III, and we decided it would be premature for FCA to adopt the LCR and the Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) for System banks. FCA's existing regulation has achieved FCA's objectives by ensuring that System banks have a satisfactory liquidity framework. Yet, the time has come for FCA to revisit these issues and decide how best to strengthen and update § 615.5134 so System banks are in a better position to respond to emerging risks and constantly changing market conditions.

Between 2013 and 2020, the BCBS and FBRAs issued new guidance and regulations to improve the liquidity framework for the banking sector. The new regulations included the LCR that was finalized in 2014  17 and the NSFR, which was proposed in 2016  18 and finalized in November 2020. 19 The LCR  20 focuses on short-term liquidity risk from severe market stresses and the NSFR  21 promotes stable funding structures over a one-year horizon. The NSFR is designed to act as a complement to the LCR to mitigate the risks of banking organizations supporting their assets with insufficiently stable funding. The LCR applies to large banking organizations and does not apply to community banking and savings associations. When the final NSFR rule becomes effective on July 1, 2021, it too will apply to large banking organizations, but not community banks and small saving associations.

The Basel III Liquidity Framework encourages regulated entities to account for unfunded commitments and other contingent obligations in their liquidity reserve calculations, and for this reason, its concepts are relevant to this rulemaking and the maintenance of adequate liquidity at FCS banks. After careful consideration of the comments received on the 2011 liquidity proposed rule, FCA decided not to incorporate unfunded commitments into the existing regulation, however, FCA stated it may address unfunded commitments at a later time. As a result, FCA's liquidity reserve requirement does not capture funds held or unfunded commitments on retail loans or on the direct note. While these unfunded commitments are generally captured as part of the liquidity stress tests incorporated into a bank's CFP, the CFP in the existing rule gives System banks considerable discretion to determine the cash flow assumptions and discount factors used to determine the amount of liquidity reserves they should hold for these potential cash outflows.

Modifying FCA's liquidity reserve requirement to capture unfunded commitments or adopting an LCR/NSFR framework may promote stronger liquidity profiles at System banks by improving how liquidity is measured and reported. Furthermore, this modification would help ensure that a System bank has enough liquidity to meet its unfunded commitments during a liquidity crisis.

The containment measures adopted in early 2020 in response to COVID-19 slowed economic activity in the United States. 22 Financial conditions tightened markedly in March and April 2020 and sudden disruptions in financial markets put increasing liquidity pressure on certain credit markets. In response to the pandemic, the Federal Reserve Board established a number of funding, credit, liquidity, and loan facilities to provide liquidity to the financial system. 23 One of these programs, the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Liquidity Facility, was directly available to System institutions, while other facilities indirectly increased the liquidity of System institutions' assets held in their liquidity reserves. 24 FCA provided System institutions with guidance to manage the challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, including certain regulatory capital relief for PPP loans and PPP loans pledged to the PPP Liquidity Facility. 25 Throughout the market turbulence in early 2020, System banks maintained satisfactory liquidity reserves, however; the market conditions caused by COVID-19 provided FCA the opportunity to observe the existing liquidity framework under adverse market conditions.

Based on these developments, FCA is considering whether changes to our liquidity regulations are appropriate or needed.

We request and encourage any interested person(s) to submit comments on the following questions and ask that you support your comments with relevant data, analysis, or other information. We remind commenters that comments, data, and other information submitted in support of a comment, will be available to the public through our website.

We have organized our questions into the following categories: (A) Existing FCA Liquidity Regulations and (B) Applicability of the LCR and NSFR.

Each FCS bank has its own unique circumstances and risk profile and, therefore, exposure to unfunded commitments and other contingent obligations varies within the FCS. As part of each System bank's general financing agreement (GFA) with its affiliated associations, System banks have an unfunded commitment to each affiliated association that is a possible outflow of liquidity. The unfunded commitment amount is the difference between the association's maximum credit limit with the System bank under the GFA or promissory note  26 and the amount the association has borrowed from the System bank.

The GFA permits a System bank to terminate an association's loan or to refuse to make additional disbursements in the event of default. The Act prohibits an association from borrowing from commercial banks or other financial institutions without its funding bank's approval. 27 We believe there may be merit in incorporating these possible outflows for the bank's unfunded commitment to its affiliated associations into the existing liquidity reserve requirement because the associations are fully dependent on the bank for funding its operations so it can fulfill its mission.

System banks also have unfunded commitments or other material contingent liabilities to other financing institutions (OFIs) that increase liquidity risk. 28 System banks are required to provide funding, or provide similar financial assistance to any creditworthy OFI that meets certain requirements. 29 Although the GFAs with OFIs may permit a System bank to refuse to make additional disbursements in the event of default, a System bank would likely be required to give prior notice to cancel unfunded commitments to OFIs. As part of their GFA with OFIs, System banks can be legally obligated to fund these commitments. These types of outflows may include retail funding, contractual settlements related to derivative transactions, pledging collateral, or other off-balance sheet commitments.

FCS banks may also have outstanding lines of credit to retail borrowers who may draw funds to meet their seasonal, business, or liquidity needs. A line of credit may be used as a liquidity facility to function as an undrawn backup that would be utilized to refinance debt obligations of a borrower in situations where the borrower is unable to rollover that debt in financial markets. Alternatively, credit facilities provide a line of credit for borrower's general corporate or working capital purposes. These lines of credit to retail borrowers may or may not be unconditionally cancellable. A sudden surge in borrower demand for funds under these lines may increase demands on the bank's liquidity at a time when market access is becoming impeded. These unfunded commitments potentially expose both FCS banks and associations to significant safety and soundness risks. 30

To incorporate consideration of these unfunded commitments, the liquidity rules of the FBRAs apply a multiplier or “factor” to the gross notional amount to reflect assumptions on how exposures will result in “cash outflows.” These factors are multiplied by the total amount of each outflow item to determine the regulatory outflow amount. The factor applied is dependent on the type of exposure, and is consistent with the Basel III Liquidity Framework and the FBRAs' evaluation of relevant supervisory information. The factors applied consider the potential impact of idiosyncratic and market-wide shocks. 31

While unfunded commitments at System banks should be analyzed in the CFP, banks have significant discretion about the assumptions ( i.e., factor) applied. For example, to reflect varying drawdown assumptions System banks may apply a factor, similar to the factors applied in the FBRAs' rules, to notional amounts outstanding. A higher factor reflects a higher drawdown potential of the undrawn portion of these commitments and results in a higher liquidity requirement in the CFP. For example, a $10 billion exposure at a 10 percent factor would add only $1 billion to the discounted outflows, while a 40 percent factor would add $4 billion to the outflows.

To evaluate this further, we are seeking comment to determine if we should incorporate unfunded commitments into the existing FCA liquidity framework and what type of factor would be appropriate to capture the drawdown risks.

1. How should FCA incorporate the liquidity risk of unfunded commitments on affiliated associations' direct notes into the System banks' liquidity reserve requirement?

a. Should drawdown factors be applied to unfunded commitments?

b. If so, what would be an appropriate factor to apply to the direct note unfunded commitments?

2. How should FCA incorporate the liquidity risk of unfunded commitments to OFIs into the System banks' liquidity reserve requirement?

a. Should drawdown factors be applied to unfunded commitments?

b. If so, what would be an appropriate factor to apply to OFI unfunded commitments?

c. Does the liquidity risk of unfunded commitments to OFIs pose a different risk than unfunded commitments to affiliated associations' direct notes? If so, how should FCA incorporate this risk into the liquidity reserve requirement?

3. How should FCA incorporate the liquidity risk of unfunded commitments to bank retail borrowers into the System banks' liquidity reserve requirement?

a. What would be an appropriate factor to apply to retail borrower unfunded commitments?

b. Should unfunded commitments to retail borrowers that are not unconditionally cancellable be treated differently from those that are unconditionally cancellable? Please explain why.

c. Should we consider applying different factors to differentiate the risk between retail credit and liquidity facilities for such retail borrowers?

FCS associations often have outstanding lines of credit to retail borrowers who may draw funds to meet their seasonal or other business needs. Associations can be legally obligated to fund these commitments and would generally rely on their System bank for funding under the GFA. A sudden surge in borrower demand for funds under these lines may increase demands on the bank's liquidity at a time when market access is becoming impeded. More specifically, during periods of economic or market uncertainty, retail borrowers may desire to increase their cash holdings to cover operating and business expenses and accordingly, draw from their operating lines. As System banks are ultimately responsible to fund associations, we are seeking comment to determine if a revised liquidity requirement should “look-through” System banks to consider each association's unfunded commitment to retail borrowers as a potential outflow item.

4. How should FCA incorporate the risk of unfunded commitments from association retail borrowers for the funding banks' liquidity reserve requirement?

a. What would be an appropriate factor for System banks to apply to association unfunded commitments?

b. Should unfunded commitments at associations that are not unconditionally cancellable be treated differently from those that are unconditionally cancellable? Please explain why.

c. If so, should we consider applying a different factor to differentiate the risk between credit and liquidity facilities for association retail borrowers?

d. Should FCA incorporate the liquidity risk of unfunded commitments to association retail borrowers through a “look through” approach or using the direct note unfunded commitment amount?

Section 614.4175 allows member-borrowers to make voluntary advance conditional payments (VACP) on their loans and allows institutions to set up involuntary payment accounts for funds held to be used for insurance premiums, taxes, and other reasons. 32 VACP (where the advanced payment is not compulsory) accounts have the potential to expose the System to additional liquidity risk in a crisis. More specifically, some VACP accounts may be structured so that System member-borrowers may withdraw funds at their request (although prior notice for withdrawals may be required). A sudden surge in member-borrower draws from VACP accounts held at associations would increase the funding required from the bank to the association. This sudden increase in funding may increase demands on the bank's liquidity at a time when market access is becoming impeded. To evaluate this further, we are seeking comment on how we should mitigate the risk VACP accounts pose to the liquidity of System banks.

5. How should FCA incorporate the liquidity risk of VACP accounts at associations into the funding banks' liquidity reserve requirement?

a. What would be an appropriate factor to apply to these VACP accounts?

b. If different factors should apply to different types of VACP accounts, please specify.

Some System associations have issued continuously redeemable perpetual preferred stock (typically called Harvest Stock or H Stock) to their members who wish to invest and participate in their cooperative beyond the minimum member-borrower stock purchase. H Stock is an at-risk investment; it is issued without a stated maturity and is retireable only at the discretion of the institution's board. A common feature of H stock is that the issuing association will redeem it upon the request of the holder only if the association is in compliance with its regulatory capital requirements. Because of this feature, FCA considers the stock to be continuously redeemable. Some associations reduce the operational hurdles to redeeming H stock by delegating the board's authority to retire such stock to management provided certain board-approved minimum regulatory capital ratios are maintained. FCA has determined that holders reasonably expect the institution to redeem the stock shortly after they make a request. A sudden surge in member-borrower redemptions of H Stock held at associations would increase the funding from System bank to its associations. This sudden increase in funding may increase demands on the bank's liquidity at a time when market access is becoming impeded. To evaluate this further, we are seeking comment on how we should mitigate the risk H Stock poses to the liquidity of System banks.

6. How should FCA incorporate the liquidity risk of H Stock redemptions at associations into the funding banks' liquidity reserve requirement? What would be an appropriate factor to apply to H Stock?

As discussed above, modifying FCA's liquidity reserve requirement to capture potential cash outflows, including unfunded commitments, may promote a stronger liquidity profile at System banks. To improve how liquidity is measured and reported, we are also considering incorporating cash inflows into the liquidity reserve requirement. FCA's existing liquidity regulation, § 615.5134, does not consider how expected cash inflows would affect the bank's liquidity reserve requirement. Outside of CFP stress analysis (discussed below), FCA's existing liquidity framework views the discounted market value of assets held in the liquidity reserve and supplemental buffer as the only source of liquidity during a liquidity event. 33

However, in a liquidity event, certain borrowers will still be making payments on their loans, allowing money to flow into the institution that can be used to support ongoing operations. Cash inflows from sources other than the liquidity reserve typically include payments from wholesale and retail borrowers and coupon and scheduled principal payments from securities not included in the liquidity reserve. 34

The CFP requirement at § 615.5134(f) allows System banks to consider inflows when analyzing how much contingent liquidity they must hold under a 30-day acute stress scenario. However, for the purposes of the CFP, System banks have considerable discretion to determine the assumptions pertaining to the amount of inflows that will offset potential outflows. To evaluate this further, we are seeking comment to determine if we should incorporate inflows into the existing FCA liquidity framework.

7. How should FCA incorporate the uncertainty of cash inflows into System banks' liquidity reserve requirements?

8. What would be an appropriate discount percentage to apply to the different types of inflows (such as payments from wholesale and retail borrowers, payments from securities not included in the liquidity reserve)?

9. What type of operational changes (such as data elements, general ledger requirements, and systems) would be required to accurately capture inflow and outflow information to calculate liquidity ratios on a daily or monthly basis?

The amount of liquid assets that a bank must maintain is generally a function of the stability of its funding structure, the risk characteristics of the balance sheet, and the adequacy of its liquidity risk measurement program. System banks provide funding to their affiliated associations through the direct note which is a significant portion of the bank's assets. The bank's direct note assets are impacted by the funding and liquidity demands of their affiliated associations. However, System banks directly control the mix of funding for these assets, as well as the risk characteristics of other assets acquired.

System banks issue System-wide debt securities as the primary source for funding loans and investments. As part of the examination process, FCA evaluates how each bank's debt structure helps limit liquidity risks. For example, if a bank funds its balance sheet wholly with short-term debt, the resulting large amounts of debt maturing each week would cause the bank to be vulnerable to market disruptions and liquidity risk. Therefore, debt maturities should be structured in a manner that they are extended and align with the tenor and composition of the bank's assets. In addition, debt maturities should ensure longer-term stable funding.

FCA's existing liquidity framework does not directly address the stability of a bank's balance sheet and does not require compliance with specific debt structure ratios. To evaluate this further, we are seeking comment to determine if we should add requirements regarding the structure of a bank's balance sheet into the existing FCA liquidity framework.

10. How should FCA amend its liquidity regulations to strengthen the stability of the balance sheet structure at FCS banks?

11. Under what circumstances might it be appropriate for FCA's liquidity framework to better address funding methods such as discount notes and short funding?

Currently, investments held in a bank's liquidity reserve must be marketable in accordance with the criteria in § 615.5134(d). However, investments held in the supplemental liquidity buffer are not subject to the same marketability standard. 35 Thus, there is the potential that the supplemental liquidity buffer may include investments that are not marketable or liquid under certain circumstances. To evaluate this further, we are seeking comment to determine if we should hold investments in the supplemental liquidity buffer to the same or similar marketability standards as assets in the liquidity reserve.

12. Should FCA apply the criteria for “marketable” investments in § 615.5134(d) to assets that FCS banks hold in their supplemental liquidity buffer? If yes, why? If no, what criteria should FCA adopt to address its concerns about the liquidity and marketability of assets in the supplemental liquidity buffers of FCS banks when access to the markets are becoming impeded, and why?

The existing liquidity framework allows certain money market instruments and diversified investment funds to be included as Level 1 reserves at § 615.5134(b). The FBRAs decided not to include similar instruments in the LCR's HQLA framework, such as mutual funds and money market funds. 36 The FBRAs stated that certain underlying investments of the investment companies may include high-quality assets, however, similar to securities issued by many companies in the financial sector, shares of investment companies have been prone to lose value and become less liquid during periods of severe market stress or an idiosyncratic event involving the fund's sponsor. Additionally, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules regarding money market funds may also impose some barriers on investors' ability to withdraw all their funds during a period of stress. 37

Certain money market instruments exhibited liquidity stress during the 2008 financial crisis and the economic shock in March 2020 caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. 38 For example, in March 2020, Commercial paper (CP) and Certificate of deposit (CD) markets both became stressed. 39 Under normal market conditions, secondary trading volume in CP and CD markets is limited as most investors purchase and hold these short-dated instruments to maturity. However, in March 2020, as some market participants, including money market mutual funds and others, may have sought secondary trading, they experienced a “frozen market.” For liquidity purposes, both secondary trading and new issuances of CP and CD halted for a period of time during the pandemic. 40

FCA's existing definition of “marketable” in § 615.5134(d) makes an exception for money market instruments. Specifically, § 615.5134(d)(4) exempts money market instruments from the requirement that investments in the liquidity reserve must be easily bought and sold in active and sizeable markets without significantly affecting prices. Additionally, money market instruments are not subject to FCA's investment portfolio diversification requirements and are not limited in the liquidity reserve requirement. 41 To evaluate the type of instruments and definitions allowed under the FCA liquidity framework, we are seeking comment to determine if we should align the instruments in FCA's liquidity reserve requirement with the FBRAs HQLA framework.

13. Given the risks of money market instruments and diversified investment funds and that the FBRAs do not consider these instruments to be high quality liquid assets, why should FCA continue to permit these instruments to be included in an FCS bank's liquidity reserve? If you believe that we should continue to allow money market instruments and diversified investment funds in the liquidity reserve requirement, how could FCA mitigate the risks they pose?

14. What factors should FCA consider in evaluating the risk of money market instruments and diversified investment funds in the context of the total liquidity reserve requirement?

15. Should FCA consider limiting money market instruments and diversified investment funds included in specific levels in the liquidity reserve to mitigate concentration risk? Please explain your reasoning.

The FBRAs' HQLA allowed in the LCR differ from liquid assets allowed in FCA's liquidity regulation. FCA's regulation allows certain instruments to qualify as liquid assets even though they are excluded from the LCR, such as investment company shares (mutual funds and money market funds). However, the LCR allows certain instruments to be included in HQLA that are excluded from FCA's liquidity regulation, such as municipal obligations and certain corporate bonds. 42 There are also certain instruments in HQLA that System banks do not have the authority to purchase. 43 FCA's regulation also differentiates liquid assets by tenor while the LCR does not. Additionally, the LCR applies more substantial discounts or “haircuts” to HQLA than FCA's liquidity regulation applies to the same assets. The FRBAs also limit certain assets to a percentage of the total eligible HQLA amount, whereas FCA does not. To evaluate this further, we are seeking comment to determine if we should consider aligning FCA's existing requirements for liquid assets with the LCR's HQLA.

16. Should FCA consider expanding the instruments eligible under the liquidity reserve to more closely align with the HQLA framework of the FBRAs? If so, which instruments should be considered and how would including the instruments add strength to the existing liquidity framework?

17. Should FCA consider reviewing tenor requirements in its existing liquidity regulations? If so, which instruments should be considered and how would the requirements add strength to the existing liquidity framework?

18. Should FCA consider changing discount values assigned to assets held for liquidity to more closely align with those applied under the LCR's HQLA framework?

19. Should FCA consider limiting certain assets included in the liquidity reserve to mitigate concentration risk? If so, what assets should be limited and what percent should they be allowed to count towards the reserve requirement?

FCS banks withstood the recent economic and financial turmoil from COVID-19 with their liquidity intact. However, both the FCA and FCS continue to gain insights into the effects that sudden and severe stress have on liquidity at individual FCS institutions and in the entire financial system. For example, in March of 2020, financial markets experienced a “flight to cash” where demand for cash and the highest quality cash like instruments dramatically increased, while demand (and thus prices) for less liquid instruments declined. 44 System banks are required to adopt a CFP to ensure sources of liquidity are sufficient to fund normal operations under a variety of stress events. 45 Such stress events include, but are not limited to market disruptions, rapid increase in loan demand, unexpected draws on unfunded commitments, difficulties in renewing or replacing funding with desired terms and structures, requirements to pledge collateral with counterparties, and reduced market access.

As addressed above, we are reviewing our regulatory and supervisory approaches towards liquidity so that System institutions are in a better position to withstand whatever future crises may arise. As part of our ongoing efforts to limit the adverse effect of rapidly changing economic, financial, and market conditions on the liquidity of any FCS bank, we are seeking comment to determine if we should make updates to our regulations to better prepare for future liquidity crises.

20. How should FCA further incorporate the demand for cash and highly liquid U.S. Treasury securities during times of crisis into the System banks liquidity reserve requirement?

21. What type of updates should FCA consider to the CFP requirements in § 615.5134(f)?

For the reasons discussed above, the FCA is exploring whether, and to what extent, the LCR and NSFR should apply to System banks now that the FBRAs issued final rules implementing the Basel III Liquidity Framework in the United States. More specifically, we are evaluating whether it is feasible to adjust the LCR and NSFR to the System's cooperative and non-depository structures and its mission as a GSE, and we are seeking your input. In the alternative, we are considering whether to incorporate specific elements of the LCR and NSFR into our liquidity regulation, and we are interested in your ideas about how to do so.

