Agricultural Marketing Service
Forest Service
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
National Park Service
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Drug Enforcement Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, Department of the Treasury.
Interim final rule; solicitation of comments.
This document amends the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations to reflect the elimination of CBP's collection of interest specific to debit vouchers in order to enable CBP to efficiently include debit voucher bills in CBP's automated billing process in the Automated Commercial Environment. As a result of this change, CBP will automatically issue debit voucher bills, inclusive of all applicable interest accruing on such bills and dishonored payment fees. Interest on the debited amount will accrue from the date of the issuance of a debit voucher bill, and no longer from the date of the debit voucher.
This interim final rule is effective as of November 4, 2023; comments must be received by December 22, 2023.
Please submit comments, identified by docket number, by the following method:
Steven J. Grayson, Program Manager, Investment Analysis Office, Office of Finance, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, (202) 579-4400, or
Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of this interim final rule. See
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is modernizing its collections system, allowing CBP to eventually retire the Automated Commercial System (ACS) and transfer all collections processes into the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). This modernization effort, known as ACE Collections, includes the consolidation of the entire collections system into the ACE framework, which will enable CBP to utilize trade data from ACE modules, benefitting both the trade community and CBP with more streamlined and better automated payment processes. The new collections system in ACE will reduce costs for CBP, create a common framework that aligns with other initiatives to reduce manual collection processes, and provide additional flexibility to allow for future technological enhancements. ACE Collections will also provide the public with more streamlined and better automated payment processes with CBP, including better visibility into data regarding specific transactions.
ACE Collections supports the goals of the Customs Modernization Act (Pub. L. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057, 2170, December 8, 1993, Title VI of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act), of modernizing the business processes that are essential to securing U.S. borders, speeding up the flow of legitimate shipments, and targeting illicit goods that require scrutiny. ACE Collections also fulfills the objectives of Executive Order 13659 (79 FR 10655, February 25, 2014), to provide the trade community with an integrated CBP trade system that facilitates trade, from entry of goods to receipt of duties, taxes, and fees.
CBP is implementing ACE Collections through phased releases in ACE. Release 1 was deployed on September 7, 2019, and dealt with statements integration, the collections information repository (CIR) framework, and automated clearinghouse (ACH) processing.
Release 2 was deployed on February 5, 2021, and focused on non-ACH electronic receivables and collections, for Fedwire and
Release 3 was deployed on May 1, 2021, and primarily implemented technical changes to the liquidation process, and deferred tax bills, which were internal to CBP.
Release 4 was deployed on October 18, 2021, and primarily implemented technical changes to the production and management of the internal CBP processes for supplemental bills, certain reimbursable bills, and non-reimbursable/miscellaneous bills issued by CBP to the public.
Release 5 was deployed on March 21, 2022, and implemented internal technical changes to the production, tracking, and management of overdue bills and delinquent accounts and the bonds associated with them, including enhancements to the unpaid, open bill details reports in ACE Reports.
Most recently, Release 6 was deployed on August 29, 2022. Release 6 focused on the management of refunds, and included mainly internal, technical changes to the ability to search, create, and review/certify those refunds.
As explained more fully below, Release 7 will be deployed on November 4, 2023. Release 7 will enhance CBP's budget clearing account (BCA)
CBP is authorized to collect duties, taxes, and fees arising from customs activities from individuals or entities.
Section 24.3a contains detailed provisions regarding CBP bills for supplemental duties, taxes, and fees, vessel repair duties with interest, reimbursable services, and miscellaneous amounts. Specifically, § 24.3a(a) discusses the due date for these CBP bills and refers to the due date calculation set forth in § 24.3(e). Section 24.3(e) states that bills resulting from dishonored checks or dishonored ACH transactions are due and payable within 15 days of the date of the issuance of the bill, whereas all other bills are due and payable within 30 days of the date of the issuance of the bill.
CBP assesses interest on the nonpayment or underpayment of estimated duties, taxes, and fees, or interest, owed by an individual or entity, as set forth in § 24.3a(b).
According to § 24.3a(b)(2)(i)(C), if a depository bank notifies CBP by a debit voucher that a CBP account is being debited due to a dishonored check or dishonored ACH transaction, interest will accrue on the debited amount from the date of the debit voucher to either the date of the payment of the debt represented by the debit voucher or the date of the issuance of a bill for payment, whichever date is earlier. Thus, interest begins to accrue on a debit voucher from the date of the debit voucher. If the debit voucher is paid before CBP generates a bill, interest accrues from the date of the debit voucher to the date of payment. If the debit voucher is not paid before CBP generates a bill, interest accrues on the amount of the debit voucher until the date the bill is generated. CBP charges this debit voucher interest in addition to any interest accrued on the underlying underpayment of duties, taxes, and fees as prescribed by 19 U.S.C. 1505(c) or 1677g.
Section 24.3a(b)(2)(ii) involves interest on overdue bills, and states that if duties, taxes, fees, and interest are not paid in full within the applicable period specified in § 24.3(e), any unpaid balance will be considered delinquent and will bear interest until the full balance is paid. As noted above, § 24.3(e) provides that, generally, a debtor has 30 days after the bill date (also known as the date of issuance of the bill) to make payment. On the 31st day after the bill date, the bill is considered delinquent, and interest will accrue in 30-day periods. In the case of debit vouchers, § 24.3(e) provides that a debtor has 15 days after the bill date to make payment, and on the 16th day after the bill date, the bill is considered delinquent. Initial interest accrues on the debit voucher bill within the 15-day period, and in 30-day periods thereafter.
For CBP, the current debit voucher process is very labor-intensive. Because the interest calculation for debit vouchers differs from that for other CBP bills, debit voucher bills cannot be automated along with other CBP bills. Therefore, CBP accounting technicians are tasked with manually creating draft debit voucher bills for only the amount of the debit voucher in ACS, manually calculating interest outside of the system for each debit voucher, and manually creating and mailing to the individual or entity a letter notifying of the debit voucher interest and any amount owed on the debit voucher. This bill, in the form of a letter, is mailed to notify the debtor of the amount owed on a particular debt.
The banking industry practice regarding debit vouchers has changed significantly since CBP first implemented debit voucher interest through regulatory amendments in 1999.
As described above, the current regulatory requirement in § 24.3a(b)(2)(i)(C) to assess debit voucher interest prior to the creation of the debit voucher bill inhibits CBP's ability to automate the debit voucher billing process and align it with the billing process for the majority of bills issued by CBP. In order to address the problems posed by the manual debit voucher process, CBP is amending its regulations to eliminate the requirement in § 24.3a(b)(2)(i)(C) to assess interest on debit vouchers for the period between the date of the debit voucher and the date of the creation of the debit voucher bill. Instead, interest will only accrue on the amount of the debit voucher from the date of issuance of the debit voucher bill, resulting in the same starting point for the interest calculation for debit voucher bills as all other bills.
As part of Release 7, debit voucher bills will be processed automatically like other bills, inclusive of all applicable interest accruing on such bills and dishonored payment fees. The system (ACE) will generate an initial debit voucher bill due 15 days from the date of issuance of the bill, and subsequent bills every 30 days from the due date. To enable this automation of the debit voucher process, CBP is reorganizing § 24.3a(b) by moving the debit voucher provision in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(C) to a new paragraph (b)(3) titled, “Interest accrual on debit vouchers.” As debit voucher bills will be included in CBP's automated billing process, the debit voucher provision under paragraph (b)(2)(i)(C) is no longer considered an exception to the general rule in § 24.3a(b)(2)(i). Moreover, the debit voucher provision deals with a specific scenario of dishonored payments on any type of debt owed to CBP, whereas paragraph (b)(2) in general describes situations arising in the context of liquidation or reliquidation, thus, the placement of the debit voucher provision in a separate paragraph will fit better within the structure of CBP's billing regulations.
The new paragraph (b)(3) will set forth the rules for interest accrual on debit vouchers and will state that if a depository bank notifies CBP by a debit voucher that a CBP account is being debited due to a dishonored payment (
To account for the removal of paragraph (b)(2)(i)(C) in § 24.3a(b)(2)(i), CBP is also removing the reference to paragraph (b)(2)(i)(C) from the introductory text of § 24.3a(b)(2)(i), leaving only paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(A) and (b)(2)(i)(B) as the exceptions to the general interest accrual rule in paragraph (b)(2)(i). In addition, CBP is modifying § 24.3(e) to clarify that a debit voucher may be generated for different types of dishonored payments, including checks and ACH transactions as examples of two payment types. The revision includes a more general reference to dishonored payments followed by a parenthetical reading, “(
Despite forgoing a small amount of interest that accrues between the debit voucher date and the issuance of a bill or the payment of the debit voucher (whichever is earlier), eliminating this interest assessment in § 24.3a(b)(2)(i)(C) will bring about major efficiency gains for CBP, significantly decreasing manual processing of debit vouchers, and thereby improving revenue-collecting operations and better utilizing resources currently spent on manual processing. The trade community will also benefit from improved visibility into specific debit voucher debts as CBP will no longer mail multiple bills (in the form of a letter) for the amount of the debit voucher and interest to the individual or entity on the debts owed, and payment by the individual or entity on a debit voucher will be reflected automatically on the bill record in ACE. In addition, the trade community will receive periodic reminders in the form of subsequent bills following the initial bill until the debt is paid.
As a result of these changes, most debit voucher bills will be created and mailed automatically, decreasing the volume of manual processing significantly. Some manual processing will still occur to finalize debit voucher bills for dishonored ACH credit and check payments. Payments through ACH debit represent the majority of dishonored transactions, and for debit vouchers received on these debts, the system will automatically create a full debit voucher record and create and mail the bill(s) with the information populated from the original dishonored payment. For dishonored ACH credit and check payments, the system will prepare a draft bill, as not all information that is needed to create a final bill is available in ACE,
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This interim final rule has not been designated as a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this regulation.
This interim final rule is part of ACE Collections Release 7. CBP is amending its regulations in 19 CFR 24.3a to reflect the elimination of debit voucher interest that CBP currently charges to align debit voucher processing with CBP's automated billing process. CBP has prepared the following analysis to help inform stakeholders of the impacts of this interim final rule.
This interim final rule will eliminate a requirement in current regulations relating to the accrual of interest on dishonored payments. When a payment to CBP, whether paper or electronic, is dishonored for lack of funds, the bank issues a debit voucher and notifies CBP. Regulation currently requires CBP to assess interest on the dishonored payment amount between the date of a debit voucher to either the date of the payment or the date of the issuance of the bill. This interim final rule will eliminate this initial period in which interest accrues. Under this interim final rule, interest will instead accrue from the date of the bill, initially for 15 days, and then in 30-day periods until the bill is paid, in alignment with CBP practices for other payments.
In the course of doing business, CBP bills individuals and entities for duties, taxes, fees, interest, or other charges. When an individual's or entity's payment is dishonored, CBP may charge additional interest. Current 19 CFR 24.3(b)(2)(i)(C) states:
If a depository bank notifies CBP by a debit voucher that a CBP account is being debited due to a dishonored check or dishonored Automated Clearinghouse (ACH) transaction, interest will accrue on the debited amount from the date of the debit voucher to either the date of payment of the debt represented by the debit voucher or the date of issuance of a bill for payment, whichever date is earlier.
Before electronic banking was widely available, notification of a dishonored payment could take days to weeks, as the affected bank had to notify CBP via a paper debit voucher. After receipt of notice, CBP would calculate the interest owed on the dishonored amount based on the date of the debit voucher, create a bill with just the amount of the debit voucher in ACS, place a hold on that bill, and mail a letter containing the amount of the debit voucher and interest to the individual or entity. With the advent of electronic payments and messaging, the time between a debit voucher's creation and the bank's notification to CBP is significantly reduced, usually taking no more than three days. Often, the individual or entity has become aware of the problem and made the payment before CBP receives notification or calculates the interest and issues a bill, or the individual or entity makes the payment after the bill is generated but before it is received, causing confusion. As CBP's debit voucher process has not yet been automated, CBP accounting technicians must continue to process debit vouchers manually by checking for a (late) payment, calculating interest, and generating a bill. If the individual or entity continues to fail to pay after the initial bill, CBP may mail subsequent letters as interest accrues in further 30-day periods, but because the process is handled manually, subsequent letters are rarely mailed.
CBP seeks to automate the debit voucher process as a part of ACE Collections Release 7 to better serve the trade community, promote efficiency,
CBP does not anticipate any costs resulting from this interim final rule. Although CBP has invested resources into automating the debit voucher process, those costs were borne regardless of this interim final rule as CBP modernizes its financial systems and moves most business activities to ACE. CBP's ACE Collections effort is large and ongoing, and the debit voucher process represents a minor part. The trade community will see no costs from this interim final rule and will likely save time in the payment and billing process as electronic payment and automatic account updates make settling accounts quicker and easier.
CBP considers this interim final rule to be beneficial to both CBP and the trade community. Automating debit voucher processing will bring clarity and efficiency to the interest accrual and collection environment, making it clear to the individuals and entities involved how much they owe and when, and allowing them to make payments quickly. Individuals and entities will no longer receive bills for payments they may have already made and CBP's accounting technicians will no longer need to spend time calculating interest and generating bills for every debit voucher received by CBP. Automation will also allow for better collection of interest accrued after the initial bill. Under current manual practice, subsequent bills are rarely generated and mailed. Under this interim final rule, that process will be automated, enabling CBP to pursue payment.
CBP will likely see a small reduction in the amount of interest charged to and collected from individuals and entities because, as part of Release 7, interest will start accruing at a later date—at the time the debit voucher bill is issued rather than at the time of the debit voucher itself. This reduction is not counted as a cost of this interim final rule but as a transfer, as the reduction in CBP's income will be equal to the corresponding increase in funds retained by the individual or entity paying the debit voucher bill. As the total resources available to society will not change, this is a transfer and not a cost.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3507), an agency may not conduct, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. There are no information collections associated with this rule.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requirements in 5 U.S.C. 553 govern agency rulemaking procedures. Section 553(b) of the APA generally requires notice and public comment before issuance of a final rule. In addition, section 553(d) of the APA requires that a final rule have a 30-day delayed effective date. The APA, however, provides exceptions from the prior notice and public comment requirement and the delayed effective date requirement, when an agency for good cause finds that such procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), CBP has determined for good cause that prior notice and comment are unnecessary because the interim final rule mainly changes CBP's internal accounting procedures and does not negatively affect the substantive rights of the members of the trade community. As explained in more detail above, the elimination of the debit voucher interest and the automation of the debit voucher billing process will bring clarity as to the debts owed and efficiency as to the debit voucher process itself, benefitting both the trade community and CBP. For the same reasons, CBP finds that good cause exists pursuant to section 553(d)(3) of the APA to issue this interim final rule effective upon publication.
This document is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1) pertaining to the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury (or her/his delegate) to approve regulations related to certain customs revenue functions.
Troy A. Miller, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Commissioner, having reviewed and approved this document, has delegated the authority to electronically sign this document to the Director (or Acting Director, if applicable) of the Regulations and Disclosure Law Division of CBP, for purposes of publication in the
Accounting, Claims, Exports, Freight, Harbors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Taxes.
For the reasons stated above, part 24 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 24) is amended as set forth below:
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 58a-58c, 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1505, 1520, 1624; 26 U.S.C. 4461, 4462; 31 U.S.C. 3717, 9701; Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 1
(e) Except for bills resulting from dishonored payments (
The revision and addition read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i)
(3)
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Direct final rule.
Under this direct final rule, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is updating the Table of Exempt Chemical Mixtures to include the listing of nine additional preparations. This action is in response to DEA's review of new applications for exemption. Having reviewed applications and relevant information, DEA has found that these preparations meet the applicable exemption criteria. Therefore, this rule amends the regulations to codify that these products are exempted from the application of certain provisions of the Controlled Substances Act.
This direct final rule is effective December 22, 2023 without further action, unless DEA receives adverse comment by DEA no later than November 22, 2023. If any comments or objections raise significant issues regarding any findings of fact or conclusions of law upon which this rule is based, the Administrator will withdraw this direct final rule and will issue a new rule, after she has reconsidered the issues in light of the comments and objections filed.
Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must be submitted on or before November 22, 2023. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the last day of the comment period.
To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. DEA-1118” on all correspondence, including any attachments.
•
•
Terrence L. Boos, Ph.D., Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Telephone: (571) 362-3249.
Any interested person may file comments or objections to this order, on or before November 22, 2023. If any such comments or objections raise significant issues regarding any findings of fact or conclusions of law upon which the rule is based, the Administrator will withdraw this direct final rule. The Administrator may reconsider the application in light of the comments and objections filed and reinstate, terminate, or amend the original order as deemed appropriate.
Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record and made available for public inspection online at
If you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online or made available in the public docket, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also place all the personal identifying information you do not want posted online or made available in the public docket in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online or made available in the public docket, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted on
The manufacturers of nine chemical mixtures listed below have applied for an exemption pursuant to 21 CFR 1310.13. DEA has reviewed the applications, as well as any additional information submitted by the respective manufacturers. DEA has found that: (1) each of these chemical mixtures is formulated in such a way that it cannot be easily used in the illicit production of a controlled substance; and (2) the listed chemical(s) contained in these chemical mixtures cannot be readily recovered. Therefore, DEA has determined that each of the applications should be granted, and previously issued a letter to this effect. This regulatory action conforms DEA regulations to the exemptions previously issued.
Under 21 CFR 1310.13(a), the Administrator may, by publication of a final rule in the
(1) The mixture is formulated in such a way that it cannot be easily used in the illicit production of a controlled substance; and
(2) The listed chemical or chemicals contained in the chemical mixture cannot be readily recovered.
Any manufacturer seeking an exemption for a chemical mixture, not automatically exempt under 21 CFR 1310.12, may apply to the Administrator by submitting an application for exemption which contains the information required by 21 CFR 1310.13(c):
(1) The name, address, and registration number, if any, of the applicant;
(2) The date of the application;
(3) The exact trade name(s) of the applicant's chemical mixture;
(4) The complete qualitative and quantitative composition of the chemical mixture (including all listed and all non-listed chemicals); or if a group of mixtures, the concentration range for the listed chemical and a listing of all non-listed chemicals with respective concentration ranges;
(5) The chemical and physical properties of the mixture and how they differ from the properties of the listed chemical or chemicals; and if a group of mixtures, how the group's properties differ from the properties of the listed chemical;
(6) A statement that the applicant believes justifies an exemption for the chemical mixture or group of mixtures. The statement must explain how the chemical mixture(s) meets the exemption criteria;
(7) A statement that the applicant accepts the right of the Administrator to terminate exemption from regulation for the chemical mixture(s) granted exemption under 21 CFR 1310.13; and
(8) The identification of any information on the application that is considered by the applicant to be a trade secret or confidential and entitled to protection under U.S. laws restricting the public disclosure of such information.
The Administrator may require the applicant to submit such additional documents or written statements of fact relevant to the application that he deems necessary for determining if the application should be granted.
21 CFR 1310.13 further specifies that within a reasonable period of time after the receipt of an application for an exemption, the Administrator will notify the applicant of acceptance or rejection of the application for filing. If the application is not accepted for filing, an explanation will be provided. The Administrator is not required to accept an application if any information required pursuant to 21 CFR 1310.13 is lacking or not readily understood. The applicant may, however, amend the application to meet the requirements of this section.
If the exemption is granted, the applicant shall be notified in writing and the Administrator shall issue, and publish in the
A formulation granted exemption by publication in the
Having considered the information provided in each of the below listed applications, I find that each of the referenced chemical mixtures meets the requirements for exemption under 21 CFR 1310.13(a). Therefore, each of these mixtures is exempt from the application of sections 302, 303, 310, 1007, and 1008 of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 822, 823, 830, 957 and 958).
DEA is updating the table in 21 CFR 1310.13(i) to include each of these exempt chemical mixtures.
An agency may find good cause to exempt a rule from prior public notice provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)), if it
This direct final rule was developed in accordance with the principles of Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563. E.O. 12866 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). E.O. 13563 is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review as established in E.O. 12866. E.O. 12866 classifies a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, 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 set forth in the E.O. DEA has determined that this direct final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866, section 3(f).
The Administrator further certifies that this rulemaking meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988 to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.
This rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of E.O. 13132. The rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This rule does not have tribal implications warranting the application of E.O. 13175. It does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Administrator hereby certifies that this rulemaking has been drafted in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and by approving it certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. This regulation will not have a significant impact upon firms who distribute these products. In fact, the approval of Exempt Chemical Mixture status for these products reduces the regulatory requirements for distribution of these materials.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not impose a new collection of information requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. This action does not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This rule is not a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 804. However, pursuant to the CRA, DEA is submitting a copy of this direct final rule to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on October 16, 2023, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Drug traffic control, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Under the authority vested in the Attorney General by section 102(39)(A)(vi) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 802(39)(A)(vi)) and delegated to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration by regulations of the Department of Justice (28 CFR 0.100), the Administrator hereby amends 21 CFR part 1310 as set forth below.
21 U.S.C. 802, 827(h), 830, 871(b), 890.
(i) * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for a fireworks display at The Wharf DC on October 25, 2023, to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for Fireworks Displays within the Fifth Coast Guard District identifies the safety zone for this event in Washington, DC. During the enforcement period, vessels may not enter, remain in, or transit through the safety zone unless authorized to do so by the COTP or his representative, and vessels in the vicinity must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
The regulation in 33 CFR 165.506 will be enforced for the location identified in line no. 1 of table 2 to 33 CFR 165.506(h)(2) from 8:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. on October 25, 2023.
If you have questions about this notification of enforcement, call or email MST2 Hollie Givens, Sector Maryland-NCR, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard: telephone 410-57-2596, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone regulation for a fireworks display at The Wharf DC from 8:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on October 25, 2023. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for Fireworks Displays within the Fifth Coast Guard District, § 165.506, specifies the location of the safety zone for the fireworks show, which encompasses portions of the Washington Channel in the Upper Potomac River. During the enforcement period, as reflected in § 165.506(b), if you are the operator of a vessel in the vicinity of the safety zone, you may not enter, remain in, or transit through the safety zone unless authorized to do so by the COTP or his representative, and you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
In addition to this notification of enforcement in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone for navigable waters of Watson Bayou, Panama City FL, within an area bound by the following points: 30°08′17.8″ N, 85°38′6.6″ W (Diamond Point), thence northeast toward 30°08′34.6″ N, 85°37′55.7″ W (Eastern Shipbuilding), thence east to the South East Avenue Bridge. The security zone is needed to protect the official party, the public, and the surrounding waterway from terrorist acts, sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Sector Mobile Captain of the Port (COTP).
This rule is effective from 1:30 p.m. on October 27, 2023, through 5 p.m. on November 27, 2023.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email MSTC Stacy Stevenson,
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to public interest to delay the effective date of this rule. The security zone must be established by October 27, 2023, to mitigate potential terrorist acts, and enhance public and maritime safety and security. The Coast Guard was unable to publish an NPRM due to the short period between the time of the request for Coast Guard enforcement and the actual event. The request for enforcement was received on September 11, 2023. Furthermore, delaying the effective date would be contrary to the security zone's intended objectives of protecting government officials and dignitaries, mitigating potential terrorists acts, and enhancing maritime safety and security.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard may issue security zone regulations under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70051 and 70124. The COTP has determined that a security zone is necessary for the protection of government officials and dignitaries during an official visit to Watson Bayou, Panama City, FL, in the vicinity of Eastern Shipbuilding. This rule is needed to protect personnel and vessels in the navigable waters within the security zone.
This rule establishes a security zone on certain navigable waters of Watson Bayou, Panama City FL from 1:30 p.m. October 27, 2023, through 5 p.m. November 27, 2023. The security zone will be enforced from 1:30 p.m. through 5 p.m. on October 27, 2023. If the event is delayed, the security zone will be enforcement on a subsequent date before November 27, 2023, for approximately 3.5 hours. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and ensure maritime security in these navigable waters during a visit of government personnel and dignitaries. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the security zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the security zone. This security zone would impact a small, designated area of Watson Bayou, in the vicinity of Eastern Shipbuilding, for approximately 3.5 hours or less during a period when vessel traffic is typically relatively slow. In addition, vessel traffic will be able to transit Watson Bayou Channel to the west of the security zone. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the security zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of
Also, this rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a security zone lasting only 3.5 hours that will prohibit entry on a portion of Watson Bayou, in the vicinity of Eastern Shipbuilding. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative on VHF-CH 16. Those in the security zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Announcement of early implementation date.
The U.S. Department of Education (Department) designates a regulatory provision in its final rule related to income-driven repayment for early implementation.
October 23, 2023. For the implementation dates of the regulatory provision, see
Bruce Honer, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 987-0750. Email:
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
Section 482(c)(1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), requires that regulations affecting programs under title IV of the HEA be published in final form by November 1 prior to the start of the award year (July 1) to which they apply. Section 482(c)(2) of the HEA also
On July 10, 2023, the Department published in the
The Secretary is exercising his authority under section 482(c) of the HEA to designate an additional regulatory change made in that final rule for early implementation beginning on October 23, 2023.
The Secretary is designating for early implementation the change to the process for a borrower re-enrolling in the Revised Pay As You Earn (REPAYE) repayment plan, which is now also known as the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) repayment plan, after previously being enrolled in a different plan. Under current 34 CFR 685.209(c)(4)(vi)(D) and (E), a borrower returning to REPAYE must provide documentation of income for the years in which the borrower was not on REPAYE. Section 685.209(e) of the final rule, which will become effective on July 1, 2024, employs a simpler process that does not require documentation of prior years' income information.
While documentation of income for years in which a borrower was not enrolled in REPAYE is no longer required, a borrower will still need to provide documentation of their income information to allow the Department to calculate the borrower's current monthly payment amount under the SAVE plan.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA, the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving two revisions to the Arkansas State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Governor on May 12, 2022, and November 1, 2022. These SIP revisions were submitted in response to EPA's June 12, 2015, finding of substantial inadequacy and SIP call concerning excess emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) events. EPA is approving these SIP revisions and finds that the revisions correct the inadequacies identified in Arkansas' SIP in the June 12, 2015, SIP call.
This rule is effective on November 22, 2023.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2022-0605. All documents in the docket are listed on the
James E. Grady, EPA Region 6 Office, Regional Haze and SO
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” mean “the EPA.”
The background for this action is discussed in detail in our July 21, 2023, proposed action (88 FR 47095). In that document we proposed to approve revisions to the Arkansas SIP which were submitted on May 12, 2022, and November 1, 2022, subsequent to EPA's January 12, 2022, finding of failure to submit concerning excess emissions during periods of SSM.
The public comment period for our proposed approval and determination expired on August 21, 2023, and no adverse comments were received. We received one comment from Sierra Club and Environmental Integrity Project supporting removal of Regulation 19.602 and Regulation 19.1004(H) from the Arkansas SIP. Therefore, we are finalizing our action as proposed.
The EPA is approving the revisions to the Arkansas SIP submitted by the State
As stated in the proposed action for informational purposes only, EPA provided additional information regarding potentially impacted populations living within Pulaski County as well as the State of Arkansas as a whole.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is removing the incorporation by reference of certain sections of “Regulation 19” in 40 CFR 52.170, as described in section III of this Final Action. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
• Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.”
The air agency did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA performed an environmental justice analysis, as is described above in the section titled, “Environmental Justice Considerations.” The analysis was done for the purpose of providing additional context and information about this rulemaking to the public, not as a basis of the action. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area by removal of an automatic exemption provision and an affirmative defense provision from the Arkansas SIP. In addition, there is no information in the record upon which this decision is based inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the 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).
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 22, 2023. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revision reads as follows:
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final action.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is disapproving certain portions of a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Delaware, through the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), on November 22, 2016. The revision was submitted by Delaware in response to a national finding of substantial inadequacy and SIP call published on June 12, 2015, which included certain provisions in the Delaware SIP related to excess emissions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) events. EPA is disapproving certain portions of the SIP revision and determining that such SIP revision does not correct the remaining deficiencies in Delaware's SIP identified in the June 12, 2015, SIP call in accordance with the requirements for SIP provisions under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). This action addresses the remaining deficiencies identified in EPA's June 2015 SIP call that have not yet been addressed by prior EPA actions on Delaware's November 2016 SIP submission.
This final action is effective on November 22, 2023.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2023-0206. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Mallory Moser, Planning & Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Four Penn Center, 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215)
On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), the EPA finalized “State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction,”
With respect to the Delaware SIP, in the 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA determined that the following 7 provisions were substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements: Title 7 of Delaware's Administrative Code (7 DE Admin. Code) 1104 Section (§ ) 1.5, 7 DE Admin. Code 1105 § 1.7, 7 DE Admin. Code 1108 § 1.2, 7 DE Admin. Code 1109 § 1.4, 7 DE Admin. Code 1114 § 1.3, 7 DE Admin. Code 1124 § 1.4 and 7 DE Admin. Code 1142 § 2.3.1.6. Delaware submitted a SIP revision on November 22, 2016, in response to the SIP call issued in the 2015 SSM SIP Action. Delaware's submission noted that the deficiency highlighted in 7 DE Admin. Code 1108 § 1.2 was corrected by a previous SIP revision submitted to EPA on July 10, 2013. A final rule acting on this 2013 submission and remedying 7 DE Admin. Code 1108 § 1.2 published in the
On June 21, 2023, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) related to the remaining four provisions identified in EPA's June 2015 SIP call that had not yet been addressed by prior EPA actions.
EPA received two comments which can be found in the docket. One comment, from the State of Delaware, notes the State is reviewing the record and preparing a path forward to respond to the concerns found within the NPRM. EPA acknowledges Delaware's comment. The other comment, from the Sierra Club and Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), was partially adverse, and the adverse portions are discussed below.
In response to the request that EPA promulgate a FIP, EPA acknowledges this comment and recognizes the Agency's statutory obligation to promulgate a FIP within 24 months of a final disapproval of a SIP submission unless the State corrects the deficiency, and EPA approves the plan or plan revision, before EPA promulgates the FIP.
For the reasons discussed in detail in the proposed rulemaking and summarized herein, EPA is disapproving the portion of Delaware's November 22, 2016, SIP submission addressing 7 DE Admin. Code 1104 § 1.5, 7 DE Admin. Code 1105 § 1.7, 7 DE Admin. Code 1109 § 1.4, and 7 DE Admin. Code 1114 § 1.3.
As a result of our disapproval, CAA section 110(c)(1) would require EPA to promulgate a FIP within 24 months of the effective date of the final disapproval action, unless EPA first approves a complete SIP revision that corrects the deficiencies in 7 DE Admin. Code 1104 Section (§ ) 1.5, 7 DE Admin. Code 1105 § 1.7, 7 DE Admin. Code 1109 § 1.4 and 7 DE Admin. Code 1114 § 1.3, within such time. In addition, final disapproval could trigger mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179 and 40 CFR 52.31 unless the State submits, and EPA approves, a complete SIP revision that corrects the identified deficiencies within 18 months of the effective date of the final disapproval action.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, if they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this final action disapproving portions of Delaware's SIP revision merely ascertains that these State law provisions do not meet Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined by Executive Order 12866 and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review.
This proposed action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because it does not contain any information collection activities.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action merely proposes to disapprove a portion of a SIP submission as not meeting the CAA.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action does not apply on any Indian reservation land, any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, or non-reservation areas of Indian country. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it merely proposes to disapprove a portion of a SIP submission as not meeting the CAA.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement
Under the 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, the EPA's role is to review state choices, and approve those choices if they meet the minimum criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this proposed action disapproves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
The air agency did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples. This action merely proposes to disapprove a SIP submission as not meeting the CAA.
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 16, 2023. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final action does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such action. This action pertaining to the disapproval of these portions of Delaware's November 22, 2016, submittal, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is updating a portion of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Air Regulations. Requirements applying to OCS sources located within 25 miles of states' seaward boundaries must be updated periodically to remain consistent with the requirements of the corresponding onshore area (COA), as mandated by the Clean Air Act (CAA). The portion of the OCS air regulations that is being updated pertains to the requirements for OCS sources for which Virginia is the designated COA. The Commonwealth of Virginia's requirements discussed in this document will be incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and listed in the appendix to the Federal OCS air regulations.
This final rule is effective on November 22, 2023. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 22, 2023.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2021-0767. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Gwendolyn Supplee, Permits Branch (3AD10), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Four Penn Center, 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-2763. Ms. Supplee can also be reached via electronic mail at
On September 4, 1992, EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 55,
On February 10, 2022 (87 FR 7790), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to incorporate various Virginia air pollution control requirements into 40 CFR part 55. Pursuant to 40 CFR 55.12, consistency reviews will occur: (1) at least annually; (2) upon receipt of a Notice of Intent (NOI) under 40 CFR 55.4; or (3) when a state or local agency submits a rule to EPA to be considered for incorporation by reference in 40 CFR part 55. EPA's NPRM proposed to approve an annual update pursuant to 40 CFR 55.12(b). Subsequent to EPA's February 10, 2022, NPRM, Virginia amended state regulations relevant to the OCS, effective March 15, 2023. EPA intends to address these post-NPRM state amendments in its next annual update consistent with 40 CFR 55.12. This action addresses only those regulations identified for incorporation in NPRM, namely the Virginia regulations that were updated as of September 8, 2021.
EPA reviewed the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (“Virginia DEQ”) air rules for inclusion in 40 CFR part 55 in this action to ensure that they are rationally related to the attainment or maintenance of Federal or state ambient air quality standards and compliance with part C of title I of the CAA, that they are not designed expressly to prevent exploration and development of the OCS, and that they are potentially applicable to OCS sources. See 40 CFR 55.1. EPA has also evaluated the rules to ensure they are not arbitrary or capricious. See 40 CFR 55.12(e). In addition, EPA has excluded administrative or procedural rules,
Section 328(a) of the CAA requires that EPA establish requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources located within 25 miles of states' seaward boundaries that are the same as onshore requirements. To comply with this statutory mandate, EPA must incorporate applicable onshore rules into 40 CFR part 55 as they exist onshore. This limits EPA's flexibility in deciding which requirements will be incorporated into 40 CFR part 55 and prevents EPA from making substantive changes to the requirements it incorporates. As a result, EPA may be incorporating rules into 40 CFR part 55 that do not conform to all of EPA's state implementation plan (SIP) guidance or certain requirements of the CAA. Consistency updates may result in the inclusion of state or local rules or regulations into 40 CFR part 55, even though the same rules may ultimately be disapproved for inclusion as part of the SIP. Inclusion in the OCS rule does not imply that a rule meets the requirements of the CAA for SIP approval, nor does it imply that the rule will be approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP.
The specific requirements of the consistency update and the rationale for EPA's action are explained in the February 10, 2022, NPRM. No comments were received on the NPRM.
EPA did not receive any comments on the February 10, 2022, NPRM, 87 FR 7790.
EPA is taking final action to incorporate the rules potentially applicable to OCS sources for which the Commonwealth of Virginia will be the COA. The rules that EPA is taking final action to incorporate are applicable provisions of the Virginia Administrative Code (VAC). The Virginia regulatory changes that EPA is taking final action to incorporate are (1) Chapter 20, General Provisions— 9VAC5-20-21, Documents incorporated by reference; (2) Chapter 50, New and Modified Stationary Sources—9VAC5-50-400. General; (3) Chapter 60, Hazardous Air Pollutant Sources—9VAC5-60-60. General; (4) Chapter 60, Hazardous Air Pollutant Sources—9VAC5-60-90, as amended through September 8, 2021. The rules that EPA is taking final action to incorporate will replace the rules identified in the February 10, 2022, NPRM and previously incorporated into “Commonwealth of Virginia Requirements Applicable to OCS Sources,” dated February 20, 2019. See 84 FR 56121; October 21, 2019. This action will have no effect on any provisions that were not subject to changes by Virginia and were also previously incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 55 through EPA's October 21, 2019 (84 FR 56121) final rule.
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of “Commonwealth of Virginia Requirements Applicable to OCS Sources,” dated September 8, 2021, which provides the text of the Virginia DEQ air rules in effect as of September 8, 2021, that would apply to OCS sources. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to establish requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources located within 25 miles of states' seaward boundaries that are the same as onshore air pollution control requirements. To comply with this statutory mandate, EPA must incorporate applicable onshore rules into 40 CFR part 55 as they exist onshore. See 42 U.S.C. 7627(a)(1); 40 CFR 55.12. Thus, in promulgating OCS consistency updates, EPA's role is to maintain consistency between OCS regulations and the regulations of onshore areas, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action simply updates the existing OCS requirements to make them consistent with requirements onshore, without the exercise of any policy direction by EPA. 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
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
Additionally, Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations (people of color and/or Indigenous peoples) and low-income populations.
EPA believes that this specific action does not concern human health or environmental conditions and therefore cannot be evaluated with respect to potentially disproportionate and adverse effects on people of color, low-income populations and/or Indigenous peoples. This action simply fulfills EPA's statutory mandate to ensure regulatory consistency between the COA and inner OCS consistent with the stated objectives of CAA section 328(a)(1). Specifically, section 328(a)(1) requires EPA to establish requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources “to attain and maintain Federal and State ambient air quality standards and to comply with the provisions of part C of [title I of the CAA]” and, for inner OCS sources (located within 25 miles of the seaward boundary of such states), to establish requirements that are “the same as would be applicable if the source were located in the COA.” This section of the Act also states that “the Administrator shall update such requirements as necessary to maintain consistency with onshore regulations and this chapter.” As noted in the preamble, compliance with this requirement limits EPA's discretion in deciding what will be incorporated into 40 CFR part 55.
From the time of EPA's last consistency update for Virginia (84 FR 56121, October 21, 2019) to the publication of the NPRM (87 FR 7790, February 10, 2022), state regulations relevant to the OCS were simply amended to update references to the CFR. This action incorporates into the CFR those minor updates to state regulations, which are already effective onshore, to ensure regulatory consistency with the COA as mandated by CAA section 328(a)(1). This is a routine and ministerial consistency update that does not directly affect any human health or environmental conditions in the commonwealth of Virginia. In addition, EPA provided for meaningful public involvement on this rule through the notice and comment process, through which EPA received no comments. This rule was in addition to the State-level notice and comment process held by Virginia.
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, nor does it impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 22, 2023. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).).
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the Paper Reduction Act (PRA). See 44 U.S.C 3501. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations at 40 CFR part 55 and, by extension, this update to part 55, and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0249.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Outer continental shelf, Ozone, Particulate matter, Permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 55 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
Section 328 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
(22) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Commonwealth of Virginia Requirements Applicable to OCS Sources, September 8, 2021.
Virginia:
(a) * * *
(1) The following Commonwealth of Virginia requirements are applicable to OCS Sources, September 8, 2021, Commonwealth of Virginia—Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.
The following sections of Virginia Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution Control (VAC), Title 9, Agency 5:
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public hearing on proposed amendment.
We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the Montana regulatory program (hereinafter, the Montana program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Montana submitted this proposed amendment to us, on its own initiative, following the passage of a Montana House Bill during the 2023 legislative session. Montana proposes several changes to the Montana Code Annotated (MCA). Montana adds a new section detailing the procedures a permittee must follow when applying for a “minor revision” to its permit. Montana adds several new definitions and removes the current procedures for a permit revision application. Furthermore, Montana adds clarifying language regarding “minor revisions” of permits. Lastly, Montana adds contingencies that will not be codified into law but that will apply to the proposed amendment: “Codification Instructions” and “Contingent Termination.” This document gives the times and locations that the Montana program and this proposed amendment to that program are available for your inspection, the comment period during which you may submit written comments on the amendment, and the procedures that we will follow for the public hearing, if one is requested.
We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4 p.m., Mountain Daylight Time (M.D.T.) November 22, 2023. If requested, we may hold a public hearing or meeting on the amendment on November 17, 2023. We will accept requests to speak at a hearing until 4 p.m., M.D.T. on November 7, 2023.
You may submit comments, identified by SATS No. MT-042-FOR, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see
In addition, you may review a copy of the amendment during regular business hours at the following location:
Subject to OSMRE's oversight, section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its approved, State program includes, among other things, State laws and regulations that govern surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the Act and consistent with the Federal regulations. See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7).
On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior approved the Montana program on October 24, 1980. You can find background information on the Montana program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the Montana program in the October 24, 1980,
By letter dated July 13, 2023 (Administrative Record No. MT-044-01), Montana sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
Montana proposes several changes to title 82, chapter 4, part 2 of the MCA. First, Montana proposes to add a new section titled “Minor Revisions—application—exemptions,” which tells a permittee what must be included in minor permit revision applications and provides a timeline for the Montana Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) review of said applications.
Second, Montana proposes to add four new entries to 82-4-203 MCA—Definitions: (5) Amendment, (28) Incidental Boundary Revision, (33) Major Revision, and (39) Minor Revision. Due to the new definitions, Montana also proposes to update the numbers listed for existing definitions.
Third, Montana proposes to amend 82-4-221 MCA—Mining Permit Required. Here, Montana proposes to remove language that gives direction to a permittee when it files an application to revise its permit. It also removes language that outlines DEQ's timeline for reviewing minor revision applications.
Fourth, Montana proposes to amend 82-4-225 MCA—Application for increase or reduction in permit area amendment. Montana amends the title of this section to be “Application for permit amendment.” Montana then removes two occurrences of the phrase “area of land affected,” replacing one with “permit area” and the other with “permit boundary.” Montana also removes language that allows a permittee to apply to “reduce” its permit area, and removes language that allows an operator to apply, at any time, to increase or reduce its area of land affected. Lastly, Montana adds “minor revisions” to the list of permit revision applications that do not follow the same procedures as original permit applications.
Finally, HB 656 adds two contingencies that affect the amended sections above, but that are not codified into the MCA. Section 5 of HB 656 states that the changes proposed through HB 656 are intended to be codified into title 82, chapter 4, part 2 of the MCA. Section 6 of HB 656 states that HB 656 will terminate if OSMRE disapproves the proposed changes made in the bill. The date of termination would be the date DEQ certifies to the Montana code commissioner that OSMRE disapproved the proposed changes.
The full text of the program amendment is available for you to read at the locations listed above under
Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the State program.
If you submit written or electronic comments on the proposed rule during the 30-day comment period, they should be specific, confined to issues pertinent to the proposed regulations, and explain the reason for any recommended change(s). We appreciate any and all comments, but those most useful and likely to influence decisions on the final regulations will be those that either involve personal experience or include citations to and analyses of SMCRA, its legislative history, its implementing regulations, case law, other pertinent State or Federal laws or regulations, technical literature, or other relevant publications.
We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under
To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at the public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard.
If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as amended by E.O. 14094, provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. Pursuant to OMB guidance, dated October 12, 1993, the approval of State program and/or AML plan amendments is exempted from OMB review under Executive Order 12866, as amended by E.O. 14094. Executive Order 13563, which reaffirms and supplements Executive Order 12866, retains this exemption.
When a State submits a program amendment to OSMRE for review, our regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require us to publish a notice in the
We conclude our review of the proposed amendment after the close of the public comment period and determine whether the amendment should be approved, approved in part, or not approved. At that time, we will also make the determinations and certifications required by the various laws and Executive orders governing the rulemaking process and include them in the final rule.
State regulatory program approval, State-Federal cooperative agreement, Required program amendments.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
FinCEN is issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), pursuant to section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act, that proposes requiring domestic financial institutions and domestic financial agencies to implement certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements relating to transactions involving convertible virtual currency (CVC) mixing.
Written comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking must be submitted on or before January 22, 2024.
Comments must be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
Please submit comments by one method only, and note that comments submitted in responses to this NPRM will become a matter of public record.
The FinCEN Regulatory Support Section at 1-800-767-2825 or electronically at
Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act (section 311), codified at 31 U.S.C. 5318A, grants the Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary) authority, upon finding that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that one or more classes of transactions within or involving a jurisdiction outside of the United States is of primary money laundering concern, to require domestic financial institutions and domestic financial agencies to take certain “special measures.”
The five special measures set out in section 311 are prophylactic safeguards that may be employed to defend the United States financial system from money laundering and terrorist financing risks. The Secretary may impose one or more of these special measures in order to protect the U.S. financial system from such threats. Through special measure one, the Secretary may require domestic financial institutions and domestic financial agencies to maintain records, file reports, or both, concerning the aggregate amount of transactions or individual transactions.
Before making a finding that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that a class of transactions is of primary money laundering concern, the Secretary is required to consult with both the Secretary of State and the Attorney General.
• The extent to which such class of transactions is used to facilitate or promote money laundering in or through a jurisdiction outside the United States, including any money laundering activity by organized criminal groups, international terrorists, or entities involved in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or missiles;
• The extent to which such class of transactions is used for legitimate business purposes in the jurisdiction; and
• The extent to which such action is sufficient to ensure that the purposes of section 311 are fulfilled and to guard against international money laundering and other financial crimes.
Upon finding that a class of transactions is of primary money laundering concern, the Secretary may require covered financial institutions to take one or more special measures. In selecting one or more special measures, the Secretary “shall consult with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, any other appropriate Federal banking agency (as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act), the Secretary of State, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the National Credit Union Administration Board, and in the sole discretion of the Secretary, such other agencies and interested parties as the Secretary may find appropriate.”
In addition, the Secretary is required to consider the following factors when selecting special measures:
• Whether similar action has been or is being taken by other nations or multilateral groups;
• Whether the imposition of any particular special measure would create a significant competitive disadvantage, including any undue cost or burden associated with compliance, for financial institutions organized or licensed in the United States;
• The extent to which the action or the timing of the action would have a significant adverse systemic impact on the international payment, clearance, and settlement system, or on legitimate
• The effect of the action on United States national security and foreign policy.
Convertible Virtual Currency (CVC) mixing entails the facilitation of CVC
Indeed, CVC mixing transactions are frequently used by criminals and state actors to facilitate a range of illicit activity, including, but not limited to, money laundering, sanctions evasion and WMD proliferation by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea), Russian-associated ransomware attacks,
Accordingly, because CVC mixing provides foreign illicit actors with enhanced anonymity that allows them to launder their illicit proceeds, FinCEN assesses that transactions involving CVC mixing within or involving a jurisdiction outside the United States are of primary money laundering concern, and, having undertaken the necessary consultations, also finds that imposing additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements would assist in mitigating the risks posed by such transactions. Such reporting will assist law enforcement with identifying the perpetrators behind illicit transactions and preventing, investigating, and prosecuting illegal activity, as well as rendering such transactions—through increased transparency—less attractive and useful to illicit actors. This NPRM (1) sets forth FinCEN's finding that transactions involving CVC mixing within or involving jurisdictions outside the United States are a class of transactions that are of primary money laundering concern; and (2) proposes, under special measure one, requiring covered financial institutions to implement certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements on transactions that covered financial institutions know, suspect, or have reason to suspect involve CVC mixing within or involving jurisdictions outside the United States.
Although the United States supports innovation and advances in digital and distributed ledger technology for financial services, it must also consider the substantial implications that such technology has for national security and mitigate the attendant risks for consumers, businesses, national security, and the integrity of the broader U.S. financial system.
The term “virtual currency” refers to a medium of exchange that can operate like currency but does not have all the attributes of “real,” or fiat, currency. CVC is a type of virtual currency that either has an equivalent value as currency or acts as a substitute for currency and is therefore a type of “value that substitutes for currency.” The label applies to any particular type of CVC, such as “digital currency,” “cryptocurrency,” “cryptoasset,” and “digital asset.”
The public nature of most CVC blockchains,
There are a number of ways to conduct CVC mixing transactions—one of the most common of which is the use of CVC mixers. CVC mixers can accomplish this through a variety of mechanisms, including: pooling or aggregating CVC from multiple individuals, wallets, or accounts into a single transaction or transactions; splitting an amount into multiple amounts and transmitting the CVC as a series of smaller independent transactions; or leveraging code to coordinate, manage, or manipulate the structure of the transaction; among other methods. Through such mechanisms, CVC mixers can functionally simulate a customer depositing funds from an anonymous account into a financial institution's omnibus account and withdrawing funds into a separate anonymous account.
CVC mixing does not, however, wholly rely on the use of CVC mixers. There are certain methods that CVC users—and CVC mixers—often employ in an effort to obfuscate their transactions. These methods include:
a.
b.
c.
e.
f.
Illicit actors use enhanced anonymity on the blockchain to avoid detection by authorities as they launder their illicit proceeds. By obfuscating identity and preventing the attribution of ownership of CVC,
Over the past few years, Treasury has monitored, and expressed concern with, the increasing use of CVC mixing by illicit actors, including North Korea-affiliated cyber threat actors, ransomware actors, and darknet market
CVC mixing is also commonly used to obfuscate the source of CVC obtained through other illicit activities, such as ransomware attacks and the use and operation of darknet markets. For example, between January 2021 and June 2021, the top 10 most common ransomware variants reported in suspicious activity report (SAR) data, including several Russian-affiliated variants, sent approximately $35.2 million to CVC mixers and $252 million to darknet markets.
The multiple U.S. Government actions against CVC mixers, often in coordination with international partners, demonstrate that CVC mixing provides illicit actors with enhanced anonymity in CVC transactions, allowing them to more easily launder their illicit proceeds in CVC.
Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 5318A(a)(1), FinCEN finds that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that transactions involving CVC mixing within or involving a jurisdiction outside the United States are a class of transactions that is of primary money laundering concern. In making this finding, FinCEN considered the following statutory factors: (1) the extent to which the class of transactions is used to facilitate or promote money laundering in or through a jurisdiction outside of the United States, including money laundering activity with connections to international terrorism, organized crime, and proliferation of WMDs and missiles; (2) the extent to which a class of transactions is used for legitimate business purposes; and (3) the extent to which action by FinCEN would guard against international money laundering and other financial crimes.
FinCEN assesses that foreign CVC mixing transactions are used to facilitate or promote money laundering in or through jurisdictions outside the United States, including by organized criminal groups, international terrorists, or entities involved in the proliferation of WMD and missiles. FinCEN based this assessment on information available to the agency, including both public and non-public reporting, and after thorough consideration of each of the following factors: (1) that transactions involving CVC mixing often occur within, or involve, jurisdictions outside of the United States; (2) that CVC mixing is used to launder proceeds of large-scale CVC theft and heists, and support the proliferation of WMD, in particular, by the DPRK; and (3) that CVC mixing is similarly used by ransomware actors and darknet markets to launder illicit proceeds.
CVC mixers conduct business with opaque operational structures and take steps to avoid the discovery of where they and their users are located. CVC mixers commonly obscure their locations, including (1) employing The Onion Router (TOR) to conceal the location of their servers;
The global nature of the problem is further demonstrated by the fact that no CVC mixers are currently registered with FinCEN. CVC mixers are required to register with FinCEN if they do business as money transmitters wholly or in substantial part within the United States.
Recent U.S. and foreign enforcement actions also reflect CVC mixing transactions within or involving numerous foreign jurisdictions, including DPRK, Russia, Luxembourg,
FinCEN assesses that CVC mixing is used to launder the proceeds of large-scale CVC theft and heists by both state and non-state sponsored actors. Whether heists are carried out by state or non-state actors, the need for CVC mixing is the same—illicit CVC must be laundered, and CVC mixing provides the enhanced anonymity to separate illicitly obtained CVC from the underlying illicit activity.
Non-state-affiliated actors commonly use CVC mixing services to launder their proceeds from large scale heists. The proceeds from the heists that targeted a CVC exchanger
In addition to the use of CVC mixing by non-state-affiliated actors, FinCEN assesses that, based on public and non-public reporting, DPRK state-sponsored or -affiliated cyber threat actors are responsible for a substantial portion of illicit or stolen CVC funds sent to CVC mixers,
In brief, non-state actors and, significantly, DPRK state-sponsored or -affiliated cyber threat actors have
CVC mixing services that obfuscate blockchain trails are attractive for cybercriminals looking to launder illegal proceeds from malicious cyber-enabled activities, including ransomware attacks.
The relationship between CVC mixing and malicious cyber-enabled and other criminal activities is evident through the reliance of ransomware actors on CVC mixing. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) identified this connection, noting in 2022 the ongoing and growing threat of criminal misuse of CVC for the receipt and laundering of illicit proceeds from ransomware attacks, expressing particular concern that ransomware cybercriminals are increasingly using CVC mixers to launder their illicit proceeds.
The relationship between CVC mixing and illicit activities is likewise prevalent in transactions involving darknet markets. CVC mixing services often deliberately operate opaquely and advertise their services as a way to pay anonymously for illicit items such as illegal narcotics, firearms, and child sexual abuse material.
As these examples demonstrate, illicit actors of all types conducting illicit cyber activity, including ransomware attacks and transactions on darknet markets, frequently seek out services that mask their illicit transactions and favor the enhanced anonymity provided by CVC mixing. Furthermore, FinCEN assesses that the percentage of mixing activity attributed to illicit activity is increasing. According to publicly available analysis reported in January 2023, the total amount of CVC sent to CVC mixers fell significantly, likely due to OFAC designation of two CVC mixers, Blender.io and Tornado Cash. However, the analysis noted the CVC that was sent to CVC mixers in 2022 was more likely to come from illicit sources than in previous years—24 percent of the $7.8 billion
FinCEN recognizes that there are legitimate reasons why responsible actors might want to conduct financial transactions in a secure and private manner given the amount of information available on public blockchains. FinCEN also recognizes that, in addition to illicit purposes, CVC mixing may be used for legitimate purposes, such as privacy enhancement for those who live under repressive regimes or wish to conduct licit transactions anonymously.
FinCEN is concerned that CVC mixing makes CVC flows untraceable by law enforcement and makes potentially suspicious transactions unreportable by responsible financial institutions—thereby fostering illicit activity as described elsewhere in this document. More importantly, FinCEN assesses that the percentage of CVC mixing activity attributed to illicit activity is increasing. At the same time, because of the lack of available transactional information, FinCEN cannot fully assess the extent to which, or quantity thereof, CVC mixing activity is attributed to legitimate business purposes.
Thus, the legitimate applications of CVC mixing must be carefully weighed against the exposure of the U.S. financial system to ongoing illicit use of CVC mixing. Given the substantial risks posed by CVC mixing, the fact that CVC mixing can be used for some legitimate business purposes does not alter FinCEN's conclusion that this class of transactions is of primary money laundering concern.
Given the threats posed to U.S. national security and the U.S. financial system by obfuscation of illicit proceed flows through CVC mixing, FinCEN believes that imposing recordkeeping and reporting requirements under special measure one would guard against international money laundering and other financial crimes by increasing transparency in these transactions, and thus render them less attractive to illicit actors while also providing additional information to support law enforcement investigations.
This additional transparancy would serve two purposes. First, it would enable investigations by law enforcement and regulators to support money laundering investigations, including cases against North Korean and Russian cybercriminals that pose a threat to U.S national security and the U.S. financial system. Second, it would highlight the risks and deter illicit actors' use of CVC mixing services, including by foreign state-sponsored or -affiliated cyber actors' laundering proceeds of CVC theft to facilitate WMD proliferation, ransomware attackers' laundering of ransoms, and obfuscation of transactions associated with the use of illicit darknet markets.
Having found that transactions involving CVC mixing within or involving a jurisdiction outside the United States are a class of transactions that are of primary money laundering concern, FinCEN proposes imposing recordkeeping and reporting obligations on covered financial institutions under special measure one. Such recordkeeping and reporting obligations would require covered financial institutions to report certain information when they know, suspect, or have reason to suspect a CVC transaction involves the use of CVC mixing within or involving a jurisdiction outside the United States.
FinCEN believes that this special measure is the best available tool to mitigate the risks posed by CVC mixing. It would appropriately collect information, which will discourage the use of CVC mixing by illicit actors, and is necessary to better understand the illicit finance risk posed by CVC mixing and investigate those who seek to use CVC mixing for illicit ends. At the same time, this special measure will minimize the burden upon financial institutions and those who seek to use mixing for legitimate purposes. The reporting obligations under this special measure apply to covered financial institutions that directly engage with CVC transactions, such as exchangers, and do not encompass indirect fiat transactions by covered U.S. financial institutions, such as a bank sending funds on behalf of a CVC exchanger that is acting on behalf of a customer purchasing CVC previously processed through a CVC mixer.
As proposed by FinCEN, special measure one would require recordkeeping and reporting of biographical and transactional information related to transactions involving CVC mixing, increasing transparency and thereby rendering the use of CVC mixing services by illicit actors less attractive. Furthermore, the information generated by this special measure would support investigations into illicit activities by actors who make use of CVC mixing to launder their ill-gotten CVC by law enforcement. At present, there is no similar or equivalent mechanism possessed by law enforcement to readily collect such information, depriving investigators of the information necessary to more effectively understand, investigate, and hold illicit actors accountable. Collectively, the outcomes of the proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirement—discouraging the use of CVC mixing by illicit actors and closing the information gap in service of increased investigation of those illicit actors who continue to make use of CVC mixing—will aid in the protection of the U.S. financial system.
FinCEN has determined that imposition of special measure one would most appropriately collect necessary information while limiting the burden placed on covered financial institutions and users of CVC mixing. As set out further below in Section V.B., FinCEN believes that the existing risk-based approach to AML/CFT compliance used by covered financial institutions already largely encompasses the information FinCEN is requesting. Despite this ready availability of information, covered financial institutions do not, and often need not, universally report that information to FinCEN at present. The proposed reporting requirement would address this reporting gap.
FinCEN considered the other special measures available under section 311. As discussed further in Section V.E. below, it determined that none of them would appropriately balance the interests in permitting secure and private financial transactions while addressing the risks posed by CVC mixing, or were otherwise ill-suited to CVC-related transactions, and thus incapable of collecting information necessary to add transparency to them. Moreover, FinCEN also considered the appropriate scope of the proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and determined that the proposed approach would best capture necessary information and mitigate risks associated with CVC mixing and facilitate investigations of illicit actors, while preserving legitimate actors' ability to continue conducting secure and private financial transactions.
In proposing this special measure, FinCEN consulted with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Secretary of State, certain staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the National Credit Union Administration Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Attorney General. These consultations involved obtaining interagency views on the imposition of the proposed recordkeeping and reporting
Below is a discussion of the relevant statutory factors FinCEN considered in proposing these recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
FinCEN is not aware of any other nation or multilateral group that has imposed, or is currently imposing, similar recordkeeping and reporting requirements relating to transactions involving CVC mixing. However, having likewise identified the significant money laundering threat that CVC mixing poses, numerous other nations and certain multilateral groups have issued public statements regarding the risks presented by CVC mixing, called for appropriate regulation, and/or taken action against specific CVC mixers. Several countries—such as Australia, Canada, and Seychelles—and multilateral groups, such as FATF and Europol, have identified CVC mixing as a risk indicator for money laundering or terrorist financing and have found that CVC mixing can make it more difficult for law enforcement to trace and attribute transactions, complicating investigations.
While FinCEN assesses that the recordkeeping and reporting requirements proposed in this NPRM will place some cost and burden on domestic financial institutions, these burdens are neither undue nor inappropriate in view of the threat posed by the obfuscation of illicit activity enabled by CVC mixing. The existing risk-based approach to AML/CFT compliance used by covered financial institutions already largely encompasses the information FinCEN is requesting. While the information is available to covered financial institutions, at present it is not universally reported to FinCEN. That is to say, FinCEN assesses that covered financial institutions already possess customer information and can identify when their customers engage in a covered transaction. This proposed rule would compel covered financial institutions to attribute a covered transaction to the involved customer(s) and report this information to FinCEN. Accordingly, the collection of the information in question would not create any undue costs or burdens on covered financial institutions. Covered domestic financial institutions may need to modify or replace the current systems in place used to detect other types of illicit activity in virtual currency transactions, such as sanctions compliance systems, to detect transactions involving CVC mixing. Such burdens are commensurate with established AML/CFT protocols.
FinCEN assesses that imposition of the proposed special measure would have minimal impact upon the international payment, clearance, and settlement system, or on legitimate business activities involving CVC transactions. As noted in the February 16, 2022, Financial Stability Board's Assessment of Risks to Financial Stability, direct connections between CVC and systemically important financial institutions and core financial markets are limited at present.
As described above, CVC mixers are used by DPRK-affiliated and Russia-affiliated threat actors, among others, to facilitate illicit activities ranging from WMD proliferation to ransomware attacks affecting victims in both the United States and around the world, and whose interests are adversarial to the national security interests of the United States. Imposing recordkeeping and reporting requirements on transactions that involve CVC mixing will enhance financial intelligence on the identity of illicit users who rely upon mixers to obfuscate their identities and sources of CVC, as well as provide insight into those CVC mixers that facilitate such illicit activity. Such a rule would therefore best serve the national security interests of the United States and support efforts to protect the United States financial system from illicit finance threats.
In assessing the appropriate special measure to impose, FinCEN considered alternatives to imposing recordkeeping and reporting requirements under special measure one. However, FinCEN believes that recordkeeping and reporting requirements under special measure one would most effectively safeguard the U.S. financial system from
In particular, none of the other special measures available under section 311 would appropriately balance the interests in permitting secure and private financial transactions while addressing the risks posed by CVC mixing or would be suited to CVC-related transactions. For instance, FinCEN considered special measure two, which is designed to obtain beneficial ownership information relating to accounts opened in the United States by certain foreign persons or their agents. However, FinCEN determined that such a special measure would fail to collect key information of interest relating to CVC transactions that involve CVC mixing such as the identity of the participants and beneficial owners of the CVC involved. FinCEN also considered special measures three through five, which are focused upon transactions conducted through payable-through accounts and correspondent banking relationships and determined that these are less relevant in the context of CVC transactions, including those that involve CVC mixing, as CVC transactions are conducted outside of the traditional banking system.
More broadly, FinCEN also considered the appropriate scope of the proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Of note, FinCEN considered issuing a rule pursuant to section 311 that would have been narrowly scoped to address terror finance involving Hamas and ISIS and/or North Korea-sponsored and -affiliated actors. However, FinCEN determined that such a narrow approach would be insufficient to address the relevant risks detailed elsewhere in this action. Given the nature and use of CVC mixing, covered financial institutions would typically have insufficient information to determine whether the CVC transaction was initiated North Korean-affiliated actors. FinCEN believes this would be true of any similarly narrow approach, regardless of the actors involved. Therefore, FinCEN has determined that additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements set forth in this proposed rule would best mitigate the risks associated with CVC mixing, deter illicit actors, facilitate law enforcement investigations into illicit activity, and adequately protect the U.S. financial system from the illicit financial risk posed by CVC transactions that involve CVC mixing, while preserving legitimate actors' ability to conduct secure and private financial transactions.
The goal of this proposed rule is to implement an effective and efficient reporting regime to combat and deter money laundering associated with CVC mixing and increase transparency in a sector of the United States virtual currency ecosystem with identified illicit finance risks.
The term “convertible virtual currency” or CVC, means a medium of exchange that either has an equivalent value as currency, or acts as a substitute for currency, but lacks legal tender status.
The term “CVC mixing” means the facilitation of CVC transactions in a manner that obfuscates the source, destination, or amount involved in one or more transactions, regardless of the type of protocol or service used, such as: (1) pooling or aggregating CVC from multiple persons, wallets, addresses, or accounts; (2) using programmatic or algorithmic code to coordinate, manage, or manipulate the structure of a transaction; (3) splitting CVC for transmittal and transmitting the CVC through a series of independent transactions; (4) creating and using single-use wallets, addresses, or accounts, and sending CVC through such wallets, addresses, or accounts through a series of independent transactions; (5) exchanging between types of CVC or other digital assets; or (6) facilitating user-initiated delays in transactional activity.
This definition excepts the use of internal protocols or processes to execute transactions by banks, broker-dealers, or money services businesses, including VASPs, that would otherwise constitute CVC mixing, provided that these financial institutions preserve records of the source and destination of CVC transactions when using such internal protocols and processes, and provide such records to regulators and law enforcement, where required by law. This exemption is designed to avoid capturing transactions with known VASPs that use these internal protocols or processes as part of their business purpose and that are positioned to appropriately respond to inquiries by law enforcement and other relevant authorities. However, if the covered financial institution is unsure if these processes are used as part of a business purpose, they should collect the recordkeeping and reporting information.
FinCEN is seeking to address the primary money laundering concern posed by CVC mixing. The proposed definition of CVC mixing is designed to capture methodologies used by illicit actors to break the traceability of their illicit proceeds and create a mechanism on which which covered businesses would be required to report when they observe CVC mixing transactions. The exception to the definition is crafted to avoid imposing undue burden on covered businesses, provided they are also taking appropriate steps to ensure information is being retained as prescribed by law.
The term “CVC mixer” means any person, group, service, code, tool, or function that facilitates CVC mixing. FinCEN acknowledges this definition is relatively broad; however, given the nature of CVC mixing, FinCEN deems the breadth of this definition to be necessary.
The proposed rule defines “covered financial institution” as the term is defined 31 CFR 1010.100(t), which in general includes the following:
• A bank (except bank credit card systems);
• A broker or dealer in securities;
• A money services business, as defined in 31 CFR 1010.100 (ff). This would include VASPs and other persons that provide money transmission services, which “. . . means the acceptance of . . . value that substitutes for currency from one person and the transmission of . . . value that substitutes for currency to another
• A telegraph company;
• A casino;
• A card club;
• A person subject to supervision by any state or Federal bank supervisory authority;
• A futures commission merchant or an introducing broker-commodities; and
• A mutual fund.
The term “covered transaction” means a transaction as defined in 31 CFR 1010.100(bbb)(1) in CVC by, through, or to the covered financial institution that the covered financial institution knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect involves CVC mixing within or involving a jurisdiction outside the United States. The reference to FinCEN's definition of “transaction” means that a covered transaction includes the following: a purchase, sale, loan, pledge, gift, transfer, delivery, or other disposition, and with respect to a financial institution includes a deposit, withdrawal, transfer between accounts, exchange of currency, loan, extension of credit, purchase or sale of any stock, bond, certificate of deposit, or other monetary instrument, security, contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery, option on any contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery, option on a commodity, purchase or redemption of any money order, payment or order for any money remittance or transfer, purchase or redemption of casino chips or tokens, or other gaming instruments or any other payment, transfer, or delivery by, through, or to a financial institution, by whatever means effected. To this end, FinCEN would expect covered financial institutions to employ a risk-based approach to compliance of this proposed rule, and more broadly, the Bank Secrecy Act, including by using the variously available free and paid blockchain analytic tools commonly available.
The limitation to transactions “in CVC” means that the reporting obligations under this special measure apply to covered financial institutions that directly engage with CVC transactions, such as a CVC exchange. It also means that covered transactions do not include transactions that are only indirectly related to CVC, such as when a CVC exchanger sends the non-CVC proceeds of a sale of CVC that was previously processed through a CVC mixer from the CVC exchanger's bank account to the bank account of the customer selling CVC.
It is critical that all financial institutions, including those with visibility into CVC flows, such as CVC exchangers—generally considered money services businesses (MSBs) under the Bank Secrecy Act—identify and quickly report suspicious activity, and conduct appropriate risk-based customer due diligence or, where required, enhanced due diligence. For example, in appropriately conducting a review to identify suspicious activity associated with potential sanctions evasion and to comply with existing FinCEN 311s on Iran and DPRK, financial institutions must know if transactions originate from or are destined to prohibited jurisdictions, such as Iran
Although FinCEN recognizes much of the information that would be collected under this proposed rule is already provided to the most frequent reporters in the CVC ecosystem, imposing additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements is necessary to address the money laundering threat posed by CVC mixing because, at present, covered financial institutions do not regularly report when their customers send or receive CVC in transactions with indicia of CVC mixing. Reporting that links customers to the CVC mixing transactions will aid law enforcement and national security investigations of illicit activity involving CVC. The following addresses the types of information the rulemaking proposes to collect.
In connection with all covered transactions, FinCEN proposes to collect the following information:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Importantly, under the proposed rule, covered financial institutions would continue to have an obligation to file a SAR when warranted, regardless of whether the covered financial institutions also filed a report required under the proposed rule.
In respect of customers associated with covered transactions, FinCEN proposes to collect the following information:
•
•
•
•
•
The proposed regulation would require a covered financial institution to collect, maintain records of, and report to FinCEN within 30 calendar days of initial detection of a covered transaction, in the manner that FinCEN may prescribe, certain information regarding covered transactions that involve CVC mixing. This includes certain information the covered financial institution shall provide with respect to each covered transaction which is examined in detail below. This proposed reportable information is similar to the information already collected by financial institutions to comply with their AML/CFT obligations; however, at present covered businesses would not necessarily report such information. Notably, the proposed regulation only requires a covered financial institution to report information in its possession, and thus does not require a covered institution to reach out to the transactional counterparty to collect additional information on the CVC mixing transaction.
Pursuant to the proposed rule, covered financial institutions would be required to maintain any records documenting compliance with the requirements of this regulation.
FinCEN invites comments on all aspects of the proposed rule, including the following
1. What impact would this proposed rule have on legitimate activity conducted by persons in the course of conducting financial transactions?
2. What impact would the proposed rule have on blockchain privacy or pseudonymity, noting that filings reported to FinCEN are not publicly releasable and the similarities of this proposal to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of transactions using the traditional financial system, such as with wire or Automated Clearing House (ACH) transactions?
3. Does the impact on privacy and legitimate applications identified in Section IV.B potentially outweigh the risks posed by illicit activity facilitated by CVC mixing?
4. What challenges are anticipated with respect to identifying the foreign nexus of a CVC mixing transaction?
5. Are there any other methods that covered financial institutions can use to be able to readily determine if covered transactions stemming from non-mixer CVC mixing have a foreign nexus?
6. Are there sufficient tools available, either free or paid, that would aid covered financial instutitions to determine if covered transactions occurred outside the United States?
7. Are there any other methods that covered financial institutions can use to be able to readily determine if covered transactions stemming from non-mixer CVC mixing have a foreign nexus?
8. Has FinCEN appropriately weighed the legitimate and illicit activities associated with the use of CVC mixing? What other factors should be considered?
1. Please provide suggested revisions to the proposed definitions that would better tailor the intended recordkeeping and reporting obligations to the objectives and uses described in this proposal. Where possible, please
2. Does the proposed definition of CVC mixing adequately capture the activity of concern? If not, please provide suggested revisions to the proposed definition that would better capture such activity. Where possible, please provide information or examples to illustrate how the recommended revisions would improve upon the definition as proposed.
3. Does the proposed exception to the definition of CVC mixing adequately account for legitimate activity conducted by VASPs and other financial institutions? If not, please provide suggested revisions to the proposed definition that would better capture such activity. Where possible, please provide information or examples to illustrate how the recommended revisions would improve upon the definition as proposed.
1. Is FinCEN's proposal of enhanced recordkeeping under section 311's special measure one most appropriate to the objectives of this proposed rule? Where possible, please provide suggestions for alternative means of achieving the objectives and illustrate how such means would work in practice.
2. Would section 311's special measures two through five be more appropriate to apply? If so, please explain why.
1. Is the scope of the recordkeeping requirement appropriate?
2. Is the list of information to be collected and reported appropriate to address the stated primary money laundering concern?
3. Is the proposed mechanism for submission appropriate for the purpose of this proposed rule?
4. Are there any alternative methods of submitting reports in an efficient and effective manner that FinCEN should consider utilizing?
5. Are the proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements discussed in Section VI.B.1 and 3 appropriately scoped? Are there additional types of information regarding reportable transactions or customers that should be collected?
6. Should the proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements apply to covered financial institutions that are the originator institution, the beneficiary institution, or both?
7. In cases where the customer of a covered financial institution is a legal entity, should the implementation of special measure one also require the beneficial ownership of that legal entity be reported, in addition to the other proposed reporting requirements?
1. Does FinCEN accurately account for the burden and impact of this proposed rule when a covered financial institution knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect a transaction involves CVC mixing?
2. Is there a less burdensome way of collecting information regarding the details of a CVC transaction, which the BSA's AML/CFT objectives require financial institutions to collect, including know-your-customer and customer due diligence?
3. Would the adoption of special measure one reporting and recordkeeping requirements, as proposed, impose expected costs to covered financial institutions; state, local, or tribal governments; or the private sector in excess of $177 million annually? $200 million annually? Where possible, please provide data or studies from an identifiable source that would support the response or describe why a source cannot be identified.
4. To what extent should FinCEN consider the potential costs to currently unregistered or otherwise non-reporting entities that, if compliant, would incur costs if special measure one is adopted as proposed? If possible, please illustrate either quantitatively or qualitatively (by way of example or anecdote) how the recommended level of consideration would improve FinCEN's estimate of regulatory impact.
5. Are there any material facts, data, circumstances, or other considerations that, had they been included in FinCEN's regulatory impact analysis, would have both improved the precision and accuracy of the analysis and substantially altered the assessment of the proposed rule's impact? If so, please provide, including attribution to the sources of such information, where possible.
6. Would the adoption of special measure one reporting and recordkeeping requirements, as proposed, impose significant costs on covered financial institutions that are small entities? On other small entities that are not covered financial institutions? Where possible, please provide data or studies from an identifiable source that would support the response or describe why a source cannot be identified.
7. Are the due diligence requirements appropriately scoped in this proposed rule?
8. What impact will this proposal have on augmenting law enforcement's ability to track and trace CVC derived from cyber heists, ransomware, or similar illicit activity to aid the return of victim's CVC?
9. Are there any international efforts to address illicit finance risks stemming from mixing not addressed in the NPRM?
10. What effect would the proposed rule have on international efforts to address the illicit use of CVC mixing?
11. Are there specific examples of “covered transactions” or sample scenarios that FinCEN could have provided to assist financial institutions and other affected parties in further understanding the intended applicability of the proposed definition of “covered transactions”? Alternatively, are there other clarifications to the definitions in this NPRM, or other modifications to the proposed regulatory text that would meaningfully clarify when a covered transaction occurs that would warrant reporting? If so, please describe.
12. Is FinCEN correct in its assessment that covered financial institutions would have access to reasonable and appropriate services or tools, whether free or paid, to be able to effectively identify covered transactions? If not, what are impediments to accessing such tools, and what costs would be associated with gaining access?
13. To what extent could public guidance or other informational materials regarding compliance with the requirements of proposed special measure one (such as FAQs, pre-recorded instructional audio-visual resources, or in-person presentations with industry groups) meaningfully reduce costs to covered financial institutions? Please describe any preferred method(s), as well as any qualitative or quantitive estimates of the extent to which costs are expected to be reduced.
FinCEN has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094, the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
As discussed above,
By requiring covered financial institutions to implement special measure one, the proposed rule would impose additional obligations on these institutions to report transactions that they know, suspect, or have reason to suspect involve CVC mixing because FinCEN has determined that CVC mixing, as a class of transactions, is of primary money laundering concern.
The imposition of this special measure may require a shift in reporting practices, particularly with regard to the determination a covered financial institution would otherwise first need to make: that a transaction involving CVC mixing is suspicious and therefore reportable under the applicable SAR Rule.
FinCEN has considered the regulatory impact of the proposed rule and the economic consequences these changes would entail. The subsequent analysis details FinCEN's finding that, in proportion to the thousands of covered financial institutions subject to FinCEN's general reporting and recordkeeping requirements, relatively few are exposed to CVC mixing and, additionally, proportionally few transactions per exposed financial institution covered under the proposed rule are likely to trigger the new recordkeeping and reporting requirements, of which fewer still may provide actionable information. However, any one reportable transaction, by nature of the underlying illicit and potentially dangerous activity it facilitates, could provide large benefits to FinCEN and law enforcement if identified, or, alternatively framed, could impose substantial costs and serious national security risks if unreported.
At present, in the absence of an obligation to comply with special measure one requirements, a covered financial institution may determine that a financial transaction exposed, directly
In terms of economic fundamentals, reporting on transactions exposed to CVC mixing produces a positive externality insofar as the reporting entity incurs expenses in connection with such reporting that are not directly, fully compensated. As such, the marginal social benefit of reporting exceeds the private costs. Consequently, in the absence of imposing a social (compliance-related) cost to non-reporting, the entity-specific equilibrium level of reporting will always be less than the social optimum. Furthermore, from a microeconomic- or a more industrial-organization-level of analysis, there are competitive reasons why, absent a uniform reporting requirement, no single covered financial institution that knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect CVC mixing would benefit from competing lower on the perceived level of quality in privacy. In such a setting, achieving the socially optimal level of reporting would again be unobtainable in the absence of a policy intervention (such as the proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements).
In this proposal, FinCEN is mindful that certain unintended, responsive changes in behavior may reduce the efficacy of this rule or otherwise attenuate the intended net benefits by limiting the scope of benefits or by increasing the costs of compliance. Additionally, the attendant costs and benefits per reported transaction may not be uniformly distributed across the affected covered financial institutions. There may also be broader programmatic costs or repercussions to: (1) the specific framing of CVC mixing and CVC mixers as proposed;
In proposing this rule, FinCEN considered the incremental impacts of imposing special measure one relative to the current state of the affected markets and their participants. This baseline analysis of the parties that would be affected by the proposed rule, their current obligations, and common activities satisfies certain analytical best practices
The parties expected to comply with the special measure one include any and all domestic covered financial institutions as defined in 31 CFR 1010.100(t).
Based on these estimates, it is possible that up to approximately 42,800 covered financial institutions could incur new recordkeeping and reporting costs in complying with special measure one. However, the extent to which any of these institutions is expected to be economically impacted is limited insofar as they would need to engage in transactions
On the other hand, the categories of affected parties that include the largest proportion of VASPs are expected to face the highest levels of potential exposure to CVC mixing. These entities are most concentrated in the money transmitter subcategory of money services businesses and futures commission merchants. In each case, these VASPs are a proper subset of their respective groups, and while they are expected to be the most directly affected by the rule because they have the highest exposure, the incremental burden of the rule is expected to be lowest for these entities because it imposes the least adaptation from current compliance practices and processes.
The covered financial institutions that are expected to face the greatest incremental burden as a consequence of the proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements would be those with both higher likelihoods of being exposed to CVC mixing and lower tailoring of existing compliance programs because, for instance, virtual asset service provision has not historically been integral to the entity's core business function or model. FinCEN expects that this may characterize certain banks, or persons subject to supervision by a state or federal bank supervisory authority, broker/dealers, and introducing brokers in commodities. However, as these types of financial institutions are already heavily regulated and typically already feature robust monitoring and compliance programs, even as they may face the largest incremental burden, this economic impact might still be low.
While the proposed application of special measure one does not expressly
In the course of compliance with special measure one, covered financial institutions may be required to submit reports and retain records containing certain unique identifiers
FinCEN has weighed these considerations against the broader economic concern of systematic underreporting in the absence of special measure one requirements,
FinCEN further anticipates second order economic effects of the proposed rule on parties ancillary to transactions between covered financial institutions, CVC mixing service providers, and clients of either or both, such as counsel, advisors, external forensic firms, independent auditors, IT services, and other compliance facilitators or third-party service providers. In particular, FinCEN expects the proposed requirements may affect the demand for services by third party blockchain analytics companies.
Separately, because the proposed rule is limited in scope to only the mixing of CVC, to the extent that digital token mixing and its service providers are considered viable substitutes for CVC mixing or could otherwise be employed to obfuscate CVC mixing, the demand for token mixing and its service providers may increase as a consequence of adopting the rule as proposed.
The ten categories of financial institutions covered by the proposed rule, as defined in 31 CFR 1010.100(t) are expected to already be compliant with the required activities as outlined in 31 CFR 1020 (Banks), 1021 (Casinos and Card Clubs), 1022 (Money Service Businesses), 1023 (Brokers or Dealers in Securities), 1024 (Mutual Funds), and 1026 (Futures Commission Merchants and Introducing Brokers in Commodities), as applicable. These rules include requirements for financial institutions to: (1) create and maintain compliance policies, procedures, and internal controls; (2) engage in customer identification verification; (3) file reports with FinCEN; (4) create and retain records; and (5) respond to law enforcement requests, and have guided financial institutions' understanding of FinCEN's expectations of compliant reporting and recordkeeping activity since before the advent of virtual currency. Where the original rules are silent on the application of, or compliance with, these requirements with respect to CVC, FinCEN and OFAC
Preliminarily, evidence suggests that at least some covered financial institutions have long anticipated and appreciated the applicability of SAR and currency transaction reporting requirements to transactions involving CVC: the first SAR including language specific to a CVC was filed thirteen years ago in 2010, predating FinCEN's 2013 Guidance, and the first SAR filed by a VASP, approximately two months after the 2013 Guidance was issued, is already a decade old. Since the issuance of that guidance, FinCEN has received CVC-related SARs from approximately 4,500 distinct filers. As such, the reporting and recordkeeping requirements that would be introduced by the proposed rule may build incrementally onto an existing regulatory compliance framework, inclusive of CVC, that is well understood, and where a nontrivial proportion of covered financial institutions demonstrate willingness and ability to meet existing reporting and recordkeeping obligations.
When assessing relevant baseline elements of current market practice against which to forecast the regulatory and economic impacts of special measure one requirements as proposed, FinCEN—in addition to the current regulatory requirements—also considered certain factors of current practices including: (1) the extent to which covered financial institutions are identifiably exposed to CVC mixing; and (2) the availability of reliable tools and methods with which to detect the kinds of CVC mixing exposure that would trigger the proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
As a component of this analysis, FinCEN conducted an independent historical review of CVC mixing exposure occurring in the ordinary course of business at the largest registered CVC exchanges from their respective first trade dates until present.
FinCEN also reviewed the availability of tools, other than the use of third party blockchain analytics companies, that a financial institution currently has the option to employ to detect exposure to CVC mixing transactions in the course of complying with existing SAR and/or CTR related requirements. CVC mixing exposure can occur (directly
Imposing special measure one as proposed would introduce novel but, in many cases, incrementally modest additional recordkeeping and reporting obligations, requiring the collection and transmission of certain information in its possession when a covered financial institution knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect a transaction occurred
Additionally, for a specified period of time (five years
The required information would identify and describe certain unique features and characteristics of both the reportable covered transaction and the customer associated with the covered transaction. The required informational components concerning the covered transaction pertain to the CVC when transferred (currency type,
As discussed above, the parties expected to incur an economic burden as they comply with the first special measure include all financial institutions as defined in 31 CFR 1010.100(t) insofar as they engage in CVC transactions that could be exposed to CVC mixing within or involving a jurisdiction outside the United States.
It is also unclear whether future relative distributions of direct
FinCEN acknowledges to that to the extent that a covered transaction might require the filing of both a SAR and special measure one related report, concurrent satisfaction of both sets of reporting and recordkeeping requirements might result in some duplicative costs related to any overlap.
To the extent that the forgoing analysis has failed to take into consideration any material facts, data, circumstances, or other considerations that, had they been considered, would have substantially altered the balance of costs and benefits attendant to the proposed special measure(s), FinCEN has invited public comment.
FinCEN has considered a number of alternative policies that could have been proposed to accomplish the same objectives.
Instead of recordkeeping and reporting requirements, FinCEN could have pursued the application of special measure two, which would have required domestic financial institutions and agencies to obtain and retain the beneficial ownership information of any account at a depository institution opened or maintained by a foreign person or their representative that the institution or agency knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect is involved in a CVC mixing transaction. While this information about beneficial ownership related to CVC mixing transaction participants could be similar to certain elements required under the current proposal and hence of comparable value, the alternative focus of special measure two on the ownership of accounts instead of the nature of transactions is expected to impose similar compliance costs with lower attendant benefits both in quantity of useful information obtained and in scope of financial institutions to whom the information-gathering requirements would apply. As such, the imposition of special measure two instead of special measure one would be strictly less efficient in addressing the class of transactions of primary money laundering concern.
Alternatively, FinCEN could have proposed to impose special measure three, four, five, or some combination thereof. Special measures three and four would simply require domestic financial institutions and agencies to obtain certain identifying information regarding the customer or their representative as a condition to open or maintain a payable-through
Because the expected results of imposing special measures three, four, or both, absent special measure five would likely be similar to expectations with respect to special measure two, that analysis is not repeated here. Instead, an approach that would impose special measures three or four, or both, in conjunction with special measure five is considered. As discussed above,
Finally, FinCEN considered an alternative that would employ the same special measure but with greater specificity of covered transactions that would limit the scope of interest in CVC mixing-exposed transactions to only those identifiably sponsored by or affiliated with terror finance by Hamas, ISIS, or the DPRK. This alternative is expected to incur higher costs related to, among other things, the additional burden a financial institution would have in making a determination about a transaction's connection to an identifiable source or affiliate of the applicable terrorist organization. It would also limit the potential informational benefits of the measure by discarding similar reports and records that may be of equal or greater value to investigating, prosecuting, or disincentivizing CVC mixing supported illicit activities but lack an identifiable connection to Hamas, ISIS, or the DPRK. Because of these dual inefficiencies, special measure one as proposed is considered to strike a more appriopriate balance.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094 direct agencies to assess costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended. However, in light of the nature of this proposed rule, FinCEN has prepared an economic analysis to help inform its consideration of the impacts of the proposed rule.
When an agency issues a rulemaking proposal, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires the agency to “prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis”(IRFA) that will “describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.”
The reporting and recordkeeping requirements proposed under the first special measure requires certain covered financial institutions to report to FinCEN information associated with transactions or attempted transactions involving CVC mixing and maintain certain related records for a fixed period of time.
For the reasons discussed above in Section VIII.A, FinCEN does not expect all potentially affected financial institutions to be equally affected by the proposed rule.
To the extent that other small entities that are not financial institutions may be economically affected by the proposed rulemaking,
When viewed as a whole, FinCEN does not anticipate that the proposals contained in this rulemaking will have a significant impact on a substantial number of small financial institutions or other potentially affected businesses. Accordingly, FinCEN certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FinCEN invites comments from members of the public who believe there will be a significant economic impact on small entities from the imposition of the first special measure regarding CVC mixers.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
As discussed in the foregoing analysis,
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in this proposed rule will be submitted by FinCEN to the Office of Management and Budget for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The provisions in this proposed rule pertaining to the collection of information can be found in section 1010.662(b)(1). The information required to be reported in section 1010.662(b)(1) will be used by the U.S. Government to monitor the class of transactions of primary money laundering concern. The information required to be maintained by section 1010.662(b)(3) will be used by federal agencies and certain self-regulatory organizations to verify compliance by covered financial institutions with the provisions of 31 CFR 1010.662. The class of financial transactions affected by the reporting requirement is identical to the class of financial transactions affected by the recordkeeping requirement. The collection of information is mandatory.