22. What core principles would be most important in FCA's consideration of the Basel III Liquidity Framework? How relevant is the Basel III Liquidity Framework to the cooperative and non-depository structure of the FCS?

23. To what extent should FCA propose a similar rule to the FBRA's LCR and NSFR?

a. Should FCA completely replace its existing liquidity regulations with an LCR and NSFR framework or only augment existing regulations with certain elements of the LCR and NSFR framework? If so, please explain.

b. What specific modifications, if any, should FCA consider making to the LCR and NSFR ratios for application to System banks, and why?

c. If FCA proposed to incorporate the LCR and NSFR ratios as part of the CFP requirement in § 615.5134(f), what types of modifications would be necessary to include elements of the ratios, without being redundant or overly burdensome?

24. If the FCA closely aligned the LCR and NSFR to the FBRA's regulations, and made only narrow modification to accommodate the System's unique structure, would the results enable FCS banks to better withstand liquidity crises, or in the alternative, prove too costly or burdensome? Please explain.

25. How would the implementation of an LCR and NSFR impact the System's funding structure, lending activities, or use of discount notes?

The LCR requires covered institutions to hold liquidity against the undrawn amount of a committed credit facility to a borrower. The outflow factor applied to this undrawn amount depends on the type of credit facility (credit or liquidity facility)  46 and the type of borrower (financial sector entity or non-financial sector entity). The direct notes from System banks to System associations under the GFAs are credit facilities, not liquidity facilities. Unfunded commitments on a credit facility to a financial sector entity have a 40 percent factor, while the same commitment to a non-financial sector entity only have a 10 percent factor. Financial sector entities typically have shorter-term funding structures and higher correlations of drawing down commitments during times of stress which support a higher factor when compared to non-financial sector entities. 47 A higher factor results in a higher liquidity requirement under the LCR.

The FBRAs' LCR regulation defines a financial sector entity to include a regulated financial company, but specifically excludes GSEs. The FCS is a cooperative system of financial institutions that the FCA charters and regulates in accordance with the Act. System associations lend directly to and provide certain financially-related services to eligible borrowers. The System's lending activities to retail borrowers, and its structure are different than the activities and structure of other GSEs excluded from the FBRAs' definition of a financial sector entity. 48 Unlike the other GSEs, most FCS institutions lend directly to retail borrowers in a manner that is substantially similar to lenders that the FBRAs define as financial sector entities. To evaluate this further, we are seeking comment to determine if we propose an LCR, should FCA treat System institutions as financial sector entities and apply the relevant factor under the FBRAs' definition.

26. If FCA proposes an LCR, should FCA treat System institutions as financial sector entities and apply a 40 percent factor to the unfunded portion of the associations' direct note commitments?

a. If so, what supports FCA treating System institutions as financial sector entities and applying a 40 percent factor on the unfunded commitments System banks have to associations?

b. If not, what supports FCA treating System institutions as non-financial sector entities and applying a 10 percent factor on the unfunded commitments System banks have to associations?

Two System banks offer investment bonds to their member-borrowers and other specified individuals, such as bank employees (Member Investment Bonds). Both programs are similar in that each bank offers overnight or short-term, uninsured bonds to the bank's members and other specified individuals. Member Investment Bonds are structured so that holders may redeem funds at their request (although prior notice for withdrawals may be required). Given their short maturity, a holder's investment may be continuously rolled over until they provide notice to redeem the investment, which may be at any time. Member Investment Bonds present a liquidity demand similar to maturing System bonds. Accordingly, FCA treats Member Investment Bonds and maturing System bonds the same under the existing liquidity rules. Under the LCR, there are several different outflow categories that Member Investment Bonds could fall into. To evaluate this further, we are seeking comment to determine if we propose an LCR, what the most appropriate factor for these investment bonds would be.

27. If FCA proposes an LCR, what would be an appropriate factor to apply to the Member Investment Bonds and why?

As discussed above, FCA regulation § 614.4175 allows member-borrowers to make VACP on their loans and allows institutions to set up involuntary payment accounts for funds held to be used for insurance premiums, taxes, and other reasons. A sudden surge in member-borrower draws from VACP accounts held at associations would increase the funding required from the System bank to the affiliated association at a time when market access is becoming impeded. To evaluate this further, we are seeking comment to determine if we propose an LCR, what the most appropriate factor for these VACP accounts would be.

28. If FCA proposes an LCR, given the uniqueness of VACP accounts and the ability of member-borrowers to withdraw certain VACP account funds at their request, what would be an appropriate factor?

29. If different factors should apply to different VACP accounts, please specify.

As discussed above, the FBRAs' HQLA allowed in the LCR differ from liquid assets allowed in FCA's liquidity regulation. To evaluate this further, we are seeking comment to determine if we propose an LCR, should FCA consider aligning FCA's liquid assets with the LCR's HQLA.

30. If FCA proposes an LCR, should we replace the current list of eligible instruments for the liquidity reserve with a list that is more closely aligned to the FBRA's HQLA instrument list (excluding common equities)? Please explain.

a. Should FCA's liquidity regulation continue to allow FCS banks to hold in their liquidity reserve instruments that are currently excluded from the FBRA's HLQA list? Which instruments and why?

b. Should FCA allow FCS banks to hold in their liquidity reserves instruments that are included in the FBRAs HLQA list, but are currently excluded from FCA's liquidity regulation? Which instruments and why?

The BCBS introduced the NSFR to require banks to maintain a stable funding profile to reduce the likelihood that disruptions in a bank's regular sources of funding will erode its liquidity position that may increase its risk of failure. Furthermore, during periods of financial stress, financial institutions without stable funding sources may be forced to monetize assets in order to meet their obligations, which may drive down asset prices and compound liquidity issues. The NSFR implements a standardized quantitative metric designed to limit maturity mismatches and applies favorable factors to a commercial bank's primary funding source—deposits. The NSFR requires a bank to maintain an amount of available stable funding (ASF) that is not less than the amount of its required stable funding (RSF) on an ongoing basis. ASF and RSF are calculated based on the liquidity characteristics of a bank's assets, derivative exposures, commitments, liabilities, and equity over a one-year time horizon.

The NSFR and its corresponding factors adopted by the FBRAs were established to measure and maintain the stability of the funding profiles of banking organizations that rely primarily on deposits. In contrast, FCS banks issue System-wide debt securities as the primary source for funding its operations. The System would potentially need to modify its funding structure to meet an NSFR by incorporating more long-term debt issuances. To evaluate this further, we are seeking comment to determine if the NSFR is applicable to the System's funding structure, authorities, and mission.

31. What core principles would be most important in FCA's consideration of the NSFR? How does the cooperative and non-depository structure of the System relate to the NSFR?

32. How could NSFR metrics replace any existing regulations, to ensure System banks have sufficiently stable liabilities (and regulatory capital) to support their assets and commitments over a one-year time horizon?

33. Is it beneficial or detrimental to replace existing regulations with NSFR metrics and why?

The BCBS developed the Basel NSFR standard as a longer-term balance sheet funding metric to complement the Basel LCR standard's short-term liquidity stress metric. In developing the Basel NSFR standard, the FBRAs and their international counterparts in the BCBS considered a number of possible funding metrics. 49 The Basel guidance and FBRA's NSFR regulation incorporated consideration of these and other funding risks. 50

34. What other approaches or methodologies to measuring and regulating liquidity not discussed above should FCA consider and why?

We welcome comments on every aspect of this advance notice of proposed rulemaking. We encourage any interested person(s) to identify and raise issues pertaining to other aspects of the liquidity framework for FCS banks and associations that we did not address in this ANPRM. Please designate such comments as “Other Relevant Issues.”

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2021-0504; Project Identifier AD-2020-01380-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this proposed AD.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Tony Koung, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3985; email: tony.koung@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA issued AD 2019-03-26, Amendment 39-19578 (84 FR 7266, March 4, 2019) (AD 2019-03-26), for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. AD 2019-03-26 was prompted by reports of PSUs becoming detached from the supporting airplane structure in several Model 737 series airplanes. AD 2019-03-26 requires modifying the PSUs and life vest panels by replacing the existing inboard lanyard and installing two new lanyards on the outboard edge of the PSUs and life vest panels; measuring the distance between the hooks of the torsion spring of the lanyard assembly; replacing discrepant lanyard assemblies; and re-identifying serviceable lanyard assemblies. The agency issued AD 2019-03-26 to address PSUs and life vest panels detaching from the supporting airplane structure, which could lead to passenger injuries and impede passenger and crew egress during evacuation.

Since the FAA issued AD 2019-03-26, Boeing found that, in the service information required by AD 2019-03-26, some airplanes were not assigned to the correct group and configuration. In addition, Boeing determined that the service information had missing or incorrect re-identification part numbers for those PSUs that were modified using Boeing Service Bulletin 737-35-1107. The FAA determined that the new requirements in this proposed AD would take a minimal amount of time to accomplish. Therefore, the proposed compliance time would remain the same as the time required by AD 2019-03-26 (within 60 months after April 8, 2019 (the effective date of AD 2019-03-26)).

The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1707, Revision 2, dated July 27, 2020. This service information specifies procedures for modifying the PSUs and life vest panels by: Replacing the existing inboard lanyard and installing two new lanyards on the outboard edge of the PSUs and life vest panels (secondary retention features); measuring the distance between the hooks of the torsion spring of the lanyard assembly; replacing any discrepant lanyard assemblies; and re-identifying serviceable lanyard assemblies. For some airplanes, the service information specifies procedures for inspecting PSUs for correct re-identification part numbers and, if necessary, re-identifying the PSU. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD 2019-03-26, this proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2019-03-26. Those requirements are referenced in the service information identified previously, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD. This proposed AD would add additional actions for certain airplanes. This proposed AD would also require accomplishment of the actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1707, Revision 2, dated July 27, 2020, described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information.”

For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0504.

The effectivity of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1707, Revision 2, dated July 27, 2020, is limited to Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, having certain line numbers, without a Boeing Sky Interior (BSI). However, the applicability of this proposed AD includes all Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes without a BSI. Because the affected lanyard assemblies are rotable parts, the FAA has determined that these affected parts could later be installed on airplanes that were initially delivered with acceptable lanyard assemblies, thereby subjecting those airplanes to the unsafe condition.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 2,045 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacements or re-identifications that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements or re-identifications:

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

The FAA has determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2021-0457; Project Identifier AD-2020-01461-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Allen Rauschendorfer, Senior Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3528; email: allen.rauschendorfer@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA has received a report indicating that during a fleet sampling inspection, cracks were found on the inner cylinder pivot pins of the left and right MLG on one of the airplanes. The pins exhibited cracking of the high velocity oxygen fuel (HVOF) tungsten carbide-cobalt-chrome coating. Removal of the outer diameter coating disclosed cracking of the custom 465 CRES substrate. The cause of the cracking was determined to be heat damage due to in-service friction. This condition, if not addressed, could result in a fractured pivot pin, which could lead to loss of all or part of the pivot pin assembly, and subsequent collapse of the MLG and reduced controllability of the airplane during takeoff and landing.

The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB320045-00 RB, Issue 001, dated November 9, 2020. This service information specifies procedures for repetitive lubrication of the left and right MLG truck beam and inner cylinder pivot joint with MIL-PRF-32014 grease, reviewing the maintenance program documentation to verify that it includes lubrication tasks for the left and right MLG truck beam and inner cylinder pivot joint with MIL-PRF-32014 grease, repetitive detailed and fluorescent penetrant inspections (FPI) of the left and right MLG pivot pin outer diameter (OD) surface for any friction and heat damage, repetitive detailed inspections of the left and right MLG inner cylinder bushing inner diameter (ID) surface for any excessive wear, cracking and smearing of bushing material, and applicable on-condition actions.

On-condition actions include updating the maintenance program to incorporate lubrication tasks for the left and right MLG truck beam and inner cylinder pivot joint with MIL-PRF-32014 grease, detailed and FPI inspections on the inner cylinder lug bore for any heat and friction damage, installing a new pivot pin, applying lubrication using MIL-PRF-32014 grease and making sure lubrication passages are clear, installing new aluminum-nickel-bronze inner cylinder bushings, installing new copper-nickel-tin inner cylinder bushings, and repair.

The service information also specifies terminating actions for the repetitive inspections. The terminating actions include the installation of certain parts and incorporation of the lubrications tasks into the maintenance program.

The FAA also reviewed Boeing 787 Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D011Z009-03-03, dated June 2020. This service information specifies procedures for, among other actions, for CMR item number 32-CMR-01, to lubricate the main landing gear truck beam pivot joint.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES .

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information already described except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0457.

Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB320045-00 RB, Issue 001, dated November 9, 2020, specifies updating the maintenance program to incorporate lubrication tasks for the left and right MLG truck beam and inner cylinder pivot joint with MIL-PRF-32014 grease. Operators have different methods of updating the maintenance program. If operators want to terminate the repetitive lubrications required by paragraph (g) of this AD, only revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate CMR item number 32-CMR-01 of Section G, “Certification Maintenance Requirement Task,” of Boeing 787 Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D011Z009-03-03, dated June 2020, is terminating action.

This proposed AD includes an optional action that would include revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions ( e.g., inspections). Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (l) of this proposed AD.

The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (AD ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement is a process for annotating which steps in the service information are “required for compliance” (RC) with an AD. Boeing has implemented this RC concept into Boeing service bulletins.

In an effort to further improve the quality of ADs and AD-related Boeing service information, a joint process improvement initiative was worked between the FAA and Boeing. The initiative resulted in the development of a new process in which the service information more clearly identifies the actions needed to address the unsafe condition in the “Accomplishment Instructions.” The new process results in a Boeing Requirements Bulletin, which contains only the actions needed to address the unsafe condition ( i.e., only the RC actions).

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 131 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this proposed AD.

For the optional action to revise the maintenance or inspection program by incorporating CMR item number 32-CMR-01, as applicable, the FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past, the FAA has estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the FAA estimates the average total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2021-0503; Project Identifier AD-2021-00163-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this proposed AD.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3524; email: wayne.lockett@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA issued AD 2005-05-18, Amendment 39-14007 (70 FR 12410, March 14, 2005) (AD 2005-05-18), for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes. AD 2005-05-18 was prompted by a report of cracks found, during fatigue testing, at several of the fastener rows in the web lap splices at the dome apex of the aft pressure bulkhead. AD 2005-05-18 requires repetitive detailed, low frequency eddy current (LFEC), and high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking of the webs of the aft pressure bulkhead at body station (BS) 1016, and corrective action if necessary. The FAA issued AD 2005-05-18 to detect and correct fatigue cracks in the webs of the aft pressure bulkhead, which could result in rapid decompression of the airplane.

Since the FAA issued AD 2005-05-18, cracking has been found at apex webs on airplanes outside the applicability of AD 2005-05-18, which includes line numbers 1 through 1166 inclusive. Line numbers 1167 through 1755 inclusive, which are included in this proposed AD, use a revised fastener pattern in the 0.032-inch webs that was intended to correct the cracking addressed by AD 2005-05-18. During the assembly process on line numbers 1167 through 1755, the fasteners in the apex dome region are subjected to fuselage pressurization fatigue cycles and clamp-up stresses. Cracks in the inspection area of AD 2005-05-18 have now been found on airplanes within the range of line numbers 1167 through 1755 inclusive. At one location, the crack was linked from the first to the second fastener row. This cracking was identified during an inspection for cracking of the web lap splice of the aft pressure bulkhead, as required by AD 2017-10-22, Amendment 39-18896 (82 FR 23507, May 23, 2017) (AD 2017-10-22). The inspections and intervals specified in AD 2017-10-22 are not adequate to address the specific fatigue cracking occurring in the web apex area that is the subject of this NPRM.

The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1251, Revision 2, dated January 20, 2021. This service information specifies procedures for a general visual inspection for existing repairs, repetitive detailed and HFEC inspections for cracks around the web fasteners, repetitive LFEC inspection for cracks around the hidden web lap splice fastener locations, and repair of cracks. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD 2005-05-18, this proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2005-05-18. Those requirements are referenced in the service information identified previously, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD. This proposed AD would revise the applicability to include additional airplanes, and add an inspection for existing repairs on those airplanes. This proposed AD would also require accomplishment of the actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1251, Revision 2, dated January 20, 2021, described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0503.

For Group 1 airplanes, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1251 Revision 2, dated January 20, 2021, do not include any “RC” (required for compliance) steps. The RC tagging was inadvertently removed from Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1251 Revision 2, dated January 20, 2021. For Group 1 airplanes, this proposed AD would therefore require treating Step 3.B.2. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1251 Revision 2, dated January 20, 2021, as an RC step.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 744 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspections. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

The FAA has determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

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 at Mesa Del Rey Airport, King City, CA, to support IFR operations at the airport.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2021-0478; Airspace Docket No. 21-AWP-28”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://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 and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Mesa Del Rey Airport, King City, CA. This airspace is designed to contain IFR departure to 1,200 feet above the surface and IFR arrivals descending below 1,500 feet above the surface. The establishment of Class E airspace will support the airport's transition from VFR to IFR operations.

Class E5 airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial, and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. 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 rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (section 721(d)(1) (21 U.S.C. 379e(d)(1))), we are giving notice that we have filed a color additive petition (CAP 1C0319), submitted by GBIG, c/o Exponent, Inc., 1150 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20036. The petition proposes to amend the color additive regulations in part 73 (21 CFR part 73, “Listing of Color Additives Exempt From Certification”) to provide for the safe use of gardenia blue powder as a color additive in: (1) Sport drinks; (2) flavored or enhanced, noncarbonated water; (3) fruit drinks and ades; (4) ready-to-drink tea; (5) hard candy; and (6) soft candy, at levels consistent with good manufacturing practice.

The petitioner has claimed that this action is categorically excluded under 21 CFR 25.32(k) because the substance is intended to remain in food through ingestion by consumers and is not intended to replace macronutrients in food. In addition, the petitioner has stated that, to their knowledge, no extraordinary circumstances exist. If FDA determines a categorical exclusion applies, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. If FDA determines a categorical exclusion does not apply, we will request an environmental assessment and make it available for public inspection.

Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding the proposed priorities and definitions. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the final priorities and definitions, we urge you to clearly identify the specific section of the proposed priority or definition that each comment addresses.

We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from the proposed priorities and definitions. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of our programs.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about the proposed priorities and definitions by accessing Regulations.gov . Due to the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the Department buildings are currently not open to the public. However, upon reopening, you may also inspect the comments in person in Room 4W308, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for the proposed priorities and definitions. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3.

Proposed Priorities: This document contains six proposed priorities.

The Secretary proposes six priorities and related definitions for use in discretionary grant programs to reflect the Secretary's vision for American education. This vision includes a respect for the dignity and potential of each and every student and their access to educational opportunity. These proposed priorities are aligned with evidence-based (as defined in this document) and capacity-building approaches to addressing various interconnected policy issues in the Nation's education system.

With a focus on creating the conditions under which students have equitable access to opportunity, these proposed priorities address a variety of areas. In K-12 education, these areas include closing the large gaps in funding and opportunity within school districts, schools, classrooms, and other learning environments; implementing effective approaches to teaching and learning; closing the divides in digital access and use; meeting the social, emotional, and academic needs of all students and creating safe, nurturing, and inclusive learning environments; improving educator diversity; expanding opportunities for educators to receive the preparation, support, and respect they need and deserve; and expanding access to high-quality early learning (as defined in this document). In postsecondary education, the proposed priorities address increasing access and success in postsecondary education for underserved students (as defined in this document), including making college affordable and fostering supportive career pathways. In both K-12 and postsecondary education, the proposed priorities include a focus on providing all students with access to high-quality schools and institutions that prepare them for college and career with a balance of quality coursework that includes the arts and sciences; ensuring post-enrollment success; supporting preparatory and current educator growth; and strengthening high-quality career and technical education.

The Secretary proposes these priorities to advance evidence-based and capacity building approaches with an understanding that meeting these goals requires multifaceted efforts. For example, rather than a priority that is focused solely on educator professional development, the proposed priority addresses the needs of all educators, all aspects of the educator pipeline, and the diversity of and equitable access to those educators. This approach to the priorities provides a vision for systems-level approaches that build capacity for long-term change. Furthermore, in order to ensure those change efforts are effectively targeted to meet the needs of students, these proposed priorities also include a focus on specific subgroups of students, such as military- and veteran-connected students (as defined in this document), which will provide greater flexibility for the Secretary to focus the work of grantees on areas of critical need.

Additionally, regarding each technology reference, all technology developed or used under these proposed priorities must be accessible to English learners and to individuals with disabilities in accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as applicable.