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Brokers, Crime, Foreign banking, Terrorism.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, FinCEN proposes amending 31 CFR part 1010 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951-1959; 31 U.S.C.5311-5314, 5316-5336; title III, sec. 314, Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 307; sec. 2006, Pub. L. 114-41, 129 Stat. 458-459; sec. 701 Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599; sec. 6403, Pub. L. 116-283, 134 Stat. 3388.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(A) Pooling or aggregating CVC from multiple persons, wallets, addresses, or accounts;
(B) Using programmatic or algorithmic code to coordinate, manage, or manipulate the structure of a transaction;
(C) Splitting CVC for transmittal and transmitting the CVC through a series of independent transactions;
(D) Creating and using single-use wallets, addresses, or accounts, and sending CVC through such wallets, addresses, or accounts through a series of independent transactions;
(E) Exchanging between types of CVC or other digital assets; or
(F) Facilitating user-initiated delays in transactional activity.
(ii)
(4)
(5)
(b)
(1)
(A) The amount of any CVC transferred, in both CVC and its U.S. dollar equivalent when the transaction was initiated;
(B) The CVC type;
(C) The CVC mixer used, if known;
(D) CVC wallet address associated with the mixer;
(E) CVC wallet address associated with the customer;
(F) Transaction hash;
(G Date of transaction;
(H) The IP addresses and time stamps associated with the covered transaction; and
(I) Narrative
(ii)
(A) Customer's full name;
(B) Customer's date of birth;
(C) Customer's address;
(D) Email address associated with any and all accounts from which or to which the CVC was transferred;
(E) Phone number associated with any and all accounts from which or to which the CVC was transferred;
(F) Internal Revenue Service or foreign tax identification number, or if none are available, a non-expired United States or foreign passport number or other government-issued photo identification number, such as a driver's license; and
(2)
(3)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the CAA section 111(d) state plan revision submitted by the State of Arkansas for existing kraft pulp mills subject to the Kraft Pulp Mills Emission Guidelines (EG). The Arkansas section 111(d) plan revision for kraft pulp mills contains administrative changes to the state regulations and also aligns compliance testing requirements to be consistent with EPA's kraft pulp mills new source performance standards. EPA is also notifying the public that we have received a CAA section 111(d) negative declaration from Arkansas for existing sulfuric acid plants subject to the Sulfuric Acid Plants EG. This negative declaration certifies that existing sulfuric acid plants subject to the Sulfuric Acid Plants EG and the requirements of sections 111(d) of the CAA do not exist within Arkansas. The EPA is proposing to approve the state plan revision for existing kraft pulp mills, accept the negative declaration for existing sulfuric acid plants and withdraw approval of the Arkansas state plan for existing sulfuric acid plants, and amend the agency regulations in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.
Written comments must be received on or before November 22, 2023.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2022-0984, at
Karolina Ruan Lei, EPA Region 6 Office, Air and Radiation Division—State Planning and Implementation Branch, (214) 665-7346,
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
Section 111 of the CAA, “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources,” directs the EPA to establish emission standards for stationary sources of air pollution that could potentially endanger public health or welfare. These standards are referred to as New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). Section 111(d) addresses the process by which the EPA and states regulate standards of performance for existing
State plan submittals and revisions under CAA section 111(d) must be consistent with the applicable EG and the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, and part 62, subpart A. The regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, contain general provisions applicable to the adoption and submittal of state plans and plan revisions under CAA section 111(d). Additionally, 40 CFR part 62, subpart A, provides the procedural framework by which the EPA will approve or disapprove such plans and plan revisions submitted by a state. Once approved by the EPA, the state plan or plan revision becomes federally enforceable. If a state does not submit an approvable state plan to the EPA, the EPA is responsible for developing, implementing, and enforcing a Federal plan. However, 40 CFR 60.23(b) and 62.06 provide that if there are no existing sources of the designated pollutant in the state, the state may submit a letter of certification to that effect (
Under CAA section 111(d), EPA has issued EGs regulating specific pollutants from specified source categories that remain in effect, including EGs for the control of total reduced sulfur (TRS) emissions from kraft pulp mills and the control of sulfuric acid mist emissions from sulfuric acid plants. TRS emissions
New kraft pulp mills and sulfuric acid plants that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification after the specified dates are subject to stricter standards under their respective NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart BB or BBa, and subpart H. For more information, see “Kraft Pulp Mills, Notice of Availability of Final Guideline Document,” 44 FR 29828 (May 22, 1979),
Arkansas followed EPA's EGs and guidance documents when developing its CAA section 111(d) plans. Arkansas's section 111(d) plan for the control of sulfuric acid mist emissions from sulfuric acid plants was approved by EPA on May 12, 1982 (47 FR 20490). Arkansas's section 111(d) plan for control of TRS emissions from kraft pulp mills was approved by EPA on September 12, 1984 (49 FR 35771); the compliance schedule for the kraft pulp mills plan was separately approved on November 10, 1986 (51 FR 40802). Revisions to Arkansas's section 111(d) plans for sulfuric acid plants and kraft pulp mills were approved on March 10, 1998 (63 FR 11608).
Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment's Division of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted revisions to Arkansas's CAA section 111(d) plan on June 20, 2022, and supplemented its submittal on August 24, 2022, and August 31, 2022.
Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission (APC&EC) Rule 19: “Rules of the Arkansas Plan of Implementation for Air Pollution Control”, Chapter 8: “111(d) Designated Facilities” originally contained Arkansas's provisions for implementing certain CAA section 111(d) EGs, including the Sulfuric Acid Plants EG. In its June 20, 2022 submittal, Arkansas removed the provisions in Rule 19.803, which were specific to the Sulfuric Acid Plants EG, and provided a negative declaration for existing sulfuric acid plants.
The Arkansas plan for existing sulfuric acid plants, as approved by the EPA on May 12, 1982 had two designated facilities subject to that plan at the time, the Olin Corporation and the Monsanto Company (now El Dorado Chemical Company). A 1998 plan revision was approved to remove the Olin Corporation, which had closed, and reflect a name change for the El Dorado Chemical Company. The El Dorado facility later underwent reconstruction and is now subject to the NSPS for sulfuric acid plants at 40 CFR part 60, subpart H. Since the El Dorado Chemical Company is no longer subject to the EG for existing sulfuric acid plants, and because there are no longer any subject facilities in Arkansas, Arkansas requests that EPA withdraw approval of the Arkansas section 111(d) plan for sulfuric acid plants and accept the negative declaration for existing sulfuric acid plants.
EPA proposes to agree with Arkansas's determination that due to the reconstruction of the El Dorado Chemical Company, this facility is no longer considered a designated facility subject to the Sulfuric Acid Plants EG. EPA also proposes that approval of the Arkansas section 111(d) plan for sulfuric acid plants can be withdrawn as there are no longer any existing sulfuric acid plants in the State of Arkansas.
The Arkansas regulations implementing the requirements of the Kraft Pulp Mills EG are codified in APC&EC Rule 19, Chapter 8, with specific requirements for existing kraft pulp mills outlined in Rule 19.804. Since the Arkansas plan and plan revision for existing kraft pulp mills were approved by EPA on September 12, 1984, and March 10, 1998, Arkansas made additional changes to the state regulations implementing the Kraft Pulp Mills EG requirements at APC&EC Rule 19, Chapter 8. Changes to APC&EC Rule 19, Chapter 8, as adopted through January 28, 2022 by APC&EC, were submitted to EPA for review in Arkansas's June 20, 2022 submittal.
The amendments to APC&EC Rule 19, Chapter 8 include name changes and
EPA's detailed discussion and rationale of the Arkansas kraft pulp mill plan revision can be found in in the EPA Technical Support Document (TSD) for this proposed rule, which is available in the docket. The TSD also contains a comparison of the 1998 EPA-approved Arkansas kraft pulp mills plan provisions and the June 20, 2022 plan provisions. EPA proposes to approve the revisions to the Arkansas kraft pulp mills plan submitted on June 20, 2022 as meeting applicable Federal requirements under the Kraft Pulp Mills EG and the implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart B.
We are proposing to approve the state plan revision for existing kraft pulp mills, accept the negative declaration for existing sulfuric acid plants and withdraw approval of the Arkansas state plan for existing sulfuric acid plants, and amend the agency regulations at 40 CFR part 62, subpart E, in accordance with the requirements of the CAA. EPA proposes that this action meets CAA section 111(d) requirements for plan revisions, negative declarations, and plan approval withdrawals in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, 40 CFR part 62, subpart A, and the applicable guidance and EG requirements.
Information on Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) and how EPA defines environmental justice can be found in the section titled “Statutory and Executive Order Reviews” in this proposed rule. EPA is providing additional analysis of environmental justice associated with this action. The results of this analysis are being provided for informational and transparency purposes, not as a basis of our proposed action.
EPA conducted screening analyses using EJSCREEN, an environmental justice mapping and screening tool that provides EPA with a nationally consistent dataset and approach for combining various environmental and demographic indicators.
The EPA prepared EJSCREEN reports covering a buffer area of approximately 3-mile radii and 6-mile radii for areas with insufficient population data around each of the existing kraft pulp mills identified by ADEQ as subject to the CAA section 111(d) plan for kraft pulp mills. Table 1 presents a summary of results from the EPA's screening-level analysis for the areas surrounding each existing kraft pulp mill in Arkansas compared to the U.S. as a whole, where the kraft pulp mill was located in an area where more than one of the EJ indices were greater than the 80th percentiles. The full, detailed EJSCREEN report is provided in the docket for this rulemaking.
This proposed action is proposing to approve Arkansas's June 20, 2022 CAA section 111(d) plan revision
In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to the Arkansas regulations as described in the section titled “Proposed Action” in this proposed rule. The Arkansas regulations at APC&EC Rule 19, Chapter 8, 111(d) Designated Facilities, contain Arkansas's CAA section 111(d) plan provisions for existing kraft pulp mills. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a CAA section 111(d) submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7411(d); 42 U.S.C. 7429; 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf; and 40 CFR part 62, subpart A. Thus, in reviewing CAA section 111(d) state plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act and implementing regulations. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve 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 as defined in Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), as amended by Executive Order 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023), and was therefore not
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
This action is certified to not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action will not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rulemaking does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definitions of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive order. Therefore, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it approves a state program.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. This action is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.”
The air agency did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA performed an environmental justice analysis, as described in the section titled “Environmental Justice Considerations” in this proposed rule. The analysis was done for the purpose of providing additional context and information about this rulemaking to the public, not as a basis of the action. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral impact on the air quality of the affected area. In addition, there is no information in the record upon which this action is based inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM); extension of comment period.
FMCSA extends the comment period for its August 29, 2023, ANPRM requesting public comment on the need for a rulemaking to revise the regulations prescribing the safety fitness determination (SFD) process; the available science or technical information to analyze regulatory alternatives for determining the safety fitness of motor carriers; feedback on the Agency's current SFD regulations, including the process and impacts; the available data and costs for regulatory alternatives reasonably likely to be considered as part of this rulemaking; and the specific questions in the ANPRM. FMCSA extends the comment period for 30 days until November 29, 2023.
The comment period for the proposed rule published August 29, 2023, at 88 FR 59489, is extended. Comments should be received on or before November 29, 2023.
You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-2022-0003 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
Ms. Stacy Ropp, (609) 661-2062,
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for the ANPRM (FMCSA-2022-0003) and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the ANPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the ANPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the ANPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Mr. Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 at
To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 13301(a) and 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
FMCSA published an ANPRM on August 29, 2023, with a comment deadline of October 30, 2023 (88 FR 59489). That ANPRM discussed current SFD procedure, the 2016 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM),
As of October 10, 2023, three commenters to the docket filed comments requesting extensions of the comment period: The American Trucking Associations (ATA)(
ATA and CVSA requested 30-day extensions, and the ABA requested a 60-day extension. These associations cited the “complexity and breadth” of questions, and the timing of the request. ATA specifically cited a conference occurring towards the end of the current comment period at which it planned to solicit input from its members.
The comment period for the ANPRM is scheduled to close on October 30, 2023. FMCSA believes it is in the public interest to allow for public comment for an extended period. Accordingly, FMCSA extends the comment period for all comments on the ANPRM and its related documents for 30 days, until November 29, 2023.
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.
United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
Notice of public availability.
Acting in compliance with section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010, requiring civilian agencies to prepare and analyze inventories of their service contracts, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of the FY 2022 Service Contract Inventory found at
Questions regarding the service contract inventory should be directed to Eileen Simoes, Chief, Policy Division, Bureau for Management Policy, Budget and Performance, U.S. Agency for International Development, (202) 921-5090,
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request an extension and revision to the approved forms and information collection for marketing orders covering various vegetables and specialty crops.
Comments on this notice are due by December 22, 2023 to be assured of consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this notice. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Market Development Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or online at
Matthew Pavone, Branch Chief, Rulemaking Services Branch, Market Development Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Room 1406-S, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-8085; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or Email:
Small businesses may request information on this notice by contacting Richard Lower, Market Development Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Room 1406-S, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone (202) 720-8085; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or Email:
Marketing Order 922 (Apricots) has been terminated since the last three-year renewal period of this information collection package.
Marketing order requirements help ensure adequate supplies of high-quality product and adequate returns to producers. Marketing orders are authorized under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (Act), as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674). The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to oversee the marketing order operations and issue regulations recommended by a committee of representatives from each commodity industry.
The information collection requirements in this request are essential to carry out the intent of the Act, to provide the respondents the type of service they request, and to administer the marketing orders. Under the Act, marketing orders may authorize: Production and marketing research, including paid advertising; volume regulation; reserves, including pools and producer allotments; container requirements; and quality control. Assessments are levied on handlers regulated under the marketing orders. Section 8e of the Act requires
USDA requires several forms to be filed to enable the administration of each marketing order. These include forms covering the selection process for industry members to serve on a marketing order's committee or board and ballots used in referenda to amend or continue marketing orders.
Under Federal marketing orders, producers and handlers are nominated by their peers to serve as representatives on a committee or board which administers each program. Nominees must provide information on their qualifications to serve on the committee or board. Qualified nominees are then appointed by the Secretary. Amendments to marketing orders made through Formal rulemaking must be approved in referenda conducted by USDA and the Secretary. For the purposes of this action, ballots are considered information collections and are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. If a marketing order is amended, handlers are asked to sign an agreement indicating their willingness to abide by the provisions of the amended marketing order.
Some forms are required to be filed with the committee or board. The marketing orders authorize the respective committee or board, the agencies responsible for local administration of the marketing orders, to require handlers and producers to submit certain information. Much of the information is compiled in aggregate and provided to the respective industries to assist in marketing decisions. The committees and boards developed forms as a means for persons to file required information relating to supplies, shipments, and dispositions of their respective commodities, and other information needed to effectively carry out the purpose of the Act and their respective orders, and these forms are utilized accordingly.
The forms covered under this information collection require respondents to provide the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the requirements of the marketing orders, and use of these forms is necessary to fulfill the intent of the Act as expressed in the marketing orders.
The information collected is used only by authorized employees of the committees and authorized representatives of the USDA, including AMS, Specialty Crops Program's regional and headquarters' staff. Authorized committee or board employees are the primary users of the information and AMS is the secondary user.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding; whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by November 22, 2023 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of meeting.
The Northwest Forest Plan Area Advisory Committee will hold a public meeting according to the details shown below. The Committee is authorized under the National Forest Management Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice and pragmatic recommendations regarding potential regional scale land management planning approaches and solutions in the Northwest Forest Plan Area within the context of the 2012 planning rule.
An in-person meeting, that permits committee members to participate virtually if needed, will be held on November 14, 2023, 08:30 a.m.-5 p.m. Pacific Standard Time (PST), November 15, 2023, 08:30 a.m.-5 p.m. PST, and November 16, 2023, 08:00-11 a.m.
All committee meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
This meeting will be held in person, at the Edgewater Hotel, 2411 Alaskan Way, Seattle, WA 98121. Committee information and meeting details can be found at the following
Liz Berger, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), by phone at 971-260-7808 or email at
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Review subcommittee considerations regarding priorities for updates to the Northwest Forest Plan;
2. Consider information provided by forest managers and others regarding implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan; and
3. Schedule the next meeting.
The agenda will include time for individuals to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should make a request in writing at least three days prior to the meeting date to be scheduled on the agenda. Written comments may be submitted to the Forest Service up to 14 days after the meeting date listed under
Please contact the person listed under
USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Equal opportunity practices in accordance with USDA's policies will be followed in all appointments to the Committee. To ensure that the recommendations of the Committee have taken in account the needs of the diverse groups served by USDA, membership shall include to the extent possible, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
The Materials and Equipment Technical Advisory Committee will meet on November 16, 2023, 10:00 a.m., Eastern Standard Time, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC (enter through Main Entrance on 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues). The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to transportation and related equipment or technology. The purpose of the meeting is to have Committee members and U.S. Government representatives mutually review updated technical data and policy-driving information that has been gathered.
1. Opening Remarks and Introduction by BIS Senior Management.
2. Report from working groups.
3. Report by regime representatives.
4. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the open meeting and public participation requirements found in sections 1009(a)(1) and 1009(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. 1001-1014). The exemption is authorized by section 1009(d) of the FACA, which permits the closure of advisory committee meetings, or portions thereof, if the head of the agency to which the advisory committee reports determines such meetings may be closed to the public in accordance with subsection (c) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)). In this case, the applicable provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) are subsection 552b(c)(4), which permits closure to protect trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential, and subsection 552b(c)(9)(B), which permits closure to protect information that would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action were it to be disclosed prematurely. The closed session of the meeting will involve committee discussions and guidance regarding U.S. Government strategies and policies.
The open session will be accessible via teleconference. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel,
For more information, contact Ms. Springer.
The Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee will meet on November 15, 2023, 9:30 a.m., Eastern Standard Time, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC (enter through Main Entrance on 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues). The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to transportation and related equipment or technology. The purpose of the meeting is to have Committee members and U.S. Government representatives mutually review updated technical data and policy-driving information that has been gathered.
1. Welcome and Introductions.
2. Status reports by working group chairs.
3. Public comments and Proposals.
4. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the open meeting and public participation requirements found in sections 1009(a)(1) and 1009(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. 1001-1014). The exemption is authorized by section 1009(d) of the FACA, which permits the closure of advisory committee meetings, or portions thereof, if the head of the agency to which the advisory committee reports determines such meetings may be closed to the public in accordance with subsection (c) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)). In this case, the applicable provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) are subsection 552b(c)(4), which permits closure to protect trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential, and subsection 552b(c)(9)(B), which permits closure to protect information that would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action were it to be disclosed prematurely. The closed session of the meeting will involve committee discussions and guidance regarding U.S. Government strategies and policies.
The open session will be accessible via teleconference. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on April 12, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1009(d) of the FACA, that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. 1009(a)(1) and 1009(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, contact Ms. Springer.
The Emerging Technology Technical Advisory Committee (ETTAC) will meet on November 8 and 9, 2023, at 9 a.m., (Eastern Standard Time) in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC (enter through Main Entrance on 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues). The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on the identification of emerging and foundational technologies with potential dual-use applications as early as possible in their developmental stages both within the United States and abroad. The purpose of the meeting is to have Committee members and U.S. Government representatives mutually review updated technical data and policy-driving information that has been gathered.
1. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the open meeting and public participation requirements found in sections 1009(a)(1) and 1009(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. 1001-1014).
2. Welcome and Introductions.
3. Presentation: Twist Bioscience.
4. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the open meeting and public participation requirements found in sections 1009(a)(1) and 1009(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. 1001-1014). The exemption is authorized by section 1009(d) of the FACA, which permits the closure of advisory committee meetings, or portions thereof, if the head of the agency to which the advisory committee reports determines such meetings may be closed to the public in accordance with subsection (c) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)). In this case, the applicable provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) are subsection 552b(c)(4), which permits closure to protect trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential, and subsection 552b(c)(9)(B), which permits closure to protect information that would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action were it to be disclosed prematurely. The closed session of the meeting will involve committee discussions and guidance regarding U.S. Government strategies and policies.
The open session will be accessible via teleconference. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on October 20, 2022, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. chapter 10 of the FACA, (5 U.S.C. 1009(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. 1009(a)(1) and 1009(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, contact Ms. Springer via email.
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (ITA), is announcing one upcoming trade mission that will be recruited, organized, and implemented by ITA. This mission is: Global Diversity Export Initiative (GDEI) Trade Mission to Panama, Costa Rica and Colombia in Conjunction with the “Opportunities for Women-Owned Businesses in the Americas” Conference—March 10-15, 2024. A summary of the mission is found below. Application information and more detailed mission information, including the commercial setting and sector information, can be found at the trade mission website:
Jeffrey Odum, Events Management Task Force, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6397 or email
The Following Conditions for Participation Will Be Used for the Mission:
Applicants must submit a completed and signed mission application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on their products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation that is adequate to allow the Department of Commerce to evaluate their application. If the Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department of Commerce may either: reject the application, request additional information/clarification, or take the lack of information into account when evaluating the application. If the requisite minimum number of participants is not selected for a particular mission by the recruitment deadline, the mission may be cancelled.
Each applicant must also certify that the products and services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the United States, or, if not, are marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least 51% U.S. content by value. In the case of a trade association or organization, the applicant must certify that, for each firm or service provider to be represented by the association/organization, the products and/or services the represented firm or service provider seeks to export are either produced in the United States or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least 51% U.S. content by value.
A trade association/organization applicant must certify and agree to the above for every company it seeks to represent on the mission. In addition, each applicant must:
• Certify that the products and services that it wishes to market through the mission would be in compliance with U.S. export controls and regulations;
• Certify that it has identified any matter pending before any bureau or office in the Department of Commerce;
• Certify that it has identified any pending litigation (including any administrative proceedings) to which it is a party that involves the Department of Commerce; and
• Sign and submit an agreement that it and its affiliates (1) have not and will not engage in the bribery of foreign officials in connection with a company's/participant's involvement in this mission, and (2) maintain and enforce a policy that prohibits the bribery of foreign officials.
In the case of a trade association/organization, the applicant must certify that each firm or service provider to be represented by the association/organization can make the above certifications.
Targeted mission participants are U.S. firms, services providers and trade associations/organizations providing or promoting U.S. products and services that have an interest in entering or expanding their business in the mission's destination country. The following criteria will be evaluated in selecting participants:
• Suitability of the applicant's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented firm's or service provider's) products or services to these markets;
• The applicant's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented firm's or service provider's) potential for business in the markets, including likelihood of exports resulting from the mission; and
• Consistency of the applicant's (or in the case of a trade association/organization, represented firm's or service provider's) goals and objectives with the stated scope of the mission. Balance of company size and location may also be considered during the review process.
Referrals from a political party or partisan political group or any information, including on the application, containing references to political contributions or other partisan political activities will be excluded from the application and will not be considered during the selection process. The sender will be notified of these
For purposes of assessing participation fees, an applicant is a small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) if it qualifies as a “small business” under the Small Business Administration's (SBA) size standards (
The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (ITA), is organizing a Global Diversity Export Initiative (GDEI) Trade Mission to Panama, Costa Rica, and Colombia from March 10-15, 2024, that will include the “Opportunities for Woman-Owned Businesses in the Americas” Conference in Panama City, Panama on March 10-11, 2024. The mission is horizontal, with various industries and sectors represented and will be based on best prospects and growth potential for U.S. companies in Panama, Costa Rica and Colombia.
Recruitment and consideration will be extended to all export-ready U.S. companies, including small businesses, trade associations and other exporting organizations that meet the established criteria for participation in the mission. In keeping with the U.S. Department of Commerce's Equity Action Plan, ITA seeks to improve outreach to and representation of businesses with owners and/or leaders from underserved communities, including through the Global Diversity Export Initiative of the U.S. Commercial Service. This mission will expand access to export opportunities to U.S. small and medium-sized businesses, including those founded, led, operated or owned by women from industries with growing potential in Panama, Costa Rica, and Colombia.
This mission is in alignment with Executive Order 13985 on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government (January 25, 2021) (E.O. 13985), Executive Order 14091 on Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government (February 22, 2022) (E.O. 14091), Executive Order 14020 on the Establishment of the White House Gender Policy Council (March 11, 2021) (E.O. 14020), and the Global Diversity Export Initiative of the U.S. Commercial Service. For the purposes of the trade mission, ITA adopts the definition of “underserved communities” in E.O. 14020, incorporated into E.O. 14091: “populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as geographic communities, that have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life, as exemplified by the list in the preceding definition of “equity.” “Equity” is defined as “the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as women and girls; Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.” This trade mission is also designed to be responsive to the priorities stated by Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo and outlined in the Equity Action Plan released in April 2022 which aspires to “harness the talents and strengths of all parts of the country, including women, people of color, and others who are too often left behind” including by “[s]trengthen[ing] small businesses in underserved communities by helping them be successful exporters”.
Women own 12 million businesses in the United States, employing more than 10 million workers.
Despite these promising statistics, women-owned businesses face unique obstacles in accessing overseas markets, including difficulty obtaining financing and lack of knowledge about export opportunities. By including attendance at the “Opportunities for Woman-Owned Businesses in the Americas” Conference in Panama City, Panama on March 10-11, 2024, this mission will assist U.S. small and medium-sized businesses, including those founded, led, operated or owned by women to find partners and begin or expand exports in Panama, Costa Rica and Colombia. Each country benefits from a free trade agreement with the United States.
Trade mission participants will arrive in Panama City, Panama on March 10 to attend the opening reception for the “Opportunities for Woman-Owned Businesses in the Americas” Conference, which is also open to U.S. companies not participating in the trade mission. The Businesses Conference will focus on regional and industry-specific sessions and will gather experts on market entry strategies, logistics, procurement, trade financing, access to capital, and other important topics to assist women business exporters. The registration fee for the business conference is included in the trade mission costs.
On Sunday, March 10, trade mission participants will participate in one-on-one meetings (U.S. diplomats and/or industry specialists from 15 U.S. Embassies from the region will be available), a trade mission briefing, and a networking reception. On Monday, March 11, participants will engage in the business conference that will include a morning plenary session, a networking lunch, afternoon workshops and one-on-one meetings with key service providers and U.S. diplomats and/or industry specialists, information and material on trade-related resources, and an evening networking reception. On Tuesday, March 12, selected participants will engage in business-to-
The mission is horizontal, with various industries and sectors represented, based on best prospects for U.S. companies in Panama, Costa Rica and Colombia. Best prospect sectors include: Agricultural Products; Automotive Parts, Accessories and Service Equipment; Construction Equipment; Cosmetics; Cybersecurity; Defense & Security; Disposable Medical Supplies; eCommerce; Education; Electric Power and Renewable Energy Systems; Information and Communication Technology (ICT); Infrastructure; Medical Devices and Equipment; Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Equipment; Processed Food and Beverages; Solar Energy Products; and Travel and Tourism.
Applications from companies exporting products or services within the scope of this mission, but not specifically identified, will be considered and evaluated by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Companies whose products or services do not fit the scope of the mission may contact their local U.S. Commercial Service office to learn about other business development missions and services that may provide more targeted export opportunities. Companies may visit
The final schedule and potential site visits will depend on the availability of host government and business officials, specific goals of mission participants, and ground transportation.
All parties interested in participating in the U.S. Department of Commerce GDEI Trade Mission to Panama, Costa Rica and Colombia must complete and submit an application package for consideration by the U.S. Department of Commerce. All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below.
A minimum of 20 and a maximum of 40 firms and/or trade associations will be selected to participate in the mission on a first come, first served basis.
All selected participants will attend the Business Conference in Panama City and will have the opportunity for B2B meetings in up to two markets (Panama and/or Costa Rica, and/or Colombia). The number of firms that may be selected for B2B meetings in each country is as follows: 20 companies for Panama; 20 companies for Costa Rica; 20 companies for Colombia.
During the registration process, applicants will be able to select the countries for which they would like to receive a brief market assessment. Upon receipt of market assessment reports, they will be able to select up to two stops for B2B meetings.
The trade mission is open to U.S. firms already doing business, and seeking to expand market share, in Panama, Costa Rica and Colombia and to those U.S. firms new to these markets.
After a firm or trade association is selected to participate in the mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required. The fees are as follow:
If one stop/country is selected for B2B meetings, the participation fee will be $2,800 for a small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) (see above definition of SMEs) and $4,000 for large firms.
If two stops/countries are selected for B2B meetings, the participation fee will be $3,800 for a small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) (see above definition of SMEs) and $5,000 for large firms.
The mission participation fees above include the “Opportunities for Woman-Owned Businesses in the Americas” Conference registration fee of $500, which covers one participant per firm. Ground transportation to B2B meetings will be provided for trade mission delegation participants if meetings are conducted outside the hotel where the Business Conference will take place.
If and when an applicant is selected to participate in this mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the amount of the designated participation fee above is required. Upon notification of acceptance, those selected have five business days to submit payment or the acceptance may be revoked.
Participants selected for a trade mission will be expected to pay for the cost of personal expenses, including, but not limited to, international travel, lodging, meals, transportation, communication, and incidentals, unless otherwise noted. Participants will, however, be able to take advantage of U.S. Government rates for hotel rooms. In the event that the mission is cancelled, no personal expenses paid in anticipation of a mission will be reimbursed. However, participation fees for a cancelled mission will be reimbursed to the extent they have not already been expended in anticipation of the mission.
If a visa is required to travel on a particular mission, applying for and obtaining such a visa will be the responsibility of the mission participant. Government fees and processing expenses to obtain such a visa are not included in the participation fee. However, the Department of Commerce will provide instructions to each participant on the procedures required to obtain business visas.
Trade mission members participate in trade missions and undertake mission-related travel at their own risk. The nature of the security situation in any given foreign market at a given time cannot be guaranteed. The U.S. Government does not make any representations or guarantees as to the safety or security of participants. The U.S. Department of State issues U.S. Government international travel alerts and warnings for U.S. citizens available at
Travel and in-person activities are contingent upon the safety and health conditions in the United States and the mission countries. Should safety or health conditions not be appropriate for travel and/or in-person activities, the Department will consider postponing the event or offering a virtual program in lieu of an in-person agenda. In the event of a postponement, the Department will notify the public, and applicants previously selected to participate in this mission will need to confirm their availability but need not reapply. Should the decision be made to organize a virtual program, the Department will adjust fees accordingly, prepare an agenda for virtual activities, and notify the previously selected applicants with the option to opt-in to the new virtual program.
Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
Recruitment for the mission will begin immediately and conclude no later than Friday, December 29, 2023. The U.S. Department of Commerce will review applications and make selection decisions on a rolling basis until the maximum of 40 participants are selected. After Friday, December 29, 2023, companies will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable October 23, 2023.
Amaris Wade (Bosnia and Herzegovina) at (202) 482-6334; TJ Worthington (Bulgaria) at (202) 482-4567; Ajay Menon (Burma) at (202) 482-0208; Steven Seifert (India) at (202) 482-3350; Caroline Carroll (Italy) at (202) 482-4948; Sean Carey (Kosovo) at (202) 482-3964; Benjamin Blythe (Mexico) at (202) 482-3457; Emily Halle (the Philippines) at (202) 482-0176; Dakota Potts (Poland) at (202) 482-0223; Andrew Hart (Slovenia) at (202) 482-1058; Matthew Palmer (Spain) at (202) 482-1678; and Terre Keaton (Taiwan) at (202) 482-1280, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On August 17, 2023, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of imports of Mattresses from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burma, India, Italy, Kosovo, Mexico, the Philippines, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, and Taiwan.
Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in an LTFV investigation within 140 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 733(c)(1)(A)(b)(1) of
On October 5, 2023, the petitioners
For the reasons stated above and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, Commerce, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determinations by 50 days (
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The MAFMC will hold a public meeting (webinar) of its Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Monitoring Committee. See
The meeting will be held on Monday, November 6, 2023, from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m.
Webinar connection information will be posted to the MAFMC's website calendar prior to the meeting at
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The main purpose of the meeting is for the MSB Monitoring Committee to develop recommendations for future Atlantic mackerel specifications. Public comments will also be taken.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to Shelley Spedden, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 74 Review Workshop for Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper.
The SEDAR 74 assessment process of Gulf of Mexico red snapper will consist of a Data Workshop, and a series of assessment webinars, and a Review Workshop. See
The SEDAR 74 Review Workshop will be held from 8:30 a.m. on December 12, 2023, until 6 p.m. on December 15, 2023. The established times may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the assessment process. Such adjustments may result in the meeting being extended from or completed prior to the time established by this notice.
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data/
The items of discussion in the Review Workshop are as follows:
Participants will evaluate the stock id, data, and assessment reports, as specified in the Terms of Reference for the workshop and determine if they are scientifically sound.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice. Issuance of letter of authorization.
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, its implementing regulations, and NMFS' MMPA Regulations for Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical Surveys Related to Oil and Gas Activities in the Gulf of Mexico, notification is hereby given that a Letter of Authorization (LOA) has been issued to WesternGeco for the take of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activity in the Gulf of Mexico.
The LOA is effective from October 17, 2023 through April 30, 2024.
The LOA, LOA request, and supporting documentation are available online at:
Jenna Harlacher, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which: (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
On January 19, 2021, we issued a final rule with regulations to govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activities conducted by oil and gas industry operators, and those persons authorized to conduct activities on their behalf (collectively “industry operators”), in U.S. waters of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) over the course of 5 years (86 FR 5322, January 19, 2021). The rule was based on our findings that the total taking from the specified activities over the 5-year period will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock(s) of marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of those species or stocks for subsistence uses. The rule became effective on April 19, 2021.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 217.180
WesternGeco plans to conduct a three-dimensional (3D) ocean bottom node (OBN) survey in the Green Canyon and Walker Ridge protraction areas, including approximately 795 lease blocks. Approximate water depths of the survey area range from 1,000 to 3,000 meters (m). See section F of the LOA application for a map of the area.
WesternGeco anticipates using two source vessels, towing low-frequency airgun sources known as Gemini (also referred to as a dual barbell source) or conventional airgun sources consisting of 28 elements, with a total volume of 5,240 cubic inches (in
The Gemini source was not included in the acoustic exposure modeling developed in support of the rule. However, our rule anticipated the possibility of new and unusual technologies (NUT) and determined they would be evaluated on a case-by case basis (86 FR 5322, 5442, January 19, 2021). This source was previously evaluated as a NUT in 2020 (prior to issuance of the 2021 final rule) pursuant to the requirements of NMFS' 2020 Biological Opinion on BOEM's Gulf of Mexico oil and gas program as well as the issuance of the rule. An associated report produced by Jasco Applied Sciences (Grooms
The Gemini source operates on the same basic principles as a traditional airgun source in that it uses compressed air to create a bubble in the water column which then goes through a series of collapses and expansions creating primarily low-frequency sounds. However, the Gemini source consists of one physical element with two large chambers of 4,000 (in
The modeled distances described in the aforementioned Jasco report show expected per-pulse sound pressure level threshold distances to the 160-dB level of 4.29 kilometers (km). When frequency-weighted,
These factors lead to a conclusion that take by Level B harassment associated with use of the Gemini source would be less than would occur for a similar survey instead using the modeled airgun array as a sound source. Based on the foregoing, we have determined there will be no effects of a magnitude or intensity different from those evaluated in support of the rule. Moreover, use of modeling results relating to use of the 72 element, 8,000 in
Consistent with the preamble to the final rule, the survey effort proposed by WesternGeco in its LOA request was used to develop LOA-specific take estimates based on the acoustic exposure modeling results described in the preamble (86 FR 5398, January 19, 2021). In order to generate the appropriate take numbers for authorization, the following information was considered: (1) survey type; (2) location (by modeling zone
No 3D OBN surveys were included in the modeled survey types, and use of existing proxies (
The planned 3D OBN survey will involve two source vessels sailing along survey lines averaging 83 km in length. The coil survey pattern was assumed to cover approximately 144 kilometers squared (km
The survey will take place over approximately 85 days, including 65 days of sound source operation. The survey plan includes approximately half the days within Zone 5 and half the days within Zone 7. We modeled 33 days in each zone for take estimates. The seasonal distribution of survey days is not known in advance. Therefore, the take estimates for each species are based on the season that produces the greater value.
For some species, take estimates based solely on the modeling yielded results that are not realistically likely to occur when considered in light of other relevant information available during the rulemaking process regarding marine mammal occurrence in the GOM. The approach used in the acoustic exposure modeling, in which seven modeling zones were defined over the U.S. GOM, necessarily averages fine-scale information about marine mammal distribution over the large area of each
NMFS' final rule described a “core habitat area” for Rice's whales (formerly known as GOM Bryde's whales)
Although Rice's whales may occur outside of the core habitat area, we expect that any such occurrence would be limited to the narrow band of suitable habitat described above (
Killer whales are the most rarely encountered species in the GOM, typically in deep waters of the central GOM (Roberts
The rarity of encounter during seismic surveys is not likely to be the product of high bias on the probability of detection. Unlike certain cryptic species with high detection bias, such as
In summary, killer whales are the most rarely encountered species in the GOM and typically occur only in particularly deep water. This survey would take place in deep waters that would overlap with depths in which killer whales typically occur. While this information is reflected through the density model informing the acoustic exposure modeling results, there is relatively high uncertainty associated with the model for this species, and the acoustic exposure modeling applies mean distribution data over areas where the species is in fact less likely to occur. In addition, as noted above in relation to the general take estimation methodology, the assumed proxy source (72-element, 8,000-in
In past authorizations, NMFS has often addressed situations involving the low likelihood of encountering a rare species such as killer whales in the
Based on the results of our analysis, NMFS has determined that the level of taking authorized through the LOA is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the regulations for the affected species or stocks of marine mammals. See Table 1 in this notice and Table 9 of the rule (86 FR 5322, January 19, 2021).
Under the GOM rule, NMFS may not authorize incidental take of marine mammals in an LOA if it will exceed “small numbers.” In short, when an acceptable estimate of the individual marine mammals taken is available, if the estimated number of individual animals taken is up to, but not greater than, one-third of the best available abundance estimate, NMFS will determine that the numbers of marine mammals taken of a species or stock are small. For more information please see NMFS' discussion of the MMPA's small numbers requirement provided in the final rule (86 FR 5438, January 19, 2021).
The take numbers for authorization are determined as described above in the Summary of Request and Analysis section. Subsequently, the total incidents of harassment for each species are multiplied by scalar ratios to produce a derived product that better reflects the number of individuals likely to be taken within a survey (as compared to the total number of instances of take), accounting for the likelihood that some individual marine mammals may be taken on more than 1 day (see 86 FR 5404, January 19, 2021). The output of this scaling, where appropriate, is incorporated into adjusted total take estimates that are the basis for NMFS' small numbers determinations, as depicted in Table 1.
This product is used by NMFS in making the necessary small numbers determinations through comparison with the best available abundance estimates (see discussion at 86 FR 5322, January 19, 2021; 86 FR 5391, January 19, 2021). For this comparison, NMFS' approach is to use the maximum theoretical population, determined through review of current stock assessment reports (SAR;
Based on the analysis contained herein of WesternGeco's proposed survey activity described in its LOA application and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the affected species or stock sizes (
NMFS has determined that the level of taking for this LOA request is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the incidental take regulations and that the amount of take authorized under the LOA is of no more than small numbers. Accordingly, we have issued an LOA to WesternGeco authorizing the take of
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of availability.
The Department of the Army (Army) is making its
Consideration will be given to all comments on the Army Program Comment Plan that are received within 30 days following the date of this publication.
Written comments identified by “Army Program Comment Plan” should be submitted to: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment, ATTN: DASA-ESOH (Dr. David Guldenzopf), 110 Army Pentagon, Room 3E464, Washington, DC 20310, or by email to
Dr. David Guldenzopf, Department of the Army Federal Preservation Officer, (703) 459-7756,
Program Comment Plan for Preservation of Pre-1919 Historic Army Housing, Associated Buildings and Structures, and Landscape Features.
On 19 September 2023, the Department of the Army Federal Preservation Officer notified the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) of the Army's intent to request a Program Comment for Preservation of Pre-1919 Historic Army Housing, Associated Buildings and Structures, and Landscape Features in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 54 U.S.C. 306108, and 36 CFR 800.14(e). The goal of the Program Comment is to provide the Army compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 54 U.S.C. 306108, for the repetitive management actions occurring on this large inventory of historic properties by means of the procedures in 36 CFR 800.14(e), in lieu of conducting individual projects reviews under 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.7.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Adams Solar LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 6, 2023.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
On September 25, 2023, Grand River Dam Authority submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a copy of its application for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification filed with Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (Oklahoma DEQ), in conjunction with the above captioned project. Pursuant to 40 CFR 121.6 and section [4.34(b)(5), 5.23(b), 153.4, or 157.22] of the Commission's regulations,
If Oklahoma DEQ fails or refuses to act on the water quality certification request on or before the above date, then the agency certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Kaiser Aluminum Washington, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 6, 2023.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas and Oil Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Rhythm Ops, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 6, 2023.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Caden Energix Endless Caverns LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 6, 2023.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of BCD 2024 Fund 1 Lessee, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 6, 2023.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Salt Creek Township Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 6, 2023.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. This filing may be viewed on the Commission's website at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas and Oil Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Waverly Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 6, 2023.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office is announcing a public meeting of the chartered Science Advisory Board. The purpose of the meeting is to: conduct a quality review of the draft SAB report titled:
The meeting will be conducted virtually. Please refer to the SAB website at
Any member of the public who wants further information concerning this notice may contact Dr. Thomas Armitage, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), via telephone (202) 564-2155, or email at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; correction.
EPA issued a notice in the
Christopher Green, Registration Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 566-2707; email address:
The registrant previously requested to cancel these registrations with the request to sell existing stocks until May 31, 2021; however, the registrant submitted a withdrawal of their request, then resubmitted the requests without the request to sell existing stocks until May 31, 2021, FR Doc. 2021-06851, which was published in the
This action is directed to the public in general and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0015, is available at
This notice is being issued to correct the cancellation order in Table 1 of Unit II, by removing the registration numbers, 1007-99, 1007-100, and 1007-101. And by removing EPA company number 1007, in Table 2 of Unit II. Also, by removing (Item A. For Products 1007-99, 1007-100, and 1007-101) and associated text, from (Item VI. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks). FR Doc. 2021-06845, published in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of requests by registrants to voluntarily cancel certain pesticide registrations. EPA intends to grant these requests at the close of the comment period for this announcement unless the Agency receives substantive comments within the comment period that would merit its further review of the requests, or unless the registrants withdraw their requests. If these requests are granted, any sale, distribution, or use of products listed in this notice will be permitted after the registration has been cancelled only if such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms as described in the final order.
Comments must be received on or before November 22, 2023.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0351, through the
Alexandra McKee, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 566-1939; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides.
1.
2.
This notice announces receipt by the Agency of requests from three registrants to cancel nine pesticide products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a) or 24(c) (7 U.S.C. 136v(c)). These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number (or company number and 24(c) number) in Table 1 of this unit.
Unless the Agency determines that there are substantive comments that warrant further review of the requests or the registrants withdraw their requests, EPA intends to issue orders in the
Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in this unit.
Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the
Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(B)) requires that before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation, EPA must provide a 30-day public comment period on the request for voluntary cancellation or use termination. In addition, FIFRA section 6(f)(1)(C) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(C)) requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment period on a request for voluntary cancellation or termination of any minor agricultural use before granting the request, unless:
1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or
2. The EPA Administrator determines that continued use of the pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.
The registrants in Table 2 of Unit II. have requested that EPA waive the 180-day comment period. Accordingly, EPA will provide a 30-day comment period on the proposed requests.
Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation should submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under
Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products that are currently in the United States and that were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. Because the Agency has identified no significant potential risk concerns associated with these pesticide products, upon cancellation of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II., EPA anticipates allowing registrants to sell and distribute existing stocks of these products for 1 year after publication of the Cancellation Order in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office requests public nominations of scientific experts to form a panel to review the revised Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis (Environmental Justice Technical Guidance or EJTG) and develop a self-initiated commentary outlining recommendations on advancing environmental justice science in rulemaking. The SAB Environmental Justice Science and Analysis Review Panel will review the revised EJTG to be released publicly in 2023, as well as other information to be provided by the EPA. The Panel will provide recommendations and expert input on both advisory activities.
Nominations should be submitted by November 13, 2023 per the instructions below.
Any member of the public wishing further information regarding this Notice and the request for nominations may contact Dr. Suhair Shallal, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office by telephone/voice mail (202) 564-2057, or email at
The SAB Environmental Justice Science and Analysis Review Panel will conduct a review of the revised Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis (Environmental Justice Technical Guidance or EJTG) and develop a self-initiated commentary outlining recommendations on advancing environmental justice science in rulemaking. The SAB Environmental Justice Science and Analysis Review Panel will consider the revised EJTG as well as other information to be provided by the EPA. The Panel will provide recommendations and expert input on both advisory activities.
The revised EJTG is a document that provides EPA analysts with broad guidance on how to assess disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental impacts of proposed rules and actions on vulnerable and overburdened populations in a variety of regulatory contexts. The 2016 EJ Technical Guidance was peer reviewed by the SAB in 2014. EPA is currently revising the EJ Technical Guidance, that will be released publicly in late 2023. The Panel will also identify key findings about the current state of environmental justice science utilized across EPA in the context of regulations and develop a commentary with actionable recommendations for potential methodological and technical improvements of environmental justice analyses utilized to support regulatory actions.
The following information should be provided on the nomination form: contact information for the person making the nomination; contact information for the nominee; and the disciplinary and specific areas of expertise of the nominee. Nominees will be contacted by the SAB Staff Office and will be asked to provide a recent curriculum vitae and a narrative biographical summary that includes current position, educational background; research activities; sources of research funding for the last two years; and recent service on other national advisory committees or national professional organizations. Persons having questions about the nomination procedures, or who are unable to submit nominations through the SAB website, should contact the DFO at the contact information noted above. The names and biosketches of qualified nominees identified by respondents to this
For the EPA SAB Staff Office, a balanced review panel includes candidates who possess the necessary domains of knowledge, the relevant scientific perspectives (which, among other factors, can be influenced by work history and affiliation), and the collective breadth of experience to adequately address the charge. In forming the expert panel, the SAB Staff Office will consider public comments on the Lists of Candidates, information provided by the candidates themselves, and background information independently gathered by the SAB Staff Office. Selection criteria to be used for panel membership include: (a) scientific and/or technical expertise, knowledge, and experience (primary factors); (b) availability and willingness to serve; (c) absence of financial conflicts of interest; (d) absence of an appearance of a loss of impartiality; (e) skills working in committees, subcommittees and advisory panels; and (f) for the panel as a whole, diversity of expertise and scientific points of view.
The SAB Staff Office's evaluation of an absence of financial conflicts of interest will include a review of the “Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Environmental Protection Agency Special Government Employees” (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential form is required and allows government officials to determine whether there is a statutory conflict between a person's public responsibilities (which include membership on an EPA federal advisory committee) and private interests and activities, or the appearance of a loss of impartiality, as defined by federal regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded through the “Ethics Requirements for Advisors” link on the SAB website at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
Since 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has maintained a Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket (“Docket”) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). CERCLA requires EPA to establish a Docket that contains certain information reported to EPA by Federal facilities that manage hazardous waste or from which a reportable quantity of hazardous substances has been released. This notice identifies the Federal facilities not previously listed on the Docket and identifies Federal facilities reported to EPA since the last update on April 24, 2023. In addition to the list of additions to the Docket, this notice includes a section with revisions of the previous Docket list and a section of Federal facilities that are to be deleted from the Docket. Thus, the revisions in this update include three additions, two deletions, and zero corrections to the Docket since the previous update.
This list is current as of September 18, 2023.
Electronic versions of the Docket and more information on its implementation can be obtained at
Section 120(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9620(c), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), requires EPA to establish the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket. The Docket contains information on Federal facilities that manage hazardous waste and such information is submitted by Federal agencies to EPA under sections 3005, 3010, and 3016 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6925, 6930, and 6937. Additionally, the Docket contains information on Federal facilities with a reportable quantity of hazardous substances that has been released and such information is submitted by Federal agencies to EPA under section 103 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9603. Specifically, RCRA section 3005 establishes a permitting system for certain hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities; RCRA section 3010 requires waste generators, transporters and TSD facilities to notify EPA of their
CERCLA section 120(d) requires EPA to take steps to assure that a Preliminary Assessment (PA) be completed for those sites identified in the Docket and that the evaluation and listing of sites with a PA be completed within a reasonable time frame. The PA is designed to provide information for EPA to consider when evaluating the site for potential response action or inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL).
The Docket serves three major purposes: (1) To identify all Federal facilities that must be evaluated to determine whether they pose a threat to human health and the environment sufficient to warrant inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL); (2) to compile and maintain the information submitted to EPA on such facilities under the provisions listed in section 120(c) of CERCLA; and (3) to provide a mechanism to make the information available to the public. Previous Docket updates are available at
This notice provides some background information on the Docket. Additional information on the Docket requirements and implementation are found in the Docket Reference Manual, Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket found at
In prior updates, information was also provided regarding No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) status changes. However, information on NFRAP and NPL status is no longer being provided separately in the Docket update as it is now available at:
Contact the following Docket Coordinators for information on Regional Docket repositories:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
This section includes a discussion of the additions, deletions and corrections to the list of Docket facilities since the previous Docket update.
These Federal facilities are being added primarily because of new information obtained by EPA (for example, recent reporting of a facility pursuant to RCRA sections 3005, 3010, or 3016 or CERCLA section 103). CERCLA section 120, as amended by the Defense Authorization Act of 1997, specifies that EPA take steps to assure that a Preliminary Assessment (PA) be completed within a reasonable time frame for those Federal facilities that are included on the Docket. Among other things, the PA is designed to provide information for EPA to consider when evaluating the site for potential response action or listing on the NPL. This notice includes three additions.
There are no statutory or regulatory provisions that address deletion of a facility from the Docket. However, if a facility is incorrectly included on the Docket, it may be deleted from the Docket. The criteria EPA uses in deleting sites from the Docket include: a facility for which there was an incorrect report submitted for hazardous waste activity under RCRA (
Changes necessary to correct the previous Docket are identified by both EPA and Federal agencies. The corrections section may include changes in addresses or spelling, and corrections of the recorded name and ownership of a Federal facility. In addition, changes in the names of Federal facilities may be made to establish consistency in the Docket or between the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) and the Docket. For the Federal facility for which a correction is entered, the original entry is as it appeared in previous Docket updates. The corrected update is shown directly below, for easy
In compiling the newly reported Federal facilities for the update being published in this notice, EPA extracted the names, addresses, and identification numbers of facilities from four EPA databases—the WebEOC, the Biennial Inventory of Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Activities, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System (RCRAInfo), and SEMS—that contain information about Federal facilities submitted under the four provisions listed in CERCLA section 120(c).
EPA assures the quality of the information on the Docket by conducting extensive evaluation of the current Docket list and contacts the other Federal Agency (OFA) with the information obtained from the databases identified above to determine which Federal facilities were, in fact, newly reported and qualified for inclusion on the update. EPA is also striving to correct errors for Federal facilities that were previously reported. For example, state-owned or privately-owned facilities that are not operated by the Federal government may have been included. Such problems are sometimes caused by procedures historically used to report and track Federal facilities data. Representatives of Federal agencies are asked to contact the EPA HQ Docket Coordinator at the address provided in the
Certain categories of facilities may not be included on the Docket, such as: (1) Federal facilities formerly owned by a Federal agency that at the time of consideration was not Federally-owned or operated; (2) Federal facilities that are small quantity generators (SQGs) that have not, more than once per calendar year, generated more than 1,000 kg of hazardous waste in any single month; (3) Federal facilities that are very small quantity generators (VSQGs) that have never generated more than 100 kg of hazardous waste in any month; (4) Federal facilities that are solely hazardous waste transportation facilities, as reported under RCRA section 3010; and (5) Federal facilities that have mixed mine or mill site ownership.
An EPA policy issued in June 2003 provided guidance for a site-by-site evaluation as to whether “mixed ownership” mine or mill sites, typically created as a result of activities conducted pursuant to the General Mining Law of 1872 and never reported under section 103(a) of CERCLA, should be included on the Docket. For purposes of that policy, mixed ownership mine or mill sites are those located partially on private land and partially on public land. This policy is found at
EPA tracks the NPL status of Federal facilities listed on the Docket. An updated list of the NPL status of all Docket facilities, as well as their NFRAP status, is available at
The information is provided in three tables. The first table is a list of additional Federal facilities that are being added to the Docket. The second table is a list of Federal facilities that are being deleted from the Docket. The third table is for corrections.
The Federal facilities listed in each table are organized by the date reported. Under each heading is listed the name and address of the facility, the Federal agency responsible for the facility, the statutory provision(s) under which the facility was reported to EPA, and a code.
The statutory provisions under which a Federal facility is reported are listed in a column titled “Reporting Mechanism.” Applicable mechanisms are listed for each Federal facility: for example, Sections 3005, 3010, 3016, 103(c), or Other. “Other” has been added as a reporting mechanism to indicate those Federal facilities that otherwise have been identified to have releases or threat of releases of hazardous substances. The National Contingency Plan at 40 CFR 300.405 addresses discovery or notification, outlines what constitutes discovery of a hazardous substance release, and states that a release may be discovered in several ways, including: (1) A report submitted in accordance with section 103(a) of CERCLA,
The complete list of Federal facilities that now make up the Docket and the NPL and NFRAP status are available to interested parties and can be obtained at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Dated: October 16, 2023.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents,
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before December 22, 2023. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before December 22, 2023. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
In document FCC 16-169, the Commission adopted measures requiring the following:
(a) Each wireless provider and manufacturer that voluntarily transitions from TTY technology to RTT over wireless IP-based networks and services is encouraged to develop consumer and education efforts that include (1) the development and dissemination of educational materials that contain information pertinent to the nature, purpose, and timelines of the RTT transition; (2) internet postings, in an accessible format, of information about the TTY to RTT transition on the websites of covered entities; (3) the creation of a telephone hotline and an online interactive and accessible service that can answer consumer questions about RTT; and (4) appropriate training of staff to effectively respond to consumer questions. All consumer outreach and education should be provided in accessible formats including, but not limited to, large print, Braille, videos in American Sign Language and that are captioned and video described, emails to consumers who have opted to receive notices in this manner, and printed materials. Service providers and manufacturers are also encouraged to coordinate with consumer, public safety, and industry stakeholders to develop and distribute education and outreach materials. The information will inform consumers of alternative accessible technology available to replace TTY technology that may no longer be available to the consumer through their provider or on their device.
(b) Each wireless provider that requested or will request and receive a waiver of the requirement to support TTY technology over wireless IP-based networks and services must apprise its customers, through effective and accessible channels of communication, that (1) until TTY is sunset, TTY technology will not be supported for calls to 911 services over IP-based wireless services, and (2) there are alternative PSTN-based and IP-based accessibility solutions for people with disabilities to reach 911 services. These notices must be developed in coordination with public safety answering points (PSAPs) and national consumer organizations, and include a listing of text-based alternatives to 911, including, but not limited to, TTY capability over the PSTN, various forms of PSTN-based and IP-based TRS, and text-to-911 (where available). The notices will inform consumers on the loss of the use of TTY for completing 911 calls over the provider's network and alert them to alternatives service for which TTY may be used.
(c) Once every six months, each wireless provider that requests and receives a waiver of the requirement to support TTY technology must file a report with the Commission and inform its customers regarding its progress toward and the status of the availability of new IP-based accessibility solutions. Such reports must include (1) information on the interoperability of the provider's selected accessibility solution with the technologies deployed or to be deployed by other carriers and service providers, (2) the backward compatibility of such solution with TTYs, (3) a showing of the provider's efforts to ensure delivery of 911 calls to the appropriate PSAP, (4) a description of any obstacles incurred towards achieving interoperability and steps taken to overcome such obstacles, and (5) an estimated timetable for the deployment of accessibility solutions. The information will inform consumers of the progress towards the availability of alternative accessible means to replace TTY, and the Commission will be able to evaluate the reports to determine if any changes to the waivers are warranted or of any impediments to progress that it may be in a position to resolve.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other federal agencies to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Promoting Adolescent Health through School-Based HIV/STD Prevention Reporting Templates. The data collection is designed to obtain detailed, specific, and consistent reporting measures to ensure that the Division of Adolescent and School Health (DASH) can determine the context, process, and effectiveness of program activities.
CDC must receive written comments on or before December 22, 2023.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2023-0085 by either of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Promoting Adolescent Health through School-Based HIV/STD Prevention Reporting Templates (OMB Control No. 0920-1329, Exp. 3/31/2024)—Revision—National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) requests a one-year OMB approval to extend and revise the information collection titled, Promoting Adolescent Health through School-Based HIV/STD Prevention Reporting Templates. PS18-1807 Promoting Adolescent Health through School-Based HIV/STD Prevention was awarded August 1, 2018 with a six-year project period. It is funded through the Division of Adolescent and School Health (DASH).
Health behaviors during adolescence set the stage for behaviors and health into adulthood. In 2017, 40% of high school students in the US had ever had sexual intercourse and 29% were currently sexually active. Among currently sexually active students, 46% did not use a condom, and 14% did not use any method to prevent pregnancy the last time they had sexual intercourse. In 2016, young people aged 13-24 accounted for an estimated 21% of all new HIV diagnoses in the United States. Half of the nearly 20 million new STDs reported each year were among young people aged 15-24.
Schools have direct contact with over 50 million students for at least six hours a day over 13 key years of their social, physical, and intellectual development. Schools can help understand and prevent adolescent risk for HIV, STD, and teen pregnancy. Schools play an important role in HIV/STD prevention and can influence students' risk for HIV infection and other STDs through parental engagement, health education, connection to physical and mental health services, and connecting youth to each other and important adults.
The PS18-1807 award supports implementation of activities at multiple levels of the education system to achieve health goals. School curricula, policies, and services are generally locally determined by local education agencies (LEA), or local school districts, with guidance from state education agencies (SEA). LEA and SEA both provide training, resources, and technical assistance to schools. SEA establish supportive state environments for local decision making about school policies and practices. LEA support implementation of school-based strategies through district level actions and decisions. Recognizing the importance of locally tailoring approaches, PS18-1807 uses priority schools within a district, or LEA, as a natural laboratory for working through program implementation details before scaling up—or diffusing—activities to all schools in a district. This approach supports close connections with decision-makers responsible for educational options and school environments at each of these levels. Additional support from organizations with specialized expertise and capacity for national reach will be used to increase the impact of SEA and LEA strategies. They provide a range of highly trained experts for professional development and technical assistance to advance HIV/STD prevention work.
There are separate templates and work plans for Component 1 reporting and for Component 2 reporting. A total of 80 sites will be filling out the Component 1 reporting template and work plan; 25 sites will be filling out the Component 2 reporting template and work plans (required programmatic activities work plan and professional development work plan). CDC will add one additional question to the reporting template. The additional question is: “(If applicable) Publications: List publications resulting from the project, as well as plans for further publications.” The work plan template will not be modified.
The Component 1 information collection uses a self-administered reporting template to assess surveillance activities conducted by recipient education and health agencies funded by CDC/DASH under Component 1 of PS18-1807 Promoting Adolescent Health through School-Based HIV/STD Prevention. This data collection will provide DASH with data to generate internal reports that will identify successful and problematic surveillance areas. In addition, the information collection will allow DASH to determine if recipient agencies are completing the required activities of the NOFO on time, as well as identifying problems in implementation. With this information, DASH can ascertain if additional technical assistance is needed to help recipients improve their surveillance implementation if necessary. The reporting template will include questions on the following topics: Youth Risk Behavior Survey completion, and School Health Profiles (Profiles) completion. No personally identifiable information will be collected.
The Component 2 information collection uses a self-administered reporting template to assess HIV and STD prevention efforts conducted by local education agencies (LEA) funded by CDC/DASH under Component 2 of PS18-1807 Promoting Adolescent Health through School-Based HIV/STD Prevention. This data collection will provide DASH with data to generate internal reports that will identify successful and problematic programmatic areas. In addition, both information collections will allow DASH to determine if recipient agencies are completing the required activities of the NOFO on time, as well as identifying problems in implementation. With this information, DASH can ascertain if additional
The estimated burden per response ranges from eight hours for Component 1 to 14 hours for Component 2. Recipients will complete the reporting templates every six months and the work plan templates once a year under this approval. Annualizing the collection over one year results in an estimated annualized burden of 3,320 burden hours for respondents. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “Sealant Efficiency Assessment for Locals and States (SEALS)” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on June 5, 2023 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC did not receive comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Sealant Efficiency Assessment for Locals and States (SEALS) (OMB Control No. 0920-1289)—Reinstatement—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
By age 19, 67% of U.S. adolescents living in poverty have experienced tooth decay and 27% have at least one decayed tooth needing treatment. School sealant programs provide dental sealants, which protect against 80% of cavities for two years, and continue to protect against 50% of cavities for up to
CDC requests OMB approval for a Reinstatement of a previously approved data collection. The total estimated annualized burden hours requested are 1,388. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the fee rates and payment procedures for fiscal year (FY) 2024 animal drug user fees. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as amended by the Animal Drug User Fee Amendments of 2023 (ADUFA V), authorizes FDA to collect user fees for certain animal drug applications and supplemental animal drug applications, for certain animal drug products, for certain establishments where such products are made, and for certain sponsors of such animal drug applications and/or investigational animal drug submissions. This notice establishes the fee rates for FY 2024.
The application fee rates are effective for applications submitted on or after October 1, 2023, and will remain in effect through September 30, 2024.
Visit FDA's website at
Section 740 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379j-12), as amended by ADUFA V, establishes four different types of user fees: (1) fees for certain types of animal drug applications and supplemental animal drug applications; (2) annual fees for certain animal drug products; (3) annual fees for certain establishments where such products are made; and (4) annual fees for certain sponsors of animal drug applications and/or investigational animal drug submissions (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(a)). When certain conditions are met, FDA will waive or reduce fees (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(d)).
For FYs 2024 through 2028, the FD&C Act establishes the base revenue amount for each fiscal year (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(b)(1)). Beginning in FY 2025, the base revenue amount is subject to adjustment for inflation and workload (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(c)(2) and (3)). Also beginning in FY 2025, ADUFA V provides for an operating reserve adjustment to allow FDA to adjust the fee revenue amount to maintain a specified operating reserve of carryover user fees (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(c)(4)). FDA may increase the fee revenue amount to maintain a 12-week minimum. If FDA has an excess operating reserve, FDA will decrease the fee revenue amount so that FDA has 22 weeks of operating reserve for FY 2025, 20 weeks for FY 2026, 18 weeks for FY 2027, and 16 weeks for FY 2028.
Fees for applications, establishments, products, and sponsors are to be established each year by FDA so that the percentages of the total revenue that are derived from each type of user fee will be as follows: (1) revenue from application fees shall be 20 percent of total fee revenue; (2) revenue from product fees shall be 27 percent of total fee revenue; (3) revenue from establishment fees shall be 26 percent of total fee revenue; and (4) revenue from sponsor fees shall be 27 percent of total fee revenue (21 U.S.C. 379jndash;12(b)(2)). The fee revenue amount for FY 2024 is $33,500,000 (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(b)(1)). The target revenue amounts for each fee category for FY 2024 are as follows: for application fees, the target revenue amount is $6,700,000; for product fees, the target revenue amount is $9,045,000; for establishment fees, the target revenue amount is $8,710,000; and for sponsor fees, the target revenue amount is $9,045,000.
For FY 2024, the animal drug user fee rates are: $683,673 for an animal drug application; $341,837 for a supplemental animal drug application for which safety or effectiveness data are required, for an animal drug application subject to the criteria set forth in section 512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(d)(4)), and for an application for conditional approval under section 571 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ccc) for which an animal drug application submitted under section 512(b)(1) of the FD&C Act has been previously approved under section 512(d)(1) of the FD&C Act for another intended use; $12,459 for the annual product fee; $174,200 for the annual establishment fee; and $153,305 for the annual sponsor fee. FDA will issue invoices for FY 2024 product, establishment, and sponsor fees by December 31, 2023, and payment will be due by January 31, 2024. The application fee rates are effective for applications submitted on or after October 1, 2023, and will remain in effect through September 30, 2024.
ADUFA V, Title III of Public Law 118-15, specifies that the aggregate base fee revenue amount for FY 2024 for all animal drug user fee categories is $33,500,000 (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(b)(1)).
ADUFA V specifies that the annual fee revenue amount is to be adjusted for inflation increases for FY 2025 and subsequent fiscal years (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(c)(2)). Since ADUFA V does not adjust for inflation until FY 2025, there is no inflation adjustment for FY 2024.
The fee revenue amounts established in ADUFA V for FY 2025 and subsequent fiscal years are also subject to adjustment to account for changes in FDA's review workload (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(c)(3)). Since ADUFA V does not adjust for workload until FY 2025, there is no workload adjustment for FY 2024.
For fiscal year 2025 and each subsequent fiscal year, after the fee revenue amount established under section 740(b) of the FD&C Act is adjusted for inflation and workload, the Secretary shall increase the fee revenue amount for such fiscal year, if necessary to provide an operating reserve of not less than 12 weeks. If the operating reserve is in excess of the number of weeks specified in section 740(c)(4)(C) of the FD&C Act for that fiscal year, the Secretary shall decrease the fee revenue amount to provide not more than the number of weeks specified for that fiscal year. Since ADUFA V does not adjust for the operating reserve until FY 2025, there is no adjustment for FY 2024.
The fee revenue amount for FY 2024 is $33,500,000. ADUFA V specifies that this revenue amount is to be divided as follows: 20 percent, or a total of $6,700,000, is to come from application fees; 27 percent, or a total of $9,045,000, is to come from product fees; 26 percent, or a total of $8,710,000 is to come from establishment fees; and 27 percent, or a total of $9,045,000 is to come from sponsor fees (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(b)).
Each person that submits an animal drug application or a supplemental animal drug application shall be subject to an application fee, with limited exceptions (see 21 U.S.C. 379j-12(a)(1)). The term “animal drug application” means an application for approval of any new animal drug submitted under section 512(b)(1) of the FD&C Act or an application for conditional approval of a new animal drug submitted under section 571 of the FD&C Act (see section 739(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379j-11(1)). A “supplemental animal drug application” is defined as a request to FDA to approve a change in an approved animal drug application, or a request to FDA to approve a change to an application approved under section 512(c)(2) of the FD&C Act for which data with respect to safety or effectiveness are required. Such applications are subject to ADUFA fees, except those fees may be waived if the application is intended solely to provide for a minor use or minor species (MUMS) indication (see 21 U.S.C. 379j-12(d)(1)(D)).
Furthermore, ADUFA V continues to provide an exception from application fees for animal drug applications submitted under section 512(b)(1) of the FD&C Act by a sponsor who previously applied for conditional approval under section 571 of the FD&C Act for the same product and paid an application fee at the time they applied for conditional approval. The purpose of this exception is to prevent sponsors of conditionally approved products from having to pay a second application fee at the time they apply for full approval of their products under section 512(b)(1) of the FD&C Act, provided the sponsor's application for full approval is filed consistent with the timeframes established in section 571(h) of the FD&C Act (see 21 U.S.C. 379j-12(a)(1)(C)(ii)).
The application fees are to be set so that they will generate $6,700,000 in fee revenue for FY 2024. The fee for a supplemental animal drug application for which safety or effectiveness data are required, for an animal drug application subject to criteria set forth in section 512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act, and for an application for conditional approval under section 571 of the FD&C Act of a new animal drug for which an animal drug application submitted under section 512(b)(1) of the FD&C Act has been previously approved under section 512(d)(1) for another intended use is to be set at 50 percent of the animal drug application fee (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(a)(1)(A)(ii)).
To set animal drug application fees and supplemental animal drug application fees to realize $6,700,000, FDA must first make some assumptions about the number of fee-paying applications and supplemental applications the Agency will receive in FY 2024.
The Agency knows the number of applications that have been submitted in previous fiscal years. That number fluctuates annually. In estimating the fee revenue to be generated by animal drug application fees in FY 2024, FDA is assuming that the number of applications for which fees will be paid in FY 2024 will equal the average number of applications over the 5 most recently completed fiscal years of the ADUFA program (FY 2018 to FY 2022).
Over the 5 most recently completed fiscal years, the average number of animal drug applications subject to the full fee was 5.20. Over this same period, the average number of supplemental applications for which safety or effectiveness data are required, applications subject to the criteria set forth in section 512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act, and applications for conditional approval of a new animal drug for which a section 512(b)(1) application has been previously approved for another intended use subject to half of the full fee was 9.20.
Based on the previous assumptions, FDA is estimating that it will receive a total of 9.80 fee-paying animal drug applications in FY 2024 (5.20 applications paying a full fee and 9.20 applications paying a half fee).
FDA must set the fee rates for FY 2024 so that the estimated 9.80 applications that pay the fee will generate a total of $6,700,000. To generate this amount, the fee for an animal drug application, rounded to the nearest dollar, will have to be $683,673, and the fee for a supplemental animal drug application for which safety or effectiveness data are required, for applications subject to the criteria set forth in section 512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act, and for an application for conditional approval under section 571 of the FD&C Act of a new animal drug for which an animal drug application submitted under section 512(b)(1) of the FD&C Act has been previously approved under section 512(d)(1) for another intended use will have to be $341,837.
The animal drug product fee must be paid annually by the person named as the applicant in a new animal drug application or supplemental new animal drug application for an animal drug product submitted for listing under section 510 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360) and who had an animal drug application or supplemental animal drug application pending at FDA after September 1, 2003 (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(a)(2)). The term “animal drug product” means each specific strength or potency of a particular active ingredient or ingredients in final dosage form marketed by a particular manufacturer or distributor, which is uniquely identified by the labeler code and product code portions of the National Drug Code, and for which an animal drug application or a supplemental animal drug application has been approved (21 U.S.C. 379j-11(3)). The product fees are to be set so that they will generate $9,045,000 in fee revenue for FY 2024.
To set animal drug product fees to realize $9,045,000, FDA must make some assumptions about the number of products for which these fees will be paid in FY 2024. FDA developed data on all animal drug products that have been submitted for listing under section 510 of the FD&C Act and matched this to the list of all persons who had an animal drug application or supplemental animal drug application pending after September 1, 2003. As of May 2023, FDA estimates that there are 733 products submitted for listing by persons who had an animal drug application or supplemental animal drug application pending after September 1, 2003. Based on this, FDA estimates that a total of 733 products will be subject to this fee in FY 2024.
In estimating the fee revenue to be generated by animal drug product fees in FY 2024, FDA is assuming that 1 percent of the products invoiced, or seven, will not pay fees in FY 2024, due to fee waivers and reductions. FDA has made this estimate at 1 percent this year, based on historical data over the past 5 completed fiscal years of the ADUFA program.
Accordingly, the Agency estimates that a total of 726 (733 minus 7) products will be subject to product fees in FY 2024.
FDA must set the fee rates for FY 2024 so that the estimated 726 products for which fees are paid will generate a total of $9,045,000. To generate this amount will require the fee for an animal drug product, rounded to the nearest dollar, to be $12,459.
The animal drug establishment fee must be paid annually by the person who: (1) owns or operates, directly or through an affiliate, an animal drug establishment; (2) is named as the applicant in an animal drug application or supplemental animal drug application for an animal drug product submitted for listing under section 510 of the FD&C Act; (3) had an animal drug application or supplemental animal drug application pending at FDA after September 1, 2003; and (4) whose establishment engaged in the manufacture of the animal drug product during the fiscal year (see 21 U.S.C. 379j-12(a)(3)). An establishment subject to animal drug establishment fees is assessed only one such fee per fiscal year. The term “animal drug establishment” is defined as a foreign or domestic place of business at one general physical location, consisting of one or more buildings, all of which are within 5 miles of each other, at which one or more animal drug products are manufactured in final dosage form (21 U.S.C. 379j-11(4)). The establishment fees are to be set so that they will generate $8,710,000 in fee revenue for FY 2024.
To set animal drug establishment fees to realize $8,710,000, FDA must make some assumptions about the number of establishments for which these fees will be paid in FY 2024. FDA developed data on all animal drug establishments and matched this to the list of all persons who had an animal drug application or supplemental animal drug application pending after September 1, 2003. As of May 2023, FDA estimates that there are a total of 53 establishments owned or operated by persons who had an animal drug application or supplemental animal drug application pending after September 1, 2003. Based on this, FDA believes that 53 establishments will be subject to this fee in FY 2024.
In estimating the fee revenue to be generated by animal drug establishment fees in FY 2024, FDA is assuming that 6 percent of the establishments invoiced, or three, will not pay fees in FY 2024 due to fee waivers and reductions. FDA has made this estimate at 6 percent this year, based on historical data over the past 5 completed fiscal years.
Accordingly, the Agency estimates that a total of 50 establishments (53 minus 3) will be subject to establishment fees in FY 2024.
FDA must set the fee rates for FY 2024 so that the fees paid for the estimated 50 establishments will generate a total of $8,710,000. To generate this amount will require the fee for an animal drug establishment, rounded to the nearest dollar, to be $174,200.
The animal drug sponsor fee must be paid annually by each person who: (1) is named as the applicant in an animal drug application, except for an approved application for which all subject products have been removed from listing under section 510 of the FD&C Act, or has submitted an investigational animal drug submission that has not been terminated or otherwise rendered inactive and (2) had an animal drug application, supplemental animal drug application, or investigational animal drug submission pending at FDA after September 1, 2003 (see 21 U.S.C. 379j-11(6) and 379j-12(a)(4)). An animal drug sponsor is subject to only one such fee each fiscal year (see 21 U.S.C. 379j-12(a)(4)). The sponsor fees are to be set so that they will generate $9,045,000 in fee revenue for FY 2024.
To set animal drug sponsor fees to realize $9,045,000, FDA must make some assumptions about the number of sponsors who will pay these fees in FY 2024. FDA developed data on all animal drug sponsors and matched this to the list of all sponsors who had pending submissions and applications after September 1, 2003. As of May, 2023, FDA estimates that a total of 179 sponsors will meet this definition in FY 2024.
In estimating the fee revenue to be generated by animal drug sponsor fees in FY 2024, FDA is assuming that 67 percent of the sponsors invoiced, or 120, will not pay sponsor fees in FY 2024 due to fee waivers and reductions. FDA has made this estimate at 67 percent this year, based on historical data over the past 5 completed fiscal years of the ADUFA program.
Accordingly, the Agency estimates that a total of 59 sponsors (179 minus 120) will be subject to and pay sponsor fees in FY 2024.
FDA must set the fee rates for FY 2024 so that the estimated 59 sponsors that pay fees will generate a total of $9,045,000. To generate this amount will require the fee for an animal drug sponsor, rounded to the nearest dollar, to be $153,305.
The fee rates for FY 2024 are summarized in table 1.
The types of fee waivers, fee reductions, and exemptions from fees that applied during ADUFA IV still exist in ADUFA V, with one exception. No longer available is the exemption for a supplemental animal drug application relating to a new animal drug application approved under section 512 of the FD&C Act, solely to add the application number to the labeling of the drug in the manner specified in section 503(w) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 352(w)).
Remaining waivers and reductions apply for the following: barriers to innovation; where fees will exceed the cost to review the animal drug application; if the application is related to certain free-choice medicated feeds; if the application is solely for a MUMS indication; or if the sponsor is a small business submitting its first animal drug application. See section 740(d)(1) of the FD&C Act.
Under section 740(d)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act, an animal drug applicant may qualify for a waiver or reduction of one or more ADUFA fees if the fee would present a significant barrier to innovation because of limited resources available to the applicant or other circumstances. CVM's guidance for industry (GFI) #170, entitled “Animal Drug User Fees and Fee Waivers and Reductions,”
In addition to the waivers and fee reductions described above, one fee exemption and two exceptions still apply in ADUFA V.
If an animal drug application, supplemental animal drug application, or investigational submission involves the intentional genomic alteration of an animal that is intended to produce a human medical product, any person who is the named applicant or sponsor of that application or submission will not be subject to sponsor, product, or establishment fees under ADUFA based solely on that application or submission (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(d)(4)).
There is an exception from application fees for animal drug applications submitted under section 512(b)(1) of the FD&C Act by a sponsor who previously applied for conditional approval under section 571 of the FD&C Act for the same product and paid an application fee at the time they applied for conditional approval, provided the sponsor has submitted the application under section 512(b)(1) of the FD&C Act within the timeframe specified in section 571(h) of the FD&C Act. There is also an exception from application fees for previously filed applications that were not approved or were withdrawn (without waiver or refund). Both exceptions are detailed in section 740(a)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act.
The FY 2024 fee established in the new fee schedule must be paid for an animal drug application or supplement subject to fees under ADUFA V that is submitted on or after October 1, 2023. The payment must be made in U.S. currency from a U.S. bank by one of the following methods: wire transfer,
When paying by check, bank draft, or U.S. postal money order, please write your application's unique Payment Identification Number (PIN), beginning with the letters AD, on the upper right-hand corner of your completed Animal Drug User Fee Cover Sheet. Also write the FDA's post office box number (P.O. Box 979033) and PIN on the enclosed check, bank draft, or money order. Mail the payment and a copy of the completed Animal Drug User Fee Cover Sheet to: Food and Drug Administration, P.O. Box 979033, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. Note: In no case should the payment for the fee be submitted to FDA with the application.
When paying by wire transfer, the invoice number or PIN needs to be included. Without the invoice number or PIN, the payment may not be applied, and the invoice amount would be referred to collections. The originating financial institution may charge a wire transfer fee. If the financial institution charges a wire transfer fee, it is required to add that amount to the payment to ensure that the invoice is paid in full.
Use the following account information when sending a payment by wire transfer: U.S. Department of the Treasury, TREAS NYC, 33 Liberty St., New York, NY 10045, Account Name: Food and Drug Administration, Account Number: 75060099, U.S. Department of the Treasury routing/transit number: 021030004, SWIFT Number: FRNYUS33.
To send a check by a courier such as FedEx, the courier must deliver the check and printed copy of the cover sheet to U.S. Bank: U.S. Bank, Attn: Government Lockbox 979033, 3180 Rider Trail S., Earth City, MO 63045. (Note: This address is for courier delivery only. If you have any questions concerning courier delivery, contact U.S. Bank at 314-418-4013. This telephone number is only for questions about courier delivery.)
It is important that the fee arrives at the bank at least a day or two before the application arrives at FDA's CVM. FDA records the official application receipt date as the later of the following: the date the application was received by CVM, or the date U.S. Bank notifies FDA that your payment in the full amount has been received, or when the U.S. Department of the Treasury notifies FDA of receipt of an electronic or wire transfer payment. U.S. Bank and the U.S. Department of the Treasury are required to notify FDA within 1 working day, using the PIN described previously.
The tax identification number of FDA is 53-0196965.
By December 31, 2023, FDA will issue invoices and payment instructions for product, establishment, and sponsor fees for FY 2024 using this fee schedule. Payment will be due by January 31, 2024. FDA will issue invoices in November 2024 for any products, establishments, and sponsors subject to fees for FY 2024 that qualify for fees after the December 2023 billing.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the fee rates and payment procedures for fiscal year (FY) 2024 generic new animal drug program user fees. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as amended by the Animal Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2023 (AGDUFA IV), authorizes FDA to collect user fees for certain abbreviated applications for generic new animal drugs, for certain generic new animal drug products, for certain sponsors of such abbreviated applications for generic new animal drugs and/or investigational submissions for generic new animal drugs, and for certain submissions related to generic investigational new animal drug (JINAD) files. This notice establishes the fee rates for FY 2024.
The application fee rates are effective for all abbreviated applications for a generic new animal drug submitted on or after October 1, 2023, and will remain in effect through September 30, 2024. The fee rates for requests to establish a JINAD file, and for certain submissions to JINAD files established prior to October 1, 2023, are effective on October 1, 2023, and will remain in effect through September 30, 2024.
Lisa Kable, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-10), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-6888,
Section 741 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379j-21) establishes four different types of user fees: (1) fees for certain types of abbreviated applications for generic new animal drugs; (2) annual fees for certain generic new animal drug products; (3) annual fees for certain sponsors of abbreviated applications for generic new animal drugs and/or investigational submissions for generic new animal drugs; and (4) JINAD file fees (21 U.S.C. 379j-21(a)). When certain conditions are met, FDA will waive or reduce fees for generic new animal drugs intended solely to provide for a minor use or minor species indication (21 U.S.C. 379j-21(d)).
For FYs 2024 through FY 2028, the FD&C Act establishes a base revenue amount for each fiscal year (21 U.S.C. 379j-21(b)(1)). Base revenue amounts established for fiscal years after FY 2024 are subject to adjustment for inflation and workload. Workload increases will be adjusted for excess collections after FY 2025 (21 U.S.C. 379j-21(c)). Fees are to be established each year by FDA so that the percentage allocations for each of the fee categories is as follows: 20 percent shall be derived from fees for abbreviated applications for a generic new animal drug and JINAD file fees; 40 percent shall be derived from fees for generic new animal drug products; and 40 percent shall be derived from fees for generic new animal drug sponsors (21 U.S.C. 379j-21(b)). The target revenue amounts for each fee category for FY 2024, are as follows: for application and/or JINAD file fees, the target revenue amount is $5,000,000; for product fees, the target revenue amount is $10,000,000; and for sponsor fees, the target revenue amount is $10,000,000.
For FY 2024, the AGDUFA rates are: $126,582 for each abbreviated application for a generic new animal drug other than those subject to the criteria in section 512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(d)(4)); $63,291 for each abbreviated application for a generic new animal drug subject to the criteria in section 512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act; $50,000 for each JINAD file request or certain submissions to established JINAD files; $16,393 for each generic new animal drug product; $258,331 for each generic new animal drug sponsor paying 100 percent of the sponsor fee; $193,748 for each generic new animal drug sponsor paying 75 percent of the sponsor fee; and $129,166 for each generic new animal drug sponsor paying 50 percent of the sponsor fee. FDA will issue invoices for FY 2024 product and sponsor fees by December 31, 2023, and payment will be due by January 31, 2024. The application fee rates are effective for all abbreviated applications for a generic new animal drug submitted on or after October 1, 2023, and will remain in effect through September 30, 2024. The fee rate for requests to establish a JINAD file, and for certain submissions to JINAD files established prior to October 1, 2023, is effective on October 1, 2023, and will remain in effect through September 30, 2024.
Applications will not be accepted for review until FDA has received full payment of application fees and any other fees owed under the AGDUFA program. Similarly, a request to establish a JINAD file will not be accepted for action by FDA until FDA has received full payment of all fees owed under the AGDUFA program. (21 U.S.C. 379j-21(e)).
AGDUFA IV, Title III of Public Law 118-15, specifies that the aggregate base fee revenue amount for FY 2024 for all user fee categories is $25,000,000 (21 U.S.C. 379j-21(b)(1)).
AGDUFA IV specifies that the annual fee revenue amount is to be adjusted for inflation increases for FY 2025 and subsequent fiscal years. (21 U.S.C. 379j-21(c)(2)). Since AGDUFA IV does not adjust for inflation until FY 2025, there is no inflation adjustment for FY 2024.
The fee revenue amounts established in AGDUFA IV for FY 2025 and subsequent fiscal years are also subject to adjustment to account for changes in FDA's review workload (21 U.S.C. 379j-21(c)(3)(A)). Since AGDUFA IV does not adjust for workload until FY 2025, there is no workload adjustment for FY 2024.
AGDUFA IV specifies that the revenue amount of $25,000,000 for FY 2024 is to be divided as follows: 20 percent, or a total of $5,000,000, is to come from application and/or JINAD file fees; 40 percent, or a total of $10,000,000, is to come from product fees; and 40 percent, or a total of $10,000,000, is to come from sponsor fees (21 U.S.C. 379j-21(b)).
Each person who submits an abbreviated application for a generic new animal drug shall be subject to an application fee, with limited exceptions (21 U.S.C. 379j-21(a)(1)). The term “abbreviated application for a generic new animal drug” means an abbreviated application for the approval of any generic new animal drug submitted under section 512(b)(2) of the FD&C Act. FDA will also assess fees related to JINAD files. FDA will assess a fee under section 741(a)(4)(A)(i) of the FD&C Act when a person submits a request to establish a new JINAD file. FDA will assess a fee under section 741(a)(4)(A)(ii) of the FD&C Act for a person's first submission, as described below, to a JINAD file on or after October 1, 2023, where the JINAD file had been established prior to that date. The JINAD file fee is set in accordance with section 741(c)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act at $50,000. FDA will set the abbreviated application fee so that such fees combined with the JINAD file fees will generate a combined total of $5,000,000 in fee revenue for FY 2024.
To set fees for abbreviated applications for generic new animal drugs, FDA must first make some assumptions about the number of fee-paying abbreviated applications it will receive during FY 2024, the number of requests to establish new JINAD files it will receive during FY 2024, and the number of existing (prior to October 1, 2023) JINAD files to which it will receive submissions during FY 2024.
Regarding the fee for a person's first submission to an existing (prior to October 1, 2023) JINAD file on or after October 1, 2023, FDA intends to assess a fee only for the first data (or “P”) submission to the Bioequivalence (BE) or Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC) technical sections of the JINAD file. The Agency has selected P submissions to the BE or CMC technical sections as the basis for assessing this fee because P submissions to these sections consistently entail the substantial use of FDA review hours during the phased review process.
The Agency knows the numbers of applications and submissions that have been submitted in previous years. Those numbers fluctuate annually. In estimating the fee revenue to be generated by application and submission fees in FY 2024, FDA is assuming that the number of applications and submissions for which
Also, under AGDUFA IV an abbreviated application for a generic new animal drug subject to the criteria in section 512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act and submitted on or after October 1, 2013, shall be subject to 50 percent of the fee applicable to all other abbreviated applications for a generic new animal drug (21 U.S.C. 379j-21(a)(1)(C)(ii)).
The average number of original submissions of abbreviated applications for generic new animal drugs over the 5 most recently completed fiscal years is 12.6 applications not subject to the criteria in section 512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act and 6.4 submissions subject to the criteria in section 512(d)(4). Each of the submissions described under section 512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act pays 50 percent of the fee paid by the other applications and will be counted as one half of a fee. Adding all of the applications not subject to the criteria in section 512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act and 50 percent of the number that are subject to such criteria results in a total of 15.80 anticipated full fees.
Based on the previous assumptions, FDA is estimating that it will receive a total of 15.80 fee-paying generic new animal drug applications in FY 2024 (12.6 original applications paying a full fee and 6.4 applications paying a half fee).