These proposed priorities and definitions are intended to replace the current supplemental priorities published on March 2, 2018 (83 FR 9096), the Opportunity Zones final priority published on November 27, 2019 (84 FR 65300), and the Remote Learning priority published on December 30, 2020 (85 FR 86545); NIAs published before the finalization of these proposed priorities that use the current priorities remain in effect. At this time, we are retaining the Administrative Priorities published on March 9, 2020 (85 FR 13640) while the Department continues to examine potential updates to the Education Department General Administrative Regulations, which may include incorporation of these March 9, 2020, priorities.

Proposed Priority 1—Addressing the Impact of COVID-19 on Students, Educators, and Faculty.

Background:

The COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected many students, educators, and faculty throughout the country. Although virtually everyone was affected to some degree, the pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on underserved students and laid bare the unique challenges faced by these students. Many of these challenges pre-date the pandemic and will be felt for years to come. For example, some of these students were already less likely to have access to the resources, such as broadband, and student supports required to participate in high-quality remote education. Underserved students are also more likely to rely on key school- or campus-supported resources such as food programs, special education and related services, health services (including mental health), counseling, or after-school programs to meet basic or developmental needs. 1 For parents, guardians, or caregivers who have less flexible jobs, staying at home to provide childcare or aid with remote learning may be impracticable or impossible, which may further exacerbate these challenges. 2

To mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and support safe in-person instruction, schools and campuses need sufficient resources, close collaboration with local public health officials, and the support of community members who commit to following State and local public health guidelines. Consistent implementation of effective strategies for preventing the transmission of COVID-19 during all school-related activities is critical for keeping schools and campuses open. It is essential that schools and students receive the resources, technical assistance, and other supports necessary to plan and implement comprehensive prevention strategies and that administrators, educators, and faculty consistently engage students, parents, and community partners throughout the process—paying close attention to underserved communities including communities of color, which have borne a disproportionate burden of COVID-19. 3

Moving forward, as the effects of the pandemic will be residual and last for years, schools will also need to increase their support of students' social, emotional, mental health, and academic needs in response to the impacts of COVID. As students return to in-person learning, they will need ongoing support and innovative approaches to learning in the coming years to accelerate learning and succeed. Educators may need resources to learn new approaches to supporting students, especially in communities that have faced significant loss and trauma. In addition, educators may need additional support and development to mitigate the longer-term impact of COVID on their own well-being. States and districts also need resources to stabilize current workforce positions and protect the pipeline into the profession.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic changed the education landscape for the foreseeable future, especially as students continue to make up for lost classroom instruction. However, it also provides an opportunity to redesign how schools approach teaching and learning in ways that both address long-standing gaps in educational opportunity and better prepare students for college and careers. This priority would support recovery and innovation to best serve students and support educators.

Proposed Priority:

Projects that are designed to address the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, including impacts that extend beyond the timing of the pandemic itself, the students most impacted by the pandemic, and the educators who serve them through one or more of the following priority areas:

(a) Conducting community asset-mapping and needs assessments that may include an assessment of the extent to which students have become disengaged from learning, including students not participating in in-person or remote instruction, and specific strategies for reengaging and supporting students.

(b) Providing resources and supports to meet the basic, fundamental, health and safety needs of students and educators.

(c) Addressing students' social, emotional, mental health, and academic needs.

(d) Addressing teacher, faculty, and staff well-being.

(e) Providing students and educators with access to reliable high-speed broadband and devices; providing students with access to high-quality, technology-supported learning experiences that are accessible to children or students with disabilities  4 and educators with disabilities to accelerate learning; and providing educators with access to job-embedded professional development to support the effective use of technology.

(f) Using technology to enable evidence-based interventions to support personalized in-person student learning as well as evidence-based supplemental activities that extend learning time and increase student engagement and, where possible, increase parent engagement.

(g) Using evidence-based instructional approaches and supports to accelerate learning for students in ways that ensure all students have the opportunity to successfully meet challenging academic content standards without contributing to tracking or remedial courses.

(h) Using evidence-based instructional approaches or supports to better allow individuals who did not enroll in, withdrew from, or reduced course loads in postsecondary education or training programs due to COVID-19 to enroll, remain enrolled, and complete credit-bearing coursework and earn recognized postsecondary credentials.

Proposed Priority 2—Promoting Equity in Student Access to Educational Resources, Opportunities, and Welcoming Environments .

Background:

Improving educational equity is a priority for the Biden-Harris Administration, with particular focus on supporting underserved students. The Department seeks to remedy the deeply rooted inequities in this country's education system which when addressed, will better allow access to educational opportunity for underserved students and enable educators to work toward closing achievement gaps.

Inadequate access to and the inequitable distribution of resources negatively affect underserved students' educational experience in a number of ways, which may include fewer opportunities for educational enrichment, high-quality early learning, well-rounded coursework, and high-quality college and career pathways; discriminatory design and administration of school discipline and its associated outcomes; and limited access to the most prepared, experienced, and effective teachers. These factors can limit access to resources and success in student learning.

For example, a December 2020 brief from the National Center for Education Statistics at the Department's Institute of Education Sciences  5 reported that a lower percentage of schools in which 75 percent or more of students were approved for free or reduced-price lunch offered dual enrollment opportunities for students than did schools with lower participation rates in free or reduced-price lunch programs (71 percent, compared with 93 percent for schools in which 35 to 49 percent of students were approved for free or reduced price lunch).

These inequities also include the disproportionate impact of school discipline policies on students of color. 6 For example, during the 2017-18 school year, African American male students comprised 7.7 percent of all male students enrolled in grades K-12 but accounted for 35.4 percent of male students who received one or more out-of-school suspensions. 7 White male students, on the other hand, account for 24.4 percent of all male students enrolled, but represent 35.5 percent of male students who received one or more out-of-school suspensions. Black male students are one-third the populace of White male students with disproportionate suspensions that lead to greater education interruption and can have long-term negative consequences. Data from the same year show that African American female students represented 7.4 percent of the total female enrollment but accounted for 13.3 percent of female students who receive one or more out-of-school suspensions, while White females make up 22.9 percent of the total female enrollment and represent 7.99 percent of female students receiving one or more out-of-school suspensions. Research suggests that these disparities can be exacerbated by or are the result of educators' subjective evaluations of students' actions rather than being the product of objective differences in student behavior. 8 English learners, LGBTQ+ students, children or students with disabilities (as defined in this document), and students from low-income backgrounds also experience higher rates of discipline compared to their peers. 9

Finally, underserved students have less access to qualified educators. For example, schools with high enrollments of students of color were four times as likely to employ uncertified teachers as were schools with low enrollments of students of color. 10 Students in schools with high enrollments of students of color also have less access to experienced teachers. In these schools, nearly one in every six teachers is just beginning his or her career, compared to one in every 10 teachers in schools with low enrollments of students of color. 11

This proposed priority seeks to address the inequities in our education system and better enable students to access the educational opportunities they need to succeed in school and reach their future goals, in tandem with other Departmental statutes, which require applicants to develop and describe plans for equity for students, educators, and other program beneficiaries.

Proposed Priority:

Projects designed to promote educational equity and adequacy in resources and opportunity for underserved students—

(a) In one or more of the following educational settings:

(1) Early learning programs.

(2) Elementary school.

(3) Middle school.

(4) High school.

(6) Out-of-school-time (OST) settings.

(7) Juvenile justice system or correctional facilities.

(8) Adult learning; and

(b) That are designed to examine the sources of inequities related to, and implement responses through, one or more of the following:

(1) Promoting student access to and success in rigorous and engaging approaches to learning that are racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically inclusive and prepare students for college, career, and civic life, including one or more of the following:

(i) Student-centered learning models that leverage technology to address learner variability ( e.g., universal design for learning (as defined in this notice), K-12 competency-based education (as defined in this notice), project-based learning, or hybrid/blended learning) and provide high-quality learning content, applications, or tools.

(ii) Middle school courses or projects that prepare students to participate in advanced coursework in high school.

(iii) Advanced courses and programs, including dual enrollment and early college programs.

(iv) Project-based and experiential learning, including service and work-based learning.

(v) High-quality career and technical education courses, pathways, and industry-recognized credentials that are integrated into the curriculum.

(vi) Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), including computer science coursework.

(vii) Civics programs that support students in understanding and engaging in American democratic practices,

(2) Increasing the number and proportion of experienced, fully certified, in-field, and effective educators, and educators from traditionally underrepresented backgrounds or the communities they serve. 12

(3) Improving the preparation, recruitment, and early career support and development of educators in high-need fields (as may be defined in the program statute or regulations) or hard to staff schools.

(4) Improving the retention of fully certified, experienced, and effective educators in high-need schools, and high-need fields.

(5) Addressing inequities in access to and success in learning through racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically inclusive pedagogical practice in educator preparation programs and professional development programs so that educators are better prepared to address bias in their classrooms and create inclusive, supportive, equitable, and identity-safe learning environments for their students.

(6) Using technology to enable evidence-based interventions to support student learning in the classroom or support supplemental activities that extend learning time and increase student engagement and, where possible, increase parent engagement.

(7) Creating more equitable and adequate approaches to school funding.

(8) Expanding access to high-quality early learning, including in school-based and community-based settings.

(9) Establishing, expanding, or improving learning environments, which includes early learning, for multilanguage learners, and increasing public awareness about the benefits of fluency in more than one language and how the coordination of language development in the school and the home improves student outcomes for multilanguage learners.

(10) Establishing, expanding, or improving the engagement of underserved community members (including underserved students) in informing and making decisions that influence policy and practice at the school, district, or State level by elevating their voices and their perspectives and providing them with access to opportunities for leadership ( e.g., establishing student government programs)).

(11) Improving the quality of educational programs in juvenile justice facilities (such as detention facilities and secure and non-secure placements) or adult correctional facilities.

(12) Supporting re-entry of, and improving long-term outcomes for, youth and adults after release from correctional facilities by linking youth or adults to appropriate support, education, or workforce training programs.

(13) Increasing student racial or socioeconomic diversity at multiple levels, through one or more of the following:

(i) Using high-quality data collection methods to identify racial and socioeconomic stratification, trends in and contributors to stratification, and barriers to racial and socioeconomic diversity.

(ii) Developing or implementing evidence-based policies or strategies that include one or more of the following:

(A) Ongoing, robust family and community involvement.

(B) Intra- or inter-district or regional coordination.

(C) Cross-agency collaboration, such as with housing or transportation authorities.

(D) Alignment with an existing public diversity plan or diversity needs assessment.

(E) Consideration of school assignment or admissions policies that are designed to promote socioeconomic diversity and give preference to students from low-income backgrounds or students residing in neighborhoods experiencing concentrated poverty.

(iii) Establishing or expanding schools, as well as programs within schools, that are designed to attract and foster meaningful interactions among substantial numbers of students from different racial and/or socioeconomic backgrounds, such as magnet schools.

(iv) Developing evidence related to, or providing technical assistance on, evidence-based policies or strategies designed to increase racial and socioeconomic diversity in educational settings.

Proposed Priority 3—Supporting a Diverse Educator Workforce and Professional Growth to Strengthen Student Learning .

Background:

In Proposed Priority 3, the Department recognizes that diverse, well-prepared, and well-supported educators play a critical role in ensuring equity in our education system and student success and emphasizes the importance of promoting the continued development and growth of educators, including through leadership opportunities. It is also important that the diversity of our educator workforce reflect the diversity of our Nation. A diverse educator workforce benefits all students, and educator diversity in particular can improve school-related outcomes for students of color. Higher levels of student achievement, 13 enrollment in more rigorous courses, 14 increased referrals to gifted and talented programs, 15 and reductions in exclusionary discipline  16 have all been noted when students of color and educators of color share the classroom. Although no single factor is wholly responsible for these findings, research suggests that teachers of color are more likely to have higher academic expectations for students with whom they share a cultural background. 17 18 Teachers of color may also be more likely to address issues of racism in their schools, by, for example, supporting efforts to break down negative stereotypes and prepare all students to live and work in a multiracial society. 19 Teachers of color may also be drawn to working with students of color and it has been noted that “three in four teachers of color work in the quartile of schools serving the most students of color nationally”. 20 Because teachers of color are more likely to teach in these schools, which often also have difficulty hiring adequate numbers of qualified teachers, increasing educator diversity can play a critical role in addressing teacher shortages. 21

Effective teachers, including experienced  22 teachers who are fully certified, 23 make significant contributions to student academic outcomes. 24 25 Despite the importance of these characteristics, there is significant inequity in students' access to well-qualified, experienced, and effective teachers, 26 particularly for students from low-income backgrounds, students of color, and children or students with disabilities.

As such, it is essential to attract, support, and retain a diverse, well-qualified, experienced, and effective pool of educators and the first step in that effort is to ensure that candidates have access to high-quality comprehensive preparation programs that have high standards and provide necessary supports for successful completion. It is equally important to support and retain qualified and effective educators through practices such as mentoring early career teachers; improving working conditions; creating or enhancing opportunities for professional growth, including through leadership opportunities; providing competitive compensation and opportunities for educators to take on leadership roles; and creating conditions for successful teaching and learning.

This proposed priority focuses on strengthening teacher recruitment, selection, preparation, support, development, effectiveness, recognition, and retention in ways that are consistent with the Department's policy goals of supporting teachers as the professionals they are and improving outcomes for all students by ensuring that students from low-income backgrounds, students of color, students with disabilities, English learners, and other underserved students have equal access to well-qualified, experienced, diverse, and effective educators.

Proposed Priority:

Projects that are designed to increase the proportion of well-prepared, diverse, and effective educators serving students, with a focus on underserved students, through one or more of the following priority areas:

(a) Increasing the number of diverse educator candidates who have access to an evidence-based comprehensive educator preparation program.

(b) Increasing the number of teachers with certification in an educator shortage area, or advanced certifications from nationally recognized professional organizations.

(c) Promoting knowledge of universal design for learning in educator preparation.

(d) Integrating universal design for learning principles in pedagogical practices and classroom features, such as instructional techniques, classroom materials and resources, and classroom seating.

(e) Implementing loan forgiveness or service-scholarship programs for educators based on completing service obligation requirements.

(f) Building or expanding high-poverty school districts' (as may be defined in the program statute or regulations) capacity to hire, support, and retain an effective and diverse educator workforce, through one or more of the following:

(1) Providing beginning educators with evidence-based mentoring or induction programs.

(2) Adopting or expanding comprehensive, strategic career and compensation systems that provide competitive compensation and include opportunities for educators to serve as mentors and instructional coaches, or to take on additional leadership roles and responsibilities for which educators are compensated.

(3) Developing data systems, timelines, and action plans for promoting inclusive and bias-free human resources practices that promote and support development of educator and school leader diversity.

(g) Supporting effective instruction and building educator capacity through one or more of the following:

(1) Providing high-quality job-embedded professional development opportunities focused on one or more of the following:

(i) Designing and delivering instruction in ways that are engaging, effectively integrate technology, and provide students with opportunities to think critically and solve complex problems, apply their learning in authentic and real-world settings, communicate and collaborate effectively, and develop academic mindsets, including through project-based, work-based, or other experiential learning opportunities.

(ii) Supporting students and their families at key transitional stages in their education as they enter into one or more of the following:

(A) Elementary school.

(B) Middle school.

(C) High school.

(D) Postsecondary education.

(E) Work.

(iii) Meeting the needs of English learners.

(iv) Meeting the needs of children or students with disabilities, including children or students with the most significant disabilities.

(v) Addressing inequities and bias and developing racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically inclusive pedagogy.

(vi) Building meaningful and trusting relationships with students' families to support in-home, community-based, and in-school learning.

(vii) For school leaders, improving mastery of essential instructional and organizational leadership skills designed to improve teacher and student learning.

(viii) Supporting teachers in creating safe, healthy, inclusive, and productive classroom environments.

(2) Developing and implementing high-quality assessments (as defined in this notice) of and for student learning (including curriculum-aligned and performance-based tools aligned with State grade-level content standards or, for career and technical education, relevant industry standards) and strategies that allow educators to use the data from assessments to inform instructional design and classroom practices that meet the needs of all students, with a focus on underserved students, and providing high-quality professional development to support educators in implementing these strategies.

(h) Increasing educator capacity to collaborate with diverse stakeholders to carry-out rapid, iterative cycles of evaluation, such as design-based research, improvement science, or other rapid cycle techniques, to design, develop, or improve promising innovations that are designed to benefit underserved students.

Proposed Priority 4— Meeting Student Social, Emotional, and Academic Needs.

Background: The ongoing effects of the dual crises of COVID-19 and systemic racism have affected communities across this country. Countless students have been exposed to trauma and disruptions in learning and have experienced disengagement from school and peers, negatively impacting their mental health and well-being. While all students' overall levels of wellness have been affected, students of color and other underserved students have experienced a disproportionate burden of the pandemic. 27 Targeted supports, including those that leverage technology, are needed for students who have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. Research has demonstrated that, in elementary and secondary schools, children learn, grow, and achieve at higher levels in safe and supportive environments, and in the care of responsive adults they can trust. 28 It is critical, then, to prioritize support for students' social, emotional, and academic needs, not only to benefit students' social-emotional wellness, but also to support their academic success and prepare them for their future.

Because mounting evidence suggests that supporting social-emotional learning (SEL) can contribute to overall student development, 29 30 31 educators need access to tools, supports, and other resources focused on SEL supports that can improve effective instructional practices. Integrating evidence-based instructional strategies and approaches proven to support SEL in the classroom has the potential to yield important benefits in students' social, emotional, and academic growth—and avert potential negative outcomes for students. For example, students with unmet social and emotional needs can struggle with social interactions and engagement during instructional and social times during the school day. In turn, this can diminish students' sense of social and academic connection, leading to chronic absenteeism and antisocial behavior in elementary and secondary education. 32

The world of work is also rapidly shifting, and the pre-existing equity gaps in access to high-quality career and technical education--including dual enrollment, industry-recognized credentials, and work-based learning—have been further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Creating more equitable systems of multiple, high-quality, flexible college and career pathways that align our schools and postsecondary learning with the demands of the 21st century economy will help narrow disparities in financial security and broaden economic opportunity.

With appropriate and effective supports, students will be more likely to stay engaged in school, experience social-emotional wellness and academic success, and experience positive long-term outcomes in both school and life. 33

Proposed Priority:

Projects that are designed to improve students' social, emotional, academic, and career development, with a focus on underserved students, through one or more of the following priority areas:

(a) Developing and supporting educator and school capacity to support social and emotional learning and development that—

(1) Fosters skills and behaviors that enable academic progress developed through explicit instruction in social, emotional, and cognitive skills;

(2) Identifies and addresses conditions in the learning environment, that may negatively impact social and emotional well-being for underserved students, including conditions that affect physical safety; and

(3) Is trauma-informed, such as addressing exposure to community-based violence and trauma specific to military- or veteran-connected students (as defined in this notice).

(b) Creating supportive, positive, and identity-safe education or work-based settings that provide racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically inclusive instruction, through one or more of the following activities:

(1) Developing trusting relationships between students, educators, families, and community partners, including engaging underserved students.

(2) Providing high-quality professional development opportunities designed to reduce bias, increase engagement and belonging, and build asset-based mindsets for adults working in and throughout schools.

(3) Engaging parents, caregivers, students, and community members as full partners in school climate review and improvement efforts.

(4) Developing and implementing inclusive and culturally informed discipline policies and addressing disparities in school discipline policy by identifying and addressing the root causes of those disparities, including by providing training and resources to support educators.

(5) Supporting students to engage in real-world, hands-on learning in community-based settings, such as apprenticeships, pre-apprenticeships, work-based learning and service learning, and engaging in civic activities, that allow them to apply their knowledge and skills, strengthen their employability skills, and access career exploration opportunities.

(c) Creating a positive, inclusive, and identity-safe climate at institutions of higher education through one or more of the following activities:

(1) Fostering a sense of belonging and inclusion for underserved students.

(2) Implementing evidence-based practices for advancing student success for underserved students.

(3) Providing evidence-based professional development opportunities designed to reduce bias and build asset-based mindsets for faculty and staff on campus, including high-quality racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically inclusive practices for students, faculty, staff, and community.

(4) Developing any necessary updates to the institution's harassment policies and procedures to ensure they apply to harassment that occurs in the institution's educational programs and activities, including during hybrid and distance education.

(d) Providing multi-tiered systems of supports to meet students' academic, social, and emotional needs, including by offering evidence-based trauma-informed practices, to address learning barriers both in and out of the classroom, that enable healthy development and respond to students needs and which may include professional development for educators on avoiding deficit-based approaches.

(e) Developing or implementing policies and practices that prevent or reduce significant disproportionality on the basis of race or ethnicity with respect to the identification, placement, and disciplining of children or students with disabilities.

(f) Providing all students access to physically healthy learning environments, such as energy-efficient spaces, for one or more of the following:

(1) Early learning environments.

(2) Elementary or secondary schools.

(3) Out-of-school time learning spaces.

(4) Postsecondary institutions.

(g) Providing students equitable access to social workers, psychologists, counselors, nurses, or mental health professionals and other integrated services and supports, which may include in early learning environments.

(h) Preparing educators to implement project-based or experiential learning opportunities for students to strengthen their metacognitive skills, self-direction, self-efficacy, competency, or motivation, including through instruction that: Connects to students' prior knowledge and experience; provides rich, engaging, complex, and motivating tasks; or offers opportunities for collaborative learning.

(i) Creating comprehensive schoolwide frameworks (such as small schools or learning communities, advisory systems, or looping educators) that support strong and consistent student and educator relationships.

(j) Fostering partnerships, including across government agencies ( e.g., housing, human services or employment agencies), LEAs, community-based organizations and postsecondary education intuitions, to provide comprehensive services to children, students and families that support student social, emotional, mental health and academic needs.

Proposed Priority 5—Increasing Postsecondary Education Access, Affordability, Completion, and Post-Enrollment Success .

Background:

Postsecondary education, including career and technical education, is increasingly necessary for individuals to compete in a global economy. Therefore, the Nation must boost completion rates at all levels of postsecondary education. This proposed priority supports projects that prepare students, particularly underserved students, for college and the workforce; enroll more students in postsecondary education and help them succeed; and make college more affordable. This proposed priority also supports career and technical education that connects with and leads to postsecondary education programs of study and provides students with the knowledge and skills to succeed in the workforce, earn a competitive wage, and pursue lifelong learning and career and economic advancement opportunities.

With this proposed priority, we also aim to encourage adult learners to reengage in learning, by meeting them where they are and preparing them to succeed in postsecondary coursework such as through adult education and literacy activities that will help increase their employability.

In addition to supporting projects that prepare students for careers and college, we must make it easier for all students to afford postsecondary education, including career and technical education, to complete their credential in a timely manner, and to understand the returns to their program of study. The average net price of a college education has risen for many undergraduates, particularly full-time students attending four-year public colleges and universities, widening the affordability gap. 34 Potential strategies for addressing these challenges as part of a broader structure supporting student success could include: Reducing time to degree and credential; improving transferability between community colleges and four year institutions; supporting degree and credential completion, particularly among underserved students; providing financial and non-financial comprehensive supports; and increasing transparency about the price of college, typical levels of student indebtedness, and median earnings.

Proposed Priority:

Projects that are designed to increase postsecondary access, affordability, success, and completion for underserved students by addressing one or more of the following priority areas:

(a) Projects implemented by or in partnership with one or more of the following entities:

(1) Community colleges (as defined in this notice).

(2) Historically Black colleges and universities (as defined in this notice).).

(3) Tribal colleges and universities (as defined in this notice).).

(4) Minority-serving institutions (as defined in this notice).).

(b) Increasing postsecondary attainment and reducing the cost of college by creating clearer pathways for students between institutions and making transfer of course credits more seamless and transparent.

(c) Increasing the number and proportion of underserved students who enroll in and complete postsecondary education programs, which may include strategies related to college preparation, awareness, application, selection, advising, counseling and enrollment.

(d) Reducing the net price or debt-to-earnings ratio for underserved students who enroll in or complete college, other postsecondary education, or career and technical education programs.

(e) Establishing a system of high-quality data, such as data on persistence, retention, and completion, for transparency, accountability, and institutional improvement.

(f) Supporting the development and implementation of student success programs that integrate multiple comprehensive and evidence-based services or initiatives, such as academic advising, structured/guided pathways, career services, programs to meet basic needs, such as housing, childcare and transportation, student financial aid, and access to technological devices.

(g) Increasing the number of individuals who return to the educational system to obtain a regular high school diploma, or its recognized equivalent for adult learners; enroll in and complete community college, college, or career and technical training; or obtain basic and academic skills that they need to succeed in community college, college, career and technical education, and/or the workforce.

(h) Supporting the development and implementation of high-quality and accessible learning opportunities, including learning opportunities that are accelerated or hybrid online; credit-bearing; work-based; and flexible for working students.

(i) Supporting evidence-based practices in career and technical education and ensuring equitable access to and successful completion of high-quality programs, credentials, or degrees.

(j) Supporting the development or implementation of evidence-based strategies to promote students' development of the necessary knowledge and skills necessary for success in the workforce and civic life.

(k) Connecting children or students with disabilities, adults with disabilities, and disconnected youth to resources designed to improve independent living and the achievement of employment outcomes, which may include the provision of pre-employment transition services, transition and other vocational rehabilitation services under the Vocational Rehabilitation program, and transition and related services under IDEA.

(l) Providing students access to international education, education in cultural and global competencies, and foreign language training in preparation for global competitiveness.

Proposed Priority 6—Strengthening Cross-Agency Coordination and Community Engagement to Advance Systemic Change.

Background:

Schools and campuses are often the center of the community for students and their families, providing students with the resources and referrals they need to meet their full potential. Ensuring that students and families have access to nutritious food, housing, health services, employment/financial services, and other community resources is pivotal to ensuring success in the classroom, which in turn uplifts community vitality. These needs are best met through cross-agency coordination and partnerships between schools, campuses, and other organizations in the community. In this way, effective partnerships can make it easier for families to have various needs met by the school and support systemic, long-term change. Numerous programs require or emphasize the importance of such partnerships in improving outcomes for students and their families. This proposed priority would encourage partnerships with other agencies or entities and support cross-agency, and cross-community partnerships at the State and local levels.

Proposed Priority:

Projects that are designed to take a systemic approach to improving outcomes for underserved students in one or more of the following priority areas:

(a) Coordinating efforts with Federal, State, or local agencies, or community-based organizations that support students, to address one or more of the following:

(1) Food assistance.

(2) Energy.

(3) Climate change.

(4) Housing.

(5) Homelessness.

(6) Transportation.

(7) Health.

(8) Childcare.

(9) School diversity.

(10) Justice policy.

(11) Workforce development.

(12) Technology.

(13) Public safety.

(13) Community violence.

(14) Social services.

(15) Voting access and registration.

(16) Another key field-initiated focus area.

(b) Conducting community needs and asset mapping to identify existing programs that can be leveraged to advance systemic change and programs or initiatives that need to be implemented.

(c) Establishing cross-agency partnerships, or community-based partnerships with local nonprofit organizations, businesses, philanthropic organizations, or others, to meet family well-being needs.

(d) Identifying, documenting, and disseminating policies, strategies, and best practices on effective approaches to creating systemic change through cross-agency, or community-based coordination and collaboration.

Types of Priorities:

When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register . The effect of each type of priority follows:

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Background:

We propose specific definitions to promote a shared understanding of the scope of activities that could be supported by these priorities. Under the proposed definition of “underserved students,” the Secretary may include the entire definition within a grant program or one or more of the subparts of the definition that are most relevant for the grant program.

Proposed Definitions:

We propose the following definitions for use with the proposed priorities:

Children or students with disabilities means children with disabilities as defined in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or students with disabilities, as defined at section 7(37) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 705(37)) 705(37)).

Community college means “junior or community college” as defined in section 312(f) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA).

Competency-based education (also called proficiency-based or mastery-based learning) means learning based on knowledge and skills that are transparent and measurable. Progression is based on demonstrated mastery of what students are expected to know (knowledge) and be able to do (skills), rather than seat time or age.

Culturally and linguistically inclusive means pedagogical practices that address inequities in access to and success in school by recognizing and valuing all students' identities, cultures, and potential.

Disconnected youth means an individual, between the ages 14 and 24, who may be from a low-income background, experiences homelessness, is in foster care, is involved in the justice system, or is not working or not enrolled in (or at risk of dropping out of) an educational institution.

Early learning means any (a) State-licensed or State-regulated program or provider, regardless of setting or funding source, that provides early care and education for children from birth to kindergarten entry, including, but not limited to, any program operated by a child care center or in a family child care home; (b) program funded by the Federal Government or State or local educational agencies (including any IDEA-funded program); (c) Early Head Start and Head Start program; (d) non-relative child care provider who is not otherwise regulated by the State and who regularly cares for two or more unrelated children for a fee in a provider setting; and (e) other program that may deliver early learning and development services in a child's home, such as the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program; Early Head Start; and Part C of IDEA.

English learner means an individual who is an English learner as defined in section 8101(20) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, or an individual who is an English language learner as defined in section 203(7) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.

Evidence-based has the meaning ascribed to it in 34 CFR 77.1 or the ESEA, as applicable.

High-quality assessments means diagnostic, formative, or summative assessments that are valid and reliable for the purposes for which they are used and that provide relevant and timely information to help educators and parents or caregivers support students.

Historically Black colleges and universities means colleges and universities that meet the criteria set out in 34 CFR 608.2.

Military- or veteran-connected student means one or more of the following:

(a) A child participating in an early learning program, a student enrolled in preschool through grade 12, or a student enrolled in career and technical education or postsecondary education who has a parent or guardian who is a member of the uniformed services (as defined by 37 U.S.C. 101, in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Space Force, National Guard, Reserves, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or Public Health Service or is a veteran of the uniformed services with an honorable discharge (as defined by 38 U.S.C. 3311).

(b) A student who is a member of the uniformed services, a veteran of the uniformed services, or the spouse of a service member or veteran.

(c) A child participating in an early learning program, a student enrolled in preschool through grade 12, or a student enrolled in career and technical education or postsecondary education who has a parent or guardian who is a veteran of the uniformed services (as defined by 37 U.S.C. 101).

Minority-serving institution (MSI) means an institution that is eligible to receive assistance under sections 316 through 320 of part A of title III, under part B of title III, or under title V of the HEA.

Tribal College or University has the meaning ascribed it in section 316(b)(3) of the HEA.

Underserved student means a student (which may include children in early learning environments, students in K-12 programs, students in postsecondary education or career and technical education, and adult learners, as appropriate) in one or more of the following subgroups:

(a) A student who is living in poverty or is served by schools with high concentrations of students living in poverty.

(b) A student of color.

(c) A student who is a member of a federally recognized Indian Tribe.

(d) An English learner.

(e) A child or student with a disability.

(f) A disconnected youth.

(g) A migrant student.

(h) A student experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity.

(i) A lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex (LGBTQ+) student.

(j) A student who is in foster care.

(k) A student without documentation of immigration status.

(l) A pregnant, parenting, or caregiving student.

(m) A student impacted by the justice system, including a formerly incarcerated student.

(n) A student who is the first in their family to attend postsecondary education.

(o) A student enrolling in or seeking to enroll in postsecondary education for the first time at the age of 20 or older.

(p) A student who is working full-time while enrolled in postsecondary education.

(q) A student who is enrolled in or is seeking to enroll in postsecondary education who is eligible for a Pell Grant.

(r) An adult student in need of improving their basic skills or an adult student with limited English proficiency.

(s) A student performing significantly below grade level.

Universal design for learning has the meaning ascribed it in section 103(24) of the HEA.

Final Priorities and Definitions:

We will announce the final priorities and definitions in a document published in the Federal Register . We will determine the final priorities and definitions after considering responses to the proposed priorities and definitions and other information available to the Department. This document does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use these priorities and definitions, we invite applications through a notice inviting applications in the Federal Register .

Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.

This proposed regulatory action is a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are issuing these proposed priorities and definitions only on a reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on an analysis of anticipated costs and benefits, we believe that these proposed priorities and definitions are consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

The proposed priorities and definitions would impose minimal costs on entities that would receive assistance through the Department's discretionary grant programs. Additionally, the benefits of implementing the proposed priorities and definitions outweigh any associated costs because it would result in the Department's discretionary grant programs encouraging the submission of a greater number of high-quality applications and supporting activities that reflect the Administration's educational priorities.

Application submission and participation in a discretionary grant program are voluntary. The Secretary believes that the costs imposed on applicants by the proposed priorities and definitions would be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application for a discretionary grant program that is using a priority in its competition. Because the costs of carrying out activities would be paid for with program funds, the costs of implementation would not be a burden for any eligible applicants, including small entities.

Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum “Plain Language in Government Writing” require each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand.

The Secretary invites comments on how to make the proposed priorities and definitions easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:

• Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly stated?

• Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or other wording that interferes with their clarity?

• Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if we divided them into more (but shorter) sections?

• Could the description of the proposed regulations in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how?

To send any comments that concern how the Department could make the proposed priorities and definitions easier to understand, see the instructions in the ADDRESSES section.

Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

The Secretary certifies that this proposed regulatory action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards define proprietary institutions as small businesses if they are independently owned and operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have total annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are defined as small entities if they are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their field of operation. Public institutions are defined as small organizations if they are operated by a government overseeing a population below 50,000.

The small entities that this proposed regulatory action would affect are early learning providers, school districts, IHEs, nonprofit organizations, and for-profit organizations. Of the impacts we estimate accruing to grantees or eligible entities, all are voluntary and related mostly to an increase in the number of applications prepared and submitted annually for competitive grant competitions. Therefore, we do not believe that the proposed priorities and definitions would significantly impact small entities beyond the potential for increasing the likelihood of their applying for, and receiving, competitive grants from the Department.

The proposed priority and definitions do not contain any information collection requirements.

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document 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, or 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 documents of the Department 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 documents of the Department 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.

Section 118 of the Copyright Act, title 17 of the United States Code, establishes a statutory license for the use of certain copyrighted works in connection with noncommercial television and radio broadcasting. Chapter 8 of the Copyright Act requires the Copyright Royalty Judges (“Judges”) to conduct proceedings every five years to determine the rates and terms for the section 118 license. 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(1), 804(b)(6). Accordingly, the Judges commenced a proceeding in January 2021, by publishing notice of the commencement of the proceeding and a request that interested parties submit petitions to participate. 86 FR 325 (Jan. 5, 2021).

The Judges received petitions to participate in the current proceeding from The American Society of Authors, Composers and Publishers (ASCAP); Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI); Church Music Publishers' Association, Inc. (CMPA); Educational Media Foundation (EMF); Global Music Rights, LLC; National Religious Broadcasters Noncommercial Music License Committee (NRBNMLC); David Powell; Public Broadcasting Entities (Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), National Public Radio (NPR), and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS)); SESAC Performing Rights, LLC (SESAC); and The Harry Fox Agency LLC (HFA).

The Judges gave notice to all participants of the three-month negotiation period required by 17 U.S.C. 803(b)(3) and directed that, if the participants were unable to negotiate a settlement, they should submit Written Direct Statements no later than September 10, 2021. Notice of Participants, Commencement of Voluntary Negotiation Period, and Case Scheduling Order (Feb. 9, 2021).

There are two ways copyright owners and public broadcasting entities  1 may negotiate rates and terms under the section 118 statutory license. First, copyright owners may negotiate rates and terms with specific public broadcasting entities for the use of all of the copyright owners' works covered by the license. Section 118(b)(2) provides that such license agreements “shall be given effect in lieu of any determination by the . . . Copyright Royalty Judges,” provided that copies of the agreement are submitted to the Judges “within 30 days of execution.” 17 U.S.C. 118(b)(2).

Second, copyright owners and public broadcasting entities may negotiate rates and terms for categories of copyrighted works and uses that would be binding on all owners and entities using the same license and submit them to the Judges for approval. Section 801(b)(7)(A) of the Copyright Act authorizes the Judges to adopt rates and terms negotiated by “some or all of the participants in a proceeding at any time during the proceeding” provided they are submitted to the Judges for approval.

This section provides that the Judges shall provide notice and an opportunity to comment on the agreement to (1) those that would be bound by the terms, rates, or other determination set by the agreement and (2) participants in the proceeding that would be bound by the terms, rates, or other determination set by the agreement. See section 801(b)(7)(A). The Judges may decline to adopt the agreement as a basis for statutory terms and rates for participants not party to the agreement if any participant objects and the Judges conclude that the agreement does not provide a reasonable basis for setting statutory terms or rates. Id.

On May 17, 2021, the Judges received a proposal from participant BMI regarding “statutory license fees to be paid to BMI by noncommercial educational radio broadcast stations licensed to colleges or universities that are not affiliated with [NPR] for the performance of copyrighted musical works in BMI's repertory” for the years 2023 through 2027. Proposal of Broadcast Music, Inc. of Rates and Terms for Colleges and Universities at 1 (May 17, 2021) (Proposal). No college radio station or related entity filed a petition to participate in the proceeding, but the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) and the American Council on Education (ACE) support BMI's proposal. Proposal at 4.

The Proposal states that the fees in § 381.5(c)(2)(i) should be modified. See Id. at 3-4. The modified fees reflect “an annual cost-of-living increase based on CPI, reflecting how increases were calculated in the joint proposals submitted by BMI and ACE . . . and by BMI and NACUBO” in prior proceedings. Id. at 4.

The Judges solicit comments on whether they should adopt the proposed regulations as statutory license fees to be paid by certain public broadcasting entities, namely, noncommercial educational radio stations licensed to colleges or universities that are not members of NPR, for their performances of copyrighted musical works in BMI's repertory, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 118.

Comments and objections regarding the proposed changes must be submitted no later than July 30, 2021.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Royalty Judges propose to amend 37 CFR part 381 as follows:

Section 118 of the Copyright Act, title 17 of the United States Code, establishes a statutory license for the use of certain copyrighted works in connection with noncommercial television and radio broadcasting. Chapter 8 of the Copyright Act requires the Copyright Royalty Judges (“Judges”) to conduct proceedings every five years to determine the rates and terms for the section 118 license. 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(1), 804(b)(6). Accordingly, the Judges commenced a proceeding in January 2021, by publishing notice of the commencement of the proceeding and a request that interested parties submit petitions to participate. 86 FR 325 (Jan. 5, 2021).

The Judges received petitions to participate in the current proceeding from The American Society of Authors, Composers and Publishers (ASCAP); Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI); Church Music Publishers' Association, Inc. (CMPA); Educational Media Foundation (EMF); Global Music Rights, LLC; National Religious Broadcasters Noncommercial Music License Committee (NRBNMLC); David Powell; Public Broadcasting Entities (Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), National Public Radio (NPR), and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS)); SESAC Performing Rights, LLC (SESAC); and The Harry Fox Agency LLC (HFA).

The Judges gave notice to all participants of the three-month negotiation period required by 17 U.S.C. 803(b)(3) and directed that, if the participants were unable to negotiate a settlement, they should submit Written Direct Statements no later than September 10, 2021. Notice of Participants, Commencement of Voluntary Negotiation Period, and Case Scheduling Order (Feb. 9, 2021).

There are two ways copyright owners and public broadcasting entities  1 may negotiate rates and terms under the section 118 statutory license. First, copyright owners may negotiate rates and terms with specific public broadcasting entities for the use of all of the copyright owners' works covered by the license. Section 118(b)(2) provides that such license agreements “shall be given effect in lieu of any determination by the . . . Copyright Royalty Judges,” provided that copies of the agreement are submitted to the Judges “within 30 days of execution.” 17 U.S.C. 118(b)(2).

Second, copyright owners and public broadcasting entities may negotiate rates and terms for categories of copyrighted works and uses that would be binding on all owners and entities using the same license and submit them to the Judges for approval. Section 801(b)(7)(A) of the Copyright Act authorizes the Judges to adopt rates and terms negotiated by “some or all of the participants in a proceeding at any time during the proceeding” provided they are submitted to the Judges for approval.

This section provides that the Judges shall provide notice and an opportunity to comment on the agreement to (1) those that would be bound by the terms, rates, or other determination set by the agreement and (2) participants in the proceeding that would be bound by the terms, rates, or other determination set by the agreement. See section 801(b)(7)(A). The Judges may decline to adopt the agreement as a basis for statutory terms and rates for participants not party to the agreement if any participant objects and the Judges conclude that the agreement does not provide a reasonable basis for setting statutory terms or rates. Id.

On June 21, 2021, the Judges received a joint proposal from participants HFA and NRBNMLC regarding fees for recording rights under 37 CFR 381.7(b)(4) for the period 2023-2027. Joint Proposal . . . Regarding Fees for Recording Rights Under 37 CFR 381.7(B)(4) (June 21, 2021) (Proposal). The fees in § 381.7(b)(4) apply to the “recording of nondramatic performances and displays of musical works for the types of uses described in 17 U.S.C. 118(c)(2)-(3) by noncommercial radio stations other than uses in a radio program produced by [NPR] and other than uses subject to voluntary license agreements.” Proposal at 2. HFA and NRBNMLC filed a proposal instead of a notice of settlement because NRBNMLC does not represent all radio stations subject to the fees. Id. Participant EMF joins in the proposal. Id. at 3 n.2.