For estimating the number of requests to establish a new JINAD file and the number of P submissions to the BE or CMC section of an existing (prior to October 1, 2023) JINAD file the Agency will receive in FY 2024, FDA took the average annual number of new JINAD file requests and P submissions to the BE or CMC section of an existing JINAD file received over the last 5 completed fiscal years. The average annual number of requests to establish new JINAD files and P submissions to the BE or CMC section of existing JINAD files over the 5 most recently completed fiscal years is 60.
Based on the previous assumptions, FDA is estimating that it will receive a total of 60 fee-paying JINAD file submissions in FY 2024 (including both requests to establish new JINAD files and first P submissions to the BE or CMC section of existing (prior to October 1, 2023) JINAD files).
FDA must set the fee rates for FY 2024 so that the estimated 15.80 abbreviated application fees and 60 JINAD file fees will generate a total of $5,000,000. The fee for a new JINAD file request or the first submission to an existing (prior to October 1, 2023) JINAD file is $50,000 under section 741(c)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act. Therefore, the JINAD fees will generate a total of $3,000,000. Abbreviated application fees will have to generate a total of $2,000,000.
To generate this amount, the fee for a generic new animal drug application will have to be $126,582 and for those applications that are subject to the criteria set forth in section 512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act, 50 percent of that amount, or $63,291.
The generic new animal drug product fee must be paid annually by the person named as the applicant in an abbreviated application or supplemental abbreviated application for a generic new animal drug product submitted for listing under section 510 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360), and who had an abbreviated application or supplemental abbreviated application for a generic new animal drug product pending at FDA after September 1, 2008 (see 21 U.S.C. 379j-21(a)(2)). The term “generic new animal drug product” means each specific strength or potency of a particular active ingredient or ingredients in final dosage form marketed by a particular manufacturer or distributor, which is uniquely identified by the labeler code and product code portions of the National Drug Code, and for which an abbreviated application for a generic new animal drug or supplemental abbreviated application for a generic new animal drug has been approved (21 U.S.C. 379j-21(k)(6)). The product fees are to be set so that they will generate $10,000,000 in fee revenue for FY 2024.
To set generic new animal drug product fees to realize $10,000,000, FDA must make some assumptions about the number of products for which these fees will be paid in FY 2024. FDA gathered data on all generic new animal drug products that have been submitted for listing under section 510 of the FD&C Act and matched this to the list of all persons who FDA estimated would have a generic new animal drug application or supplemental abbreviated application pending after September 1, 2008. As of May 2023, FDA estimates that there is a total of 616 products submitted for listing by persons who had an abbreviated application for a generic new animal drug or supplemental abbreviated application for a generic new animal drug pending after September 1, 2008. Based on this, FDA believes that a total of 616 products will be subject to this fee in FY 2024.
In estimating the fee revenue to be generated by generic new animal drug product fees in FY 2024, FDA is estimating that 1 percent of the products invoiced, or 6 products, will qualify for minor use/minor species fee waiver (see 21 U.S.C. 379j-21(d)). FDA has made this estimate at 1 percent this year, based on historical data over the past 5 completed fiscal years of the AGDUFA program.
Accordingly, the Agency estimates that a total of 610 (616 minus 6) products will be subject to product fees in FY 2024.
FDA must set the fee rates for FY 2024 so that the estimated 610 products for which fees are paid will generate a total of $10,000,000. To generate this amount will require the fee for a generic new animal drug product, rounded to the nearest dollar, to be $16,393.
The generic new animal drug sponsor fee must be paid annually by each person who: (1) is named as the applicant in an abbreviated application for a generic new animal drug, except for an approved application for which all subject products have been removed from listing under section 510 of the FD&C Act, or has submitted an investigational submission for a generic new animal drug that has not been terminated or otherwise rendered inactive and (2) had an abbreviated application for a generic new animal drug, supplemental abbreviated application for a generic new animal drug, or investigational submission for a generic new animal drug pending at FDA after September 1, 2008 (see 21 U.S.C. 379j-21(k)(7) and 379j-21(a)(3)).
A generic new animal drug sponsor is subject to only one such fee each fiscal year (see 21 U.S.C. 379j-21(a)(3)(C)). Applicants with more than 6 approved abbreviated applications will pay 100 percent of the sponsor fee; applicants with more than 1 and fewer than 7 approved abbreviated applications will pay 75 percent of the sponsor fee; and applicants with 1 or fewer approved abbreviated applications will pay 50 percent of the sponsor fee (see 21 U.S.C. 379j-21(a)(3)(C)). The sponsor fees are to be set so that they will generate $10,000,000 in fee revenue for FY 2024.
To set generic new animal drug sponsor fees to realize $10,000,000, FDA must make some assumptions about the number of sponsors who will pay these fees in FY 2024. FDA developed data on all generic new animal drug sponsors and matched this to the list of all sponsors who had pending submissions and applications after September 1, 2008. As of May, 2023, FDA estimates that in FY 2024, 12 sponsors will pay 100 percent fees, 18 sponsors will pay 75 percent fees, and 28 sponsors will pay 50 percent fees. The total of these figures is the equivalent of 39.5 full sponsor fees (12 times 100 percent or 12, plus 18 times 75 percent or 13.5 plus 28 times 50 percent or 14).
FDA estimates that about 2 percent of all of these sponsors, or 0.79, may qualify for a minor use/minor species fee waiver (see 21 U.S.C. 379j-21(d)). FDA has made the estimate of the percentage of sponsors that will not pay fees at 2 percent this year, based on historical data over the past 5 completed fiscal years of the AGDUFA program.
Accordingly, the Agency estimates that the equivalent of 38.71 full sponsor fees (39.5 minus 0.79) are likely to be paid in FY 2024.
FDA must set the fee rates for FY 2024 so that the estimated equivalent of 38.71 full sponsor fees will generate a total of $10,000,000. To generate this amount will require the 100 percent fee for a generic new animal drug sponsor, rounded to the nearest dollar, to be $258,331. Accordingly, the fee for those paying 75 percent of the full sponsor fee will be $193,748, and the fee for those paying 50 percent of the full sponsor fee will be $129,166.
The fee rates for FY 2024 are summarized in table 1.
The types of fee waivers and reductions that applied last fiscal year still exist for FY 2024 (see 21 U.S.C. 379j-21(d)(1)). However, there is no longer an exemption for any person who submits to CVM a supplemental abbreviated application relating to a generic new animal drug approved under section 512 of the FD&C Act, solely to add the application number to the labeling of the drug in the manner specified in section 502(w)(3) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 352(w)(3)). This exemption was added in AGDUFA III, but is not a part of AGDUFA IV.
The FY 2024 fees established in the new fee schedule must be paid for the following applications/submissions that are subject to fees under AGDUFA IV and submitted on or after October 1, 2023: a generic new animal drug application, a submission requesting to establish a JINAD file, or the first BE or CMC submission to a JINAD file that was established prior to October 1, 2023. The payment must be made in U.S. currency from a U.S. bank by one of the following methods: wire transfer, electronically, check, bank draft, or U.S. postal money order made payable to the Food and Drug Administration. The preferred payment method is online using electronic check (Automated Clearing House (ACH), also known as eCheck) or credit card (Discover, VISA, MasterCard, American Express). Secure electronic payments can be submitted using the User Fees Payment Portal at
When paying by check, bank draft, or U.S. postal money order, please write your application's unique Payment Identification Number (PIN), beginning with the letters “AG”, on the upper right-hand corner of your completed Animal Generic Drug User Fee Cover Sheet. Also write FDA's post office box number (P.O. Box 979033) and PIN on the enclosed check, bank draft, or money order. Mail the payment and a copy of the completed Animal Generic Drug User Fee Cover Sheet to: Food and Drug Administration, P.O. Box 979033, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.
When paying by wire transfer, the invoice number or PIN needs to be included. Without the invoice number or PIN, the payment may not be applied, and the invoice amount would be referred to collections. The originating financial institution may charge a wire transfer fee. If the financial institution charges a wire transfer fee, it is required to add that amount to the payment to ensure that the invoice is paid in full. Use the following account information when sending a payment by wire transfer: U.S. Department of the Treasury, TREAS NYC, 33 Liberty St., New York, NY 10045, Account Name: Food and Drug Administration, Account Number: 75060099, U.S. Department of the Treasury routing/transit number: 021030004, SWIFT Number: FRNYUS33.
To send a check by a courier such as FedEx, the courier must deliver the check and printed copy of the cover sheet to U.S. Bank: U.S. Bank, Attn: Government Lockbox 979033, 3180
It is important that the fee arrives at the bank at least a day or two before the abbreviated application arrives at FDA's CVM. FDA records the official abbreviated application receipt date as the later of the following: the date the application was received by CVM, or the date U.S. Bank notifies FDA that your payment in the full amount has been received, or when the U.S. Department of the Treasury notifies FDA of payment. U.S. Bank and the U.S. Department of the Treasury are required to notify FDA within 1 working day, using the PIN described previously.
The tax identification number of FDA is 53-0196965.
By December 31, 2023, FDA will issue invoices and payment instructions for product and sponsor fees for FY 2024 using this fee schedule. Payment will be due by January 31, 2024. FDA will issue invoices in November 2024 for any products and sponsors subject to fees for FY 2024 that qualify for fees after the December 2023 billing.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA
Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
In 1973, in response to a substantial lack of ethnic and racial minorities in the mental health professions, the Center for Minority Health at the National Institute of Mental Health established the MFP. Since the MFP's transition to SAMHSA in 1992, the program has continued to facilitate the entry of graduate students and psychiatric residents into mental health careers and has increased the number of psychology, psychiatry, nursing, and social work professionals trained to provide mental health and substance abuse services to minority groups. The traditional MFP offers sustained grants to six national behavioral health professional associations: the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT), American Nurses Association (ANA), American Psychiatric Association (APsychA), American Psychological Association (APA), Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), and National Board for Certified Counselors (NBCC) which administers the program for the NBCC and the Association for Addiction Professionals (NAADAC). A seventh program, offered after the previously approved surveys, is referred to as The Interdisciplinary Minority Fellowship Program and is administered by the American Psychological Association.
This data collection includes two survey instruments, the Survey of Current SAMHSA MFP Fellows and the Survey of Alumni SAMHSA MFP Fellows. The two online surveys (with the option for a hard copy mailed through the U.S. Postal Service) will be used with the following stakeholders in the MFP grant programs:
1.
a.
2.
a.
The information gathered by these two surveys will be used to document contributions and impacts of current and former MFP fellows. The current fellows survey includes questions to assess the following measures: background items on training specialty and demographics, practicum and internship experiences, professional development activities (
This request amends the OMB approval that expired August 31, 2019, by omitting questions that gathered information on number of mentors and total mentored hours; as well as self-reported impacts on current and alumni fellows such as increased knowledge, skills, and aptitude. Both the current and alumni fellows' surveys are revised accordingly. For the alumni survey, the respondent pool has been limited only to those who have completed the MFP within the past five years. Additionally, to further streamline this data collection SAMHSA has also deleted eleven other questions that are not critical to assessing the program's progress. In turn, the following questions have been added to the survey instruments to help better assess the program's progress with meeting stated goals and plan for future cohorts of fellows:
Response choices were modified and added to align with position titles in HRSA's annual behavioral workforce survey.
Items and response choices were added or revised to align with how these are asked in federal national data collections (
The next set of questions will help SAMHSA understand the variation in responses based on characteristics of MFP fellows.
The following items will help us understand the immigrant status of our trainees and the extent to which we are diversifying our trainees to respond to the growing needs of immigrant families.
Added items or response choices (
Additional items were added to better understand how the stress and burnout being witnessed in the health care workforce generally and behavioral health workforce in particular (due to COVID-19 pandemic) may have impacted alumni fellows' intentions to stay in or leave the field.
The total annual burden estimate for conducting the surveys is shown below:
Send comments to Carlos Graham, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 15-E57, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of an application from Founders Ridge Development, LLC and Founders Ridge Development II, LLC (Minneola Town Center) (applicants) for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act. The applicants request the ITP to take federally listed Florida scrub-jays (
We must receive your written comments on or before November 22, 2023.
•
•
Erin Gawera, by U.S. mail (see
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of an application from Founders Ridge Development, LLC and Founders Ridge Development II, LLC (Minneola Town Center) (applicants) for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicants request a 15-year ITP to take scrub jays and skinks via the conversion of approximately 20.25 acres (ac) of occupied nesting, foraging, and sheltering scrub-jay habitat and 6.82 ac of occupied nesting, foraging, and sheltering skink habitat incidental to the construction and operation of a mixed use development on 325.54 ac on Lake County Property Appraiser Alternate Key Numbers 3839022, 3839020, 3853668, 3853667, and 3839020 in Sections 5 and 6, Township 22 South, and Range 26 East, Lake County, Florida. The applicants propose to mitigate for take of the scrub-jays and skinks through funding contributed in 2008 for a previous ITP (TE137074-0) obtained for this same property. The actions authorized under ITP (TE137074-0) did not occur, however, the mitigation was completed. A total of $427,242 was provided and approved by USFWS to restore habitat within the Ocala National Forest at a 2:1 ratio for 63.4 ac. This mitigation will now be applied towards the take of scrub-jays on 20.25± ac of occupied scrub-jay habitat and the take of sand skinks on the 6.82± ac of occupied sand skink habitat at a 2:1 ratio. A remaining 9.26± ac of mitigation that was paid for will not be applied to any impact for listed wildlife species.
The Service has made a preliminary determination that the applicant's proposed project, including the construction of the mixed-use development and associated infrastructure (
The Service will evaluate the application and the comments to determine whether to issue the requested permit. We will also conduct an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA to evaluate the effects of the proposed take. After considering the preceding and other matters, we will determine whether the permit issuance criteria of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA have been met. If met, the Service will issue ITP number PER0863404 to Founders Ridge Development, LLC and Founders Ridge Development II, LLC (Minneola Town Center).
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made available to the public. While you may request that we withhold your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The Service provides this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of an application from Hector Aponte (2098 Laredo Drive) (applicant) for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act. The applicant requests the ITP to take the federally listed Florida scrub-jay (
We must receive your written comments on or before November 22, 2023.
•
•
Erin Gawera, by U.S. mail (see
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of an application from Hector Aponte (2098 Laredo Drive) (applicant) for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a 10-year ITP to take scrub-jays via the conversion of approximately 0.20 acres (ac) of occupied nesting, foraging, and sheltering scrub-jay habitat incidental to the construction and operation of a single-family home on 1.6 ac on Volusia County Alt Key Parcel 2576812 in Section 13, Township 18 S, Range 31 E, Volusia County. Prior to any clearing activities, the applicant proposes to mitigate for take of the scrub-jays through the contribution of $6,399.54 to the Florida Scrub-jay Conservation Fund administered by The Nature Conservancy. The Service would require the applicant to make this contribution prior to engaging in any phase of the project.
The Service has made a preliminary determination that the applicant's proposed project, including the construction of the buildings and associated infrastructure (
The Service will evaluate the application and the comments to determine whether to issue the requested permit. We will also conduct an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA to evaluate the effects of the proposed take. After considering the preceding and other matters, we will determine whether the permit issuance criteria of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA have been met. If met, the Service will issue ITP number PER 3184250 to Hector Aponte (2098 Laredo Drive).
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made available to the public. While you may request that we withhold your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The Service provides this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of an application from Orange County Parks and Recreation Division (Horizon West Regional Park, applicant) for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act. The applicant requests the ITP to take the federally listed sand skink (
We must receive your written comments on or before November 22, 2023.
•
•
Erin Gawera, by U.S. mail (see
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of an application from Orange County Parks and Recreation Division (Horizon West Regional Park, applicant) for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a 5-year ITP to take skinks via the conversion of approximately 11.73 acres (ac) of occupied nesting, foraging, and sheltering skink habitat incidental to the construction and operation of a recreational park on 40.65 acres within a 211.90-ac site, Parcel #272309000000006 in Sections 16, 17, and 21, Township 23 South, Range 27 East, Orange County, Florida. The applicant proposes to mitigate for take of the skinks by purchasing credits equivalent to 23.46 ac of skink-occupied habitat within the Lake Livingston Conservation Bank or another Service-approved conservation bank. The Service would require the applicant to purchase the credits prior to engaging in any construction phase of the project.
The Service has made a preliminary determination that the applicant's proposed project, including the construction of the buildings and associated infrastructure (
The Service will evaluate the application and the comments to determine whether to issue the requested permit. We will also conduct an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA to evaluate the effects of the proposed take. After considering the preceding and other matters, we will determine whether the permit issuance criteria of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA have been met. If met, the Service will issue ITP number PER 3877804 to Orange County Parks and Recreation Division (Horizon West Regional Park).
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made available to the public. While you may request that we withhold your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The Service provides this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Self-Governance PROGRESS Act Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (Committee), will hold their ninth public meeting to negotiate and advise the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) on a proposed rule to implement the Practical Reforms and Other Goals To Reinforce the Effectiveness of Self-Governance and Self-Determination for Indian Tribes Act of 2019 (PROGRESS Act).
•
•
Send your comments to the Designated Federal Officer, Vickie Hanvey, by any of the following methods:
•
• Mail, hand-carry or use an overnight courier service to the Designated Federal Officer, Ms. Vickie
Vickie Hanvey, Designated Federal Officer,
This meeting is being held under the authority of the PROGRESS Act (Pub. L. 116-180), the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 U.S.C. 561
The PROGRESS Act amends subchapter I of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), 25 U.S.C. 5301
These meetings are open to the public. Detailed information about the Committee, including meeting agendas can be accessed at
Please make requests in advance for sign language interpreter services, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodations. We ask that you contact the person listed in the
Depending on the number of people who want to comment and the time available, the amount of time for individual oral comments may be limited. Requests to address the Committee during the meeting will be accommodated in the order the requests are received. Individuals who wish to expand upon their oral statements, or those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, may submit written comments to the Designated Federal Officer up to 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be sent to Vickie Hanvey listed in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of California, Davis (UC Davis) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Amador County, CA.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after November 22, 2023.
Megon Noble, NAGPRA Project Manager, University of California, Davis, 412 Mrak Hall, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, telephone (530) 752-8501, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of UC Davis. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by UC Davis.
Human remains representing, at minimum, 39 individuals were removed from Amador County, CA. Jerald Johnson, a graduate student at the Department of Anthropology directed a salvage excavation at CA-AMA-56 in 1965. There are 1,822 associated funerary objects. Of that number, 1,657 funerary objects have been located and 165 objects are currently missing. UC Davis continues to look for the missing associated funerary objects. The 1,657 located associated funerary objects are 122 lots consisting of worked shell (including Olivella and haliotis beads, pendants, ornaments, and other worked shell); 141 lots consisting of worked bone (including beads, awls/needles/pins, tubes, incised bone, and other worked bone); 34 lots consisting of worked stone (including pendants, beads, a charmstone, a steatite bowl fragment, and other worked stone); 33 lots consisting of projectile points; 677 lots consisting of chipped stone (including bifaces, blades, cores, drills, knives, and debitage); three lots consisting of worked horn; 40 lots consisting of groundstones; 16 lots consisting of quartz crystals; 74 lots consisting of ochre; two lots consisting of ash; five lots consisting of charcoal; seven lots consisting of baked clay; 17 lots consisting of historic items; 240 lots consisting of unmodified animal bones; 126 lots consisting of unmodified shells; three lots consisting of hull fragments; and 117 lots consisting of unmodified stones (including fire-affected rock). The 165 currently missing associated funerary objects are 73 lots consisting of worked shell (including Olivella shell beads and other worked shell); two lots consisting of worked stone; one bone pin; one miscellaneous worked bone; 46 lots consisting of projectile points; 30 lots consisting of chipped stone (including bifaces, knives, and debitage); two lots consisting of groundstones; one lot consisting of ochre; one lot consisting of miscellaneous minerals; three lots consisting of unmodified animal bones; three lots consisting of unmodified shells; one lot consisting of “associated material”; and one lot consisting of miscellaneous unknown/missing material.
The human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: anthropological, archaeological, biological, geographical, historical, linguistic, and oral traditional.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, UC Davis has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 39 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 1,822 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; California Valley Miwok Tribe, California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California; and the Wilton Rancheria, California.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after November 22, 2023. If competing requests for repatriation are received, UC Davis must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. UC Davis is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), California State University, Sacramento has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains were removed from Sutter County, CA.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after November 22, 2023.
Dr. Dianne Hyson, Dean of the College of Social Sciences and Interdisciplinary Studies, California State University, Sacramento, 6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95819, telephone (916) 278-6504, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of California State University, Sacramento. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by California State University, Sacramento.
In 1964, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals, were removed from CA-SUT-32 in Sutter County, CA. The age of this site is not known. Likewise, how or when the human remains came into the possession of California State University, Sacramento is unknown. No associated funerary objects are present.
The human remains in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: anthropological, archeological, folkloric, geographical, historical, kinship, linguistic, oral traditional, and expert opinion.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, California State University, Sacramento has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California; and the Wilton Rancheria, California.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after November 22, 2023. If competing requests for repatriation are received, California State University, Sacramento must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. California State University, Sacramento is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), with the assistance of California State University, Sacramento, has completed an inventory of associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between an associated funerary object and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The associated funerary object was removed from Sacramento County, CA.
Repatriation of the associated funerary object in this notice may occur on or after November 22, 2023.
Lisa Bright, California Department of Transportation, 703 B Street, Marysville, CA 95901, telephone (530) 812-4569, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of Caltrans. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by Caltrans.
Between 1959 and 1997, several different excavations were carried out at CA-SAC-166 in Sacramento County, CA, and were detailed in a Notice of Inventory Completion published in the
The associated funerary object in this notice is connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: anthropological, archeological, geographical, historical, linguistical, oral traditional, and expert opinion.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations Caltrans has determined that:
• The one object described in this notice is reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the associated funerary object described in this notice and the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California; and the Wilton Rancheria, California.
Written requests for repatriation of the associated funerary object in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the associated funerary object in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after November 22, 2023. If competing requests for repatriation are received, Caltrans must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the associated funerary object are considered a single request and not competing requests. Caltrans is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), California State University, Sacramento has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Yuba County, CA.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after November 22, 2023.
Dr. Dianne Hyson, Dean of the College of Social Sciences and Interdisciplinary Studies, California State University, Sacramento, 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819, telephone (916) 278-6504, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of California State University, Sacramento. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by California State University, Sacramento.
In the 1970s, human remains representing, at minimum, seven individuals were removed from CA-YUB-27 in Yuba County, CA, by a Yuba College field class. The collection was transferred to California State University, Sacramento in 1993. The age of the site is not known. The 12 associated funerary objects are the following individual lots: flaked stones; groundstones; modified stones; thermally-altered rocks; unmodified stones; modified shells; modified bones; faunal remains; baked clay objects; floral remain; historic materials; and uncatalogued materials.
In 1977, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were removed from CA-YUB-751 in Yuba County, CA, by a Yuba College field class. The collection was transferred to California State University, Sacramento in 1993. The age of the site is not known. The 11 associated funerary objects are the following individual lots: flaked stones; groundstones; modified stones; thermally-altered rocks; unmodified stones; modified shells; modified bones; faunal remains; floral remains; historic materials; and uncatalogued materials.
The human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: anthropological, archeological, folkloric, geographical, historical, kinship, linguistic, oral traditional, and expert opinion.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, California State University, Sacramento has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 12 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 23 lots of objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California; and the Wilton Rancheria, California.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after November 22, 2023. If competing requests for repatriation are received, California State University, Sacramento must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. California State University, Sacramento is responsible
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Field Museum has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains were removed from Palm Beach County, FL.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after November 22, 2023.
Helen Robbins, Repatriation Director, Field Museum, 1400 S Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60605, telephone (312) 665-7317, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Field Museum. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by the Field Museum.
Human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Palm Beach County, FL. James Arango Armour, the lighthouse keeper at Jupiter Station, removed the human remains from Lake Worth at an unknown time. On April 13, 1876, Armour wrote to A.W. Ward describing the human remains as “mound builder skulls.” Ward purchased the human remains from Armour on June 19, 1876, and on October 31, 1893, he sold them to the Field Museum as part of a larger collection. A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Field Museum staff in consultation with representatives of the Seminole Tribe of Florida. No associated funerary objects are present.
The human remains in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: geographical, historical, and oral traditional.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, the Field Museum has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains described in this notice and the Seminole Tribe of Florida.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after November 22, 2023. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Field Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Field Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribe identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Field Museum has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains were collected from individuals at one or more unknown locations.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after November 22, 2023.
Helen Robbins, Repatriation Director, Field Museum, 1400 S. Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60605, telephone (312) 665-7317, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Field Museum. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by the Field Museum.
Human remains were collected from two individuals at one or more unknown locations. The human remains are hair clippings identified with the tribal designation “Coquielle” and “Coquille.” (the hair clippings are represented by Field Museum catalog numbers 193214.8 and 193215.3.)
The human remains in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: historical.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, the Field Museum has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains described in this notice and the Coquille Indian Tribe.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after November 22, 2023. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Field Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Field Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of Montana has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains were removed from McKenzie County, ND.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after November 22, 2023.
Courtney Little Axe, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, telephone (406) 243-2693 or (406) 243-5660, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the University of Montana. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by the University of Montana.
Sometime during the mid-20th century, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from McKenzie County, ND, during the Smithsonian River Basin Survey, which preceded the construction of dams in the Upper Missouri River Basin, including Garrison Dam. One individual is represented by an upper jawbone (right juvenile maxilla) with one ochre-stained tooth. Associated records state “PN-29/PN-31, Garrison Dam Survey” (PN numbers appear to represent a field inventory reference system). Two additional individuals are represented by two foot bones whose distinctly different discoloration indicates two different burial contexts. The fourth individual is represented by a mandibular central incisor. Notes associated with the latter three individuals use the same “PN-29/PN-31” reference system. The notes also indicate these human remains had been collected during the Garrison Dam Survey from site “32MZ0001/Crow Flies High” and placed together in a specimen bag, and that a cultural connection existed between the remains and the Hidatsa. No associated funerary objects are present.
The human remains in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: archeological and geographical.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, the University of Montana has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of four individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains described in this notice and the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after November 22, 2023. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the University of Montana must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The University of Montana is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribe identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Staten Island Institute of Arts and Sciences (SIIAS) has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains were removed from Richmond County, NY.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after November 22, 2023.
Colleen Evans, Staten Island Institute of Arts and Sciences, 1000 Richmond Terrace Building A, Staten Island, NY 10301, telephone (718) 483-7104, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the SIIAS. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by the SIIAS.
In 1897, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Burial Ridge in Tottenville, Staten Island, Richmond County, NY, during excavations led by Colonel Robert D. Wainwright. One skull was given to William T. Davis, who donated the individual to SIIAS in 1942. Stored along with this skull are five bags and three boxes containing the fragmentary human remains of at least one additional individual. Most likely, these human remains, too, derive from Col. Wainwright's excavation. No associated funerary objects are present.
In June 1927, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Burial Ridge in Tottenville, Staten Island, Richmond County, NY, by J. Otis Swift, who gave them to the SIIAS. The human remains consist of 16 human bone fragments. No associated funerary objects are present.
During the spring of 1960, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Burial Ridge in Tottenville, Staten Island, Richmond County, NY, by Jerome Jacobsen, an archeologist working with Columbia University. The University donated the individual to SIIAS in 1961. The human remains belong to an adult female. No associated funerary objects are present.
The human remains in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: geographical, oral traditional, and historical.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, the SIIAS has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of four individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains described in this notice and the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; and the Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after November 22, 2023. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the SIIAS must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The SIIAS is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Field Museum has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after November 22, 2023.
Helen Robbins, Repatriation Director, Field Museum, 1400 S Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60605, telephone (312) 665-7317, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Field Museum. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by the Field Museum.
Human remains were collected from seven individuals at one or more unknown locations. The human remains are hair clippings identified with the tribal designation “Delaware.” (The hair clippings are represented by Field Museum catalog numbers 193207.5, 193208.10, 193209.1, 193209.11, 193210.3, 193210.5, 103213.5.) Museum staff believe they were collected under the direction of Franz Boas and Frederick Ward Putnam for the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition. They were accessioned into the collection in 1939. No information regarding the individual's name, sex, age, or geographic location has been found. No associated funerary objects are present.
The human remains in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: historical.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, the Field Museum has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of seven individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains described in this notice and the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma, and the Delaware Tribe of Indians.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and, if joined to a request from one or more of the Indian Tribes, the Munsee-Delaware Nation or the Eelünaapéewi Lahkéewiit, both non-federally recognized Indian groups.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after November 22, 2023. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Field Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Field Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the California State University, Sacramento intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of objects of cultural patrimony and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The cultural items were removed from Placer and Yuba Counties, CA.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after November 22, 2023.
Dr. Dianne Hyson, Dean of the College of Social Sciences and Interdisciplinary Studies, California State University, Sacramento, 6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95819, telephone (916) 278-6504, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the California State University, Sacramento. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records held by the California State University, Sacramento.
During the 1960s-1980's, California State University, Sacramento students and faculty surveyed and investigated sites along creeks and ravines in Placer County, CA, ahead of several development projects (CA-PLA-47, PLA-63, PLA-64, PLA-66, PLA-67, PLA-69, PLA-70, PLA-71, PLA-72, PLA-73, PLA-74, PLA-75, PLA-76, PLA-77, PLA-78, PLA-80, PLA-81, PLA-83, PLA-90, PLA-92, PLA-93, PLA-94, PLA-95, PLA-99, PLA-105, PLA-106, PLA-107/H, PLA-225, PLA-271/H, PLA-663/H, and four sites without a designated name or trinomial (31-109, 31-60, 31-108, 31-78)). As a result, 13 cultural items were collected from several of the sites. The 13 objects of cultural patrimony consist of the following individual lots: flaked stones; groundstones; unmodified stones; thermally-altered rocks; modified stones; modified shells; modified bones; historic materials; faunal remains; floral remains; baked clay objects; soil samples; and uncatalogued materials.
At an unknown date, 10 cultural items were collected from CA-PLA-292, PLA-293, and another, unknown location (31-62) by an individual who subsequently donated them to California
In the 1960s and 1970s, American River Junior College (ARJC) conducted investigations at several sites in Placer and Yuba Counties (CA-PLA-2907, CA-PLA-2908, possibly PLA-38, and CA-YUB-05), which resulted in the collection of 12 cultural items. In 1977, the collections from these sites were transferred to California State University, Sacramento along with other ARJC collections. The 12 objects of cultural patrimony consist of the following individual lots: flaked stones; groundstones; modified bones; modified shells; modified stones; thermally-altered rocks; unmodified stones; baked clay objects; floral remains; faunal remains; historic materials; and uncatalogued materials.
At an unknown date, one cultural item was collected from a quarry site near Bowman, CA, and was donated to California State University, Sacramento. The object of cultural patrimony is one lot consisting of uncatalogued materials.
Sometime during the 1920s and 1930s, Anthony Zallio, a private collector, collected two cultural items from sites in Placer County, CA. In 1951, Zallio's collection was posthumously donated to the Department of Anthropology at Sacramento State College, CA (now California State University, Sacramento). The two objects of cultural patrimony are a flaked stone and a modified stone.
In the 1970s, a cultural item was donated to the Anthropology Museum at California State University, Sacramento that was said to have been found on the North Fork of the American River, possibly near CA-PLA-34. The one object of cultural patrimony is a steatite pipe.
In the 1970s, cultural items were collected from an unknown location near Bowman, CA, and at an unknown date, they were donated to California State University, Sacramento. The five objects of cultural patrimony consist of the following individual lots: flaked stones; modified shells; faunal remains; historic materials; and uncatalogued materials.
In 1990, one cultural item was collected at historic Virginiatown, in Placer County, CA, during a California State University, Sacramento-sponsored field school. The object of cultural patrimony is one lot consisting of archaeologically recovered Native American objects.
At an unknown date, two cultural items were removed from CA-PLA-36 in Placer County, CA. The circumstances surrounding their recovery and curation at California State University, Sacramento are not known. The two objects of cultural patrimony are one lot consisting of flaked stones and one lot consisting of groundstones.
At an unknown date, five cultural items were removed from CA-PLA-2879, in Placer County, CA. The circumstances surrounding their recovery and curation at California State University, Sacramento are not known. The five objects of cultural patrimony consist of the following individual lots: worked shells; faunal remains; flaked stones; unmodified stones; and historic materials.
At an unknown date, one cultural item was collected from an unknown site in Yuba County, CA, by Charles McKee. Subsequently, this item was donated to California State University, Sacramento by his estate. The object of cultural patrimony is a modified stone.
The cultural items in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: anthropological, archeological, geographical, historical, kinship, linguistic, oral traditional, and expert opinion.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, the California State University, Sacramento has determined that:
• The 53 cultural items described above have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group or culture itself, rather than property owned by an individual.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the cultural items and the United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after November 22, 2023. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the California State University, Sacramento must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The California State University, Sacramento is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribe identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), California State University, Sacramento has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Placer County, CA.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects
Dr. Dianne Hyson, Dean of the College of Social Sciences and Interdisciplinary Studies, California State University, Sacramento, 6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95819, telephone (916) 278-6504, email:
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of California State University, Sacramento. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by California State University, Sacramento.
In 1966, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from CA-PLA-14 in Placer County, CA, by a graduate student of California State University, Sacramento. Primary occupation of PLA-14 is estimated to occurred during the Late Horizon through Historic Periods (roughly A.D. 1100 to early 1800s). The 12 associated funerary objects are the following individual lots: baked clay objects; faunal remains; flaked stones; groundstones; modified stones; modified bones; modified shells; thermally-altered rocks; unmodified stones; floral remains; historic materials; and uncatalogued materials.
In the 1960s, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from CA-PLA-41 in Placer County, CA, by a California State University, Sacramento field class. Occupation of PLA-41 is estimated to have occurred during the Middle to Late Horizons (roughly 550 BC through A.D. 1700s). The 15 associated funerary objects are the following individual lots: faunal remains; flaked stones; groundstones; modified stones; modified bones; modified shells; unmodified stones; thermally-altered rocks; baked clay objects; ash; floral remains; soil samples; historic materials; unidentified stones; and uncatalogued materials.
In 1963, human remains representing, at minimum, 10 individuals were removed from CA-PLA-68 in Placer County, CA, by American River Junior College. The collection was transferred to California State University, Sacramento at an unknown date. Occupation of the site is estimated to have occurred from A.D. 700-900 onward. The six associated funerary objects are the following individual lots: faunal remains; flaked stones; groundstones; modified shells; floral remains; and uncatalogued materials.
In the 1960s, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from CA-PLA-85 in Placer County, CA, during a survey by a California State University, Sacramento student. Occupation of PLA-85 is estimated to have occurred during the Late Horizon (roughly A.D. 1100-1700s), with other periods of occupation possible. The four associated funerary objects are the following individual lots: flaked stones; groundstones; faunal remains; and uncatalogued materials.
In the 1960s, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from CA-PLA-86 in Placer County, CA, during a survey by a California State University, Sacramento student. Occupation of PLA-86 is estimated to have occurred during the Late Horizon (roughly A.D. 1100-1700s), with other periods of occupation possible. The five associated funerary objects are the following individual lots: flaked stones; groundstones; faunal remains; unmodified stones; and uncatalogued materials.
In the 1960s, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from CA-PLA-87 in Placer County, CA, during a survey by a California State University, Sacramento student. The age of the site is not known. The five associated funerary objects are the following individual lots: flaked stones; groundstones; unmodified stones; faunal remains; and uncatalogued materials.
In the 1960s, human remains representing, at minimum, eight individuals were removed from CA-PLA-142 in Placer County, CA, during several different excavations. In 1962-1963, American River Junior College (ARJC) conducted excavations at the site. The collection was transferred to California State University, Sacramento at an unknown date. In 1963, California State University, Sacramento was contacted by local police to recover archeological materials discovered during waterline work. A collection made by a local citizen prior to the ARJC excavation was donated to Sacramento State in 2005. Occupation of PLA-142 is estimated to have occurred during the Late Horizon (roughly A.D. 1100-1700s), with possible use during the Historic Period. The 11 associated funerary objects are the following individual lots: flaked stones; groundstones; faunal remains; unmodified stones; thermally-altered rocks; modified stones; modified bones; modified shells; floral remains; historic materials; and uncatalogued materials.
In the 1960's, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from CA-PLA-194 in Placer County, CA, by American River Junior College (ARJC). The collection was transferred to California State University, Sacramento in 1977. Occupation of PLA-194 is estimated to have occurred during the Late Horizon (roughly A.D. 1100-1700s), with possible use during the Historic Period. The 12 associated funerary objects are the following individual lots: baked clay objects; flaked stones; groundstones; faunal remains; unmodified stones; thermally-altered rocks; modified stones; modified bones; modified shells; floral remains; historic materials; and uncatalogued materials.
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from school property in Placer County, CA. There is little documentation for the collection. The associated funerary objects include one lot consisting of flaked stones.
The human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: anthropological, archeological, folkloric, geographical, historical, kinship, linguistic, oral traditional, and expert opinion.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, California State University, Sacramento has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 27 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 71 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California; and the Wilton Rancheria, California.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after November 22, 2023. If competing requests for repatriation are received, California State University, Sacramento must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. California State University, Sacramento is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Filson Historical Society has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Jefferson County, KY.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after November 22, 2023.
Kelly Hyberger, The Filson Historical Society, 1310 South 3rd Street, Louisville, KY 40208, telephone (502) 635-5083, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Filson Historical Society. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by the Filson Historical Society.
Human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Jefferson County, KY. In 1931, Edward Rutledge Lilly collected this individual between Goose Creek and Harrod's Creek, near River Road, in Louisville, KY. Lilly donated this ancestor to the Filson Historical Society in 1981. The 15 associated funerary objects are six stone blanks, one stone drill, six projectile points, one scraper, and one piece of rounded stone.
The human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: archeological, geographical, and oral traditional.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, the Filson Historical Society has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• The 15 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Shawnee Tribe; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after November 22, 2023. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Filson Historical Society must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Filson Historical Society is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Hastings Museum intends to repatriate a certain cultural item that meets the definition of an unassociated funerary object and that has a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The cultural item was removed from Bartow County, GA.
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice may occur on or after November 22, 2023.
Dan Brosz, Hastings Museum, 1330 N Burlington Avenue, Hastings, NE 68901, telephone (402) 462-2399, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Hastings Museum. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records held by the Hastings Museum.
At an unknown date, one cultural item was removed from an unidentified mound in Bartow County, GA, by R.E. Dodge. This unassociated funerary object came to the Hastings Museum between 1926 and 1931. The unassociated funerary object is an earring made from animal bone, and it is 1.25 inches in length.
The cultural item in this notice is connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: geographical.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, the Hastings Museum has determined that:
• The one cultural item described above is reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the cultural item and The Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after November 22, 2023. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Hastings Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural item are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Hastings Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribe identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Mississippi State University (CIA) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Oktibbeha County, MS.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after November 22, 2023.
Jimmy Hardin, CIA Director; Tony Boudreaux, CIA Curator; and Shawn Lambert, Assistant Professor and NAGPRA Coordinator, Cobb Institute of Archaeology, 340 Lee Boulevard, Mississippi State, MS 39762, telephone (662) 325-3826, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Cobb Institute of Archaeology. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by the Cobb Institute of Archaeology.
Human remains representing, at minimum, 157 individuals were removed from Oktibbeha County, MS. Lyon's Bluff (22OK520) is a mound and village complex located in the Black Prairie region in northeastern Oktibbeha County, MS. The site was first occupied between A.D. 1100 and 1650. During archeological work in 2021, a second Choctaw occupation, dating from the late 1700s to circa 1850, was discovered.
In the summers of 1934 and 1935, Moreau Chambers, in association with
In 1965, Richard Marshall, an archeologist at Mississippi State University, together with members of the Mississippi Archaeological Association (MAA) in Oktibbeha County, excavated a midden area in the northeast areas of the site. In 1967, Marshall and others from Mississippi State University and the University of Mississippi conducted a joint field school, during which two large blocks were excavated and the human remains of, at minimum, 67 individuals were removed and sent to Mississippi State University. Marshall continued to excavate at Lyon's Bluff throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s, during which he removed additional burials.
Following Marshall's excavations, Mississippi State University continued to hold field schools at Lyon's Bluff, in 2001 and 2003. Most recently, in the summer of 2021, Shawn Lambert, Assistant Professor at Mississippi State University, in collaboration with the Choctaw, led an archeological survey and excavation at the site. Their work revealed a significant historic Choctaw component overlying three pre-European Contact house mounds.
The 442 associated funerary objects are 75 lots consisting of ceramics sherds, 56 shell fragments, 143 lots consisting of faunal remains, 25 pieces of lithic debitage, 10 stone tools, 45 lots consisting of daub, one worked fossil, eight charcoal samples, seven soil samples, five bone awls, three pieces of fired clay, two drilled bear teeth, one charred corn cob, two pieces of limestone, two turtle shells, one necklace composed of shell beads and bear teeth, four ceramic ear plugs, one stone, three ground stones, two shell beads, three charred acorns, one charred seed, 10 pieces of sandstone, 11 worked shells, two greenstone celts, six bone tools, four ceramic discoidals, two shell gorgets, one fire-cracked rock, one partial stone palette, one nail, one gorget composed of incised turtle shell, one stone ear plug, one nutting stone, and one utilized deer antler.
The human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: archeological, oral traditional, and other information or expert opinion.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, the Cobb Institute of Archaeology has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 157 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 442 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; and The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after November 22, 2023. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Cobb Institute of Archaeology must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Cobb Institute of Archaeology is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; amendment.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), California State University, Sacramento has amended a Notice of Inventory Completion published in the
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after November 22, 2023.
Dr. Dianne Hyson, Dean of the College of Social Sciences and Interdisciplinary Studies, California State University, Sacramento, 6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95819, telephone (916) 278-6504, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of California State University, Sacramento. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the amendments and determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by California State University, Sacramento.
This notice amends the determinations published in a Notice of
From CA-SAC-127 in Sacramento County, CA, the 24,853 associated funerary objects (previously identified as 24,850 associated funerary objects) include baked clay; faunal and floral remains; flaked and ground stones; historic materials; modified shells, bones, stone, and wood; non-cultural items; soil samples; ash; charcoal; pigment; unidentified materials; unmodified stones; and thermally altered rocks. Of this number, 136 objects are currently missing from the collection. California State University, Sacramento continues to look for these 136 missing objects.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, California State University, Sacramento has determined that:
• The human remains represent the physical remains of 379 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 25,176 objects described in this amended notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary objects and the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California; and the Wilton Rancheria, California.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after November 22, 2023. If competing requests for repatriation are received, California State University, Sacramento must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. California State University, Sacramento is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Field Museum has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains were collected from individuals at one or more unknown locations.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after November 22, 2023.
Helen Robbins, Repatriation Director, Field Museum, 1400 S Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60605, telephone (312) 665-7317, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Field Museum. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by the Field Museum.
Human remains were collected from 10 individuals at one or more unknown locations. The human remains are hair clippings identified with the tribal designation “Menominee” (Field Museum catalog numbers 193207.8, 193208.1, 193211.8, 193213.11, 193214.6, 193214.7, 193216.2, 193216.3, 193216.4, 193216.7). Field Museum staff believe they were collected under the direction of Franz Boas and Frederick Ward Putnam for the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago. The hair clippings were accessioned into the Field Museum's collection in 1939. No information regarding the individual's name, sex, age, or geographic location has been found. No associated funerary objects are present.