The Proposal states that the fees in § 381.7(b)(4) should be modified. See id. at 2-3. It also proposes carrying forward unchanged (except to replace “January 1, 2018” with “January 1, 2023” and “December 31, 2022” with “December 31, 2027”) current provisions set forth in §§ 381.1, 381.2, 381.9, and 381.11. Id.

The Judges solicit comments on whether they should adopt the proposed regulations as statutory rates and terms relating to the reproduction, distribution, performance or display of certain works by public broadcasting entities (as defined in 17 U.S.C. 118(f)) in the course of the activities described in 17 U.S.C. 118(c).

Comments and objections regarding the proposed changes must be submitted no later than July 30, 2021.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Royalty Judges propose to amend 37 CFR part 381 as follows:

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA.

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2021-0416, at https://www.regulations.gov. 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, 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.

The EPA granted full approval of the Missouri Operating Permit Program effective June 13, 1997 ( see 62 FR 26405). Under title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 70.9(a) and (b), an approved state's title V operating permits program must require that the owners or operators of part 70 sources pay annual fees, or the equivalent over some other period, that are sufficient to cover the permit program costs and ensure that any fee required under 40 CFR 70.9 is used solely for permit program costs. The fee schedule must result in the collection and retention of revenues sufficient to cover the permit program implementation and oversight costs.

Missouri has determined that fee adjustments are needed to offset the effect of declining revenues and to maintain the solvency of the Missouri Air Pollution Control Program.

The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP) and title V Operating Permits Program, 10-6.110 “Reporting Emission Data, Emission Fees, and Process Information,” submitted to the EPA on May 25, 2021. Revisions to the program include updating emission reporting years and increasing the annual emission fee. The annual emission fee will increase from $48 per ton of air pollution emitted annually to $53 in calendar year 2021 and increase again to $55 per ton of air pollution emitted annually for emissions in calendar year 2022 and beyond; effective March 30, 2021.

The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The state provided a public comment period for this Operating Permits Program and SIP revision from August 17, 2020, to October 1, 2020, and received one comment in support of the revison. The revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations and is consistent with applicable EPA requirements in title V of the CAA and 40 CFR part 70.

The EPA is proposing to approve the state's revision to 10 C.S.R. 10-6.110 “Reporting Emission Data, Emission Fees, and Process Information”, submitted by the state of Missouri on May 25, 2021. This revision updates the emissions fee for permitted sources in section (3)(A) and the emission reporting years in Table 4 of section (4)(B), as set by Missouri Statute. Specifically, section (3)(A) revises the emission fees section, which is approved under the Operating Permits Program only, and updates the emissions fee for permitted sources as set by Missouri Statute from $48 per ton of air pollution emitted annually to $53 in calendar year 2021 and $55 per ton of air pollution emitted annually for emissions in calendar year 2022 and beyond; effective March 30, 2021. Additional information on the EPA's analysis can be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) included in this docket.

We are processing this as a proposed action because we are soliciting comments. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.

In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the Missouri Regulation described in the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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 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);

• Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR parts 52 and 70 as set forth below:

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.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 commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.

• Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy

The proceeding this NPRM initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 through 1.1216. 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 presenter's 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 rule § 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule § 1.49(f) 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.

1. In this NPRM, the Commission proposes to enhance its regulatory framework governing notifications of disruptions to 911 service by harmonizing the Commission's notification requirements, improving the usefulness of outage notification content, requiring service providers to keep the public informed during periods of 911 unavailability, and ensuring the accuracy of PSAP contact information. The Commission also seeks comment on whether modifications to the associated reporting requirements would enhance public safety while reducing burdens on regulated entities. Section 1 of the Communications Act, as amended (Act), charges the Commission with “promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications.” 47 U.S.C. 151. This statutory objective and statutory authorities, also cited below, support the Commission's network outage reporting and 911 reliability rules, including the proposals here. 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j) 154(o), 201(b), 214(d), 218, 251(e)(3), 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 316, 332, 403, 615a-1, and 615c. In adopting this NPRM, the Commission continues its commitment to ensuring that the Commission's rules, including those governing covered 911 service providers, are sufficient, necessary, and technologically appropriate. 79 FR 3123 ( 911 Reliability Report and Order ).

2. The Commission oversees the integrity of 911 communications infrastructure primarily through three complementary mechanisms: 911 call transmission requirements; network outage reporting by service providers to both the Commission and potentially affected 911 special facilities, which also include PSAPs when there is a loss of communications to PSAP(s), subject to specific conditions; and 911 reliability and certification requirements. 47 CFR 4.5(a), (c), and (e) through (h), 9.4, 9.10(b), 9.11(a)(2), 9.18(a), 9.19.

3. Outage Reporting Rules. The Commission requires originating service providers— i.e., cable, satellite, wireless, wireline, and interconnected VoIP providers that provide the capability for consumers to originate 911 calls—as well as covered 911 service providers— i.e., providers that aggregate 911 traffic from originating service providers and deliver it to PSAPs—to notify both the Commission and PSAPs when they experience an outage that potentially affects 911. 47 CFR 4.3(a), (d), and (f) through (h), 4.9(a), (c), and (e) through (h), 9.19(a)(4).

4. The Commission has adopted four threshold criteria for reporting outages that potentially affect 911, any of which would trigger a notification requirement:

(1) There is a loss of communications to PSAP(s) potentially affecting at least 900,000 user-minutes and: The failure is neither at the PSAP(s) nor on the premises of the PSAP(s); no reroute for all end users was available; and the outage lasts 30 minutes or more; or

(2) There is a loss of 911 call processing capabilities in one or more E-911 tandems/selective routers for at least 30 minutes duration; or

(3) One or more end-office or [Mobile Switching Center (MSC)] . . . switches or host/remote clusters is isolated from 911 service for at least 30 minutes and potentially affects at least 900,000 user-minutes; or

(4) There is a loss of [Automatic Number Identification (ANI)/Automatic Location Information (ALI)] . . . and/or a failure of location determination equipment, including Phase II equipment, for at least 30 minutes and potentially affecting at least 900,000 user-minutes (provided that the ANI/ALI or location determination equipment was then currently deployed and in use, and the failure is neither at the PSAP(s) or on the premises of the PSAP(s)). 47 CFR 4.5(e), 9.3.

5. The Commission currently has two different sets of requirements for the timing, content, means, and frequency of PSAP notification, depending on the nature of the provider. The first set of rules was originally adopted for common carriers in 1994, and was subsequently expanded to govern a broader set of communications providers called originating service providers. The second set of rules, adopted in 2013, governs covered 911 service providers, the entities that, as the Commission reasoned at the time, are the “most likely to experience reportable outages affecting 911 service.” 47 CFR 4.9(h); 911 Reliability Report and Order. Covered 911 service providers must notify PSAPs of outages that potentially affect them “as soon as possible, but no later than 30 minutes after discovering the outage,” whereas originating service providers are only required to notify PSAPs “as soon as possible.” 47 CFR 4.9(a)(4), (c)(2)(iv), (e)(1)(v), (f)(4), (g)(1)(i), (h). Covered 911 service providers must convey to PSAPs “all available information that may be useful in mitigating the effects of the outage, as well as the name, telephone number, and email address at which the service provider can be reached,” whereas originating service providers are only required to provide “all available information that may be useful to the management of the affected facility in mitigating the effects of the outage on callers to that facility.” 47 CFR 4.9(a)(4), (c)(2)(iv), (e)(1)(v), (f)(4), (g)(1)(i), (h). Covered 911 service providers must notify PSAPs “by telephone and in writing via electronic means in the absence of another method mutually agreed upon in advance by the 911 special facility and the covered 911 service provider,” whereas originating service providers are only required to notify PSAPs “by telephone or another electronic means.” 47 CFR 4.9(a)(4), (c)(2)(iv), (e)(1)(v), (f)(4), (g)(1)(i), (h). Finally, covered 911 service providers must follow up with the PSAPs within two hours of making the initial outage notification, providing “additional material information” that includes “the nature of the outage, its best-known cause, the geographic scope of the outage, the estimated time for repairs, and any other information that may be useful to the management of the affected facility,” whereas originating service providers are not required to follow up with PSAPs at all. 47 CFR 4.9(h). In adopting these broader requirements for covered 911 service providers in 2013, the Commission did “not seek to replace the existing [PSAP outage notification] scheme with a new, more onerous one, but rather, to clarify the timing and notification content with which certain service providers subject to section 4.9 must already comply.” 911 Reliability Report and Order at para. 146.

6. 911 Reliability and Certification Rules. In the wake of the devastating derecho that affected the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic states in 2012, the Commission adopted a series of 911 certification rules to improve 911 network reliability. 911 Reliability Report and Order at paras. 48 through 65. These rules require covered 911 service providers to take reasonable measures to provide reliable 911 service with respect to 911 circuit diversity, central office backup power, and diverse network monitoring. 47 CFR 9.19(c). To ensure that covered 911 service providers have taken these measures, covered 911 service providers must certify as to their compliance with each of these three requirements or to their implementation of reasonable alternative measures. 47 CFR 9.19.

7. When the Commission adopted rules for covered 911 service providers in 2013, it committed to reexamining the rules after five years to consider whether the rules were still “technologically appropriate and both adequate and necessary.” 911 Reliability Report and Order at para. 159. The Commission stated that review of the rules would consider, among other things, whether the rules should be revised to cover new best practices, including outage reporting trends, whether to adopt Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG911) capabilities on a nationwide basis, and whether the certification approach has yielded the necessary level of compliance, noting that a “persistence of preventable 911 outages could indicate a need for broader or more rigorous rules.” 911 Reliability Report and Order at para. 159. Thus, in 2018, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) issued a public notice seeking comment on the rules' effectiveness, as well as on reducing affected parties' regulatory burdens. Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Seeks Comment on 911 Network Reliability Rules, PS Docket No. 13-75, Public Notice, 33 FCC Rcd 5987, 5988-90 ( Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) 2018) ( 2018 911 Reliability Public Notice ). The Bureau received ten comments and six reply comments from entities representing industry, local government, and the public safety community, and it also hosted meetings with stakeholders to obtain additional information.

8. In times of emergency, dialing 9-1-1 serves as a crucial life link for those in need of immediate help. In 2019 alone, those in crisis placed over 200 million emergency calls to 911. 911 Reliability Report and Order at para. 159. More than 70% of these emergency calls originate from wireless phones. 911 Reliability Report and Order at para. 11. Call takers in the nation's approximately 5,700 PSAPs answer these calls and connect callers to emergency services that regularly save lives and safeguard property. 911 systems, however, are susceptible to outages that can occur in the underlying communications network. Ensuring that 911 services are restored quickly following network outages is a top public safety priority for the Commission. Commission rules, among other things, specify 911-related outage notification and 911 reliability certification requirements for providers. 47 CFR part 4, appendix A. In this document, the Commission proposes specific rules to ensure that its 911 notification framework remains robust, reliable, and responsive. These proposals, discussed below, will enhance public safety by ensuring that PSAPs and the public are provided with timely notification of disruptions to 911.

9. When the Commission adopted the more specific notification requirements for covered 911 service providers in 2013, it stated that it would “defer for future consideration” whether originating service providers should be subject to those requirements, reasoning that covered 911 service providers are the entities most likely to experience reportable outages affecting 911 service. 911 Reliability Report and Order at para. 147. While the Commission's outage reporting rules already require both originating service providers and covered 911 service providers to notify PSAPs of outages that potentially affect 911, the Commission's experiences since adoption of the PSAP notification rules for covered 911 service providers in 2013 demonstrate that having different reporting obligations for originating service providers and covered 911 service providers is neither practicable nor in the public interest. For example, in at least two instances following a nationwide 911 outage, the Commission (through its Enforcement Bureau) found that the affected originating service providers had not taken adequate steps to notify PSAPs in a manner that would have allowed the affected PSAPs to ensure the public's access to critical emergency services. T-Mobile USA, Inc., File No. EB-SED-15-00018025, Order, 30 FCC Rcd 7247, para. 2 (EB 2015) ( T-Mobile Order ); AT&T Mobility, LLC, File No. EB-SED-17-00024532, Order, 33 FCC Rcd 6144, 6145, para. 2 (EB 2018) ( AT&T Mobility Order ).

10. In August 2014, T-Mobile experienced two network outages that, taken together, resulted in 50,000,000 subscribers nationwide being unable to reach 911 call takers for a three-hour period. T-Mobile Order. During that time, PSAPs were not informed of the outage and consequently could not promptly notify the public of alternative means to reach emergency services. T-Mobile Order. And, in March 2017, AT&T Mobility experienced a network outage that resulted in 135,000,000 subscribers nationwide being unable to reach 911 call takers for a five-hour period. PSHSB, March 8, 2017 AT&T VoLTE 911 Outage Report and Recommendations, PS Docket No, 17-68, at 3, n.1 (2017), https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344941A1.pdf ( AT&T VoLTE 911 Outage Report ). PSAPs did not receive information about the AT&T Mobility outage until “approximately three and a half hours after the outage began and approximately two and a half hours after AT&T Mobility sent internal mass notifications to company executives and senior staff about the event.” AT&T Mobility Order; AT&T VoLTE 911 Outage Report; Letter from Karima Holmes, Director, District of Columbia Office of Unified Communications, to PSHSB, PS Docket No. 17-68, at 1-2 (Mar. 31, 2017).

11. The Commission now proposes to require that originating service providers and covered 911 service providers notify PSAPs about all such outages within the same timeframe, by the same means, and with the same frequency. The Commission specifically proposes to require originating service providers to notify potentially affected 911 special facilities of an outage within the same time frame required for covered 911 service providers. As noted above, that time frame is as soon as possible but no later than 30 minutes after discovering the outage. The Commission also seeks comment on whether this timeframe is adequate for PSAPs. The Commission seeks comment on whether and how to improve this proposal to shorten this timeframe for either or both sets of providers and/or adjust the reporting criteria to ensure more rapid and effective notification to PSAPs. For example, would automatic PSAP notification, triggered upon detection of an outage, be possible, provide value to PSAPs, and be in the public interest? The Commission also proposes that originating service providers transmit such notification, as presently required for covered 911 service providers, by telephone and in writing via electronic means and that they communicate additional material information as that information becomes available, but no later than two hours after the initial notification. The Commission seeks comment on its proposed means for PSAP notification. Are these means—by telephone and in writing via electronic means—adequate for notifications from originating service providers? Are they adequate for notifications from covered 911 service providers? Are there alternative methods of notification that PSAPs would prefer? The Commission also seeks comment on the proposed frequency of updating PSAPs with material outage information. Is this proposed frequency sufficient for PSAPs? During an extended outage, when material information may not change for many hours, how should the Commission require originating and covered 911 service providers keep PSAPs informed?

12. The Commission anticipates that such changes will enhance PSAP situational awareness of outages generally and will ensure that PSAPs receive critical information in a timely manner by providing a uniform set of expectations for those providers with whom they interface. This in turn will enhance PSAPs' abilities to direct scarce resources toward mitigating outages rather than seeking out information and will further streamline the ability of the Commission to administer the rules and the ability of providers to fulfill their obligations. This view was underscored by the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO), and comments from other public safety stakeholders during the Bureau's 2017 workshop on best practices and recommendations to improve situational awareness during 911 outages. Public safety officials stated that the critical information contained in these notifications enables them to be more efficient. One participant, Dave Mulholland of Arlington County 9-1-1, stated that prompt communication of this critical information would save “a lot of time, energy, and effort” by preventing PSAPs from needing to reach out to neighboring PSAPs to determine the breadth of an outage. Evelyn Bailey of the National Association of State 911 Administrators (NASNA) continued, stating that “[PSAPs] need to know as much specific [outage] information as possible.” Public safety representatives requested that PSAPs receive equivalent outage notifications regardless of where in the network an outage occurs. In other words, according to the public safety representatives speaking during the webcast, PSAP notifications should not differ depending on whether the outage is caused by a disruption in an originating service provider's network versus a covered 911 service provider's network. As discussed below, PSAPs that receive actionable 911 outage notifications use the information in these notifications to facilitate reliable and timely public access to emergency services.

13. The Commission seeks comment on its proposal to harmonize the timing, means, and frequency of PSAP notification for originating service providers and covered 911 service providers. While the Commission observes that the AT&T Mobility and T-Mobile outages referenced above provide examples of inadequate PSAP notifications by originating service providers in the context of outages that only affect 911 calls, the Commission notes that both originating and covered 911 service providers have notice obligations. Both must include any required information in a notification to a PSAP only to the extent that it is available, both at the time of the initial notification and at the time of subsequent updates, regardless of whether the outage is a 911 outage or a general network outage that prevents all calls, insofar as either the outage disrupts or prevents communications to a PSAP or has the potential to do so. 47 CFR 4.9(a)(4), (c)(2)(iv), (e)(1)(v), (f)(4), (g)(1)(i), (h). The Commission seeks comment on any alternative requirements that the Commission should consider to minimize potential burdens, if any, on PSAPs and service providers.

14. Under the Commission's proposed rules, if adopted, originating service providers would be under greater time pressure to notify PSAPs; would need to provide contact information so that the PSAP can reach them for follow up; would need to provide notification by two means ( e.g., phone call and email) instead of one; and would need to provide follow-up notification. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which these changes would increase the burden of PSAP notification for originating service providers. For example, the Commission seeks comment on whether originating service providers would need to transmit multiple, regional PSAP notifications under the proposed rules when 911 outages affect areas monitored by more than one Network Operations Center (NOC) and the local NOC is the best point of contact for PSAPs' outage-related inquiries, whereas the Commission's current rules would only require them to transmit one.

15. The Commission notes that in certain circumstances, PSAPs may find that there are benefits to learning of outages or network disruptions that potentially affect 911 but do not meet the current reporting thresholds. Are the Commission's thresholds for PSAP notification too high? Should the Commission modify these notification requirements so that originating and covered 911 service providers are required to notify PSAPs of network disruptions that potentially affect 911 service but do not meet the thresholds necessary to report to the Commission? What would be the appropriate outage reporting threshold requiring PSAP notification? The Commission seeks comment on the utility to PSAPs and benefits to public safety of any consequent increased situational awareness of network outages potentially affecting 911. The Commission also seeks comment on the costs of lowering these thresholds in light of the expected increase in notifications to PSAPs. The Commission seeks comment on how many additional outages beyond the estimated 37,000 outages that potentially affect 911 each year would be reportable to PSAPs.

16. The Commission seeks comment on the cost and benefits of originating service providers notifying PSAPs about 911 outages within the same timeframe, by the same means, and with the same frequency that covered 911 service providers currently do. The cost estimates below are incremental to the costs that originating service providers already incur to notify PSAPs of outages that potentially affect them pursuant to the Commission's rules. The Commission seeks comment on those estimates. Additionally, the actual cost that originating service providers would incur to comply with this requirement may be substantially lower than estimated. 47 CFR 4.9(a)(4), (c)(2)(iv), (e)(1)(v), (f)(4), (g)(1)(i). For example, Verizon suggests that some service providers may have automated their PSAP outage notification processes. For originating service providers that have automated PSAP notification, the Commission anticipates that the proposed changes to the notification process would not result in recurring costs. The Commission seeks comment on this premise, as well as on the extent to which service providers have set up automated triggers for PSAP notification. The Commission expects that the costs of PSAP outage notifications will fall as service providers transition to an automated PSAP outage notification process. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which service providers expect to transition to an automated notification process and the timeframe for any such transition.

17. Since the adoption of the PSAP notification rules, PSAPs have reported that notifications they receive often are confusing or uninformative, and have emphasized the need for clear and actionable information regarding 911 outages so 911 authorities can inform the public about alternative means to contact emergency services. Commenters representing public safety and industry agree that uniform information elements in PSAP notifications can help minimize confusion at PSAPs. The Commission also has observed that when PSAPs receive actionable 911 outage notifications, they are empowered to use reverse 911, post on social media platforms, work with local media to run on-screen text crawls, and use other tools at their disposal to notify the public of alternative means to reach their emergency services. During AT&T Mobility's nationwide 911 outage, for example, when AT&T notified PSAPs in Orange County, Florida several hours after it discovered the outage, Orange County PSAPs were able to take measures to notify the public of their alternative 10-digit phone numbers as a means to reach their emergency services. AT&T VoLTE 911 Outage Report. Once Orange County PSAPs provided their alternative 10-digit phone numbers to the public, they received 172 calls to those numbers during the one and a half hours until AT&T Mobility resolved the outage. AT&T VoLTE 911 Outage Report. The Bureau has credited these measures as being critical to maintaining the public's continued access to emergency services during several widespread 911 outages. AT&T VoLTE 911 Outage Report ; T-Mobile Order; PSHSB, December 27, 2018 CenturyLink Network Outage Report (2019), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-report-centurylink-network-outage/; Verizon, File Nos. EB-SED-14-00017189, EB-SED-14-00017676, EB-SED-14-00017373, Order, 30 FCC Rcd 2185 (EB 2015).

18. The Commission thus proposes to require originating service providers and covered 911 service providers to include “all available material information” in their PSAP outage notifications. The Commission believes this proposal will help ensure that PSAPs receive relevant, actionable information to better understand 911 outages and to promote continuity of 911 service, while minimizing superfluous or vague information. In addition to the specific information elements articulated for covered 911 service providers in the current rules, the Commission proposes that material information should also include the following for both originating service providers and covered 911 service providers, where available:

• The name of the service provider offering the notification;

• The name of the service provider(s) experiencing the outage;

• The date and time when the incident began (including a notation of the relevant time zone);

• The type of communications service(s) affected;

• The geographic area affected by the outage;

• A statement of the notifying service provider's expectations for how the outage will affect the PSAP ( e.g., dropped calls or missing metadata);

• The expected date and time of restoration, including a notation of the relevant time zone;

• The best-known cause of the outage; and

• A statement of whether the message is the notifying service provider's initial notification to the PSAP, an update to an initial notification, or a message intended to be the notifying service provider's final assessment of the outage.

19. These proposed outage notifications elements follow the template developed by the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions' (ATIS) Network Reliability Steering Committee (NRSC) Situational Awareness for 9-1-1 Outages Task Force Subcommittee (NRSC Task Force), working together with public safety stakeholders, minus the NRSC Task Force's inclusion of an incident identifier. In the 2018 911 Reliability Public Notice, the Bureau sought comment on whether the NRSC Task Force's template should serve as a model for standardization, and commenters support the NRSC Task Force's work. For example, the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) suggests that the elements of the NRSC Task Force's template “will aid PSAPs and 9-1-1 authorities in quickly understanding the nature of a service degradation or network downtime.”

20. The Commission seeks comment on whether these baseline elements would provide useful and actionable information to PSAPs. Will ensuring that PSAPs receive the same information regardless of where a 911 outage originates promote situational awareness for PSAPs in a manner that aids in emergency response? Are there additional informational elements that should be added, or should any elements listed be removed or revised? The Commission notes that the NRSC Task Force's template recommends the inclusion of a unique identifier associated with the outage. Would this help PSAPs organize and access information related to a particular outage? APCO suggests covered 911 service providers should also offer PSAPs graphical interface data describing the geographic area potentially affected by outages, such as “coordinate boundaries for the outage area, GIS files, or text information from the covered [911] service providers' internal reporting systems,” because such information could help first responders understand which areas could be affected by an outage. To what extent do originating and covered 911 service providers have this information available within the timeframe that they would be required to notify PSAPs? The Commission seeks comment on what steps service providers would need to take to include graphical information in providing actionable information to PSAPs. The Commission asks commenters to describe in detail how PSAPs would use such data to benefit the public, including how such data could be used to reduce first responder response times. Would requiring them to provide this information to PSAPs impose a significant burden or divert resources, thereby delaying service restoration? To the extent service providers are unable to provide data for visualizing outages and disruptions, what are the costs of developing this capability, especially for smaller providers?

21. The Commission notes that, under both the existing and proposed rules, service providers must include any outage information in their PSAP notifications only to the extent that it is available, both at the time that they transmit the initial notification and at the time that they transmit any subsequent notifications. The Commission seeks comment on how this approach has worked in practice. The Commission further seeks comment on whether requiring service providers to include additional, specific information elements in their PSAP notifications would allow PSAP personnel to comprehend outage information more quickly and whether such information would improve PSAPs' ability to respond when the public cannot reach 911 or when 911 services otherwise do not work as intended. Conversely, the Commission seeks comment on whether this additional information could have negative consequences for emergency response, such as overburdening PSAPs with too much information, thereby, potentially delaying response times. If so, how could the Commission revise the proposal to minimize the possibility of notification fatigue?

22. The Commission does not propose to require information to be provided in a particular format ( e.g., by mandating use of the NRSC Task Force's template). Instead, the Commission proposes an approach that establishes a baseline expectation of shared information while otherwise preserving flexibility for originating service providers and covered 911 service providers. PSHSB Shares Recommended Practices from September 11, 2017 911 Workshop, DA 18-6, Public Notice, 33 FCC Rcd 11 (PSHSB 2018). The Commission seeks comment on this approach, or on whether the Commission should prescribe such a format, and if so the terms thereof. Considering the diverse, localized nature of 911 networks in the United States, and the extent to which notifications already may be informed by originating service providers' and covered 911 service providers' agreements with state and local 911 authorities, the Commission specifically seeks comment on whether this approach would allow originating service providers and covered 911 service providers to better meet individual PSAPs' distinct needs. The Commission would anticipate that service providers' notification processes may go beyond those proposed in this NPRM in some circumstances, such as by mutual agreement of the parties.

23. In March, the Commission adopted a Report and Order that established an outage information sharing framework to provide state and Federal agencies with access to outage information to improve their situational awareness, enhance their ability to respond more quickly to outages impacting their communities, and help save lives, while safeguarding the confidentiality of this data. Amendments to Part 4 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Disruptions to Communications, PS Docket No. 15-80, Second Report and Order, 86 FR 22796 (April 29, 2021), FCC 21-34 (rel. Mar. 18, 2021) ( Network Outage Reporting System (NORS) Information Sharing Report and Order ). The Commission acknowledges that disclosing specific outage information to PSAPs may make that information available to other parties and therefore seek comment on whether the Commission should supply similar safeguards as adopted in the NORS Information Sharing Report and Order. The Commission seeks to balance PSAPs' need for actionable information with providers' need for confidentiality. The Commission seeks comment on how the Commission might address this balance. For example, is there a subset of information that would prove as useful for PSAPs that could be disclosed without overly burdening the presumption of confidentiality afforded reported outage information? Could PSAPs obtain access to this same outage information from state or other agencies more rapidly and efficiently than directly from service providers?

24. The Commission seeks comment on the cost and benefits of originating service providers and covered 911 service providers to report the same specific, actionable content in their PSAP outage notifications. The Commission anticipates the actual cost may be substantially lower than the estimate below because the estimated number of service providers that would be required to comply is conservatively broad. Further, the Commission expects that the additional information that the Commission proposes to require originating service providers and covered 911 service providers to report to PSAPs already is available to them at the time of notification, and that the example of the NRSC Task Force's template would help to streamline compliance timelines and reduce costs. The Commission seeks comment on whether standardization and streamlining could reduce the compliance costs for originating service providers that also act as covered 911 service providers in other contexts, or for originating service providers that are already offering notifications to PSAPs, but doing so with limited guidance on what information to provide. The Commission also notes that the NRSC has already created and shared a tutorial for PSAPs to facilitate the sharing of PSAP contact information with originating service providers and covered 911 service providers. The NRSC stated that it “expects that both service providers and PSAPs can benefit from this tutorial.” To the extent that commenters advocate a different approach, the Commission asks for costs and benefits of such alternatives.

25. The Commission's current outage reporting rules require originating service providers and covered 911 service providers to transmit PSAP outage notifications to any official who has been designated by the management of the affected PSAP as the provider's contact person for communications outages at that facility. 47 CFR 4.9(a)(4), (c)(2)(iv), (e)(1)(v), (f)(4), (g)(1)(i), (h). To ensure that PSAPs receive the information they need about 911 outages, the Commission proposes to require originating service providers and covered 911 service providers to develop and implement procedures for gathering, maintaining, and updating PSAP contact information. Because time is of the essence when a 911 outage occurs, originating service providers and covered 911 service providers must notify the right contacts at PSAPs so that the PSAPs can take prompt measures to help the public continue to reach emergency services.

26. The Commission proposes to amend § 4.9(h) of its rules to require both originating service providers and covered 911 service providers to identify the PSAPs they serve and to maintain up-to-date contact information for those PSAPs. In particular, the Commission proposes to require that originating and covered 911 service providers develop and implement standard procedures to: (1) Maintain current contact information for officials designated to receive outage notifications at each PSAP in areas that they serve; and (2) on a routine basis, at least annually, review and update their PSAP contact information to ensure it remains current. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to require originating service providers and covered 911 service providers to offer contact information reciprocally to PSAPs. The Commission does not, however, propose to specify the procedures that service providers must develop or follow to elicit PSAP contact information to retain flexibility in this regard. The Commission seeks comment on this approach.

27. The Commission seeks comment on the cost and benefits of originating service providers and covered 911 service providers to maintain up-to-date contact information for PSAPs in areas they serve. The Commission anticipates that the actual costs that originating service providers and covered 911 service providers would incur to comply with this requirement may be substantially lower than the estimate below because the Commission's rules already require these service providers to notify PSAPs of 911 outages and, as such, they should already have accurate PSAP outage contact information on hand. Insofar as service providers already have up to date PSAP contact information, the Commission does not anticipate that compliance with this proposed requirement would present an incremental cost.

28. The Commission also notes that in November 2019, the NRSC Task Force approved standard operating procedures for updating PSAP contact information in a centralized PSAP contact database. In that document, the Task Force suggested that a centralized database would potentially relieve service providers of the need to maintain their own internal processes and responsibilities to work independently with each 911 authority. Subsequently, in October 2020, the NRSC noted efforts by public safety organizations such as NENA to develop a PSAP contact database. The NRSC stated that to encourage broad use of a PSAP contact information database, it “would need to be made available at little or no cost” for service providers. The NRSC also expressed concerns regarding data integrity and who would be responsible for updating contact information. As such, the NRSC argued that industry adoption of such a database could prove challenging due to “the potential for liability associated with reliance on the database.”

29. The Bureau sought comment on the NRSC letter in December 2020. 86 FR 4074. In response, USTelecom called a PSAP contact information database “critically important for industry and PSAP coordination during emergencies.” NENA, which operates a voluntary PSAP registry service, stated that there is an “immediate need for an authoritative service that can provide contact information for PSAPs during emergencies.” APCO continued its support of a PSAP contact information database and urged the Commission to require service providers to establish and maintain a secure two-way contact information database. These comments indicate strong interest in a PSAP contact information database to facilitate reliable and rapid communication between service providers and PSAPs in an emergency.

30. Therefore, the Commission seeks comment on whether a mandatory PSAP contact information database accessible to and updated by originating and covered 911 service providers, as well as PSAPs, would warrant the Commission adopting alternative requirements other than those proposed above. The Commission seeks comment on the contours of such a database.

31. As a threshold question, the Commission asks how such a database would be administered. Should the Commission, as APCO International suggests, require service providers to host and operate the database? Are originating service providers and covered 911 service providers already participating in the development of a centralized PSAP contact database? The Commission notes the efforts of wireless carriers previously to establish the National Emergency Address Database (NEAD) to facilitate provision of 911 dispatchable location information for wireless callers. 80 FR 45897. However, wireless carriers notified the Commission that they had abandoned the NEAD after failing to secure necessary agreements with other entities. The Commission notes further the commitment of several wireless provider signatories to the Wireless Resiliency Cooperative Framework (Framework) to “establish[] a provider/PSAP contact database” to enhance coordination during an emergency, the existence of which may mitigate the costs of creating a PSAP contact information database, particularly for those wireless provider signatories. 78 FR 69018. What particular lessons learned may be relevant for a similar service provider-operated PSAP contact information database? The Commission seeks comment on the utility of a database developed, owned, and operated by both originating and covered 911 service providers.

32. The Commission also seeks comment on how such a database would be funded and how such a funding mechanism would impact smaller service providers. As noted below, charging PSAPs and public safety entities for access to the database could inhibit PSAP participation in the database, which would be inconsistent with the Commission's stated goal of enhancing public safety. What funding mechanisms would work for such a database? How much would the creation and maintenance of such a PSAP contact information database cost for initial setup? Given that many service providers already maintain updated PSAP contact information, the Commission seeks comment on the ease and costs of transitioning from many independent databases to a unified database. What would the recurring costs of maintaining and updating a PSAP contact information database be? While such a database would appear to provide certain informational benefits, how significant would these benefits be in practice? The Commission also asks commenters to describe these (or any other) potential benefits with specificity.

33. The Commission is especially interested in how a PSAP contact information database would best be kept current and accurate, as well as where the responsibility for updating and maintaining the database would lie. The Commission notes that the utility of a PSAP contact information database is dependent upon the accuracy of the information it contains. The Commission consequently seeks comment on how best to ensure the reliability and integrity of the data contained therein. For example, NENA's PSAP registry is free of charge for PSAPs. The Commission seeks comment on whether allowing PSAPs to participate free of charge will enhance the accuracy of PSAP contact information in the database. Furthermore, the Commission seeks comment on whether users and creators of a PSAP contact information database should be prohibited from using that information for any other purpose not related to public safety or maintenance of the database. The Commission seeks comment on whether and how frequently service providers and PSAPs would update their own information in the database. Would the operator of the database need to regularly validate this information on a monthly or annual basis? The Commission seeks comment on the frequency of data validation necessary to ensure the integrity and accuracy of the database.

34. If service providers elect to have a third party operate the PSAP contact information database, the Commission seeks comment on what possible liability issues could arise from such a third-party database. If the failure of a service provider to notify a PSAP of an outage were due to inaccurate information in the database, who would the potential liable parties be? Several commenters argue that service providers should be shielded from liability for reliance upon information provided by the PSAP contact information database. The Commission seeks comment on whether such a safe harbor would encourage or inhibit use of the PSAP contact information database. Would such an effort help to reduce the costs of compliance with this proposal? Further, rather than establishing a safe harbor rule, would service provider liability concerns be more appropriately addressed through a requirement that service providers contracting with third party database operators require those operators to implement measures to ensure the accuracy of the third-party database that are at least as stringent as the measures that the service providers employ for their internal databases?

35. When an outage affects 911 service, dialing “9-1-1” may not always connect someone in need of emergency services with a PSAP, which may lead to devastating effects. However, those in need of emergency services often do not know when 911 services are down, only that their emergency calls remain unanswered. Therefore, to increase public awareness of 911 availability and to help protect the public's safety when 911 services are disrupted, the Commission proposes to require service providers to notify their customers of 911 outages within 60 minutes of determining there is an outage by providing material information on their websites and internet-related applications.

36. Notification Breadth. The Commission proposes that cable, satellite, wireless, wireline, interconnected VoIP, and covered 911 service providers notify their customers when there is an outage that affects the availability of 911 voice or text-to-911 services for their customers. This includes both originating service providers and covered services providers, as they each provide an essential link in the chain to ensure completion of a 911 call. Because 911 unavailability due to an outage on a covered 911 service provider's network affects originating service providers as well, the Commission proposes to require both originating service providers and covered 911 service providers supply public notification of 911 unavailability to their customers. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.

37. Notification Threshold. The Commission proposes that service providers notify their customers of a 911 outage that meets the NORS reporting thresholds and also prevents emergency callers on their networks from reaching a PSAP by dialing or texting 9-1-1. The Commission believes that such a threshold would minimize potential confusion about 911 availability and ensure that the public is only notified of outages that materially affect emergency callers. The Commission seeks comment on this public notification threshold. For example, if 911 calls are delivered but without audio for one of the parties (either caller or 911 call taker), should this be considered 911 unavailability? If callers cannot reach emergency services by dialing 9-1-1 but text-to-911 still operates, should this constitute 911 unavailability? And should a situation where text-to-911 is unavailable due to a network disruption but traditional voice calls to 911 are possible constitute 911 unavailability? As consumers with disabilities may be more likely to text rather than call 911, are there additional considerations in determining 911 unavailability? The Commission seeks comment on whether this threshold is too narrow, and if so, which additional types of disruptions to 911 services should trigger public notification. For example, should a loss of transmission of ALI or ANI prompt public notification? The Commission also seeks comment on whether this threshold is too broad.

38. Notification Timing and Frequency. The utility of notifications is inextricably tied to the service provider's ability to deliver timely and accurate notifications. The Commission proposes a similar arrangement for public notifications as presented in § 4.9(h) of the Commission's rules for PSAPs: The Commission proposes that customer notifications commence within 60 minutes of the service provider discovering that the outage has resulted in the unavailability of 911 service. 47 CFR 4.9(h). With this proposal, the Commission seeks to balance the import of providing the public with the timely ability to access emergency services with the necessity of providing accurate outage information. The Commission understands that when 9-1-1 is unavailable, both service providers and PSAPs are working diligently to make sure the public can reach emergency services. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission maintains that such an initial notification of 911 unavailability will increase the likelihood that those in need will understand that 9-1-1 is unavailable and attempt other methods to receive necessary emergency assistance. In addition, similar to the proposal regarding PSAP notification timing discussed above, the Commission proposes that service providers update public notices with material information regarding the estimated time of 911 restoration as soon as possible. The provision of updates to the public will help redirect emergency callers back to 9-1-1 and ensure that PSAPs may return to normal call-taking status. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Is 60 minutes the appropriate threshold? Will this timing obligation interfere with service providers' ability to provide notice and support to PSAPs? Are there other burdens that this timing proposal creates? How can they be mitigated? Conversely, is this timeframe too lengthy to provide meaningful information to the public?

39. Notification Content. The Commission proposes to require that service providers create public notifications that include the following: (1) A statement that there is an outage affecting 911 availability, (2) a description of the geographic area where 911 callers may face 911 unavailability, (3) an estimated time that 911 service became unavailable, and (4) an estimate of when 911 services will be restored. The Commission further proposes that service providers be required to include alternative means to reach emergency services, such as alternative contact information, at the request of the PSAP, on a per outage basis. The Commission proposes that a service provider should contact the PSAP(s) affected by 911 unavailability as soon as possible after discovery of an outage, but no later than 30 minutes after discovery to determine what, if any, alternative means of contact the PSAP would like made publicly available for the duration of the incident. The Commission proposes these elements to ensure that public notifications are accurate and easily understood by end-users and are accessible for individuals with disabilities. The Commission believes these elements also will reduce potential confusion and avoid inadvertently increasing burdens on PSAPs. In this respect, a description of the geographic scope of 911 unavailability, for example, will ensure that only those affected by 911 unavailability use alternate means other than 911 to contact emergency services. For the same reasons, including the time at which 911 first became unavailable and the estimated time of restoration in notices will ensure end-users know when they should seek alternatives, updating consumers regarding restoration time will help redirect emergency callers back to 9-1-1, which in turn will help PSAPs return to normal operations. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Is the Commission including the right elements for effective public notification? Will those seeking emergency services find this information pertinent in their time of need? The Commission also seeks comment on best practices for describing geographic boundaries of affected areas. For example, a state's borders are frequently known but an outage affecting a smaller area, or an area spanning state borders, may be more difficult to accurately describe. At what fidelity and how should this information be conveyed? The Commission also seeks comment on the potential costs and benefits of this proposal.

40. The Commission also seeks comment on this proposal in light of the currently presumptively confidential treatment of outage reports and the recent adoption of a Report and Order that provides direct access to NORS and Disaster Information Reporting System filings by certain public safety and emergency management agencies of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Tribal nations, territories, and Federal Government, provided that they follow safeguards adopted by the Commission. NORS Information Sharing Report and Order. Information reported to the Commission under its part 4 reporting rules is presumed confidential due to its sensitive nature to both national security and commercial competitiveness. The Commission proposes that a subset of this outage report information be made publicly available, and at a less granular level than what it provided to the Commission on a confidential basis, in order to advise PSAPs and consumers when 911 service is unavailable and to arrange for alternate methods for consumers to contact PSAPs. The Commission believes that this approach would save lives and improve emergency outcomes involving, for example, illness and injury, and that the benefits of disclosure far outweigh the increase in the risk of national security or commercial competitiveness harms. The Commission seeks comment on the relationship between the need for the confidentiality afforded reported part 4 outage information and the public's interest in 911 availability in times of critical need. Is there specific information that would be conveyed under this public notification proposal that could implicate national security or commercial competitiveness? How might the Commission modify the parameters of the proposed customer notification to address such concerns?

41. Given that network disruptions sometimes vary in duration, geographic scope, and intensity, the Commission seeks comment on whether and to what extent service providers can develop public notification content in partnership with PSAPs in advance of unplanned outages. The Commission also notes that PSAPs are best positioned to determine what contact information to disseminate to the public during a 911 outage and that PSAPs may wish to coordinate the message delivered by service providers with their own outreach via social media or other avenues. The Commission understands that in an outage affecting multiple PSAPs, any public notification will also need to include a geographic description of where callers may not be able to reach emergency services by dialing 9-1-1 to prevent possible caller confusion and misdirected emergency calls. As such, the Commission seeks comment on how PSAPs and service providers collectively can best develop public notification information in advance of 911 unavailability.