The human remains in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: historical.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, the Field Museum has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 10 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains described in this notice and the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after November 22, 2023. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Field Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Field Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribe identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; correction.
The National Park Service published in the
Daphne Yun, Acting Public Affairs Officer, Gateway National Recreation Area, 210 New York Avenue, Staten Island, New York 10305, by telephone (718) 815-3651, or by email
In the
United States International Trade Commission.
October 26, 2023 at 9:30 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Commission vote on Inv. No. 731-TA-921 (Fourth Review) (Folding Gift Boxes from China). The Commission currently is scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission on November 3, 2023.
5.
Sharon Bellamy, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer, 202-205-2000.
The Commission is holding the meeting under the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b). In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.
Request for applications.
The Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries (Joint Board), established under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), is responsible for the enrollment of individuals who wish to perform actuarial services under ERISA. To assist in its examination duties mandated by ERISA, the Joint Board has established the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations (Advisory Committee) in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The current Advisory Committee members' terms expire on February 28, 2025. Recently, a vacancy became available on the Advisory Committee, and the Joint Board seeks applications to fill that vacancy. This notice describes the Advisory Committee and invites applications from those interested in serving on the Advisory Committee for the period March 1, 2024-February 28, 2025.
Applications for membership on the Advisory Committee must be received by December 1, 2023.
Send applications electronically with APPLICATION FOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE inserted in subject line to
Elizabeth Van Osten, Designated Federal Officer, Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations, at 202-317-3648 or
To qualify for enrollment to perform actuarial services under ERISA, an applicant must satisfy certain experience and knowledge requirements, which are set forth in the Joint Board's regulations. An applicant may satisfy the knowledge requirement by successful completion of Joint Board examinations in basic actuarial mathematics and methodology and in actuarial mathematics and methodology relating to pension plans qualifying under ERISA.
The Joint Board, the Society of Actuaries, and the American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries jointly offer examinations acceptable to
The Advisory Committee plays an integral role in the examination program by assisting the Joint Board in offering examinations that enable examination candidates to demonstrate the knowledge necessary to qualify for enrollment. The Advisory Committee's duties, which are strictly advisory, include (1) recommending topics for inclusion on the Joint Board examinations, (2) developing and reviewing examination questions, (3) recommending proposed examinations, (4) reviewing examination results and recommending passing scores, and (5) providing other recommendations and advice relative to the examinations, as requested by the Joint Board.
Generally, members are appointed for a 2-year term. However, the member selected pursuant to this notice will be appointed for 12 months, beginning March 1, 2024. Members may seek reappointment for additional consecutive terms.
Members are expected to attend approximately 4 meetings each calendar year and are reimbursed for travel expenses in accordance with applicable government regulations. For this appointment, the member is expected to attend approximately 4 meetings. Meetings may be held in-person or by teleconference. In general, members are expected to devote 125 to 175 hours, including meeting time, to the work of the Advisory Committee over the course of a year.
The Joint Board seeks to appoint an Advisory Committee that is fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented and functions to be performed. Every effort is made to ensure that most points of view extant in the enrolled actuary profession are represented on the Advisory Committee. To that end, the Joint Board seeks to appoint members from each of the main practice areas of the enrolled actuary profession, including small employer plans, large employer plans, and multiemployer plans. In addition, to ensure diversity of points of view, the Joint Board limits the number of members affiliated with any one actuarial organization or employed with any one firm.
Membership normally will be limited to actuaries currently enrolled by the Joint Board. However, individuals having academic or other special qualifications of particular value for the Advisory Committee's work also will be considered for membership. Federally registered lobbyists and individuals affiliated with Joint Board enrollment examination preparation courses are not eligible to serve on the Advisory Committee.
Advisory Committee members are appointed as Special Government Employees (SGEs). As such, members are subject to certain ethical standards applicable to SGEs. Upon appointment, each member will be required to provide written confirmation that he/she does not have a financial interest in a Joint Board examination preparation course. In addition, each member will be required to attend annual ethics training.
To receive consideration, an individual interested in serving on the Advisory Committee must submit (1) a signed, cover letter expressing interest in serving on the Advisory Committee and describing his/her professional qualifications, and (2) a resume and/or curriculum vitae. Applications must be submitted electronically to
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Nexus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before November 22, 2023. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before November 22, 2023.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on September 20, 2023, Nexus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 10300 128th Avenue, Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin 53158-7336 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to import the listed controlled substance for research and analytical testing purposes. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the application of SolarPTL, LLC, for expansion of the scope of recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the agency's preliminary finding to grant the application.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before November 7, 2023.
Comments may be submitted as follows:
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA is providing notice that SolarPTL, LLC. (PTL), is applying for an expansion of current recognition as a NRTL. PTL requests the addition of one test standard to the NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the applicable test standard and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition, as well as for an expansion or renewal of recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the
PTL currently has one facility (site) recognized by OSHA for product testing and certification, with the headquarters located at: SolarPTL, LLC, 1107 West Fairmont Drive, Tempe, Arizona 85282. A complete listing of PTL's scope of recognition is available at
PTL submitted an application, dated June 1, 2021 (OSHA-2010-0013-0005), to expand recognition as a NRTL to include one additional test standard. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA performed an on-site assessment related to this application on August 16-17, 2022, where OSHA found nonconformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910. PTL addressed the nonconformances adequately and OSHA has no objection to the addition of this standard to the scope of recognition.
Table 1 shows the test standard found in PTL's application for expansion for testing and certification of products under the NRTL Program.
PTL submitted an acceptable application for expansion of the scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file and pertinent documentation preliminarily indicates that PTL can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding its recognition to include the addition of the test standard shown in Table 1, above, for NRTL testing and certification. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of PTL's application.
OSHA seeks public comment on this preliminary determination.
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether PTL meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of recognition as a NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits.
Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer time period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if it is not adequately justified.
To review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. These materials also are generally available online at
OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner. After addressing the issues raised by these comments, staff will make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health on whether to grant PTL's application for expansion of the scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application. In making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
OSHA will publish a public notice of the final decision in the
James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393; Sept. 18, 2020), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice.
We are proposing to request an extension from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of one currently approved information collection used to obtain information from private foundations or other entities in order to design, construct and equip Presidential libraries. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we invite you to comment on this proposed combined information collection.
We must receive written comments on or before December 22, 2023.
Send comments to Paperwork Reduction Act Comments (MP), Room 4100; National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road; College Park, MD 20740-6001, or email them to
Tamee Fechhelm, Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, by email at
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed information collections. If you have comments or suggestions, they should address one or more of the following points: (a) whether the proposed information collection is necessary for NARA to properly perform its functions; (b) our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection and its accuracy; (c) ways we could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information we collect; (d) ways we could minimize the burden on respondents of collecting the information, including through information technology; and (e) whether the collection affects small businesses.
We will summarize any comments you submit and include the summary in our request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
In this notice, we solicit comments concerning the following information collection:
National Science Foundation.
Notice of a new system of records.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is creating a new system of records: NSF-80, Education and Training Application Data System (ETAP). This new system of records will contain records about individuals interested in participating in NSF education and training activities, and individuals engaged in the planning, management, and implementation of those activities. Records will bolster the agency's capacity to conduct robust evidence-building activities, including monitoring, targeted research, and rigorous evaluation of its education and training activities.
This system notice is effective as of October 23, 2023. The routine uses described in this notice will take effect on November 22, 2023, unless modified by a subsequent notice to incorporate comments received from the public. Submit comments on or before November 22, 2023.
You may submit comments, identified as “SORN NSF-80 (ETAP),” by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
If you wish to submit general questions about the proposed new system of records NSF-80, please contact Dorothy Aronson, Senior Agency Official for Privacy, at
NSF supports students and early career professionals at all stages of their academic journey through a wide range of opportunities that foster professional growth, facilitating exposure to and induction into the practice of science. The new system of records, NSF-80, Education and Training Application Data System (ETAP), will be used to collect, maintain, and manage individual applications to education and training opportunities funded by NSF, allow tracking of participants' program experiences and career outcomes over time, and provide high-quality data that NSF can use to respond to Administration priorities, the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (Evidence Act), the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, and the CHIPS+ Act.
Education and Training Application Data System Records (ETAP), NSF-80.
Unclassified.
National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22314.
Chief Evaluation Officer and Division Director, Division of Information Systems, NSF.
42 U.S.C. 1862 & 1870; 44 U.S.C. 3101; Public Law 105-277, t. 4, sec. 414, as amended, codified at 8 U.S.C. 1101 note (NSF S-STEM Program); and other program statutes, including 42 U.S.C. 1862p-6, 42 U.S.C. 1862p-7, 42 U.S.C. 1862p-13, 42 U.S.C. 1862p-15, 42 U.S.C. 1862t, 42 U.S.C. 1869c, 42 U.S.C.1885a.
(1) To provide high-quality data that NSF can use for robust evidence-building activities including monitoring, targeted research, and rigorous evaluations of its activities, including programs.
(2) To provide the public with a transparent, accessible, and centralized location of information on NSF education and training opportunities and reduce burden on individuals (mostly students), who will be able to use a common application to apply to multiple training opportunities funded by NSF.
(3) To lower barriers to entry into NSF programs for new and aspiring Principal Investigators (PIs), who will be able to leverage a robust and secure data collection system, free of charge, to manage applications to their projects, and reduce administrative costs for existing PIs.
(4) To provide NSF's community of stakeholders (including PIs, Co-PIs, and NSF program officers and leadership) with timely access to data analytics on applicants and participants to inform decision making and support improvement efforts.
(5) To enable longitudinal tracking of outputs and outcomes to assess the effectiveness of NSF's education and training activities and inform decisions.
(6) To provide demographic data that NSF can use to ensure equitable representation of groups that are traditionally underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).
(7) To recognize the achievements of distinguished individuals, their actions, products, or ideas and disseminate information of relevant opportunities to support individuals' careers in STEM.
(8) To support NSF efforts to disseminate information about the agency's education and training opportunities, as appropriate, and about the effectiveness of its activities.
(9) To provide data that may be used for NSF compliance with applicable laws and policies, and conflict of interest management.
This system contains information on members of the public interested in participating in education and training opportunities supported by NSF. These include individuals who apply to, participate in, and/or are supported by NSF education and training programs, projects and activities, including but not limited to students, other youth and early career individuals, teachers, higher education faculty, mentors, administrators, and parents/legal guardians (where applicable). The system also maintains information on individuals engaged in the management and implementation of those opportunities, including PIs and Co-PIs of NSF awards and their designees involved in recruitment and selection of program participants. The system covers these individuals only to the extent that the records are about the individual and are retrieved from the system by that individual's name or other personally assigned identifier.
Records vary by categories of individuals and, for applicants, the type of education and training opportunities to which they are applying. Records may include information such as individuals' names, contact information, date of birth, demographic information, parental education and occupation, higher education degree information, school/institution names, academic records, college financial aid information, prior research experiences, work experience (if a teacher: including school name, teaching grade and subject, years of teaching experience, teaching certification), awareness of a given program, opportunity applying for, preferences for data sharing with other NSF opportunities for which they have not applied, additional materials requested by PIs (which may include personal statement, transcripts, CV or résumé, references' contact information, and other materials), reference letters of support (relationship with applicant, applicant skills and abilities assessments, and letter of recommendation), admission decisions, acceptances, participation, and NSF funding, program experiences (weeks spent in program, support from faculty and staff, program activities, type of mentor, time spent with mentor, experiences with mentor, benefits of program, satisfaction with experience) and feedback, and employment information. In addition, records may include information about the opportunity, including its NSF award/proposal ID and its associated metadata, such as opportunity name, location, external website link, application window, application type (open competition or invitation-only), opportunity start and end date, description of the opportunity, eligibility requirements and certification, fields of study, and research topics or keywords.
Individuals registering with NSF (1) to apply and participate in NSF education and training opportunities (prospective applicants and participants), or (2) to create, manage, or administer such opportunities (PIs, Co-PIs, and their designated individuals, NSF staff and external qualified reviewers). System data on individuals may be collected from the individuals directly, from third-party individuals or entities, or be derived from other related NSF systems of records (
The following NSF standard routine uses apply:
1. Members of Congress. Information from a system may be disclosed to congressional offices in response to inquiries from the congressional offices made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
2. Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Compliance. Information from a system may be disclosed to the Department of Justice or the Office of Management and Budget in order to obtain advice regarding NSF's obligations under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act.
3. Counsel. Information from a system may be disclosed to NSF's legal representatives, including the Department of Justice and other outside counsel, where the agency is a party in litigation or has an interest in litigation and the information is relevant and necessary to such litigation, including when any of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation: (a) NSF, or any component thereof; (b) any NSF employee in his or her official capacity; (c) any NSF employee in his or her individual capacity, where the Department of Justice has agreed to, or is considering a request to, represent the employee; or (d) the United States, where NSF determines that litigation is likely to affect the agency or any of its components.
4. National Archives, General Services Administration. Information from a system may be disclosed to representatives of the General Services Administration and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) during the course of records management inspections conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
5. Response to an Actual or Suspected Compromise or Breach of Personally Identifiable Information. NSF may disclose information from the system to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (1) NSF suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) NSF has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals; NSF (including its information systems, programs, and operations); the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with NSF efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm. Furthermore, NSF may disclose information from the system to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when NSF determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in: (1) Responding to a suspected or confirmed breach; or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
6. Courts. Information from a system may be disclosed to the Department of Justice or other agencies in the event of a pending court or formal administrative proceeding, when the information is relevant and necessary to that proceeding, for the purpose of representing the government, or in the course of presenting evidence, or the information may be produced to parties or counsel involved in the proceeding in the course of pre-trial discovery.
7. Contractors. Information from a system may be disclosed to contractors, agents, experts, consultants, or others performing work on a contract, service, cooperative agreement, job, or other activity for NSF and who have a need to access the information in the performance of their duties or activities for NSF.
8. Audit. Information from a system may be disclosed to government agencies and other entities authorized to perform audits, including financial and other audits, of the agency and its activities.
9. Law Enforcement. Information from a system may be disclosed, where the information indicates a violation or potential violation of civil or criminal law, including any rule, regulation or order issued pursuant thereto, to appropriate Federal, State, or local agencies responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing such statute, rule, regulation, or order.
10. Disclosure When Requesting Information. Information from a system may be disclosed to Federal, State, or local agencies which maintain civil, criminal, or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, such as current licenses, if necessary, to obtain information relevant to an agency decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit.
11. To the news media and the public when: (1) A matter has become public
In addition to the above standard routine uses, information may be routinely disclosed:
12. To PIs, Co-Pis, and their designated individuals (for opportunities funded through NSF awards), and NSF staff and external qualified reviewers (for opportunities administered by NSF) for their assessment of applicants or nominees (and their application materials, where applicable), including in the case of individuals who have expressed interest in such opportunity or provided consent to be contacted by opportunities they have not applied for, as part of the application review process and to support operations; and to other Government agencies or other entities needing information regarding the applicants or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy.
13. To NSF partners, affiliates, or grantees, as well as other entities to merge records, to carry out studies for, or to otherwise assist NSF with program management, implementation, evaluation, or reporting.
14. To applicants (including the individual nominee or ultimate participant), their nominators or reference writers, and the institution they are applying to, attending, planning to attend, or employed by, who may be given information (such as name, field of study, and other information directly relating to the NSF opportunity, review status including the admission decision, time of participation, whether receiving international travel allowance or a mentoring assistantship), for purposes of facilitating application review and admissions decisions, administering the program or award, and supporting dissemination and student engagement activities.
15. To the Department of Treasury for preparation of checks or electronic fund transfer authorizations in the case of participants receiving stipends directly from the Government.
16. To the National Student Clearinghouse, for tracking applicants and participants through their postsecondary enrollment and graduation trajectories, and other third-party entities, for the purposes of validating contact information, disambiguating records, or cross-checking of information, and tracking education or employment outcomes.
17. To an agency or other organization, such as the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES), for the purposes of merging or linking needed data for monitoring, research, or evaluation purposes, to the extent authorized by applicable privacy and security laws, regulations, and NSF policies and guidance.
18. To the public, about an individual's involvement with NSF education and training programs (participant name, baccalaureate institution, current institution, and field of study) for purposes of media releases or other public announcements about these programs. Other information about the individual's involvement in these programs may be publicly disclosed with written consent of that individual (or, where applicable, the individual's legal guardian or other legal representative).
Records are stored on electronic digital media.
Records are retrieved by name, date of birth, email, identification number, zip code, state, or institution.
This System of Records is governed by one or more general and/or NSF-specific (Record Group RG-0307) records retention schedules approved by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and applicable to NSF proposal, reviewer, and grant files and related administrative records. These schedules can be found at
The National Science Foundation's IT Security and Privacy program includes policies, plans, training, and technical safeguards to protect sensitive information, including personally identifiable information (PII). NSF routinely reviews PII in IT systems in addition to monitoring technical, physical, and administrative controls in place to assure that PII is appropriately protected. NSF's major applications and general support systems are assessed and authorized by NSF's continuous monitoring and ongoing authorization program. The authorization process requires a thorough security and privacy control review.
All NSF systems are covered by a system security plan, and major applications and general support systems are authorized to operate. Applications and devices hosted on the NSF network are subjected to extensive vulnerability scanning and compliance checking against standard security configurations. Robust virus protection capabilities, anti-malware, and network intrusion detection and prevention devices provide 24/7 protection against external threats. NSF's strong access controls ensure that resources are made available only to authorized users, programs, processes or systems by reference to rules of access that are defined by attributes and policies.
NSF uses the capabilities of a Trusted internet Connections (TIC) compliant provider for routing agency network traffic and uses the federally provided intrusion detection system (IDS), including advanced continuous monitoring and risk management analysis. NSF has a well-established computer security incident response program. NSF's incident response procedures include a strong digital forensics capability to investigate and review data and identify relevant evidence and malicious activity.
Follow the procedures found at 45 CFR part 613 (NSF Privacy Act Regulations).
Follow the procedures found at 45 CFR part 613.
See 45 CFR part 613.
None.
This is a new system of records and has not been previously published in the
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB review; comment request.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314, or send email to
NSF may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number, and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The draft NSF PAPPG was made available for review by the public on the NSF website at
“To promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense. . . .”
The Act authorized and directed NSF to initiate and support:
• Basic scientific research and research fundamental to the engineering process;
• Programs to strengthen scientific and engineering research potential;
• Science and engineering education programs at all levels and in all the various fields of science and engineering;
• Programs that provide a source of information for policy formulation; and
• Other activities to promote these ends.
NSF's core purpose resonates clearly in everything it does: promoting achievement and progress in science and engineering and enhancing the potential for research and education to contribute to the Nation. While NSF's vision of the future and the mechanisms it uses to carry out its charges have evolved significantly over the last six decades, its ultimate mission remains the same.
Support is made primarily through grants, contracts, and other agreements awarded to approximately 3,000 institutions of higher education (IHEs), K-12 school systems, for-profit organizations, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the U.S. The awards are based mainly on merit evaluations of proposals submitted to the Foundation.
It has been estimated that the public expends an average of approximately 120 burden hours for each proposal submitted. Since the Foundation expects to receive approximately 46,500 proposals in FY 2024, an estimated 5,580,000 burden hours will be placed on the public.
The Foundation has based its reporting burden on the review of approximately 46,500 new proposals expected during FY 2024. It has been estimated that anywhere from one hour to 20 hours may be required to review a proposal. We have estimated that approximately 5 hours are required to review an average proposal. Each proposal receives an average of 3 reviews, resulting in approximately 697,500 hours per year.
The information collected on the reviewer background questionnaire (NSF 428A) is used by managers to maintain an automated database of reviewers for the many disciplines represented by the proposals submitted to the Foundation. Information collected on gender, race, and ethnicity is used in meeting NSF needs for data to permit response to Congressional and other queries into equity issues. These data also are used in the design, implementation, and monitoring of NSF efforts to increase the participation of various groups in science, engineering, and education. The estimated burden for the Reviewer Background Information (NSF 428A) is estimated at 5 minutes per respondent with up to 10,000 potential new reviewers for a total of 833 hours.
The aggregate number of burden hours is estimated to be 6,278,333. The actual burden on respondents has not changed.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern Market Dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3030, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern Competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern Market Dominant product(s),
1.
2.
3.
This Notice will be published in the
2:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 26, 2023.
The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at
The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the following topics:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.
For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Small Business Administration's intentions to request approval on a new and/or currently approved information collection.
Submit comments on or before December 22, 2023.
Send all comments regarding whether this information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, whether the burden estimates are accurate, and if there are ways to minimize the estimated burden and enhance the quality of the collection, to, Sharon Gurley, Director Program Review, Office of Government Contracting, Small Business Administration, Washington, DC 20416.
Sharon Gurley, Director Program Review, Office of Government Contracting, 202-205-7084
The Small Business Administration needs to collect this information to determine an applicant's eligibility for admission into the 8(a) Business Development (BD) Program and for continued eligibility to participate in the Program. SBA also uses some of the information for an annual report to Congress on the 8(a) BD Program.
Respondents can be individuals and firms making applications to the 8(a) BD Program, or respondents can be individuals and Participant firms revising information related to the 8(a) BD Program Annual Review.
SBA is requesting comments on (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of information described below. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires Federal agencies to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before December 22, 2023.
Send all comments to Paul Kirwin, Financial Analyst, Office Credit Risk Management, Small Business Administration, Washington, DC 20416.
Paul Kirwin, Financial Analyst, Office of Credit Risk Management,
The information will be collected from lending institutions interested in becoming an SBA Supervised Lender. SBA will use the information regarding the institutions' financial condition, lending experience, credit policies, capital adequacy plan, financial statements, credit facilities, and loan risk ratings system, among other things, to determine their eligibility to participate in SBA's 7(a) Loan Program.
SBA is removing duplicate sale data, reformatting sale data for ease of use, and amending sections for clarity. SBA is requesting comments on (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of information described below. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires Federal agencies to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before December 22, 2023.
Send all comments to Earnest Knott, Supervisory Surety Guarantees, Office Surety Guarantees, Small Business Administration.
Earnest Knott, Supervisory Surety Guarantees,
Small Business Administration Surety Bond Guarantee Program was created to encourage surety companies to provide bonding for small contractors. The information collected on the form from surety companies will be used to update the status of successfully completed contracts and to provide a final accounting of contractor and surety fees due to SBA.
SBA is requesting comments on (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, under section 309 of the Act and Code of Federal Regulations under 13 CFR 107.1900 to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 05/05-0313 issued to Monroe Capital Partners Fund II, L.P., said license is hereby declared null and void.
Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, under section 309 of the Act and Code of Federal Regulations under 13 CFR 107.1900 to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 02/02-0641 issued to
Social Security Administration.
Notice.
Under title II of the Social Security Act (Act), there will be a 3.2 percent cost-of-living increase in Social Security benefits effective December 2023. In addition, the national average wage index for 2022 is $63,795.13. The cost-of-living increase and national average wage index affect other program parameters as described below.
Kathleen K. Sutton, Office of the Chief Actuary, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, (410) 965-3000. Information relating to this announcement is available at
Because of the 3.2 percent cost-of-living increase, the following items will increase for 2024:
(1) The maximum Federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) monthly payment amounts for 2024 under title XVI of the Act will be $943 for an eligible individual; $1,415 for an eligible individual with an eligible spouse; and $472 for an essential person.
(2) The special benefit amount under title VIII of the Act for certain World War II (WWII) veterans will be $707.25 for 2024.
(3) The student earned income exclusion under title XVI of the Act will be $2,290 per month in 2024, but not more than $9,230 for all of 2024.
(4) The dollar fee limit for services performed as a representative payee will be $54 per month ($100 per month in the case of a beneficiary who is determined to be disabled, has an alcoholism or drug addiction condition, and is incapable of managing benefits) in 2024.
(5) The assessment (or “user fee”) dollar limit on the administrative cost charged when the agency pays authorized representative fees directly out of a claimant's past due benefits will be $117, beginning in December 2023.
The national average wage index for 2022 is $63,795.13. This index affects the following amounts:
(1) The Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) contribution and benefit base will be $168,600 for remuneration paid in 2024 and self-employment income earned in tax years beginning in 2024.
(2) The monthly exempt amounts under the OASDI retirement earnings test for tax years ending in calendar year 2024 will be $1,860 for beneficiaries who will attain their Normal Retirement Age (NRA) (defined in the
(3) The dollar amounts (bend points) used in the primary insurance amount (PIA) formula for workers who become eligible for benefits or who die before becoming eligible, in 2024, will be $1,174 and $7,078.
(4) The bend points used in the formula for computing maximum family benefits for workers who become eligible for retirement benefits, or who die before becoming eligible, in 2024, will be $1,500, $2,166, and $2,825.
(5) The taxable earnings a person must have in 2024 to be credited with a quarter of coverage will be $1,730.
(6) The “old-law” contribution and benefit base under title II of the Act will be $125,100 for 2024.
(7) The monthly amount of earnings deemed to constitute substantial gainful activity (SGA) for statutorily blind people in 2024 will be $2,590. The corresponding amount of earnings for non-blind people with a determined disability will be $1,550.
(8) The earnings threshold establishing a month as a part of a trial work period will be $1,110 for 2024.
(9) Coverage thresholds for 2024 will be $2,700 for domestic workers and $2,300 for election officials and election workers.
According to section 215(i)(2)(D) of the Act, we must publish the benefit increase percentage and the revised table of “special minimum” benefits within 45 days after the close of the third calendar quarter of 2023.
We must also publish the following by November 1: the national average wage index for 2022 (215(a)(1)(D)), the OASDI fund ratio for 2023 (section 215(i)(2)(C)(ii)), the OASDI contribution and benefit base for 2024 (section 230(a)), the earnings required to be credited with a quarter of coverage in 2024 (section 213(d)(2)), the monthly exempt amounts under the Social Security retirement earnings test for 2024 (section 203(f)(8)(A)), the formula for computing a PIA for workers who first become eligible for benefits or die in 2024 (section 215(a)(1)(D)), and the formula for computing the maximum benefits payable to the family of a worker who first becomes eligible for old-age benefits or dies in 2024 (section 203(a)(2)(C)).
The cost-of-living increase is 3.2 percent for monthly benefits under title II and for monthly payments under title XVI of the Act. Under title II, OASDI monthly benefits will increase by 3.2 percent for individuals eligible for December 2023 benefits, payable in January 2024 and thereafter. We base this increase on the authority contained in section 215(i) of the Act.
Pursuant to section 1617 of the Act, Federal SSI benefit rates will also increase by 3.2 percent effective for payments made for January 2024 but paid on December 29, 2023.
Computation of the cost-of-living increase is based on an increase in a Consumer Price Index (CPI) produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. At the time the Act was amended to provide automatic cost-of-living increases starting in 1975, only one CPI existed, namely the index now referred to as CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). Although the Bureau of Labor Statistics has since developed other CPIs, we follow precedent by continuing to use the CPI-W. We refer to this index in the following paragraphs as the CPI.
Section 215(i)(1)(B) of the Act defines a “computation quarter” to be a third calendar quarter in which the average CPI exceeded the average CPI in the previous computation quarter. The last cost-of-living increase, effective for those eligible to receive title II benefits for December 2022, was based on the CPI increase from the third quarter of 2021 to the third quarter of 2022. Therefore, the last computation quarter is the third quarter of 2022. The law states that a cost-of-living increase for benefits is determined based on the percentage increase, if any, in the CPI from the last computation quarter to the third quarter of the current year. Therefore, we compute the increase in the CPI from the third quarter of 2022 to the third quarter of 2023.
Section 215(i)(1) of the Act states that the CPI for a cost-of-living computation quarter is the arithmetic mean of this index for the 3 months in that quarter. In accordance with 20 CFR 404.275, we round the arithmetic mean, if necessary, to the nearest 0.001. The CPI for each month in the quarter ending September 30, 2022, the last computation quarter, is: for July 2022, 292.219; for August 2022, 291.629; and for September 2022, 291.854. The arithmetic mean for the calendar quarter ending September 30, 2022, is 291.901. The CPI for each month in the quarter ending September 30, 2023, is: for July 2023, 299.899; for August 2023, 301.551; and for September 2023, 302.257. The arithmetic mean for the calendar quarter ending September 30, 2023, is 301.236. The CPI for the calendar quarter ending September 30, 2023, exceeds that for the calendar quarter ending September 30, 2022, by 3.2 percent (rounded to the nearest 0.1). Therefore, beginning December 2023, a cost-of-living benefit increase of 3.2 percent is effective for benefits under title II of the Act.
Section 215(i) also specifies that a benefit increase under title II, effective for December of any year, will be limited to the increase in the national average wage index for the prior year if the OASDI fund ratio for that year is below 20.0 percent. The OASDI fund ratio for a year is the ratio of the combined asset reserves of the OASI and DI Trust Funds at the beginning of that year to the combined cost of the programs during that year. For 2023, the OASDI fund ratio is reserves of $2,829,887 million divided by estimated cost of $1,389,484 million, or 203.7 percent. Because the 203.7 percent OASDI fund ratio exceeds 20.0 percent, the benefit increase for December 2023 is not limited to the increase in the national average wage index.
The following program amounts change based on the cost-of-living increase: (1) title II benefits; (2) title XVI payments; (3) title VIII benefits; (4) the student earned income exclusion; (5) the fee for services performed by a representative payee; and (6) the appointed representative fee assessment.
In accordance with section 215(i) of the Act, for workers and family members for whom eligibility for benefits (that is, the worker's attainment of age 62, or disability or death before age 62) occurred before 2024, benefits will increase by 3.2 percent beginning with benefits for December 2023, which are payable in January 2024. For those first eligible after 2023, the 3.2 percent increase will not apply.
For eligibility after 1978, we determine benefits using a formula provided by the Social Security Amendments of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-216), as described later in this notice.
For eligibility before 1979, we determine benefits by using a benefit table. The table is available at
Section 215(i)(2)(D) of the Act requires that, when we determine an increase in Social Security benefits, we will publish in the
In accordance with section 1617 of the Act, the Federal benefit rates used in computing Federal SSI payments for the aged, blind, and disabled will increase by 3.2 percent effective January 2024. For 2023, we determined the monthly payment amounts to be—$914 for an eligible individual, $1,371 for an eligible individual with an eligible spouse, and $458 for an essential person. These amounts were derived from yearly, unrounded Federal SSI payment amounts of $10,970.44, $16,453.84, and $5,497.80, respectively. For 2024, these yearly unrounded amounts increase by 3.2 percent to $11,321.49, $16,980.36, and $5,673.73, respectively. We must round each of these resulting amounts, when not a multiple of $12, to the next lower multiple of $12. Therefore, the annual amounts, effective for 2024, are $11,316, $16,980, and $5,664. Dividing the yearly amounts by 12 gives the respective monthly amounts for 2024—$943, $1,415, and $472. For an eligible individual with an eligible spouse, we equally divide the amount payable between the two spouses.
Title VIII of the Act provides for special benefits to certain WWII veterans who reside outside the United States. Section 805 of the Act provides that “[t]he benefit under this title payable to a qualified individual for any month shall be in an amount equal to 75 percent of the Federal benefit rate [the maximum amount for an eligible individual] under title XVI for the month, reduced by the amount of the qualified individual's benefit income for the month.” Therefore, the maximum monthly benefit for 2024 under this provision is 75 percent of $943, or $707.25.
Children who are blind or have a determined disability can have limited earnings that do not count against their SSI payments if they are students regularly attending school, college, university, or a course of vocational or technical training. The maximum
To compute each of the monthly and yearly maximum amounts for 2024, we increase the unrounded amount for 2023 by the latest cost-of-living increase. If the calculated amount is not a multiple of $10, we round it to the nearest multiple of $10. The unrounded monthly amount for 2023 is $2,219.60. We increase this amount by 3.2 percent to $2,290.63, which we then round to $2,290. Similarly, we increase the unrounded yearly amount for 2023, $8,947.18, by 3.2 percent to $9,233.49 and round this to $9,230. Therefore, the maximum amount of the income exclusion applicable to a student in 2024 is $2,290 per month, but not more than $9,230 in all of 2024.
Sections 205(j)(4)(A)(i) and 1631(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Act permit a qualified organization to collect a monthly fee from a beneficiary for expenses incurred in providing services as the beneficiary's representative payee. In 2023, the fee is limited to the lesser of: (1) 10 percent of the monthly benefit involved; or (2) $52 each month ($97 each month when the beneficiary is entitled to disability benefits, has an alcoholism or drug addiction condition, and is incapable of managing such benefits). The dollar fee limits are subject to increase by the cost-of-living increase, with the resulting amounts rounded to the nearest whole dollar amount. Therefore, we increase the current amounts by 3.2 percent to $54 and $100 for 2024.
Under sections 206(d) and 1631(d) of the Act, whenever the agency pays authorized representative fees directly out of a claimant's past due benefits, we must impose an assessment (or “user fee”) to cover administrative costs. The user fee applied is the lower amount of 6.3 percent of the representative's authorized fee or a dollar amount that is subject to the cost-of-living increase. We derive the dollar limit for December 2023, by increasing the unrounded limit for December 2022, $113.62, by 3.2 percent, which is $117.26. We then round $117.26 to the next lower multiple of $1. The dollar limit effective for December 2023 is, therefore, $117.
We determined the national average wage index for calendar year 2022. It is based on the 2021 national average wage index of $60,575.07, which was published in the
Multiplying the national average wage index for 2021 ($60,575.07) by the ratio of the average wage for 2022 ($61,220.07) to that for 2021 ($58,129.99) produces the 2022 index, $63,795.13. The national average wage index for calendar year 2022 is about 5.32 percent higher than the 2021 index.
Under the Act, the following amounts change with annual changes in the national average wage index: (1) the OASDI contribution and benefit base; (2) the exempt amounts under the retirement earnings test; (3) the dollar amounts, or bend points, in the PIA formula; (4) the bend points in the maximum family benefit formula; (5) the earnings required to credit a worker with a quarter of coverage; (6) the old-law contribution and benefit base (as determined under section 230 of the Act as in effect before the 1977 amendments); (7) the substantial gainful activity (SGA) amount applicable to statutorily blind individuals; and (8) the coverage threshold for election officials and election workers. Additionally, under section 3121(x) of the Internal Revenue Code, the domestic employee coverage threshold is based on changes in the national average wage index.
Two amounts also increase under regulatory requirements—the SGA amount applicable to non-blind individuals with a determined disability, and the monthly earnings threshold that establishes a month as part of a trial work period for beneficiaries with a determined disability.
The OASDI contribution and benefit base is $168,600 for remuneration paid in 2024 and self-employment income earned in tax years beginning in 2024. The OASDI contribution and benefit base serves as the maximum annual earnings on which OASDI taxes are paid. It is also the maximum annual earnings used in determining a person's OASDI benefits.
Section 230(b) of the Act provides the formula used to determine the OASDI contribution and benefit base. Under the formula, the base for 2024 is the larger of: (1) the 1994 base of $60,600 multiplied by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2022 to that for 1992; or (2) the current base ($160,200). If the resulting amount is not a multiple of $300, we round it to the nearest multiple of $300.
Multiplying the 1994 OASDI contribution and benefit base ($60,600) by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2022 ($63,795.13 as determined above) to that for 1992 ($22,935.42) produces $168,559.59. We round this amount to $168,600. Because $168,600 exceeds the current base amount of $160,200, the OASDI contribution and benefit base is $168,600 for 2024.
We withhold Social Security benefits when a beneficiary under the NRA has earnings more than the applicable retirement earnings test exempt amount. The NRA is the age when retirement benefits (before rounding) are equal to the PIA. The NRA is age 66 for those born in 1943-54. It gradually increases to age 67 for those born in 1960 or later. A higher exempt amount applies in the year in which a person attains NRA, but only for earnings in months before such attainment. A lower exempt amount applies at all other ages below NRA. Section 203(f)(8)(B) of the Act provides formulas for determining the monthly exempt amounts. The annual exempt amounts are exactly 12 times the monthly amounts.
For beneficiaries who attain NRA in the year, we withhold $1 in benefits for every $3 of earnings over the annual exempt amount for months before NRA. For all other beneficiaries under NRA, we withhold $1 in benefits for every $2 of earnings over the annual exempt amount.
Under the formula that applies to beneficiaries attaining NRA after 2024, the lower monthly exempt amount for 2024 is the larger of: (1) the 1994 monthly exempt amount multiplied by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2022 to that for 1992; or (2) the 2023 monthly exempt amount ($1,770). If the resulting amount is not a multiple of $10, we round it to the nearest multiple of $10.
Under the formula that applies to beneficiaries attaining NRA in 2024, the higher monthly exempt amount for 2024 is the larger of: (1) the 2002 monthly exempt amount multiplied by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2022 to that for 2000; or (2) the 2023 monthly exempt amount ($4,710). If the resulting amount is not a multiple of $10, we round it to the nearest multiple of $10.
Multiplying the 1994 retirement earnings test monthly exempt amount of $670 by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2022 ($63,795.13) to that for 1992 ($22,935.42) produces $1,863.61. We round this to $1,860. Because $1,860 exceeds the current exempt amount of $1,770, the lower retirement earnings test monthly exempt amount is $1,860 for 2024. The lower annual exempt amount is $22,320 under the retirement earnings test.
Multiplying the 2002 retirement earnings test monthly exempt amount of $2,500 by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2022 ($63,795.13) to that for 2000 ($32,154.82) produces $4,960.00. We round this to $4,960. Because $4,960 exceeds the current exempt amount of $4,710, the higher retirement earnings test monthly exempt amount is $4,960 for 2024. The higher annual exempt amount is $59,520 under the retirement earnings test.
The Social Security Amendments of 1977 provided a method for computing benefits that generally applies when a worker first becomes eligible for benefits after 1978. This method uses the worker's average indexed monthly earnings (AIME) to compute the PIA. We adjust the formula each year to reflect changes in general wage levels, as measured by the national average wage index.
We also adjust, or index, a worker's earnings to reflect the change in the general wage levels that occurred during the worker's years of employment. Such indexing ensures that a worker's future benefit level will reflect the general rise in the standard of living that will occur during their working lifetime. To compute the AIME, we first determine the required number of years of earnings. We then select the number of years with the highest indexed earnings, add the indexed earnings for those years, and divide the total amount by the total number of months in those years. We then round the resulting average amount down to the next lower dollar amount. The result is the AIME.
The PIA is the sum of three separate percentages of portions of the AIME. In 1979 (the first year the formula was in effect), these portions were the first $180, the amount between $180 and $1,085, and the amount above $1,085. We call the dollar amounts in the formula governing the portions of the AIME the bend points of the formula. Therefore, the bend points for 1979 were $180 and $1,085.
To obtain the bend points for 2024, we multiply each of the 1979 bend-point amounts by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2022 to that average for 1977. We then round these results to the nearest dollar. Multiplying the 1979 amounts of $180 and $1,085 by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2022 ($63,795.13) to that for 1977 ($9,779.44) produces the amounts of $1,174.21 and $7,077.88. We round these to $1,174 and $7,078. Therefore, the portions of the AIME to be used in 2024 are the first $1,174, the amount between $1,174 and $7,078, and the amount above $7,078.
Therefore, for individuals who first become eligible for old-age insurance benefits or disability insurance benefits in 2024, or who die in 2024 before becoming eligible for benefits, their PIA will be the sum of:
(a) 90 percent of the first $1,174 of their AIME, plus (b) 32 percent of their AIME between $1,174 and $7,078, plus (c) 15 percent of their AIME above $7,078.
We round this amount to the next lower multiple of $0.10 if it is not already a multiple of $0.10. This formula and the rounding adjustment are stated in section 215(a) of the Act.
The 1977 amendments continued the policy of limiting the total monthly benefits that a worker's family may receive based on the worker's PIA. Those amendments also continued the relationship between maximum family benefits and PIAs but changed the method of computing the maximum benefits that may be paid to a worker's family. The Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-265) established a formula for computing the maximum benefits payable to the family of a worker with a determined disability. This formula applies to the family benefits of workers who first become entitled to disability insurance benefits after June 30, 1980, and who first become eligible for these benefits after 1978. For workers with determined disabilities who are initially entitled to disability benefits before July 1980 or whose disability began before 1979, we compute the family maximum payable the same as the old-age and survivor family maximum.
The formula used to compute the family maximum is similar to that used to compute the PIA. It involves computing the sum of four separate percentages of portions of the worker's PIA. In 1979, these portions were the first $230, the amount between $230 and $332, the amount between $332 and $433, and the amount above $433. We refer to such dollar amounts in the formula as the bend points of the family-maximum formula.
To obtain the bend points for 2024, we multiply each of the 1979 bend-point amounts by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2022 to that average for 1977. Then we round this amount to the nearest dollar. Multiplying the amounts of $230, $332, and $433 by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2022 ($63,795.13) to that for 1977 ($9,779.44) produces the amounts of $1,500.38, $2,165.77, and $2,824.63. We round these amounts to $1,500, $2,166, and $2,825. Therefore, the portions of the PIAs to be used in 2024 are the first $1,500, the amount between $1,500 and $2,166, the amount between $2,166 and $2,825, and the amount above $2,825.
So, for the family of a worker who becomes age 62 or dies in 2024 before age 62, we compute the total benefits payable to them so that it does not exceed:
(a) 150 percent of the first $1,500 of the worker's PIA, plus
(b) 272 percent of the worker's PIA between $1,500 and $2,166, plus
(c) 134 percent of the worker's PIA between $2,166 and $2,825, plus
(d) 175 percent of the worker's PIA above $2,825.
We then round this amount to the next lower multiple of $0.10 if it is not already a multiple of $0.10. This formula and the rounding adjustment are stated in section 203(a) of the Act.
The earnings required for a quarter of coverage in 2024 is $1,730. A quarter of coverage is the basic unit for determining if a worker is insured under the Social Security program. For years before 1978, we generally credited an individual with (1) a quarter of coverage for each quarter in which they were paid wages of $50 or more or (2) four quarters of coverage for every tax year in which they earned $400 or more of self-employment income. Beginning in 1978, employers generally report wages annually instead of quarterly. With the change to yearly reporting, section 352(b) of the Social Security Amendments of 1977 amended section 213(d) of the Act to provide that a quarter of coverage would be credited for each $250 of an individual's total wages and self-employment income for calendar year 1978 up to a maximum of four quarters of coverage for the year. The amendment also provided a formula for years after 1978.
Under the prescribed formula, the quarter of coverage amount for 2024 is the larger of: (1) the 1978 amount of $250 multiplied by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2022 to that for 1976; or (2) the current amount ($1,640). Section 213(d) provides that if the resulting amount is not a multiple of $10, we round it to the nearest multiple of $10.
Multiplying the 1978 quarter of coverage amount ($250) by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2022 ($63,795.13) to that for 1976 ($9,226.48) produces $1,728.59. We then round this amount to $1,730. Because $1,730 exceeds the current amount of $1,640, the quarter of coverage amount is $1,730 for 2024.
The old-law contribution and benefit base for 2024 is $125,100. This base would have been effective under the Act without the enactment of the 1977 amendments.
The old-law contribution and benefit base is used by:
(a) the Railroad Retirement program to determine certain tax liabilities and tier II benefits payable under that program to supplement the tier I payments that correspond to basic Social Security benefits,
(b) the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to determine the maximum amount of pension guaranteed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (section 230(d) of the Act),
(c) Social Security to determine a year of coverage in computing the special minimum benefit, as described earlier, and
(d) Social Security to compute benefits for people who are also eligible and receiving pensions based on employment not covered under section 210 of the Act. We credit a year of coverage, for this purpose only, for each year in which earnings equal or exceed 25 percent of the old-law base.
The old-law contribution and benefit base is the larger of: (1) the 1994 old-law base ($45,000) multiplied by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2022 to that for 1992; or (2) the current old-law base ($118,800). If the resulting amount is not a multiple of $300, we round it to the nearest multiple of $300.
Multiplying the 1994 old-law contribution and benefit base ($45,000) by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2022 ($63,795.13) to that for 1992 ($22,935.42) produces $125,168.01. We round this amount to $125,100. Because $125,100 exceeds the current amount of $118,800, the old-law contribution and benefit base is $125,100 for 2024.
A finding of disability under titles II and XVI of the Act requires that a person, except for a child with a disability determined under title XVI, be unable to engage in SGA. A person who is earning more than a certain monthly amount is ordinarily considered to be engaging in SGA. The monthly earnings considered as SGA depends on the nature of a person's disability. Section 223(d)(4)(A) of the Act specifies the formula for determining the SGA amount for statutorily blind individuals under title II while our regulations (20 CFR 404.1574 and 416.974) specify the formula for determining the SGA amount for non-blind individuals with a determined disability.
The monthly SGA amount for statutorily blind individuals under title II for 2024 is the larger of: (1) the amount for 1994 multiplied by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2022 to that for 1992; or (2) the amount for 2023. The monthly SGA amount for non-blind individuals with a determined disability for 2024 is the larger of: (1) the amount for 2000 multiplied by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2022 to that for 1998; or (2) the amount for 2023. In either case, if the resulting amount is not a multiple of $10, we round it to the nearest multiple of $10.
Multiplying the 1994 monthly SGA amount for statutorily blind individuals ($930) by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2022 ($63,795.13) to that for 1992 ($22,935.42) produces $2,586.81. We then round this amount to $2,590. Because $2,590 exceeds the current amount of $2,460, the monthly SGA amount for statutorily blind individuals is $2,590 for 2024.
Multiplying the 2000 monthly SGA amount for non-blind individuals with a determined disability ($700) by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2022 ($63,795.13) to that for 1998 ($28,861.44) produces $1,547.28. We then round this amount to $1,550. Because $1,550 exceeds the current amount of $1,470, the monthly SGA amount for non-blind individuals with a determined disability is $1,550 for 2024.
During a trial work period of 9 months in a rolling 60-month period, a beneficiary receiving Social Security disability benefits may test their ability to work and still receive monthly benefit payments. To be considered a trial work period month, earnings must be over a certain level. In 2024, any month in which earnings exceed $1,110 is considered a month of services for an individual's trial work period.
The method used to determine the new amount is set forth in our regulations at 20 CFR 404.1592(b).
Multiplying the 2001 monthly earnings threshold ($530) by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2022 ($63,795.13) to that for 1999 ($30,469.84) produces $1,109.67. We then round this amount to $1,110. Because $1,110 exceeds the current amount of $1,050, the monthly earnings threshold is $1,110 for 2024.
The minimum amount a domestic worker must earn so that such earnings are covered under Social Security or Medicare is the domestic employee coverage threshold. For 2024, this threshold is $2,700. Section 3121(x) of the Internal Revenue Code provides the formula for increasing the threshold.
Under the formula, the domestic employee coverage threshold for 2024 is equal to the 1995 amount of $1,000 multiplied by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2022 to that for 1993. If the resulting amount is not a multiple of $100, we round it to the next lower multiple of $100.
Multiplying the 1995 domestic employee coverage threshold ($1,000) by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2022 ($63,795.13) to that for 1993 ($23,132.67) produces $2,757.79. We then round this amount to $2,700. Therefore, the domestic employee coverage threshold amount is $2,700 for 2024.
The minimum amount an election official and election worker must earn so the earnings are covered under Social Security or Medicare is the election official and election worker coverage threshold. For 2024, this threshold is $2,300. Section 218(c)(8)(B) of the Act provides the formula for increasing the threshold.
Under the formula, the election official and election worker coverage threshold for 2024 is equal to the 1999 amount of $1,000 multiplied by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2022 to that for 1997. If the amount we determine is not a multiple of $100, we round it to the nearest multiple of $100.
Multiplying the 1999 coverage threshold amount ($1,000) by the ratio of the national average wage index for 2022 ($63,795.13) to that for 1997 ($27,426.00) produces $2,326.08. We then round this amount to $2,300. Therefore, the election official and election worker coverage threshold amount is $2,300 for 2024.
The Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Kilolo Kijakazi, Ph.D., M.S.W., having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this document to Faye I. Lipsky, who is a Federal Register Liaison for SSA, for purposes of publication in the
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice of public meeting.
The U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration (MARAD) announces a public meeting of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA) Advisory Council (Council).
The public meeting will be held on Thursday, November 16, 2023, from 9 a.m. until 12 p.m. Requests to attend the meeting must be received no later than 5 p.m. EDT on Wednesday, November 8, 2023, to facilitate entry. Requests to submit written materials to be reviewed during the meeting must be received no later than November 3, 2023. Requests for accommodations for a disability must be received by November 10, 2023.
The public meeting will be held in-person at the USMMA. Meeting access information will be available no later than November 13, 2023. Information on who the Council members are can be found in MARAD's press release:
The Council's Designated Federal Officer and Point of Contact, Will Sheehan, 202-366-4105 or
The Council is established pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 51323. The Council operates in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. app. 2.
The objective and scope of the Council is to provide independent advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) on matters relating to the USMMA including in the areas of curriculum development and training programs; diversity, equity, and inclusion; sexual assault prevention and response; infrastructure maintenance and redevelopment; midshipmen health and welfare; governance and administrative policies; and other matters.
The agenda will be as follows:
This meeting is open to the public and will be held in-person at the USMMA. MARAD is committed to providing equal access to this meeting for all participants. If you need alternative formats or services because of a disability, such as sign language, interpretation, or other ancillary aids, please contact the person listed in the
Any member of the public is permitted to file a written statement with the Council. Written statements
Only written statements will be considered by the Council; no member of the public will be allowed to present questions or speak during the meeting unless requested to do so by a member of the Council.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) invites public comments on our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed collection OMB 2133-0011 (War Risk Insurance, Applications, and Related Information) is used to determine the eligibility of the applicant and the vessel(s) for participation in the War Risk Insurance Program. There are no changes to this collection since the last renewal. We are required to publish this notice in the
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Cameryn L. Miller, (202) 366-0907, Office of Marine Insurance, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590, Email:
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Receipt of petition.
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (Mercedes-Benz) has determined that certain model year (MY) 2019-2021 Mercedes-Benz motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and Displays, and FMVSS No. 102, Transmission Shift Position. Mercedes-Benz filed a noncompliance report dated September 24, 2021, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA (the “Agency”) on October 25, 2021, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces receipt of Mercedes-Benz's petition.
Send comments on or before November 22, 2023.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
All comments and supporting materials received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the fullest extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will also be published in the
All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Frederick Smith, General Engineer, NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (202) 366-7487 or Ahmad Barnes, General Engineer, NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (202) 366-7236.
This notice of receipt of Mercedes-Benz's petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or another exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
Mercedes-Benz claims that the conditions needed to cause the FMVSS No. 101 noncompliance is rare. In order for the subject FMVSS No. 101 noncompliance to occur, three events must occur simultaneously. First, the CPU load must approach the limits of the instrument cluster's input capacity. Second, while there is a high CPU load, a specific diagnostic function must be activated and the combined effect of the already high CPU load and the diagnostics is sufficient to threaten an instrument cluster freeze, which would trigger a preventative reset. Finally, during the reset, which would last no more than 2.5 seconds, a separate equipment malfunction or condition must occur that would activate an indicator or telltale.
Mercedes-Benz believes that “the likelihood of a telltale being activated in any particular 2.5 second period is very low.” Compounded with the probability of the being activated following the first two events, the Mercedes-Benz contends that the likelihood of the subject noncompliance occurring is “negligible.”
Mercedes-Benz says that its engineers determined that the maximum duration of illumination loss is 2.5 seconds, and the maximum time of analog display illumination loss is 0.8 seconds. Additionally, Mercedes-Benz claims that the subject noncompliance “would not cause the instrument cluster to report inaccurate information.”
Mercedes-Benz also claims that a driver is unlikely to be confused if the display experiences diminished illumination for 2.5 seconds and the driver would be unlikely to notice a 2.5 second interruption of illumination. Mercedes-Benz refers to a prior NHTSA decision in which the agency granted a similar petition based on its belief that a reset of the instrument panel would happen quickly within seconds before the driver would be distracted to realize what was happening.
According to Mercedes-Benz, it is difficult to formulate an outcome in a
Finally, Mercedes-Benz contends that the IC reset is a functional safety measure designed to prevent a permanent IC display failure. Mercedes-Benz asserts that if this reset feature is determined to be consequential to vehicle safety and manufacturers were required to remove or disable it, vehicle occupants would be exposed “to a much higher and enduring safety risk.
Mercedes-Benz believes that NHTSA precedent supports the granting of its petition for the subject noncompliance. According to Mercedes-Benz, “NHTSA has consistently held that brief interruption of vehicle display visibility, lasting only seconds, is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.” Mercedes-Benz says that the subject noncompliance is similar to the noncompliances at issue in past petitions that were granted. Mercedes-Benz says that NHTSA granted a petition by General Motors, LLC, in which MY 2014 Chevrolet Silverado motor vehicles were noncompliant with FMVSS No. 101 and FMVSS No. 102 due to an instrument cluster reset. According to Mercedes-Benz, in this case, the affected vehicles were equipped with an instrument cluster that would reset if the driver used the steering wheel controls to operate an external device connected to the vehicle's USB port. All warning lights would go out, the shift position indicator (PRNDM) would extinguish, and the analog gauges (such as the speedometer) would drop to zero for 1.5 seconds. All telltales would then turn on for 5 seconds following the reset. Mercedes-Benz notes that the noncompliance in the Chevrolet Silverado vehicles would cause telltale activation to be obscured for 6.5 seconds in total which is more than 2.5 times the maximum time the digital displays in the subject vehicles would be affected in the present case and more than eight times the maximum time the analog meters would be affected. Mercedes-Benz says that NHTSA found that the noncompliance in the Chevrolet Silverado vehicles was inconsequential to vehicle safety because the reset would be corrected within seconds, “before the driver would be distracted, or realize what was happening.”
Mercedes-Benz contends that the granting of another petition by General Motors, LLC, further supports the granting of the current petition. In 2016, NHTSA granted General Motors' petition in which GMC Denali motor vehicles were equipped with an instrument cluster that “would reset if the design input rate of the CPU was exceeded due to simultaneous use of multiple functions (such as navigation, Bluetooth calling, pairing a media device, or others).” In this case, the reset would cause a loss of illumination to all digital warning lights and the shift position indicator, and the indicator gauges would drop to zero for 1.3 seconds. After the reset, all telltales would illuminate for 5 seconds. Mercedes-Benz says that NHTSA determined this noncompliance to be inconsequential to vehicle safety because the reset would be a momentary condition and “the instrument panel telltales and indicators would extinguish and return to normal very quickly, with little, if any, impact to the driver.”
Mercedes-Benz contends that the subject noncompliance is similar to the aforementioned noncompliances because the instrument cluster reset in question is likely to be infrequent because the reset is “triggered by the simultaneous occurrence of two unusual and independent events.” Mercedes-Benz claims that the subject noncompliance has been difficult for its engineers “to induce or observe, in large part because of the infrequent coincidence of the two events.”
Mercedes-Benz believes that the loss of display visibility is not likely to cause driver distraction or other increased risk to motor vehicle safety. The subject noncompliance causes the illumination of the speedometer and tachometer to be interrupted for up to 0.8 seconds and would interrupt the illumination of the digital indicators and telltale lamps for less than 2.5 seconds. Mercedes-Benz contends that it is unlikely that an IC indicator or telltale would activate during this reset period and even in the event that it did, activation of the indicator or telltale after the 2.5 second reset would not cause an increased risk to motor vehicle safety.
According to Mercedes-Benz, NHTSA has not previously required a recall “to address a seconds-long interruption of instrument cluster illumination.” The interruption of illumination affecting the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Denali motor vehicles in the aforementioned General Motors petitions is more than twice the duration of the reset in the subject Mercedes-Benz motor vehicles. Mercedes-Benz contends that NHTSA found that the displays “would return to normal quickly with little to no impact to the driver,” and should therefore have the same finding for the subject noncompliance. Like the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Denali motor vehicles, none of the subject vehicles' operating functions would be affected by the instrument cluster reset. Mercedes-Benz adds that many signals on the digital main instrument cluster involve comfort or convenience features unrelated to vehicle safety and conditions communicated by other indicators or telltales would not be significantly affected by a driver response that is 2.5 seconds earlier. Furthermore, the analog gauges, like the speedometer, would continue to display the correct information when illumination is interrupted and during daylight, the analog gauges remain visible.
Finally, Mercedes-Benz contends that any risk to motor vehicle safety related to the subject noncompliance is “lower than the risk posed by instrument cluster malfunctions NHTSA has previously exempted.” Mercedes-Benz says that the analog gauge readings in the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Denali noncompliances dropped to zero during a reset and the instrument clusters would stop functioning whereas the analog gauges in the subject vehicles continue to display accurate information and the instrument clusters would lack illumination but would otherwise remain functional during the reset. Further, the operation of the instrument panels in the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Denali vehicles was interrupted and only the illumination of the instrument panels in the subject vehicles is interrupted. In the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Denali vehicles, any meaningful message would be further obscured for 5 seconds while all the telltales are illuminated which Mercedes-Benz claims could cause confusion, but no such confusion would occur in the subject vehicles because once the reset is completed, only those controls or telltales that have been activated would be displayed to the driver. Therefore, Mercedes-Benz believes that the instrument cluster reset in the subject vehicles poses an even lower risk to safety than the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Denali noncompliance which NHTSA determined to be inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Mercedes-Benz claims that the subject noncompliance has no effect on the operation of headlights, taillights, or
Mercedes-Benz concludes by stating its belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that Mercedes-Benz no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicles distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Mercedes-Benz notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Receipt of petition.
Gillig, LLC, (Gillig) has determined that certain model year (MY) 1998-2022 Gillig Low Floor buses do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205,
Send comments on or before November 22, 2023.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
• Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
All comments and supporting materials received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the fullest extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will also be published in the
All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Jack Chern, General Engineer, NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (202) 366-0661.
Gillig filed a noncompliance report dated July 6, 2022, and later amended the report on July 22, 2022, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
This notice of receipt of Gillig's petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or another exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
Gillig believes that the noncompliance relating to the partitions is inconsequential because the subject partitions are not exposed to “elements or conditions that would affect the stability and robustness of the partition due to weathering, abrasion or chemical degradation.” Therefore, Gillig contends that the performance requirements to certify Item 4 glazing “are not appropriate or necessary to maintain the safe performance of the partitions as installed in Gillig's transit bus applications.”
Gillig states its belief that two of the functional purposes of the interior partitions installed in the subject buses are to create a “hygiene barrier” between the driver of the vehicles and the passengers that minimizes the driver's risk of exposure to airborne viruses and to protect the driver from passengers that may pose a security risk.
Gillig also believes that the overall purpose of the abrasion, chemical resistance, and weathering tests “is to ensure that driver visibility is adequately maintained through the glazing and that the Item 4 glazing material can withstand long term exposure to simulated weathering conditions, abrasion due to contact friction and resistance to certain chemicals that are likely to be used for cleaning purposes and that could lead to degradation of the glazing surface.”
Gillig refers to an August 2020 interpretation by NHTSA, in which it says the Agency “took the position that rigid plexiglass installed to the right of the bus driver is installed in an area that is requisite for driving visibility and that NHTSA would consider such a barrier to be an `interior partition.' ”
However, Gillig states that because the subject partitions are installed inside of the vehicle compartment, they would not be exposed to such elements that the abrasion, chemical resistance, and weathering test requirements are intended to replicate. Thus, Gillig believes that those performance requirements are “not appropriate for generic partitions installed inside the vehicle compartment.”
According to Gillig, the abrasion, chemical resistance, and weathering performance requirements “were intended for glazing used as windows, doors and other glazing that typically are or may be installed facing and exposed to the exterior of the vehicles.” Therefore, Gillig believes that the application of these performance requirements “may be appropriate for exterior-mounted devices but is overinclusive and unnecessary for interior partitions like the Gillig partitions.”
According to Gillig, “the risk of exposure to actual abrasion conditions in real-world operation similar to those specified by the standard is extremely low.”
Gillig says that in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Gillig provides the ANSI Standard that states the purpose of the chemical resistance test:
“The purpose of the test is to determine whether non-stressed transparent plastic or glass-plastic glazing material have certain minimum resistance to the following chemicals which are likely to be used for cleaning purposes in motor vehicle service:
(1) One percent solution of nonabrasive soap in deionized water;
(2) Kerosene No. K-1 or K-2;
(3) Undiluted denatured alcohol (Formula SD No. 30);
(4) Gasoline;
(5) An aqueous solution of isopropanol and glycol ether solvents in concentration no greater than 10% or less than 5% by weight each and ammonium hydroxide no greater than 5% or less than 1% by weight each, simulating typical commercial windshield cleaner.”
Gillig explains that the partitions installed in the subject buses were found to be noncompliant with the performance requirements pertaining to the gasoline immersion. Gillig says that the gasoline exposure test is “focused on extended exposure to gasoline where the glazing specimen is immersed in the substance” which Gillig believes is unlikely to occur in real-world use. Gillig contends that in the event gasoline were to make contact with the partition, “it would not occur at a rate or level that is so frequent that it would have any impact on the performance of the partition.” Furthermore, Gillig says it is not aware of any claims, information, or other data that suggests the partitions installed in the subject buses would be exposed to gasoline.
Gillig adds that the subject buses equipped with the noncompliant interior partitions are not gasoline powered, therefore the potential for the
Gillig states that the purpose of the weathering test is “to determine whether the plastic or glass plastic material glazing will sufficiently withstand exposure to simulated weathering conditions over an extended period of time.” To conduct this test, Gillig explains that a specimen is first exposed to a simulated source of radiation, after which the specimen's luminous transmittance is required to not be reduced by more than 5 percent, however, any increase in regular luminous transmittance is acceptable. The specimen may develop some discoloration but other defects should not develop. Additionally, the irradiated specimen shall develop no bubbles or other noticeable decomposition.
When testing the partitions installed in the subject buses, Gillig found that “segments of the coating peeled up and flaked off during the exposure and did not pass the abrasion test that followed the weathering procedure.” However, Gillig believes that this weathering test does not reflect real-world use of the subject partition. Gillig explains that the light sources used to conduct the weathering test “simulate solar maximum conditions, meaning global, noon sunlight at normal incidence on the summer solstice.” Gillig says this is “the most severe condition met in outdoor service.”
Gillig says that any type of glass that surrounds a partition located in the passenger compartment of a vehicle would act as a sunlight filter and would significantly reduce the energy of the damaging wavelengths. Thus, Gillig believes, the material deterioration due to UV weathering of subject partitions would be greatly reduced. Gillig further contends that “since automotive glass is thicker than common window glass, it provides an even superior filtering efficiency compared to common glass with the potential to filter out almost all of the damaging UV wavelengths.”
In the same population of buses affected by the glazing material noncompliance, Gillig determined that certain buses are not marked with the “DOT AS4” glazing marking required by FMVSS No. 205 to indicate that it is certified as Item 4 glazing. Gillig also determined that a separate population of buses are equipped with modesty panels in the passenger compartment that are not marked with the required “AS4” glazing marking. Gillig says the modesty panel is not used for driver visibility but is used to “enhance privacy for passengers.”
Gillig says, “The purpose of the glazing marking is so that appropriate equivalent glazing can be used in the event that the original glazing needs to be replaced.” Gillig states its belief that the absence of the required glazing marking does not create an increased risk to motor vehicle safety because the subject buses are operated by personnel that are trained and knowledgeable of the appropriate Item of glazing that is allowed to be used in the interior of the bus. Despite the lack of the marking, Gillig says that the trained maintenance personnel would ensure that the subject glazing is replaced by the appropriate glazing. Furthermore, Gillig says that replacement parts need to be specifically ordered for the vehicle using a unique part number.
Gillig states production has been corrected and any of the subject glazing still in its possession have been removed from future service. Gillig says that the modesty panels meet all other FMVSS No. 205 labeling and performance requirements and the interior partitions “meet all of the performance requirements that are necessary for the real-world use” of the subject partitions.
Gillig claims that the Agency has granted prior petitions in which the glazing was missing the required marking, such as the 2016 granting of a petition submitted by Supreme Corporation.
Gillig concludes its petition by stating its belief that the subject noncompliances are inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle safety and its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliances, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliances, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that Gillig no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicles distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Gillig notified them that the subject noncompliances existed.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
OFAC: Bradley Smith, Director, tel.: 202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or the Assistant Director for Sanctions Enforcement, Compliance & Analysis, tel.: 202-622-2490.
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On October 18, 2023, OFAC determined that the property and
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the name of a person who has been removed from the List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) and whose property and interests in property have been unblocked.
See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490.
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On October 18, 2023, OFAC determined that the following person would be removed from the SDN List and that their property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction are unblocked pursuant to Executive Order 13722 of March 15, 2016 (“Blocking the Property of the Government of North Korea and the Workers' Party of Korea, and Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to North Korea”), and U.S. persons are no longer generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
1. HUISH, Irina Igorevna (a.k.a. BURLOVA, Irina), Russia; South Africa; DOB 18 Jan 1973; Gender Female; Secondary sanctions risk: North Korea Sanctions Regulations, sections 510.201 and 510.210; Transactions Prohibited For Persons Owned or Controlled By U.S. Financial Institutions: North Korea Sanctions Regulations section 510.214 (individual) [DPRK3] (Linked To: VELMUR MANAGEMENT PTE LTD).
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
OFAC: Bradley T. Smith, Director, tel.: 202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or the Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On October 26, 2020, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
1. KARBASIAN, Masoud (a.k.a. KARBASIAN, Mas'ud); DOB 14 Jun 1956; POB Isfahan, Iran; nationality Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male; Passport D10002096 (Iran) expires 26 Aug 2022; National ID No. 1286504104 (Iran) (individual) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: NATIONAL IRANIAN OIL COMPANY).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(E) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism,” (E.O. 13224), 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786, as amended by Executive Order 13886 of September 9, 2019, “Modernizing Sanctions to Combat Terrorism,” 84 FR 48041 (E.O. 13224, as amended) for being a leader or official of NATIONAL IRANIAN OIL COMPANY, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
2. PUREBRAHIM, Ali Akbar (a.k.a. POUREBRAHIM, Ali Akbar; a.k.a. POUR-EBRAHIM, Ali-Akbar; a.k.a. POUREBRAHIMABADI, Aliakbar; a.k.a. PUREBRAHIMABADI, Ali Akbar), Iran; Lausanne, Switzerland; DOB 22 Dec 1987; nationality Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male; Passport X42276294 (Iran) expires 21 Sep 2022 (individual) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: QASEMI, Rostam).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Rostam QASEMI, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
3. SARDASHTI, Nasrollah, Iran; DOB 22 Nov 1958; POB Iran; nationality Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male; Passport E194742 (Iran) (individual) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: NATIONAL IRANIAN TANKER COMPANY).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(E) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being a leader or official of NATIONAL IRANIAN TANKER COMPANY, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
4. ZANGANEH, Viyan (a.k.a. ZANGANEH, Vian); DOB 23 Sep 1974; nationality Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Female; Passport E34651195 (Iran) expires 26 Aug 2020 (individual) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS (IRGC)-QODS FORCE).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Iran's ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS (IRGC)-QODS FORCE, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
5. ZANGANEH, Bijan, Iran; DOB Mar 1952; alt. DOB Mar 1953; POB Kermanshah, Iran; nationality Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male (individual) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(E) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being a leader or official of Iran's MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
6. MOHAMMADI, Behzad, Iran; DOB 1966; nationality Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male (individual) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: NATIONAL PETROCHEMICAL COMPANY).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(E) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being a leader or official of Iran's NATIONAL PETROCHEMICAL COMPANY, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
7. SADIQABADI, Alireza, Iran; DOB 1982; POB Tehran, Iran; nationality Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male (individual) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: NATIONAL IRANIAN OIL REFINING AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(E) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being a leader or official of NATIONAL IRANIAN OIL REFINING AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
8. MADANIPOUR, Mahmoud, 93 Chiltern Road, Sutton, SM2 5QZ, Surry, United Kingdom; Iran; DOB 19 Jul 1978; nationality Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male; Passport Y42996343 (Iran) issued 10 Oct 2022 (individual) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MOBIN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having acted or purposed to have acted for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, MOBIN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
1. ATLANTIC SHIP MANAGEMENT COMPANY (a.k.a. ATLANTIC SHIP MANAGEMENT LLC), Office Number 3803, Churchill Tower, 38 Floor, Business Bay, Bur Dubai, Burj Khalifa, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; P.O. Box 128650, No 1902, Churchill Tower, Business Bay, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Registration Number 663558 (United Arab Emirates) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: NATIONAL IRANIAN TANKER COMPANY).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, NATIONAL IRANIAN TANKER COMPANY, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
2. ATLAS SHIP MANAGEMENT (a.k.a. ATLAS SHIPS MANAGEMENT), Fujairah, United Arab Emirates; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: NATIONAL IRANIAN TANKER COMPANY).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, NATIONAL IRANIAN TANKER COMPANY, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
3. MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM (a.k.a. IRANIAN MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM), Iranian Ministry of Petroleum Building, Taleghani Ave., Tehran, Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To:
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(B) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for owning or controlling, directly or indirectly, NATIONAL IRANIAN OIL COMPANY, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended, as well as pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Iran's ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS (IRGC)-QODS FORCE, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
4. NATIONAL IRANIAN OIL COMPANY (a.k.a. NIOC), Hafez Crossing, Taleghani Avenue, P.O. Box 1863 and 2501, Tehran, Iran; National Iranian Oil Company Building, Taleghani Avenue, Hafez Street, Tehran, Iran; website
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Iran's ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS (IRGC)-QODS FORCE, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
5. NATIONAL IRANIAN TANKER COMPANY (a.k.a. NITC), NITC Building, 67-88, Shahid Atefi Street, Africa Avenue, Tehran, Iran; No. 65 and 67 Shahid Atefi Street, Africa Blvd., Tehran, Iran; website
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Iran's ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS (IRGC)-QODS FORCE, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
6. IMAM KHOMEINI SHAZAND OIL REFINING COMPANY (a.k.a. IKORC; a.k.a. IMAM KHOMEINI ZHAZAND OIL REFINING), 20th Km of Borujerd Road, Arak 38671-41111, Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; National ID No. 144518 (Iran) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Iran's MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
7. IRANIAN OIL PIPELINES AND TELECOMMUNICATION CO. (a.k.a. IOPTC), Qarani Street, No. 135, Tehran, Tehran Province, Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Iran's MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
8. NATIONAL IRANIAN OIL ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (a.k.a. NIOEC), No. 247 Ostad Nejatollahi Avenue, Corner of Shahid Kalantary Street, Tehran, Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; National ID No. 89299 (Iran) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Iran's MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
9. NATIONAL IRANIAN OIL PRODUCTS DISTRIBUTION COMPANY (a.k.a. NIOPDC), No 1, Iransahr Building, Opposite of Honarmandan Park Corner of Iransahr Street, Taleghani Avenue, Tehran, Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; National ID No. 67337 (Iran) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of of September 9, 2019, “Modernizing Sanctions to Combat Terrorism,” 84 FR 48041 (E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Iran's MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
10. NATIONAL IRANIAN OIL REFINING AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY (a.k.a. NIORDC), 4 Varsho Street, Tehran, Iran; P.O. Box 15815/3499, No. 4 Varsho Street, 1598666611, Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; National ID No. 89152 (Iran) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Iran's MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
11. NATIONAL PETROCHEMICAL COMPANY (a.k.a. THE NATIONAL PETROCHEMICAL COMPANY; a.k.a. “NIPC”; a.k.a. “NPC”), No. 104, North Sheikh Bahaei Blvd., Molla Sadra Ave., Tehran, Iran; No 144, North Sheikh Bahayi Avenue, Mulla Sadra Street, Vanak Square, Tehran, Iran; P.O. Box 19395-6896, Tehran, Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; National ID No. 9614 (Iran); all offices worldwide [IRAN] [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Iran's MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
12. MOBIN HOLDING LIMITED (f.k.a. GOLDEN CROWN OVERSEAS LIMITED), 22 Long Acre, Long Acre, London WC2E 9LY, United Kingdom; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Registration Number 09745038 (United Kingdom) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MADANIPOUR, Mahmoud).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Mahmoud MADANIPOUR, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
13. MOBIN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (a.k.a. “MOBIN INTERNATIONAL LTD.”), Office 2403, Ahmad-Abberrhaim al-Attar, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; website
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, NATIONAL IRANIAN OIL PRODUCTS DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
14. OMAN FUEL TRADING LTD, 22 Long Acre, Long Acre, London WC2E 9LY, United Kingdom; 51 Creighton Road, London W5 4SH, United Kingdom; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Registration Number 11751545 (United Kingdom) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MADANIPOUR, Mahmoud).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Mahmoud MADANIPOUR, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
1. LONGBOW LAKE (f.k.a. GULF FALCON; f.k.a. GULF GLORY; f.k.a. NICHINORI) Crude Oil Tanker Honduras flag; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9237539 (vessel) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: NATIONAL IRANIAN OIL COMPANY).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended, as property in which NATIONAL IRANIAN OIL COMPANY, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended, has an interest.
2. WU XIAN Crude Oil Tanker Panama flag; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9102239 (vessel) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: NATIONAL IRANIAN OIL COMPANY).
Identified pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended, as property in which NATIONAL IRANIAN OIL COMPANY, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended, has an interest.
Veterans Experience Office, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Notice of a modified system of records.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, notice is hereby given that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is modifying the system of records titled “Veterans Affairs Profile-VA” (192VA30). VA Profile contains information about Veterans; their families, caregivers, and survivors; and other VA customers to facilitate the title 38 benefits and services provided by the different administrations and program offices.
Comments on this modified system of records must be received no later than 30 days after date of publication in the
Comments may be submitted through
Trisha Dang, Veterans Experience Office (VEO), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Building 810,
VA is modifying the Veterans Affairs Profile system of records by making minor revisions to the Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System; and updating the System Location; Purpose of the System; Categories of Individuals Covered by the System; Categories of Records in the System; Record Source Categories; Policies and Practices for Storage of Records; Administrative, Technical, and Physical Safeguards; Record Access Procedures; and Contesting Record Procedures.
The Report of Intent to Amend a System of Records Notice and an advance copy of the system notice have been sent to the appropriate Congressional committees and to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) (Privacy Act) and guidelines issued by OMB (65 FR 77677), December 12, 2000.
The Senior Agency Official for Privacy, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Kurt D. DelBene, Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology and Chief Information Officer, approved this document on September 13, 2023 for publication.
Veterans Affairs Profile (VA Profile) (192VA30).
Unclassified.
The VA Profile system is maintained in a system known as the VA Profile Data Repository (VA PROFILEDB) hosted at an OI&T approved VA sponsored data warehouse location via secured cloud storage on a Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) certified VA Enterprise Cloud (VAEC).
Trisha Dang, Veterans Experience Office (VEO), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Building 810, Washington, DC 20420; Telephone (202) 461-9898; email
38 U.S.C. 501, 7304.
The purpose of VA Profile is to serve as the authoritative data source for common customer profiles of Veterans; their families, caregivers, and survivors; and other VA customers. The profile data in this system of records is mastered and synchronized with information in other data sources, meet VA data quality standards, and is updated using a single touchpoint service. Through synchronization of information from various data sources, VA Profile provides VA administrations and program offices with a customer profile that is accurate, relevant, complete, and timely.
Records in the system contain information about Veterans; their families, caregivers, and survivors; and eligible beneficiaries who are receiving or have received title 38 benefits and services; and other individuals who may be entitled to title 38 benefits and services.
Records may include identifying data and contact information, such as names; mailing and residential addresses; daytime, evening, mobile, and fax phone numbers; and email addresses.
Records contain information provided by Veterans as well as their families, advocates, and dependents. Information is also obtained from other VA components and systems of records, including National Patient Database-VA (121VA10A7), VA/DoD Identity Repository (138VA005Q); Enrollment and Eligibility Records-VA (147VA10), Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA) Records-VA (79VA10),Compensation, Pension, Education, and Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Records (58VA21/22/28), Administrative Data Repository-VA (150VA19), and supplemented with information purchased from data brokers.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
(a) VA or any component thereof;
(b) Any VA employee in his or her official capacity;
(c) Any VA employee in his or her individual capacity where DoJ has agreed to represent the employee; or
(d) The United States, where VA determines that litigation is likely to affect the agency or any of its
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Records will be maintained at an OI&T approved VA sponsored data warehouse location via secured cloud storage on a Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) certified VA Government Cloud (GovCloud) site.
Records may be retrieved by name or other identifiers, such as an internal entry number of a partner system that maintains information on the individuals.
Records in this system are maintained and disposed of in accordance with the schedule approved by the Archivist of the United States, General Records Schedule 5.2, item 020, which provides for disposition of intermediary records,
Access to VA Profile is limited to those persons whose official duties require such access. VA has established security procedures to ensure that access is appropriately limited, including review by information security officers and system data stewards of data access requests; and privacy and information security training required annually of all users of VA information or information systems.
Access is regulated with security software that requires each user to be authenticated, and the system is hosted on a FedRAMP-certified, FISMA-high VA Government Cloud (GovCloud); and transmissions are protected by firewalls, intrusion detection devices, encryption, and other security measures.
Physical access to computer rooms housing national administrative databases, warehouses, and data marts is restricted to authorized staff and protected by a variety of security devices. Unauthorized employees, contractors, and other staff are not allowed in computer rooms. The Federal Protective Service or other security personnel provide physical security for the buildings housing computer rooms and data centers, and copies of back-up computer files are generally maintained at off-site locations.
Individuals seeking access to records in this system pertaining to them must contact the system manager in writing as indicated above. The request for access must contain the requester's full name, address, telephone number, and signature, and describe the records sought in sufficient detail to enable VA to locate them with a reasonable amount of effort.
Individuals seeking to contest or amend records in this system pertaining to them must contact the system manager in writing as indicated above. A request to contest or amend must state clearly and concisely what record is being contested, the basis for contesting it, and the proposed amendment to the record.
Generalized notice is provided by the publication of this notice. For specific notice, see Record Access Procedure, above.
None.
87 FR 36207 (June 15, 2022).
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before December 22, 2023.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise and Integration, Data Governance Analytics (008), 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 266-4688 or email
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
a. VA Form 10-7959f-1 will collect information used to register into the FMP those Veterans with service-connected disabilities who are living or traveling overseas.
b. VA Form 10-7959f-2 will collect information to streamline the FMP claims submission process for claimants or providers, while also reducing the time spent by VA on processing FMP claims. The cover sheet will explain to foreign providers and Veterans the basic information required for the processing and payment of claims.
By direction of the Secretary.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; notification of public hearing and conference.
In this action, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to revise the
Comments must be received on or before December 22, 2023.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0872, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
The public hearing will be held at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. The hearing will convene at 8:30 a.m. (local time) and will conclude at 5:00 p.m. (local time). Refer to the
Mr. George M. Bridgers, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division, Air Quality Modeling Group, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code C439-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone: (919) 541-5563; email:
The information in this preamble is organized as follows:
This action applies to Federal, State, territorial, and local air quality management programs that conduct air quality modeling as part of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittals and revisions, New Source Review (NSR), including new or modifying industrial sources under Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), Conformity, and other air quality assessments required under EPA regulation. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include:
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposed rule and relative supporting documentation will also be available on EPA's Support Center for Regulatory Atmospheric Modeling (SCRAM) website. Following signature, these materials will be posted on SCRAM at the following address:
The
The EPA originally published the
To support the process of developing and revising the
The Seventh Conference was held in June 2000 and also served as a public hearing for the proposed revisions to the recommended air quality models in the
We held the Eighth Conference on Air Quality Modeling in September 2005. This conference provided details on changes to the preferred air quality models, including available methods for model performance evaluation and the notice of data availability that the EPA published in September 2003, related to the incorporation of the PRIME downwash algorithm in the AERMOD dispersion model (in response to comments received from the Seventh Conference). Additionally, at the Eighth Conference, a panel of experts discussed the use of state-of-the-science prognostic meteorological data for informing the dispersion models. The EPA further revised the
The Ninth Conference on Air Quality Modeling was held in October 2008 and emphasized the following topics: reinstituting the Model Clearinghouse, review of non-guideline applications of dispersion models, regulatory status updates of AERMOD and CALPUFF, continued discussions on the use of prognostic meteorological data for informing dispersion models, and presentations reviewing the available model evaluation methods. To further inform the development of additional revisions to the
The Eleventh Conference on Air Quality Modeling was held August 12-13, 2015, and included the public hearing for the most recently proposed version of the
Additionally, the 2015 proposed action included a reorganization of the
The most recent EPA modeling conference was the Twelfth Conference on Air Quality Modeling, which was held in August 2019 in continuing compliance with CAA section 320. While not associated with a regulatory action, the Twelfth Conference was held with the intent to inform the ongoing development of EPA's preferred air quality models and potential revisions to the
All the presentations, along with the transcript of the conference proceedings, are available in the docket for the Twelfth Conference on Air Quality Models (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0454). Additionally, all the materials associated with the Twelfth Conference and the public hearing are available on the EPA's SCRAM website at
With the release of AERMOD version 18181 in 2018, the EPA adopted a new paradigm for engagement with the scientific community to facilitate the continued development of the AERMOD Modeling System. Previously, updates to the scientific formulation of the model were not made available to the public for review, testing, evaluation, and comment prior to the proposal stage of the formal rulemaking process when an update was made to the
In this alpha/beta construct, alpha options are updates to the scientific formulation that are thought to have merit but are considered experimental, still in the research and development stage. Alpha options have not yet been fully tested, evaluated, or vetted through peer review and should not be considered for use as an alternative model for regulatory applications of the model.
Beta options, on the other hand, have been demonstrated to be applicable on a theoretical basis, have undergone scientific peer review, and are supported with performance evaluations using available and adequate databases that demonstrate unbiased, improved model performance. In general, beta options have met the necessary criteria to be formally proposed and adopted as updates to the regulatory version of the model but have not yet been proposed through the required rulemaking process, which includes a public hearing and formal comment period. Beta options are mature enough in the development process to be considered for use as an alternative model, provided an appropriate site-specific modeling demonstration is completed to show the alternative model is appropriate for the site and conditions where it will be applied and the requirements of the
Interested persons may provide the EPA with their views on the proposed revisions to the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0872, at
The public hearing for this action and the Thirteenth Conference on Air Quality Modeling will be held on November 14-15, 2023, in the EPA Nantahala Auditorium, Room C111, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. The hearing and conference will convene each day at 8:30 a.m. EST and will conclude at 5:00 p.m. EST.
The Thirteenth Conference on Air Quality Modeling will be open to the public. No registration fee is charged. The conference will be formally conducted and chaired by an EPA official. As required under CAA section 320, a verbatim transcript of the conference proceedings will be produced and placed in the docket for this proposed action. The conference will begin with introductory remarks by the presiding EPA official. The EPA staff and EPA invited speakers will then provide a structured overview of the revisions to the
I. Overview of the Thirteenth Conference on Air Quality Modeling;
II. Review of the proposed revisions to the preferred air quality models; and
III. Review of the proposed revisions to the
At the conclusion of these presentations, the EPA will convene the public hearing on the proposed revisions to the
Those wishing to reserve time to speak at the public hearing, whether to offer specific comments on the proposed rule, volunteer a presentation on a special topic, or to offer recommendations on any regulatory modeling techniques, should contact us at the address given in the
Any person in attendance wishing to speak at the public hearing who has not reserved time in advance may provide oral comments on the proposed revisions to the
The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Information submitted to the EPA during the public hearing will be placed in the docket for this proposed action. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral testimony and supporting information presented at the public hearing.
In this action, the EPA is proposing updates to the
This section provides a detailed overview of the substantive proposed changes to the
Based on studies presented and discussed at the Twelfth Conference on Air Quality Models held on October 2-3, 2019,
Each of the proposed formulation updates to the AERMOD Modeling System is provided as a non-regulatory beta option in the release of the relevant modeling system components that is occurring concurrent with this proposed rule. If EPA adopts these formulation updates in a subsequent final rule, the beta categorization would be removed and the respective model option(s) could be considered regulatory model options.
The EPA proposes the following updates to the AERMOD Modeling System to address several technical concerns expressed by stakeholders:
As the number of overwater applications has increased in recent years, the EPA is proposing to add the Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Response Experiment (COARE)
For overwater applications, the algorithms in COARE are better suited for overwater boundary layer calculations than the existing algorithms in AERMET that are better suited for land-based data. These calculations include calculation of surface roughness, stability classification, effects of moisture on Monin-Obukhov length, and the use of Bowen ratio by AERMET for heat flux calculations.
The addition of the COARE algorithms to AERMET would replace the standalone AERCOARE program and the AERCOARE output option in MMIF for prognostic data overwater. This proposed option is selected by the user with the METHOD COARE RUN-COARE record in the AERMET Stage 2 input file. For prognostic applications processed through the MMIF, the user can run MMIF for AERMET input for overwater applications.
The addition of COARE to AERMET would eliminate the previous alternative model demonstration requirements for use of AERMOD in marine environments, and this elimination is contingent upon consultation with the EPA Regional Office and appropriate reviewing authority. This consultation will ensure that platform downwash and shoreline fumigation are adequately considered in the modeling demonstration.
Section 4.2.3.4 of the 2017
Tier 1—assuming that all emitted NO is converted to NO
Tier 2—using the Ambient Ratio Method 2 (ARM2), which applies an assumed equilibrium ratio of NO
Tier 3—applying the Ozone Limiting Method (OLM) and Plume Volume Molar Ratio (PVMRM) screening options based on site-specific hourly ozone data and source-specific NO
As further discussed in section 4.2.3.4(e) of the
The EPA proposes to include the Generic Reaction Set Method (GRSM) as a regulatory non-default Tier 3 NO
The functionality of the GRSM implementation in AERMOD is similar to that of the PVMRM and OLM schemes, with exception to some additional input requirements necessary for treatment of the reverse NO
Updates to the GRSM formulation in AERMOD version 22112 were developed in late 2022 to address more realistic building effects on instantaneous plume spread, accounting of multiple plume effects on entrainment of ozone, and the tendency of GRSM to over-predict in the far-field (
As a culmination of an Interagency Agreement between EPA and FHWA, the EPA proposes to add the RLINE source type as a new source type applicable for regulatory modeling of mobile sources. This is in addition to the AREA, LINE, and VOLUME source types already available for mobile source modeling. The proposed addition of RLINE as a mobile source type is an extension of the 2017 update to the
The RLINE source type for this proposed action has undergone significant evaluation by the EPA and the FHWA as part of the Interagency Agreement and has shown improved performance.