42. Notification Medium. The Commission proposes to require service providers to post public notification of 911 outages prominently on their websites and internet-based applications, such as provider-specific apps for mobile devices. This information should be quickly accessible, with one click, from the main page of a service provider's website ( e.g., T-Mobile.com or Verizon.com ), and be accessible for individuals with disabilities. The Commission believes that this will allow those seeking critical information on 911 unavailability during an emergency to obtain the information necessary to determine their next steps in procuring emergency services quickly without being inundated with information regarding 911 unavailability. Public notification in this manner may also avoid creating competing messaging with PSAPs that may choose to use affirmative outreach methods such as reverse 911 or other public notification systems to notify the public of a 911 outage. Because these require the consumer to take action, public notifications conveyed over websites and through mobile device apps do not actively alert the consumer like wireless emergency alerts and thus do not contribute to alerting fatigue, and may complement those active measures that may be utilized by local PSAPs.

43. The Commission acknowledges that there are many other methods to effectuate public notifications of disruptions to 911 availability: Text messages, emails, phone calls, social media, and posting on service provider websites and applications all provide near-real-time opportunities to update the public on how best to reach emergency services. Each has its pluses and minuses. For example, while they do not require affirmative action by the consumer, text messages are undeliverable to traditional wireline numbers and service providers may not have email addresses for customers. In addition, the Commission is concerned that methods of public notification requiring broadcasting 911 unavailability broadly may engender a lack of confidence in the ability to reach emergency services by dialing 9-1-1. The Commission believes that public confidence in 911 is critical; indeed, the Commission has long sought to buttress the public's confidence in 911. 80 FR 3191. Consequently, the Commission believes that this proposal will best allow those seeking emergency assistance to determine alternative means to reach emergency services. The Commission seeks comment on this assessment. Would public confidence in 911 decrease in the face of too many alerts regarding 911 unavailability? Conversely, would greater transparency alleviate concerns that 911 services may be unavailable without the public's knowledge? Are there benefits to other means of notification, such as text messaging, automated phone calls, or email, that the Commission has overlooked and that merit their inclusion? Would other means of notification more effectively reach communities where there is limited internet connectivity, for example, on some Tribal lands? Further, in areas where a significant portion of the population does not speak English as a primary language, should the Commission require service providers to include multiple language options for the public notification?

44. In addition to accessible public notification on originating and covered 911 service provider websites, the Commission envisions that those seeking additional information would be able to input their location by address into their provider's website (or similar mobile app) and in turn receive more specific information on the geographic scope of the outage. The Commission notes that Verizon already provides “Network Notifications” in the My Verizon App, which provide Verizon Wireless customers with information on network disruptions and when restoration is expected. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal for how customers might obtain additional information and how it might be implemented in a way that preserves confidence in 9-1-1, provides value to those in need, and is minimally burdensome on originating and covered 911 service providers.

45. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefits of this proposal. Is there an affordable alternative method of public notification that balances the needs of the public to know whether dialing 9-1-1 will reach emergency services with the Commission's commitment to preserving public confidence in 911? To what extent have service providers already implemented a notification framework for other alerts and important announcements that would reduce any website development costs associated with this proposal? Alternatively, are there other methods of public notifications, such as using text messages or automated phone calls, which would be likely to reach a larger proportion of service providers' customers and those customers who may have limited internet connectivity? The Commission seeks comment on the benefits and costs of implementing these alternatives.

46. Covered 911 service providers must certify annually to the Commission that they perform three reasonable measures to promote the reliability of their networks: Ensure circuit diversity, maintain backup power at central offices, and diversify network monitoring. 47 CFR 9.19(b). In 2018, the Bureau asked commenters to address these 911 reliability rules' effectiveness and whether they “remain technologically appropriate, and both adequate and necessary to ensure the reliability and resiliency of 911 networks.” 2018 911 Reliability Public Notice. The record contains widespread support for the 911 reliability rules, with commenters stating that the Commission's three reasonable measures are appropriate and strengthen 911 network reliability and resiliency. Accordingly, the Commission finds that its 911 reliability rules continue to be technologically appropriate and both adequate and necessary, and the Commission does not intend in this proceeding to revisit or reopen those requirements, except as to the timing of the certification as noted herein.

47. On this point, commenters differ regarding the appropriate frequency for filing the required certification. Some commenters state that the current, annual certification remains necessary to promote awareness of 911 reliability issues for covered 911 service providers' senior management and employees. Others state that less frequent certification could make the provision of reliable 911 service more cost-effective by decreasing the burden on providers without affecting 911 network resiliency. The Commission seeks comment on whether, as some commenters suggest, less frequent certification would be an effective means of reducing compliance burdens, without sacrificing its benefits. The Commission emphasizes that it would not be making any changes to the fundamental obligations underlying network reliability certifications—namely, the requirements to ensure circuit diversity, maintain backup power at central offices, and diversify network monitoring. Would increasing the time between 911 network reliability certifications—such as requiring only biennial certifications—affect public safety outcomes? If so, could the Commission offset any potential risk that less frequent certification would affect public safety by requiring covered 911 service providers to submit certifications when they perform a “material network change” during the preceding year? If so, how should the Commission define a “material network change?” For those advocating less frequent certifications, what would the cost savings be? The Commission also asks for costs and benefits of any offered alternatives.

48. The Commission also proposes to require covered 911 service providers that have ceased to operate as such— i.e., they no longer provide covered 911 services, or no longer operate one or more central offices that directly serve a PSAP—to notify the Commission via an affidavit in which the service provider would explain the basis for its change in status. 47 CFR 9.19(a)(4)(i). The Commission proposes that, should a service provider no longer provide covered 911 services, the service provider file an affidavit through the Commission's online portal during the timeframe when the portal is open for annual reliability certifications. The Commission notes that, in 2020, the Commission opened the 911 reliability portal for certification filing from July 30 through October 15. Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Announces Availability of 911 Reliability Certification System for Annual Reliability Certifications, PS Docket Nos. 13-75 and 11-60, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 8082 (PSHSB 2020). The Commission seeks comment on the appropriateness of linking the timeframe to file such an affidavit with the period that the portal is open. Is the 911 Reliability System the correct place for filing? The Commission proposes these measures to ensure that the Commission does not expend time and resources to investigate why a covered 911 service provider has failed to file its 911 certification in a timely manner, when the reason is simply because the provider is no longer a covered 911 service provider and is therefore no longer required to file the required certifications. The Commission expects few companies to end their covered 911 service operations from year to year and expect such filing costs would be minimal. The Commission believes that the benefits, however, will be much greater. First, the Commission will be able to more quickly determine whether a service provider is a covered 911 service provider before engaging in an investigation. Second, any service provider that has ceased its qualifying covered 911 operations and filed with the Commission that it has done so will not have to encounter an investigation into whether the service provider failed to file its 911 reliability certifications. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals, their costs and benefits, as well as on potential alternatives for service providers to supply this information to the Commission.

49. The Commission defines a covered 911 service provider in part as an entity that “operates one or more central offices that directly serve a PSAP. For purposes of this section, a central office directly serves a PSAP if it . . . is the last service-provider facility through which a 911 trunk or administrative line passes before coming to a PSAP.” 47 CFR 9.19(a)(4)(i)(B). Under the current rules, a service provider that provides phone service to a PSAP but does not provide specific 911-related services to the PSAP is considered a covered 911 service provider due to its provision of an “administrative line.” Neither the Commission's rules nor its precedent presently define the term “administrative line” for purposes of the Commission's 911 reliability rules. The Commission proposes to define “administrative line” for the purpose of its 911 reliability framework as a business line or line group that connects to a PSAP but is not used as the default or primary route over which 911 calls are transmitted to the PSAP. The Commission seeks comment on this proposed definition. The Commission anticipates that this clarification will simplify service providers' determination of whether they are an originating service provider or a covered 911 service provider. The Commission believes that this, in turn, will reduce the potential that a service provider fails to file required 911 reliability certifications. This proposal appears to only accrue benefits, but the Commission nevertheless seeks comment on its potential benefits and costs. The Commission seeks comment on this analysis and asks whether there are any potential ramifications from this proposal of which the Commission is not aware. Commenters suggesting alternatives to this proposal should also include comment on anticipated costs and benefits.

50. In 2016, the Commission adopted a Report and Order that modernized the Commission's network outage reporting rules. 81 FR 45055 ( 2016 Part 4 Order ). One of those requirements, however, was not at the time codified in the Code of Federal Regulations. The part 4 rules exempt satellite and terrestrial wireless providers from reporting outages that potentially affect airports, and the 2016 Part 4 Order “extend[ed] that exemption to all special offices and facilities,” and “extend[ed] the wireless exemption for satellite and terrestrial wireless carriers to all special offices and facilities.” 47 CFR 4.9(c)(2)(iii), (e)(1)(iv); 2016 Part 4 Order. The Commission proposes to codify these changes to its rules in the Code of Federal Regulations, and seeks comment on this proposal.

51. The Commission proposes to require originating service providers and covered 911 service providers to comply with any adopted rules that it has proposed to harmonize PSAP outage notification requirements and ensure the receipt by PSAPs of more actionable 911 outage information by April 1, 2022. The Commission believes that the revisions proposed in this document constitute only minor changes to existing procedures and therefore believe that the time between adoption of the rules, as well as subsequent Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval, and the compliance date would be sufficient. The Commission seeks comment on this assessment. The Commission seeks comment on whether allowing additional time for small- and medium-sized businesses to comply with the requirements the Commission proposes in this document would serve the public interest.

52. The Commission proposes to require originating service providers and covered 911 service providers to update and maintain accurate contact information for officials designated to receive outage notifications at each PSAP in areas they serve no later than April 1, 2022. While the Commission expects that many originating service providers and covered 911 service providers will already have accurate contact information on hand for most if not all of the PSAPs in their service areas, the Commission seeks to allow sufficient time for them to further develop and implement those procedures pursuant to the requirements that the Commission proposes in this document (for example, by developing and transmitting an email survey to their the best-known PSAP email address(es), following up as appropriate, and identifying and remedying any gaps in their PSAP contact lists). The Commission seeks comment on this approach.

53. In addition, the Commission proposes that its 911 unavailability public notification framework, which would require originating and covered 911 service providers to provide their customers with notification of certain disruptions to 911 service that result in the unavailability of 911 to reach emergency services, take effect no later than June 1, 2022. The proposal regarding contact information, discussed above, will give service providers the opportunity to further coordinate with PSAPs to determine, in advance of disruptions to 911 availability, any alternative contact information that the PSAPs wish to convey to the public. The Commission anticipates that service providers may need more time to develop a location-based web page to provide public notification of 911 unavailability than in developing systems to update and maintain accurate contact information for official designated to receive outage notifications. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.

54. For all foregoing proposals, the Commission estimates the costs that its proposed rules would impose on all service providers of approximately a $2,398,000 one-time cost and a $4,557,000 annually recurring cost. The Commission tentatively concludes that the benefits of PSAP outage notification will be well in excess of these costs. Public safety benefits, however, are difficult to quantify. This difficulty in quantification, however, does not diminish in any way the benefits of providing outage information to PSAPs. The Commission finds that the benefits attributable to outage notification are substantial and may have significant positive effects on the abilities of PSAPs to safeguard the health and safety of residents during outages that threaten residents' ability to reach 911. In particular, the Commission expects that both the PSAP notification proposals and the customer notification proposals will provide the information necessary to allow consumers to reach emergency services more quickly during an outage potentially affecting 911, thus reducing first responder times and improving public health and safety. The Commission urges commenters to supply detailed examples of likely benefits and estimates of their value where possible.

55. The Commission's one-time cost estimate of $2,398,000 consists of $50,000 to create an email survey to biannually solicit PSAP contact information, $99,000 to update PSAP outage notification templates, and $2,249,000 to implement a website-based framework that companies can use to notify their customers about outages. The Commission's estimate that annually recurring costs of $4,557,000 consist of $1,258,000 for notifying PSAPs of outages that potentially affect them pursuant to the standards that the Commission proposes in this document, $197,000 for identifying PSAPs that could potentially be affected by a service outage, $197,000 for soliciting from PSAPs appropriate contact information for outage notification, and $2,905,000 to publicly notify customers of 911 unavailability on company websites. The Commission seeks comment on all these estimates. At this time, the Commission is unaware of alternative approaches with lower costs that would still ensure that PSAPs receive timely information about outages that impact their service areas and ask commenters to provide detailed cost estimates. The Commission is interested in possible alternatives from commenters, however, and seeks comment. Any suggestions of alternative approaches should include both cost and benefit estimates.

56. Ex Parte Presentations. The proceedings shall be treated as “permit-but-disclose” proceedings in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 through 1.1216. 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 presenter's 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 rule § 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule § 1.49(f) 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 the proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

57. Comment Filing Procedures. Pursuant to the Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on this notice of proposed rulemakin g. Comments and reply comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419; 63 FR 24121.

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs.

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 45 L St. NE, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 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 overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.

U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L St. NE, Washington, DC 20554.

58. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), or 202-418-0432 (tty).

59. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 601 through 12, as amended by Public Law 104-121. Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the polices and rules contained in this NPRM. 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).

60. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This NPRM may contain proposed new and modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”

61. Further Information. For further information, contact Beau Finley, Attorney-Advisor, Cybersecurity and Communications Reliability Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, at 202-418-7835, or via email at Robert.Finley@fcc.gov.

62. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this NPRM. 5 U.S.C. 603. 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 this NPRM.

63. In this proceeding, the Commission takes steps to improve the reliability and resiliency of telecommunications networks nationwide and 911 networks specifically so that the American public can continue to reach emergency services without undue delay or disruption. In particular, the NPRM proposes and seeks comment on measures to harmonize the Commission's Public Safety Answering Points (PSAP) outage notification rules such that all service providers must notify all potentially affected PSAPs of outages in the same manner and with more specific information. Furthermore, the NPRM seeks comments on requirements that originating service providers and covered 911 service providers inform their customers when 911 is unavailable to them due to disruptions to provider networks. These proposals would apply to all originating cable, satellite, wireless, wireline, interconnected VoIP service providers (“originating service providers”) as well as to all covered 911 service providers and should make the nation's 911 service more reliable and the public safer, while striking an appropriate balance between costs and benefits of such regulation. The NPRM also proposes to codify rules adopted in 2016 extending the exemption of satellite and terrestrial wireless providers from reporting outages potentially affecting special offices and facilities. 2016 Part 4 Order.

64. 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.” 5 U.S.C. 601(6). In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.” 5 U.S.C. 601(3). A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. 15 U.S.C. 632. Below is a list of such entities.

• Interconnected VoIP services;

• Wireline providers;

• Wireless providers—fixed and mobile;

• Satellite Service Providers; and

• Cable Service Providers.

65. The NPRM primarily proposes revisions to PSAP outage notification requirements that may impose new or additional reporting, recordkeeping, and/or other compliance requirements on small entities and entities of all sizes that provide 911 services. Specifically, the NPRM proposes (1) to harmonize the rules under which originating service providers and covered 911 service providers notify PSAPs of outages; (2) to require originating service providers and covered 911 service providers to provide more specific and uniform material information to PSAPs in outage notifications as defined in § 4.9(h)(6) of the Commission's rules, as the Commission proposes to revise them; (3) to require originating service and covered 911 service providers to annually identify the PSAPs that they serve and to elicit outage contact information from them; (4) to require said providers to supply the public with timely notification of 911 unavailability; and (5) to require covered 911 service providers notify the Commission within an announced timeframe that they no longer provide covered 911 services to PSAPs. The NPRM also proposes the codification of an amendment to a rule that the Commission adopted in 2016. Specifically, the NPRM proposes to codify the extension of the exemption of satellite and terrestrial wireless providers from reporting outages potentially affecting special offices and facilities. 2016 Part 4 Order.

66. The Commission is not currently in a position to determine whether, if adopted, the proposed rules in the NPRM will require small entities to hire attorneys, engineers, consultants, or other professionals. The Commission notes, however, that service providers already perform measures that contribute to their ability to comply with these requirements, and thus would likely ease the burden of compliance with these proposals, if adopted. For example, some service providers may already offer PSAPs follow-up notifications if additional material information becomes available. In addition, many service providers are likely to already have documented procedures for notifying PSAPs of outages that potentially affect them, and for those that do not, Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS) Network Reliability Steering Committee (NRSC) Task Force documents can serve as a useful guide. Furthermore, many service providers already regularly elicit PSAP outage contact information.

67. As discussed in the NPRM, the Commission estimates the timeframe and incremental cost for originating service providers to notify potentially affected PSAPs about 911 outages within the same timeframe, by the same means, and with the same frequency that covered 911 service providers would be 30 minutes at a rate of $34 per hour per notification (initial and follow-up) per outage. The actual cost that originating service providers would incur to comply with this requirement may be substantially lower than the Commission's estimate because, among other things, some originating service providers service providers may have automated their PSAP outage notification processes. Similarly, the Commission estimates the one-time cost for originating service providers and covered 911 service providers to report the same specific, actionable content in their PSAP outage notifications as requiring 60 minutes at a one-time cost of $34 per hour per provider. This activity would allow a provider to incorporate additional informational elements into their existing mechanisms for gathering, approving, and transmitting information about 911 outages to PSAPs. Likewise, the Commission anticipates the actual cost that originating service providers and covered 911 service providers would incur to comply with this proposal, if adopted, may be substantially lower than the Commission's estimate because the estimated number of service providers that would be required to comply is conservatively broad. In the NPRM, the Commission considers whether originating and covered 911 service providers also should offer PSAPs graphical interface data describing the geographic area potentially affected by outages. In addition, the Commission considers whether to require originating and covered 911 service providers to notify PSAPs of outages that do not meet the Commission's reporting thresholds but could potentially affect 911 service. The Commission anticipates that the record will reflect variation in geographical interface capabilities and proposed PSAP notification thresholds, and thus anticipate that the estimated costs to service providers will also vary.

68. In the NPRM, the Commission also discusses the timeframe and costs for originating service providers and covered 911 service providers to develop and implement procedures for gathering, maintaining, and updating PSAP contact information. The Commission estimates that the cost for originating service providers and covered 911 service providers to maintain up-to-date contact information for PSAPs in areas they serve would take 30 minutes with a one-time cost of $34 per hour per provider to develop a mechanism to elicit PSAP contact information. Working internally and with other network operators to identify PSAPs that could potentially be affected by an outage would take an estimated 120 minutes with an annual recurring rate of $34 per hour per provider. Likewise, eliciting the appropriate contact information for outage notification using the service provider's chosen PSAP contact information collection mechanism would take an estimated 120 minutes with an annual recurring cost of $34 per provider. Compliance with this proposed requirement may be substantially lower than the Commission's estimates because the Commission's rules already require these service providers to notify PSAPs of 911 outages and, as such, they should already have accurate PSAP outage contact information. As discussed in the NPRM, standard operating procedures for updating PSAP contact information in a centralized PSAP contact database was approved by the NRSC Task Force in November 2019. To the extent that service providers already have up to date PSAP contact information, the Commission does not anticipate that compliance with this proposed requirement would impose any incremental costs.

69. The estimated costs for service providers to notify their customers about 911 outages by providing material information on their websites consist of a one-time cost of $778 per provider to implement a website-based outage notification framework and an annually recurring expected cost of $1,005 per provider to notify customers of outages that materially affect 911 using that framework. The one-time cost consists of the sum of a web developer's hourly rate ($60) multiplied by 10 hours to set up an outage notification framework and a general and operations manager's hourly rate ($89) multiplied by 2 hours for project oversight. In calculating the one-time cost, the Commission is aware that certain nationwide or large regional service providers may have more sophisticated websites with multiple brands that would require more time to implement an outage notification framework. The Commission also notes however that most of these providers will have already implemented a notification framework for other alerts and important announcements that would reduce website development costs.

70. Small entities are also likely to already have an alert notification framework in place and would likewise have lower costs than estimated herein. Similarly, the Commission believes that small entities' annual recurring costs to notify customers of outages that materially affect 911 will likely be less than the Commission's estimates since affected service providers need only report outages that materially affect 911. Additionally, small entities will also incur lower costs where the hourly rates for web developers, and general and operations managers are lower than those used in Commission estimates. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comments on its estimates and on alternative affordable methods of public notification that balance the needs of the public to know whether dialing 9-1-1 will reach emergency services with the Commission's commitment to preserving public confidence in 911.

71. Based on the above discussion, the Commission does not believe that the costs and/or administrative burdens associated with any of the proposal rule changes will unduly burden small entities. Furthermore, the Commission believes the value of the public safety benefits generated by the Commission's PSAP notification proposals outweigh the estimated costs. The Commission anticipates that the proposed rule changes will enable PSAPs to accelerate the public's ability to reach 911 call takers during an outage, reducing the probability of lives lost during any such outage. The Commission also believes that these proposals could generate an additional, incremental benefit by helping people reach 911 call takers more quickly and by reducing first responder response times.

72. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent that service providers do not already elicit and refresh contact information for individuals designated by the PSAP to receive outage notifications, the Commission seeks to allow sufficient time for them to develop procedures for doing so, including, for example, by developing an email survey to transmit to their the best-known PSAP email address(es) or a secure web portal. In the discussion of the proposals in the NPRM, the Commission has also sought comments from the parties in the proceeding and requested cost and benefit information which may help the Commission identify and evaluate relevant matters for small entities.

73. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (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 and 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. 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1) through (4).

74. In the NPRM, the Commission continues to facilitate the reliability of the 911 system and meet its public safety obligations for oversight of the integrity of the 911 communications infrastructure by proposing measures to ensure that PSAPs can expect consistent and timely outage notifications whenever there is an outage that potentially affects 911 service. While doing so, the Commission is mindful that small entities and other 911 service providers may incur costs should the proposals the Commission makes, and the alternatives upon which the Commission seeks comment in the NPRM, be adopted.

75. The Commission has taken several steps that could reduce the economic impact for small entities. First, the elements for the proposed PSAP outage notifications largely track the NRSC Task Force's template. Therefore, to the extent small entities have or will implement the ATIS NRSC Task Force's template, compliance with these proposals should not impose significant additional costs. Next, the Commission proposes an approach that establishes a baseline expectation of shared information while otherwise preserving flexibility for service providers to determine the means by which they present this information to PSAPs and seek comment on the cost this flexible approach. Similarly, the Commission does not specify the particular procedures that service providers must develop or follow to elicit PSAP contact information. The Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefit of implementing and maintaining these procedures.

76. To increase public awareness of 911 availability and to help protect the public's safety when 911 services are disrupted, the Commission proposes to require service providers to notify their customers of 911 outages at the request of affected PSAPs within 60 minutes of determining there is an outage by prominently posting notification of material information on the main page of their websites and internet-related applications. While the Commission recognizes that other alternatives such as text messages, email messages, and phone calls, can all provide near-real-time methods to update the public on how best to reach emergency services, the Commission believes requiring posting of notification via websites and internet-related applications will minimize the potential for consumer confusion and alerting fatigue and is therefore in the public interest. The Commission also believes this means of communication will not be a very resource intensive or costly method for small entities and other service providers to provide notice to its customers as compared to for example, text messages which are not deliverable to traditional wireline numbers, and email addresses which service providers may not have for their customers. The Commission seeks comment in the NPRM on this approach and requiring other methods of notification.

77. To strike an appropriate balance between maintaining 911 network reliability and public awareness of 911 unavailability as well as associated paperwork burdens, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should change the frequency with which covered 911 service providers are required to file 911 reliability certifications. The Commission also seeks comment on any steps that it has not already proposed that it can take to prevent the costs of these proposals from becoming unduly burdensome for small and medium-sized businesses. Specifically, the NPRM seeks comment on whether it would serve the public interest to allow additional time for small and medium-sized businesses to comply with the requirements the Commission proposes in this document.

78. In response to the Commission's request for comments in the NPRM, the Commission invites parties to propose alternatives to the extent that these proposals will impose new obligations on small entities. Specifically, the Commission would like to see comments address whether small entities would benefit from different reporting requirements or timetables that take into account their limited resources; simplification or consolidation of reporting requirements for small entities; or an exemption from a requirement. the Commission invites commenters to (1) identify which proposed requirements are particularly difficult or costly for small entities and how different, simplified, or consolidated requirements would address those difficulties, and (2) if any modifications or exemptions from requirements are sought, discuss what would be the effect on public safety and the reliability of 911 operations.

79. The Commission expects to consider more fully the economic impact on small entities following its review of comments filed in response to the NPRM, including the costs and benefits information. The Commission's evaluation of the comments filed in this proceeding will shape the final alternatives it considers, the final conclusions it reaches, and any final actions it ultimately takes in this proceeding to minimize any significant economic impact that may occur on small entities.

80. None.

The proposed action is authorized pursuant sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 4(o), 201(b), 214(d), 218, 251(e)(3), 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 316, 332, 403, 615a-1, and 615c of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j) 154(o), 201(b), 214(d), 218, 251(e)(3), 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 316, 332, 403, 615a-1, and 615c.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 4 and 9 as follows:

The revisions read as follows:

In support of its channel substitution request, the Petitioner states that the proposed channel substitution would resolve significant over the air reception problems in the WVPT service area. The Petitioner states that the challenges of digital reception are well-documented, and that the Commission has recognized the deleterious effects of manmade noise on the reception of digital VHF signals. The Petitioner also believes that the channel substitution will allow for more efficient construction of WVPT's post-incentive auction facilities. The Petitioner explains that it initially planned to retune WVPT's existing Distributed Transmission System (DTS) transmitters from channel *11 to channel *12, its repacked channel. The transmitter and antenna manufacturers, however, were unable to support the planned retuning effort. Meanwhile, a structural analysis of WVPT's existing tower revealed that it could not support a replacement antenna for VHF channel 12. According to the Petitioner, the tower can support a lighter weight UHF antenna, and thus, allowing WVPT to move to channel *15 will obviate the need to construct a new tower, saving both time and money. It further states that the proposed channel *15 facility will result in a net gain of 56,814 people, and while there is a loss area of 27,033 people, only seven people would lose their only PBS noncommercial educational service, a number the Commission considers de minimis.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 21-248; RM-11910; DA 21-694, adopted June 15, 2021, and released June 15, 2021. The full text of this document is available for download at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs. To request materials in accessible formats (braille, large print, computer diskettes, or audio recordings), please send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (VOICE), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to this proceeding.

Members of the public should note that all ex parte contacts are prohibited from the time a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is issued to the time the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, see 47 CFR 1.1208. There are, however, exceptions to this prohibition, which can be found in § 1.1204(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1204(a).

See §§ 1.415 and 1.420 of the Commission's rules for information regarding the proper filing procedures for comments, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if we determine a plant species is no longer an endangered or threatened species, we remove it from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants ( i.e., we “delist” it). A species is an “endangered species” for purposes of the Act if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and is a “threatened species” if it is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The golden paintbrush is listed as a threatened species. We are proposing to remove this species from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (List), because we have determined that it no longer meets the definition of a threatened species, nor does it meet the definition of an endangered species. Delisting a species can only be completed by issuing a rule.

What this document does. This rule proposes to remove (delist) the golden paintbrush from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants under the Act because it no longer meets the definition of either a threatened species or an endangered species.

The basis for our action. Under the Act, we can determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species based on any one or more of the following five factors or the cumulative effects thereof: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Based on an assessment of the best available information regarding the status of and threats to the golden paintbrush, we have determined that the species no longer meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act.

Because we will consider all comments and information we receive during the comment period, our final determination may differ from this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any comments on that new information), we may conclude that the species should remain listed as threatened instead of being delisted, or we may conclude that the species should remain listed and be reclassified as an endangered species.

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule.

We particularly seek comments concerning:

(1) Reasons why we should, or should not, remove the golden paintbrush from the List;

(2) New biological or other relevant data concerning any threat (or lack thereof) to the golden paintbrush, including threats related to its pollinators;

(3) New information on any existing regulations addressing threats or any of the other stressors to the golden paintbrush;

(4) New information on any efforts by States, tribes, or other entities to protect or otherwise conserve the species;

(5) New information concerning the range, distribution, population size, or population trends of this species;

(6) New information on the current or planned activities in the habitat or range of the golden paintbrush that may have adverse or beneficial impacts on the species; and

(7) Information pertaining to post-delisting monitoring of the golden paintbrush.

Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information provided.

Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or opposition to, the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”

You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES . We request that you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES .

If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.

Comments and materials we receive, as well as, supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule and the draft post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plan, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov.

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified in DATES , above. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . We will schedule a public hearing on this proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the hearing. For the immediate future, we will provide these public hearings using webinars that will be announced on the Service's website, in addition to the Federal Register . The use of these virtual public hearings is consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).

Staff at the Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (WFWO), in consultation with other species experts, prepared a species biological report for golden paintbrush. The report represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of the species, including the impacts of past and present factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting the species.

In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR 34270), our August 22, 2016, Director's Memo on the Peer Review Process, and the Office of Management and Budget's December 16, 2004, Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (revised June 2012), we solicited independent scientific reviews of the information contained in the golden paintbrush species biological report (Service 2019). We sent the report to four appropriate and independent specialists with knowledge of the biology and ecology of the golden paintbrush and received three responses. The report forms the scientific basis for our 5-year status review and this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our determination regarding the status of the species under the Act is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. The comments and recommendations of the peer reviewers have been incorporated into the species biological report, as appropriate. In addition, we have posted the peer reviews on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-0060.

On May 10, 1994, we proposed to list the golden paintbrush as a threatened species (59 FR 24106). On June 11, 1997, we finalized the listing (62 FR 31740). The final rule included a determination that the designation of critical habitat for the golden paintbrush was not prudent.

In August 2000, we finalized a recovery plan for the species (Service 2000, entire), which we supplemented in May 2010 with the final recovery plan for the prairie species of western Oregon and southwestern Washington (Service 2010, entire).

On July 6, 2005, we initiated 5-year reviews for 33 plant and animal species, including the golden paintbrush, under section 4(c)(2) of the Act (70 FR 38972). The 5-year status review, completed in September 2007 (Service 2007, entire), resulted in a recommendation to maintain the status of the golden paintbrush as threatened. The 2007 5-year status review is available on the Service's website at https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1764.pdf.

On January 22, 2018, we initiated 5-year status reviews for 18 plant and animal species, including the golden paintbrush, and requested information on the species' status (83 FR 3014). This proposed rule follows from the recommendation of that 5-year review for the golden paintbrush, as well as the data and analysis contained in the species biological report (Service 2019).

Below, we summarize information for the golden paintbrush directly relevant to this proposed rule. For more information on the description, biology, ecology, and habitat of the golden paintbrush, please refer to the species biological report for golden paintbrush ( Castilleja levisecta ), completed in June 2019 (Service 2019, entire). The species biological report is available under Supporting Documents on http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-0060. Other relevant supporting documents are available on the golden paintbrush's species profile page on the Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) at https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?sId=7706.

The golden paintbrush is native to the northwestern United States and southwest British Columbia. It has been historically reported from more than 30 sites from Vancouver Island, British Columbia, to the Willamette Valley of Oregon (Hitchcock et al., 1959; Sheehan and Sprague 1984; Gamon 1995). The taxonomy of the golden paintbrush as a full species is widely accepted as valid by the scientific community (ITIS 2020).

The golden paintbrush is a short-lived perennial herb formerly included in the figwort or snapdragon family (Scrophulariaceae), with current classification in the Orobanchaceae family. The genus Castilleja is hemiparasitic, with roots of paintbrushes capable of forming parasitic connections to roots of other plants; however, paintbrush plants are probably not host-specific (Mills and Kummerow 1988, entire) and can grow successfully, though not as well, even without a host. Golden paintbrush has superior performance (survival, height, number of flowering stems, number of fruiting stems, number of seed capsules) where it co-occurs with certain prairie species, including several perennial native forbs ( e.g., common woolly sunflower or Oregon sunshine ( Eriophyllum lanatum ) and common yarrow ( Achillea millefolium )), as well as species in other functional groups, including grasses ( e.g., Roemer's fescue ( Festuca roemeri ) and California oatgrass ( Danthonia californica )) and shrubs ( e.g., snowberry ( Symphoricarpos albus )) (Schmidt 2016, pp. 10-17). Anecdotal observations suggest that it grows poorly when associated with annual grasses (Gamon 1995, p. 17).

Individual golden paintbrush plants have a median survival of 1 to 5 years, but some plants can survive for more than a decade (Service 2019, p. 7). Plants are up to 30 centimeters (cm) (12 inches (in)) tall and are covered with soft, somewhat sticky hairs. Stems may be erect or spreading, in the latter case giving the appearance of being several plants, especially when in tall grass. The lower leaves are broader, with one to three pairs of short lateral lobes. The bracts are softly hairy and sticky, golden yellow, and about the same width as the upper leaves.

Golden paintbrush plants typically emerge in early March, with flowering generally beginning the last week in April and continuing until early June. Most plants complete flowering by early to mid-June, although occasionally plants flower throughout the summer and into October. Based on historical collections and observations, flowering seems to occur at about the same time throughout the species' range. Individual plants of golden paintbrush typically need pollinators to set seed. Bumble bee species ( Bombus ) appear to be the most common pollinators visiting golden paintbrush (Wentworth 1994, p. 5; Kolar and Fessler 2006, in litt.; Waters 2018, in litt,; Kaye 2019, in litt. ), although sweat bees (Halictidea), miner bee ( Andrena chlorogaster ), syrphid fly ( Eristalis hirta ), and bee fly ( Bombylius major ) have also been observed visiting golden paintbrush plants (Kolar and Fessler 2006, in litt.; Waters 2018, in litt, ).

Fruits typically mature from late June through July, with seed capsules beginning to open and disperse seed in August. By mid-July, plants at most sites are in senescence (the process of deterioration with age), although this can vary considerably depending on available moisture. Capsules persist on the plants well into the winter, and often retain seed into the following spring. Seeds are likely shaken from the seed capsules by wind, with most falling a short distance from the parent plant (Godt et al. 2005, p. 88). The seeds are light (approximately 8,000 seeds/gram) and could possibly be dispersed short distances by wind (Kaye et al. 2012, p. 7). Additionally, there is at least one reported instance of short-distance movement of seeds via vole activity (Kolar and Fessler 2006, in litt. ). Therefore, natural colonization of new sites would likely occur only over short distances as plants disperse from established sites. Germination tests in different years with seed from various wild populations suggests that germination rates can vary extremely widely both between sites and between years (Wentworth 1994, entire). Germination tests also revealed that seeds likely remain viable in the wild for several years (Wentworth 1994, p. 17).

Individuals of the golden paintbrush require open prairie soils, near-bedrock soils, or clayey alluvial soils with suitable host plants. These suitable habitats occur from zero to 100 meters (330 feet) above sea level (Service 2000, p. 5). The golden paintbrush may have historically grown in deeper soils, but nearly all of these soils within the known range of the species have been converted to agriculture (Lawrence and Kaye 2006, p. 150; Dunwiddie and Martin 2016, p. 1).

Populations currently occur on the mainland in Washington and Oregon, and on islands in Washington and British Columbia. Mainland and island populations form two broad categories of populations that can vary slightly in habitat setting. Individuals in mainland populations are found in open, undulating remnant prairies dominated by Roemer's fescue and red fescue ( Festuca rubra ) on gravelly or clayey glacial outwash. Individuals in island populations are often on the upper slopes or rims of steep, southwest- or west-facing sandy bluffs that are exposed to salt spray. Individuals in island populations may also occur on remnant coastal prairie flats on glacial deposits of sandy loam. Island prairies may have historically been dominated by forbs and foothill sedge ( Carex tumulicola ) rather than grasses (WDNR 2004b, pp. 11, 17); however, many island sites are now dominated by red fescue or weedy forbs. All golden paintbrush sites are subject to encroachment by woody vegetation if not managed.

Historically, fire was significant in maintaining open prairie conditions in parts of the range of the golden paintbrush (Boyd 1986, p. 82; Gamon 1995, p. 14; Dunwiddie et al. 2001, p. 162). The golden paintbrush is a poor competitor, intolerant of shade cast by encroaching tall nonnatives and litter duff in fire-suppressed prairies. Native perennial communities are likely to support more host species appropriate for the golden paintbrush than those dominated by nonnative annuals (Lawrence and Kaye 2011, p. 173). Thus, habitats with low presence of nonnative annuals and high presence of a diverse assemblage of perennial, native prairie species are more likely to provide the best conditions for survival of golden paintbrush plants year-to-year (Dunwiddie and Martin 2016, p. 1).

The golden paintbrush is endemic to the Pacific Northwest, historically occurring from southeastern Vancouver Island and adjacent islands in British Columbia, Canada, to the San Juan Islands and Puget Trough in western Washington and into the Willamette Valley of western Oregon (Fertig 2019, p. 23).

Currently, the species occurs within British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon, representing, generally, four distinct geographic areas (British Columbia, North Puget Sound, South Puget Sound, and the Willamette Valley). The species' historical distribution—before European settlement and modern development in the Pacific Northwest—is unknown. However, the species' current distribution is generally representative of the areas where we suspect the species occurred historically.

Since its Federal listing in 1997, only one new wild population of golden paintbrush has been discovered across the species' range (Service 2007, p. 6). All other new populations (referred to as sites or populations established since the time of listing) across the range are the result of reintroductions through outplanting or direct seeding. Seeds used to grow plugs for outplanting, and plant stock for seed production, were derived from occurrences that remained at the time of listing (wild sites) (Service 2019, p. 5).

At the time of listing (see 62 FR 31740; June 11, 1997), there were 10 known golden paintbrush populations: 8 in Washington and 2 in British Columbia. No golden paintbrush populations were known from Oregon at the time of listing (Sheehan and Sprague 1984, pp. 8-9; WDNR 2004b). Despite its limited geographic range and isolation of populations, the golden paintbrush retained exceptionally high levels of genetic diversity, possibly because there were several large populations that remained (Godt et al. 2005, p. 87).

Since its Federal listing, the distribution and abundance of golden paintbrush have increased significantly as a result of outplanting (seeding or plugging). In 2018, a minimum of 48 sites were documented (Service 2019, pp. 11-14). In Washington, there are 19 sites: 5 in the South Puget Sound prairie landscape, 6 in the San Juan Islands, 7 on Whidbey Island, and 1 near Dungeness Bay in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. In Oregon, there are 26 extant sites within the Willamette Valley. In British Columbia, there are three extant sites, each located on a separate island. Of these 48 sites, only three are on private property (Service 2019, p. 12). The remaining 45 golden paintbrush sites are in either public ownership, are owned by a conservation-oriented, nongovernmental organization, or are under conservation easement.

NMFS and the Council manage the American Samoa longline fishery under the FEP and implementing regulations. The fishery targets primarily albacore, which are sold frozen to the fish processing industry in Pago Pago, American Samoa. During the 1980s and 1990s, the longline fleet was mainly comprised of alia, locally-built catamarans between 24 and 38 ft in length. In the early 2000s, the longline fishery expanded rapidly with the influx of large (≥50 ft) conventional vessels similar to the type used in the Hawaii-based longline fishery, including some vessels from Hawaii.

To manage capacity in the then-rapidly developing fishery, the Council in 2001 (through Amendment 11 to the Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific, superseded by the FEP) established a limited entry program with vessel size classes and criteria for participation. In 2005, NMFS implemented the limited entry program and issued 60 permits to qualified candidates among four vessel size classes.

Only a few small vessels have been active in the fishery since 2007. Participation by large vessels was somewhat stable from 2001 through 2010, but has declined and remained below 20 active vessels annually. In response, the Council developed Amendment 9 to reduce the programmatic barriers that may be limiting small vessel participation. The purpose of Amendment 9 is to reduce the complexity of the limited entry program and provide for sustained community participation, especially for small vessels. Amendment 9 could allow new entrants to obtain a small vessel permit by removing requirements that previously would have made some new entrants ineligible. If approved, Amendment 9 would do the following:

(a) Replace the four vessel classes with two, where Class A and B vessels would be classified as “small” vessels, and Class C and D vessels would be classified as “large” vessels;

(b) Restrict permit holders to U.S. citizens and nationals, and eliminate the requirement to have documented history of participation to be eligible for a permit, but maintain the priority ranking system based on earliest documented history of fishing participation in vessel class size, if there is competition between two or more applicants for a permit;

(c) Require that permits can only be transferred among U.S. citizens or nationals, and eliminate the requirement for documented participation in the fishery to receive a transferred permit;

(d) Reduce the small vessel minimum harvest requirement to 500 lb (227 kg) of pelagic management unit species within a 3-year period, but maintain the existing 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) harvest requirement for large vessels;

(e) Require that the entire minimum harvest amounts for the respective vessel classes are to be landed in American Samoa within a three-year permit period, but that the minimum harvests not be required to be caught within the U.S. EEZ around American Samoa;

(f) Specify a fixed three-year permit period that is the same as the three-year period to make a minimum harvest requirement; and

(g) Clarify that the minimum harvest period would not restart in the event of a permit transfer. If the minimum harvest amount has not been caught at the time of transfer, the new permit holder would be required to meet the harvest requirement based on the following formula: The product of percentage of time left within the three-year permit period and the minimum harvest amount.