Model performance evaluation and peer-reviewed scientific references for each of these three proposed updates to the AERMOD Modeling System are cited and placed in the docket, as appropriate. An updated user's guide and model formulation documents for version 23132 have also been placed in the docket. We have updated the summary description of the AERMOD Modeling System to addendum A of the
Based on permit modeling experiences since the 2017 revisions to the
The EPA proposes to revise recommendations for the determination of background concentrations in constructing the design concentration, or total air quality concentration in multi-source areas (
In conjunction with the proposed revisions to section 8 of the
In previous rulemakings to revise the
Such a transition period is consistent with previous revisions to the
Where a proposed revision to the
The EPA proposes to correct paragraph (i) by combining the inadvertently created paragraph (A), which is actually part of the phrase “addendum A” in the first sentence.
The EPA proposes to revise an outdated website link in section 3.0(b).
In sections 3.1.1(c) and 3.1.2(a), the EPA proposes to correct the sections by combining the inadvertently created paragraph (A), which is actually part of the phrase “addendum A” in the first sentence.
The EPA proposes to update reference numbers where necessary due to added references.
In sections 4.1(b) and 4.2.2(a), the EPA proposes to correct the sections by combining the inadvertently created paragraph (A), which is actually part of the phrase “addendum A” in the first sentence.
In section 4.2.2.1, the EPA proposes to add a new paragraph (f) regarding the use of AERMOD in certain overwater situations. A typographical correction is proposed in section 4.2.2.1(b).
The EPA proposes amendments to section 4.2.2.3 to account for circumstances where OCD is available to evaluate situations where shoreline fumigation and/or platform downwash are important.
In section 4.2.3.4, the EPA proposes to revise paragraph (e) to adopt the Generic Reaction Set Method (GRSM) as a regulatory Tier 3 detailed screening technique for NO
The EPA proposes to revise Table 4-1 in section 4.2.3.4(f) to include GRSM as a Tier 3 detailed screening option.
The EPA proposes to update reference numbers where necessary due to added references. In section 5.2, the EPA proposes to revise paragraph (c) to include a reference for guidance on the use of models to assess the impacts of emissions from single sources on secondarily formed ozone and PM
The EPA proposes to update reference numbers where necessary due to added references and revise an outdated website link in section 6.3(a).
The EPA proposes to update reference numbers where necessary due to added references.
In section 7.2.3, the EPA proposes to revise paragraph (b) to include the addition of RLINE as a source type for use in regulatory applications of AERMOD and remove references to specific distances that receptors can be placed from the roadway.
Also in section 7.2.3, the EPA proposes to revise paragraph (c) to include RLINE as a source type that can be used to model mobile sources and clarify that an area source can be categorized in AERMOD using the AREA, LINE, or RLINE source type.
The EPA proposes to update reference numbers where necessary due to added references.
The EPA proposes to revise Table 8-1 and Table 8-2 to correct typographical errors and update the footnotes in each of the tables.
The EPA proposes to revise section 8.3.1 to address current EPA practices and recommendations for determining the appropriate background concentration as model input data for a new or modifying source(s) or sources under consideration for a revised permit limit. This revision would provide a stepwise framework for modeling isolated single sources and multi-source areas as part of a cumulative impact analysis. The EPA also proposes to remove the term “significant concentration gradient” and its related content in section 8.3.1(a)(i) due to the ambiguity and lack of definition of this term in the context of modeling multi-source areas.
The EPA proposes to remove paragraph (d) in section 8.3.2 and renumber paragraphs (e) and (f) to (d) and (e), respectively. The content of
In section 8.3.3, the EPA proposes revisions to the content in section 8.3.3(b) on the recommendations for determining nearby sources to explicitly model as part of a cumulative impact analysis. The EPA proposes to remove the content related to the term “significant concentration gradient” in section 8.3.3(b)(i), section 8.3.3(b)(ii), and section 8.3.3(b)(iii) due to the lack of definition of this term in the context of modeling multi-source areas. The EPA also proposes to revise the example given in section 8.3.3(d) to be consistent with the discussion of other sources in section 8.3.1(a)(ii) and the proposed revisions to Tables 8-1 and 8-2.
In section 8.4.1, the EPA proposes to include buoy data as an example of site-specific data as a result of the inclusion of the Coupled-Ocean Atmosphere Response Experiment (COARE) algorithms to AERMET for marine boundary layer processing. The EPA proposes to revise paragraph (a) of section 8.4.2 to note that MMIF should be used to process prognostic meteorological data for both land-based and overwater applications, and to revise paragraph (b) to clarify that AERSURFACE should be used to calculate surface characteristics for land-based data and AERMET calculates surface characteristics for overwater applications. Also, the EPA proposes to revise paragraph (e) of this section to clarify that at least 1-year of site-specific data applies to both land-based and overwater-based data.
The EPA proposes to revise paragraph (a) of section 8.4.3.2 to remove references to specific weblinks and to state that users should refer to the latest guidance documents for weblinks.
The EPA proposes to add a new section 8.4.6 to discuss the implementation of COARE for marine boundary layer processing and to renumber the existing section 8.4.6 (in the 2017
The EPA proposes to update reference numbers where necessary due to added references.
In section 9.2.3, the EPA proposes to revise the example given in section 9.2.3(a)(ii) to be consistent with the discussion of other sources in section 8.3.1(a)(ii) and the proposed revisions to Tables 8-1 and 8-2.
The EPA proposes updates to references in section 10.0 to remove outdated website links and reflect current versions of guidance documents, user's guides, and other supporting documentation where applicable. The EPA also proposes to add references to support proposed updates to the AERMOD Modeling System described in this proposed update to the
The EPA proposes to revise section A.0 to remove references that indicate there are “many” preferred models while the number is currently only three.
The EPA proposes to revise the References section to include additional references that support our proposed updates to the AERMOD Modeling System.
In the Abstract section, the EPA proposes to add line type sources as one of the source types AERMOD can simulate.
The EPA proposes to revise section A.1(a) to include overwater applications for regulatory modeling where shoreline fumigation and/or platform downwash are not important to facilitate the use of AERMOD with COARE processing. This revision would remove the need to request an alternative model demonstration for such applications. The EPA also proposes to clarify elevation data that can be used in AERMOD, specifically the change in the name of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Dataset (NED) to 3D Elevation Program (3DEP). For consistency, references to NED would be updated to 3DEP throughout section A.1.
The EPA proposes to revise section A.1(b) to include prognostic data as meteorological input to the AERMOD Modeling System, as applicable.
The EPA proposes to revise section A.1(l) to include the proposed Generic Reaction Set Method in the discussion on chemical transformation in AERMOD. We also propose to clarify the status of the different deposition options in A.1(l).
The EPA proposes to revise section A.1(n) to include references to additional evaluation studies to support our proposed updates to the AERMOD Modeling System.
In section A.3, the EPA proposes to remove the reference to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's (BOEM) outdated guidance.
In addition to the proposed beta options above, AERMOD version 23132 also includes alpha options that are thought to have scientific merit and that are still being developed or evaluated and peer reviewed. These alpha options are not being proposed as updates to the regulatory formulation of the AERMOD Modeling System, and the EPA is not taking comment on the alpha options during this rulemaking. A list of alpha options on which the EPA has placed a high priority for continued research and development for model improvement is included below. Refer to the AERMOD User's Guide for details and usage of each option.
The AERMOD Modeling System, version 23131, includes but is not limited to the following alpha options:
• Low Wind Default Overrides (LOW_WIND).
LOW_WIND was first implemented as a collection of non-regulatory beta test options in AERMOD version 12345 (LOWWIND1 and LOWWIND2) and expanded in version 15481(LOWWIND3). Each of these options altered the default model values for minimum sigma-v, minimum wind speed, and the minimum meander factor with different combinations of hardcoded values. Though the original LOW_WIND beta test options are no longer implemented in AERMOD, the LOW_WIND option was recategorized as an alpha option in AERMOD version 18181. The LOW_WIND option in version 23132 enables the user to override AERMOD default values with user-defined values for one or more of the following parameters:
○ Minimum standard deviation of the lateral velocity to the average wind direction;
○ Minimum mean wind speed;
○ Minimum and maximum meander factor;
○ Minimum standard deviation of the vertical wind speed; and
○ Time scale for random dispersion.
• Modifications to PRIME Building Downwash (AWMADWNW and ORD_DWNW).
Beginning with AERMOD version 19191, two distinct sets of alpha options were added that modify the building downwash algorithm, PRIME. The two sets of options were developed
• Downwash from Offshore Drilling Platforms (PLATFORM).
To enhance AERMOD's offshore modeling capabilities, the platform downwash algorithm, adapted from the Offshore Coastal Dispersion (OCD) dispersion model, was incorporated in AERMOD version 22112 and requires further development, testing, and evaluation. The PLATFORM option simulates the building downwash effect from platforms commonly used for offshore drilling, made up of both porous and solid structures and which are elevated with airflow beneath them.
• Extended RLINE Source Type Including Barriers and Depressed Roadways (RLINEXT).
The RLINEXT source type was implemented in AERMOD version 18181 and is an extended version of the RLINE source type that allows for a more refined characterization of a road segment. It accepts separate inputs for the elevations of each end of the road segment and extended options for modeling with roadway barriers (RBARRIER) and depressed roadways (RDEPRESS).
• TTRM and TTRM2 for Conversion of NO
The Travel Time Reaction Method (TTRM) was implemented in AERMOD version 21112 as a stand-alone NO
• Highly Buoyant Plume (HBP).
A Highly Buoyant Plume (HBP) option was implemented as an alpha option that can be applied to POINT source types beginning with AERMOD version 23132 to further explore AERMOD's treatment of the penetrated plume. A penetrated plume occurs when a plume released into the mixed layer, and a portion of the plume eventually penetrates the top of the mixed layer during convective hours as it continues to rise due to either buoyancy or momentum.
• Aircraft Plume Rise (AREA/VOLUME Source Types).
Beginning with AERMOD version 23132, the characterization of AREA and VOLUME sources was extended to account for the buoyancy and horizontal momentum of aircraft emissions. The aircraft plume rise formulation and code for AREA and VOLUME sources was independently developed and provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). EPA continues to collaborate with FAA on model evaluation and peer review of the aircraft plume rise formulations.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, and was therefore not subject to a requirement for Executive Order 12866 review.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This action does not contain any information collection activities, nor does it add any information collection requirements beyond those imposed by existing New Source Review requirements.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action proposes revisions to the
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or Tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action provides proposed revisions to the
The EPA provided information regarding this action to the Tribes during a monthly National Tribal Air Association (NTAA) call and will continue to provide any new or subsequent updates to EPA modeling guidance and other regulatory compliance demonstration related topics upon request of the NTAA. Additionally, the EPA specifically solicits any comments on this proposed action from Tribal officials.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order.
Therefore, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. Since this action does not concern human health, EPA's Policy on Children's Health also does not apply.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental effects on communities with environmental justice concerns because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard. This action proposes revisions to the
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Criteria pollutants, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Mobile sources, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Stationary sources, Sulfur oxides.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency is amending title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
a. Industry and control agencies have long expressed a need for consistency in the application of air quality models for regulatory purposes. In the 1977 Clean Air Act (CAA), Congress mandated such consistency and encouraged the standardization of model applications. The
b. The continuing development of new air quality models in response to regulatory requirements and the expanded requirements for models to cover even more complex problems have emphasized the need for periodic review and update of guidance on these techniques. Historically, three primary activities have provided direct input to revisions of the
c. Based primarily on these three activities, new sections and topics have been included as needed. The EPA does not make changes to the guidance on a predetermined schedule, but rather on an as-needed basis. The EPA believes that revisions of the
a. The
b. Air quality measurements
c. It would be advantageous to categorize the various regulatory programs and to apply a designated model to each proposed source needing analysis under a given program. However, the diversity of the nation's topography and climate, and variations in source configurations and operating characteristics dictate against a strict modeling “cookbook.” There is no one model capable of properly addressing all conceivable situations even within a broad category such as point sources. Meteorological phenomena associated with threats to air quality standards are rarely amenable to a single mathematical treatment; thus, case-by-case analysis and judgment are frequently required. As modeling efforts become more complex, it is increasingly important that they be directed by highly competent individuals with a broad range of experience and knowledge in air quality meteorology. Further, they should be coordinated closely with specialists in emissions characteristics, air monitoring and data processing. The judgment of experienced meteorologists, atmospheric scientists, and analysts is essential.
d. The model that most accurately estimates concentrations in the area of interest is always sought. However, it is clear from the needs expressed by the EPA Regional Offices, by State, local, and Tribal agencies, by many industries and trade associations, and also by the deliberations of Congress, that consistency in the selection and application of models and databases should also be sought, even in case-by-case analyses. Consistency ensures that air quality control agencies and the general public have a common basis for estimating pollutant concentrations, assessing control strategies, and specifying emissions limits. Such consistency is not, however, promoted at the expense of model and database accuracy. The
e. Recommendations are made in the
f. From time to time, situations arise requiring clarification of the intent of the guidance on a specific topic. Periodic workshops are held with EPA headquarters, EPA Regional Offices, and State, local, and Tribal agency modeling representatives to ensure consistency in modeling guidance and to promote the use of more accurate air quality models, techniques, and databases. The workshops serve to provide further explanations of
g. All changes to the
h. A wide range of topics on modeling and databases are discussed in the
i. Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51 contains an addendum: addendum A. Thus, when reference is made to “addendum A” in this document, it refers to addendum A to appendix W to 40 CFR part 51. Addendum A contains summaries of refined air quality models that are “preferred” for particular applications; both EPA models and models developed by others are included.
a. Increasing reliance has been placed on concentration estimates from air quality models as the primary basis for regulatory decisions concerning source permits and emission control requirements. In many situations, such as review of a proposed new source, no practical alternative exists. Before attempting to implement the guidance contained in this document, the reader should be aware of certain general information concerning air quality models and their evaluation and use. Such information is provided in this section.
a. The extent to which a specific air quality model is suitable for the assessment of source impacts depends upon several factors. These include: (1) the topographic and meteorological complexities of the area; (2) the detail and accuracy of the input databases,
b. Air quality models are most accurate and reliable in areas that have gradual transitions of land use and topography. Meteorological conditions in these areas are spatially uniform such that observations are broadly representative and air quality model projections are not further complicated by a heterogeneous environment. Areas subject to major topographic influences experience meteorological complexities that are often difficult to measure and simulate. Models with adequate performance are available for increasingly complex environments. However, they are resource intensive and frequently require site-specific observations and formulations. Such complexities and the related challenges for the air quality simulation should be considered when selecting the most appropriate air quality model for an application.
c. Appropriate model input data should be available before an attempt is made to evaluate or apply an air quality model. Assuming the data are adequate, the greater the detail with which a model considers the spatial and temporal variations in meteorological conditions and permit-enforceable emissions, the greater the ability to evaluate the source impact and to distinguish the effects of various control strategies.
d. There are three types of models that have historically been used in the regulatory demonstrations applicable in the
i. Gaussian plume models use a “steady-state” approximation, which assumes that over the model time step, the emissions, meteorology and other model inputs, are constant throughout the model domain, resulting in a resolved plume with the emissions distributed throughout the plume according to a Gaussian distribution. This formulation allows Gaussian models to estimate near-field impacts of a limited number of sources at a relatively high resolution, with temporal scales of an hour and spatial scales of meters. However, this formulation allows for only relatively inert pollutants, with very limited considerations of transformation and removal (
ii. Lagrangian puff models, on the other hand, are non-steady-state, and assume that model input conditions are changing over the model domain and model time step. Lagrangian models can also be used to determine near- and far-field impacts from a limited number of sources. Traditionally, Lagrangian models have been used for relatively inert pollutants, with slightly more complex considerations of removal than Gaussian models. Some Lagrangian models treat in-plume gas and particulate chemistry. However, these models require time and space varying concentration fields of oxidants and, in the case of fine particulate matter (PM
iii. Photochemical grid models are three-dimensional Eulerian grid-based models that treat chemical and physical processes in each grid cell and use diffusion and transport processes to move chemical species between grid cells.
e. Competent and experienced meteorologists, atmospheric scientists, and analysts are an essential prerequisite to the successful application of air quality models. The need for such specialists is critical when sophisticated models are used or the area has complicated meteorological or topographic features. It is important to note that a model applied improperly or with inappropriate data can lead to serious misjudgments regarding the source impact or the effectiveness of a control strategy.
f. The resource demands generated by use of air quality models vary widely depending on the specific application. The resources required may be important factors in the selection and use of a model or technique for a specific analysis. These resources depend on the nature of the model and its complexity, the detail of the databases, the difficulty of the application, the amount and level of expertise required, and the costs of manpower and computational facilities.
a. The formulation and application of air quality models are accompanied by several sources of uncertainty. “Irreducible” uncertainty stems from the “unknown” conditions, which may not be explicitly accounted for in the model (
b. Evaluations of model accuracy should focus on the reducible uncertainty associated with physics and the formulation of the model. The accuracy of the model is normally determined by an evaluation procedure which involves the comparison of model concentration estimates with measured air quality data.
c. Since the 1980's, the EPA has worked with the modeling community to encourage development of standardized model evaluation methods and the development of continually improved methods for the characterization of model
• Scientific peer review;
• Supportive analyses (diagnostic evaluations, code verification, sensitivity analyses);
• Diagnostic and performance evaluations with data obtained in trial locations; and
• Statistical performance evaluations in the circumstances of the intended applications.
Performance evaluations and diagnostic evaluations assess different qualities of how well a model is performing, and both are needed to establish credibility within the client and scientific community.
d. Performance evaluations allow the EPA and model users to determine the relative performance of a model in comparison with alternative modeling systems. Diagnostic evaluations allow determination of a model capability to simulate individual processes that affect the results, and usually employ smaller spatial/temporal scale data sets (
a. It is desirable to begin an air quality analysis by using simplified and conservative methods followed, as appropriate, by more complex and refined methods. The purpose of this approach is to streamline the process and sufficiently address regulatory requirements by eliminating the need of more detailed modeling when it is not necessary in a specific regulatory application. For example, in the context of a PSD permit application, a simplified and conservative analysis may be sufficient where it shows the proposed construction clearly will not cause or contribute to ambient concentrations in excess of either the NAAQS or the PSD increments.
b. There are two general levels of sophistication of air quality models. The first level consists of screening models that provide conservative modeled estimates of the air quality impact of a specific source or source category based on simplified assumptions of the model inputs (
c. The second level consists of refined models that provide more detailed treatment of physical and chemical atmospheric processes, require more detailed and precise input data, and provide spatially and temporally resolved concentration estimates. As a result, they provide a more sophisticated and, at least theoretically, a more accurate estimate of source impact and the effectiveness of control strategies.
d. There are situations where a screening model or a refined model is not available such that screening and refined modeling are not viable options to determine source-specific air quality impacts. In such situations, a screening technique or reduced-form model may be viable options for estimating source impacts.
i. Screening techniques are differentiated from a screening model in that screening techniques are approaches that make simplified and conservative assumptions about the physical and chemical atmospheric processes important to determining source impacts, while screening models make assumptions about conservative inputs to a specific model. The complexity of screening techniques ranges from simplified assumptions of chemistry applied to refined or screening model output to sophisticated approximations of the chemistry applied within a refined model.
ii. Reduced-form models are computationally efficient simulation tools for characterizing the pollutant response to specific types of emission reductions for a particular geographic area or background environmental conditions that reflect underlying atmospheric science of a refined model but reduce the computational resources of running a complex, numerical air quality model such as a photochemical grid model.
In such situations, an attempt should be made to acquire or improve the necessary databases and to develop appropriate analytical techniques, but the screening technique or reduced-form model may be sufficient in conducting regulatory modeling applications when applied in consultation with the EPA Regional Office.
e. Consistent with the general principle described in paragraph 2.2(a), the EPA may establish a demonstration tool or method as a sufficient means for a user or applicant to make a demonstration required by regulation, either by itself or as part of a modeling demonstration. To be used for such regulatory purposes, such a tool or method must be reflected in a codified regulation or have a well-documented technical basis and reasoning that is contained or incorporated in the record of the regulatory decision in which it is applied.
a. For most of the screening and refined models discussed in the
a. This section specifies the approach to be taken in determining preferred models for use in regulatory air quality programs. The status of models developed by the EPA, as well as those submitted to the EPA for review and possible inclusion in this
b. When approval is required for a specific modeling technique or analytical procedure in this
c. In all regulatory analyses, early discussions among the EPA Regional Office staff, State, local, and Tribal agency staff, industry representatives, and where appropriate, the FLM, are invaluable and are strongly encouraged. Prior to the actual analyses, agreement on the databases to be used, modeling techniques to be applied, and the overall technical approach helps avoid misunderstandings concerning the final results and may reduce the later need for additional analyses. The preparation of a written modeling protocol that is vetted with the appropriate reviewing authority helps to
d. The identification of preferred models in this
a. The EPA has developed some models suitable for regulatory application, while other models have been submitted by private developers for possible inclusion in the
b. An American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) reference
c. When a single model is found to perform better than others, it is recommended for application as a preferred model and listed in addendum A. If no one model is found to clearly perform better through the evaluation exercise, then the preferred model listed in addendum A may be selected on the basis of other factors such as past use, public familiarity, resource requirements, and availability. Accordingly, the models listed in addendum A meet these conditions:
i. The model must be written in a common programming language, and the executable(s) must run on a common computer platform.
ii. The model must be documented in a user's guide or model formulation report which identifies the mathematics of the model, data requirements and program operating characteristics at a level of detail comparable to that available for other recommended models in addendum A.
iii. The model must be accompanied by a complete test dataset including input parameters and output results. The test data must be packaged with the model in computer-readable form.
iv. The model must be useful to typical users,
v. The model documentation must include a robust comparison with air quality data (and/or tracer measurements) or with other well-established analytical techniques.
vi. The developer must be willing to make the model and source code available to users at reasonable cost or make them available for public access through the internet or National Technical Information Service. The model and its code cannot be proprietary.
d. The EPA's process of establishing a preferred model includes a determination of technical merit, in accordance with the above six items, including the practicality of the model for use in ongoing regulatory programs. Each model will also be subjected to a performance evaluation for an appropriate database and to a peer scientific review. Models for wide use (not just an isolated case) that are found to perform better will be proposed for inclusion as preferred models in future
e. No further evaluation of a preferred model is required for a particular application if the EPA requirements for regulatory use specified for the model in the
a. Addendum A identifies refined models that are preferred for use in regulatory applications. If a model is required for a particular application, the user must select a model from addendum A or follow procedures in section 3.2.2 for use of an alternative model or technique. Preferred models may be used without a formal demonstration of applicability as long as they are used as indicated in each model summary in addendum A. Further recommendations for the application of preferred models to specific source applications are found in subsequent sections of the
b. If changes are made to a preferred model without affecting the modeled concentrations, the preferred status of the model is unchanged. Examples of modifications that do not affect concentrations are those made to enable use of a different computer platform or those that only affect the format or averaging time of the model results. The integration of a graphical user interface (GUI) to facilitate setting up the model inputs and/or analyzing the model results without otherwise altering the preferred model code is another example of a modification that does not affect concentrations. However, when any changes are made, the Regional Administrator must require a test case example to demonstrate that the modeled concentrations are not affected.
c. A preferred model must be operated with the options listed in addendum A for its intended regulatory application. If the regulatory options are not applied, the model is no longer “preferred.” Any other modification to a preferred model that would result in a change in the concentration estimates likewise alters its status so that it is no longer a preferred model. Use of the modified model must then be justified as an alternative model on a case-by-case basis to the appropriate reviewing authority and approved by the Regional Administrator.
d. Where the EPA has not identified a preferred model for a particular pollutant or situation, the EPA may establish a multi-tiered approach for making a demonstration required under PSD or another CAA program. The initial tier or tiers may involve use of demonstration tools, screening models, screening techniques, or reduced-form models; while the last tier may involve the use of demonstration tools, refined models or techniques, or alternative models approved under section 3.2.
a. Selection of the best model or techniques for each individual air quality analysis is always encouraged, but the selection should be done in a consistent manner. A simple listing of models in this
b. This subsection discusses the use of alternate models and defines three situations when alternative models may be used. This subsection also provides a procedure for implementing 40 CFR 51.166(l)(2) in PSD permitting. This provision requires written approval of the Administrator for any modification or substitution of an applicable model. An applicable model for purposes of 40 CFR 51.166(l) is a preferred model in addendum A to the
a. Determination of acceptability of an alternative model is an EPA Regional Office responsibility in consultation with the EPA's Model Clearinghouse as discussed in paragraphs 3.0(b) and 3.2.1(b). Where the Regional Administrator finds that an
b. An alternative model shall be evaluated from both a theoretical and a performance perspective before it is selected for use. There are three separate conditions under which such a model may be approved for use:
1. If a demonstration can be made that the model produces concentration estimates equivalent to the estimates obtained using a preferred model;
2. If a statistical performance evaluation has been conducted using measured air quality data and the results of that evaluation indicate the alternative model performs better for the given application than a comparable model in addendum A; or
3. If there is no preferred model.
Any one of these three separate conditions may justify use of an alternative model. Some known alternative models that are applicable for selected situations are listed on the EPA's SCRAM website (section 2.3). However, inclusion there does not confer any unique status relative to other alternative models that are being or will be developed in the future.
c. Equivalency, condition (1) in paragraph (b) of this subsection, is established by demonstrating that the appropriate regulatory metric(s) are within +/−2 percent of the estimates obtained from the preferred model. The option to show equivalency is intended as a simple demonstration of acceptability for an alternative model that is nearly identical (or contains options that can make it identical) to a preferred model that it can be treated for practical purposes as the preferred model. However, notwithstanding this demonstration, models that are not equivalent may be used when one of the two other conditions described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this subsection are satisfied.
d. For condition (2) in paragraph (b) of this subsection, established statistical performance evaluation procedures and techniques
e. Finally, for condition (3) in paragraph (b) of this subsection, an alternative model or technique may be approved for use provided that:
i. The model or technique has received a scientific peer review;
ii. The model or technique can be demonstrated to be applicable to the problem on a theoretical basis;
iii. The databases which are necessary to perform the analysis are available and adequate;
iv. Appropriate performance evaluations of the model or technique have shown that the model or technique is not inappropriately biased for regulatory application;
v. A protocol on methods and procedures to be followed has been established.
f. To formally document that the requirements of section 3.2 for use of an alternative model are satisfied for a particular application or range of applications, a memorandum will be prepared by the EPA's Model Clearinghouse through a consultative process with the EPA Regional Office.
a. The Regional Administrator has the authority to select models that are appropriate for use in a given situation. However, there is a need for assistance and guidance in the selection process so that fairness, consistency, and transparency in modeling decisions are fostered among the EPA Regional Offices and the State, local, and Tribal agencies. To satisfy that need, the EPA established the Model Clearinghouse
b. The appropriate EPA Regional Office should always be consulted for information and guidance concerning modeling methods and interpretations of modeling guidance, and to ensure that the air quality model user has available the latest most up-to-date policy and procedures. As appropriate, the EPA Regional Office may also request assistance from the EPA's Model Clearinghouse on other applications of models, analytical techniques, or databases or to clarify interpretation of the
c. The EPA Regional Office will coordinate with the EPA's Model Clearinghouse after an initial evaluation and decision has been developed concerning the application of an alternative model. The acceptability and formal approval process for an alternative model is described in section 3.2.
a. This section identifies modeling approaches generally used in the air quality impact analysis of sources that emit the criteria pollutants carbon monoxide (CO), lead, sulfur dioxide (SO
b. The guidance in this section is specific to the application of the Gaussian plume models identified in addendum A. Gaussian plume models assume that emissions and meteorology are in a steady-state, which is typically based on an hourly time step. This approach results in a plume that has an hourly-averaged distribution of emission mass according to a Gaussian curve through the plume. Though Gaussian steady-state models conserve the mass of the primary pollutant throughout the plume, they can still take into account a limited consideration of first-order removal processes (
c. Due to the steady-state assumption, Gaussian plume models are generally considered applicable to distances less than 50 km, beyond which, modeled predictions of plume impact are likely conservative. The locations of these impacts are expected to be unreliable due to changes in meteorology that are likely to occur during the travel time.
d. The applicability of Gaussian plume models may vary depending on the topography of the modeling domain,
e. Gaussian models determine source impacts at discrete locations (receptors) for each meteorological and emission scenario, and generally attempt to estimate concentrations at specific sites that represent an ensemble average of numerous repetitions of the same “event.” Uncertainties in model estimates are driven by this formulation, and as noted in section 2.1.1, evaluations of model accuracy should focus on the reducible uncertainty associated with physics and the formulation of the model. The “irreducible” uncertainty associated with Gaussian plume models may be responsible for variation in concentrations of as much as +/−50 percent.
f. Model evaluations and inter-comparisons should take these aspects of uncertainty into account. For a regulatory application of a model, the emphasis of model evaluations is generally placed on the highest modeled impacts. Thus, the Cox-Tikvart model evaluation approach, which compares the highest modeled impacts on several timescales, is recommended for comparisons of models and measurements and model inter-comparisons. The approach includes bootstrap techniques to determine the significance of various modeled predictions
a. For NAAQS compliance demonstrations under PSD, use of the screening and preferred models for the pollutants listed in this subsection shall be limited to the near-field at a nominal distance of 50 km or less. Near-field application is consistent with capabilities of Gaussian plume models and, based on the EPA's assessment, is sufficient to address whether a source will cause or contribute to ambient concentrations in excess of a NAAQS. In most cases, maximum source impacts of inert pollutants will occur within the first 10 to 20 km from the source. Therefore, the EPA does not consider a long-range transport assessment beyond 50 km necessary for these pollutants if a near-field NAAQS compliance demonstration is required.
b. For assessment of PSD increments within the near-field distance of 50 km or less, use of the screening and preferred models for the pollutants listed in this subsection shall be limited to the same screening and preferred models approved for NAAQS compliance demonstrations.
c. To determine if a compliance demonstration for NAAQS and/or PSD increments may be necessary beyond 50 km (
i. Based on application in the near-field of the appropriate screening and/or preferred model, determine the significance of the ambient impacts at or about 50 km from the new or modifying source. If a near-field assessment is not available or this initial analysis indicates there may be significant ambient impacts at that distance, then further assessment is necessary.
ii. For assessment of the significance of ambient impacts for NAAQS and/or PSD increments, there is not a preferred model or screening approach for distances beyond 50 km. Thus, the appropriate reviewing authority (paragraph 3.0(b)) and the EPA Regional Office shall be consulted in determining the appropriate and agreed upon screening technique to conduct the second level assessment. Typically, a Lagrangian model is most appropriate to use for these second level assessments, but applicants shall reach agreement on the specific model and modeling parameters on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the appropriate reviewing authority (paragraph 3.0(b)) and EPA Regional Office. When Lagrangian models are used in this manner, they shall not include plume-depleting processes, such that model estimates are considered conservative, as is generally appropriate for screening assessments.
d. In those situations where a cumulative impact analysis for NAAQS and/or PSD increments analysis beyond 50 km is necessary, the selection and use of an alternative model shall occur in agreement with the appropriate reviewing authority (paragraph 3.0(b)) and approval by the EPA Regional Office based on the requirements of paragraph 3.2.2(e).
a. Where a preliminary or conservative estimate is desired, point source screening techniques are an acceptable approach to air quality analyses.
b. As discussed in paragraph 2.2(a), screening models or techniques are designed to provide a conservative estimate of concentrations. The screening models used in most applications are the screening versions of the preferred models for refined applications. The two screening models, AERSCREEN
c. Although AERSCREEN and CTSCREEN are designed to address a single-source scenario, there are approaches that can be used on a case-by-case basis to address multi-source situations using screening meteorology or other conservative model assumptions. However, the appropriate reviewing authority (paragraph 3.0(b)) shall be consulted, and concurrence obtained, on the protocol for modeling multiple sources with AERSCREEN or CTSCREEN to ensure that the worst case is identified and assessed.
d. As discussed in section 4.2.3.4, there are also screening techniques built into AERMOD that use simplified or limited chemistry assumptions for determining the partitioning of NO and NO
e. As discussed in section 4.2(c)(ii), there are screening techniques needed for long-range transport assessments that will typically involve the use of a Lagrangian model. Based on the long-standing practice and documented capabilities of these models for long-range transport assessments, the use of a Lagrangian model as a screening technique for this purpose does not need to be approved as an alternative model. However, their usage shall occur in consultation with the appropriate reviewing authority (paragraph 3.0(b)) and EPA Regional Office.
f. All screening models and techniques shall be configured to appropriately address the site and problem at hand. Close attention must be paid to whether the area should be classified urban or rural in accordance with section 7.2.1.1. The climatology of the area must be studied to help define the worst-case meteorological conditions. Agreement shall be reached between the model user and the appropriate reviewing authority (paragraph 3.0(b)) on the choice of the screening model or technique for each analysis, on the input data and model settings, and the appropriate metric for satisfying regulatory requirements.
a. Released in 2011, AERSCREEN is the EPA's recommended screening model for simple and complex terrain for single sources including point sources, area sources, horizontal stacks, capped stacks, and flares. AERSCREEN runs AERMOD in a screening mode and consists of two main components: (1) the MAKEMET program which generates a site-specific matrix of meteorological conditions for input to the AERMOD model; and (2) the AERSCREEN command-prompt interface.
b. The MAKEMET program generates a matrix of meteorological conditions, in the form of AERMOD-ready surface and profile files, based on user-specified surface characteristics, ambient temperatures, minimum wind speed, and anemometer height. The meteorological matrix is generated based on looping through a range of wind speeds, cloud covers, ambient temperatures, solar elevation angles, and convective velocity scales (w*, for convective conditions only) based on user-specified surface characteristics for surface roughness (Z
c. For applications involving simple or complex terrain, AERSCREEN interfaces with AERMAP. AERSCREEN also interfaces with BPIPPRM to provide the necessary building parameters for applications involving building downwash using the Plume Rise Model Enhancements (PRIME) downwash algorithm. AERSCREEN generates inputs to AERMOD via MAKEMET, AERMAP, and BPIPPRM and invokes AERMOD in a screening mode. The screening mode of AERMOD forces the AERMOD model calculations to represent values for the plume centerline, regardless of the source-receptor-wind direction orientation. The maximum concentration output from AERSCREEN represents a worst-case 1-hour concentration. Averaging-time scaling factors of 1.0 for 3-hour, 0.9 for 8-hour, 0.60 for 24-hour, and 0.10 for annual concentration averages are applied internally by AERSCREEN to the highest 1-hour concentration calculated by the model for non-area type sources. For area type source concentrations for averaging times greater than one hour, the concentrations are equal to the 1-hour estimates.
a. CTSCREEN
a. For applications utilizing AERSCREEN, AERSCREEN automatically generates a polar-grid receptor network with spacing determined by the maximum distance to model. If the application warrants a different receptor network than that generated by AERSCREEN, it may be necessary to run AERMOD in screening mode with a user-defined network. For CTSCREEN applications or AERMOD in screening mode outside of AERSCREEN, placement of receptors requires very careful attention when modeling in complex terrain. Often the highest concentrations are predicted to occur under very stable conditions, when the plume is near or impinges on the terrain. Under such conditions, the plume may be quite narrow in the vertical, so that even relatively small changes in a receptor's location may substantially affect the predicted concentration. Receptors within about a kilometer of the source may be even more sensitive to location. Thus, a dense array of receptors may be required in some cases.
b. For applications involving AERSCREEN, AERSCREEN interfaces with AERMAP to generate the receptor elevations. For applications involving CTSCREEN, digitized contour data must be preprocessed
c. Other screening techniques may be acceptable for complex terrain cases where established procedures
a. A brief description of each preferred model for refined applications is found in addendum A. Also listed in that addendum Are availability, the model input requirements, the standard options that shall be selected when running the program, and output options.
a. For a wide range of regulatory applications in all types of terrain, and for aerodynamic building downwash, the required model is AERMOD.
b. The AERMOD Modeling System has been extensively evaluated across a wide range of scenarios based on numerous field studies, including tall stacks in flat and complex terrain settings, sources subject to building downwash influences, and low-level non-buoyant sources.
c. AERMOD incorporates the PRIME algorithm to account for enhanced plume growth and restricted plume rise for plumes affected by building wake effects.
d. AERMOD incorporates the Buoyant Line and Point Source (BLP) Dispersion model to account for buoyant plume rise from line sources. The BLP option utilizes the standard meteorological inputs provided by the AERMET meteorological processor.
e. The state-of-the-science for modeling atmospheric deposition is evolving, new modeling techniques are continually being assessed, and their results are being compared with observations. Consequently, while deposition treatment is available in AERMOD, the approach taken for any purpose shall be coordinated with the appropriate reviewing authority (paragraph 3.0(b)).
f. The AERMET meteorological processor incorporates the COARE algorithms to derive marine boundary layer parameters for overwater applications of AERMOD.
a. If the modeling application involves an elevated point source with a well-defined hill or ridge and a detailed dispersion analysis of the spatial pattern of plume impacts is of interest, CTDMPLUS is available. CTDMPLUS provides greater resolution of concentrations about the contour of the hill feature than does AERMOD through a different plume-terrain interaction algorithm.
a. The OCD (Offshore and Coastal Dispersion) model is a straight-line Gaussian model that incorporates overwater plume transport and dispersion as well as changes that occur as the plume crosses the shoreline. OCD can determine the impact of offshore emissions from point, area, or line sources on the air quality of coastal regions. OCD is also applicable for situations that involve platform building downwash.
a. Models for assessing the impact of CO emissions are needed to meet NSR requirements to address compliance with the CO NAAQS and to determine localized impacts from transportations projects. Examples include evaluating effects of point sources, congested roadway intersections and highways, as well as the cumulative effect of numerous sources of CO in an urban area.
b. The general modeling recommendations and requirements for screening models in section 4.2.1 and refined models in section 4.2.2 shall be applied for CO modeling. Given the relatively low CO background concentrations, screening techniques are likely to be adequate in most cases. In applying these recommendations and requirements, the existing 1992 EPA guidance for screening CO impacts from highways may be consulted.
a. In January 1999 (40 CFR part 58, appendix D), the EPA gave notice that concern about ambient lead impacts was being shifted away from roadways and toward a focus on stationary point sources. Thus, models for assessing the impact of lead emissions are needed to meet NSR requirements to address compliance with the lead NAAQS and for SIP attainment demonstrations. The EPA has also issued guidance on siting ambient monitors in the vicinity of stationary point sources.
b. For major lead point sources, such as smelters, which contribute fugitive emissions and for which deposition is important, professional judgment should be used, and there shall be coordination with the appropriate reviewing authority (paragraph 3.0(b)). For most applications, the general requirements for screening and refined models of section 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 are applicable to lead modeling.
a. Models for SO
b. Given the relatively inert nature of SO
a. Models for assessing the impact of sources on ambient NO
b. Due to the complexity of NO
i. A first-tier (most conservative) “full” conversion approach;
ii. A second-tier approach that assumes ambient equilibrium between NO and NO
iii. A third-tier consisting of several detailed screening techniques that account for ambient ozone and the relative amount of NO and NO
c. For Tier 1, use an appropriate refined model (section 4.2.2) to estimate nitrogen oxides (NO
d. For Tier 2, multiply the Tier 1 result(s) by the Ambient Ratio Method 2 (ARM2), which provides estimates of representative equilibrium ratios of NO
e. For Tier 3, a detailed screening technique shall be applied on a case-by-case basis. Because of the additional input data requirements and complexities associated with the Tier 3 options, their usage shall occur in consultation with the EPA Regional Office in addition to the appropriate reviewing authority. The Ozone Limiting Method (OLM),
f. Alternative models or techniques may be considered on a case-by-case basis and their usage shall be approved by the EPA Regional Office (section 3.2). Such models or techniques should consider individual quantities of NO and NO
a. PM
b. For NSR modeling assessments, the general modeling requirements for screening models in section 4.2.1 and refined models in section 4.2.2 are applicable for the primary component of PM
c. For SIP attainment demonstrations and regional haze reasonable progress goal analyses, effects of a control strategy on PM
d. The general modeling requirements for the refined models discussed in section 4.2.2 shall be applied for PM
a. Models for PM
b. For most sources, the general modeling requirements for screening models in section 4.2.1 and refined models in section 4.2.2 shall be applied for PM
c. Fugitive dust usually refers to dust put into the atmosphere by the wind blowing over plowed fields, dirt roads, or desert or sandy areas with little or no vegetation. Fugitive emissions include the emissions resulting from the industrial process that are not captured and vented through a stack, but may be released from various locations within the complex. In some unique cases, a model developed specifically for the situation may be needed. Due to the difficult nature of characterizing and modeling fugitive dust and fugitive emissions, the proposed procedure shall be determined in consultation with the appropriate reviewing authority (paragraph 3.0(b)) for each specific situation before the modeling exercise is begun. Re-entrained dust is created by vehicles driving over dirt roads (
d. Under certain conditions, recommended dispersion models may not be suitable to appropriately address the nature of ambient PM
e. The general modeling requirements for the refined models discussed in section 4.2.2 shall be applied for PM
a. Air pollutants formed through chemical reactions in the atmosphere are referred to as secondary pollutants. For example, ground-level ozone and a portion of PM
b. Ozone formation is driven by emissions of NO
c. PM
d. Control measures reducing ozone and PM
e. PM
a. Chemical transformations can play an important role in defining the concentrations and properties of certain air pollutants. Models that take into account chemical reactions and physical processes of various pollutants (including precursors) are needed for determining the current state of air quality, as well as predicting and projecting the future evolution of these pollutants. It is important that a modeling system provide a realistic representation of chemical and physical processes leading to secondary pollutant formation and removal from the atmosphere.
b. Chemical transport models treat atmospheric chemical and physical processes such as deposition and motion. There are two types of chemical transport models, Eulerian (grid based) and Lagrangian. These types of models are differentiated from each other by their frame of reference. Eulerian models are based on a fixed frame of reference and Lagrangian models use a frame of reference that moves with parcels of air between the source and receptor point.
c. Regardless of the modeling system used to estimate secondary impacts of ozone and/or PM
d. Model performance metrics comparing observations and predictions are often used to summarize model performance. These metrics include mean bias, mean error, fractional bias, fractional error, and correlation coefficient.
e. There is no preferred modeling system or technique for estimating ozone or secondary PM
a. Models that estimate ozone concentrations are needed to guide the choice of strategies for the purposes of a nonattainment area demonstrating future year attainment of the ozone NAAQS. Additionally, models that estimate ozone concentrations are needed to assess impacts from specific sources or source complexes to satisfy requirements for NSR and other regulatory programs. Other purposes for ozone modeling include estimating the impacts of specific events on air quality, ozone deposition impacts, and planning for areas that may be attaining the ozone NAAQS.
a. Simulation of ozone formation and transport is a complex exercise. Control agencies with jurisdiction over areas with ozone problems should use photochemical grid models to evaluate the relationship between precursor species and ozone. Use of photochemical grid models is the recommended means for identifying control strategies needed to address high ozone concentrations in such areas. Judgment on the suitability of a model for a given application should consider factors that include use of the model in an attainment test, development of emissions and meteorological inputs to the model, and choice of episodes to model. Guidance on the use of models and other analyses for demonstrating attainment of the air quality goals for ozone is available.
a. Depending on the magnitude of emissions, estimating the impact of an individual source's emissions of NO
b. The first tier of assessment for ozone impacts involves those situations where existing technical information is available (
c. The second tier of assessment for ozone impacts involves those situations where existing technical information is not available or a first tier demonstration indicates a more refined assessment is needed. For these situations, chemical transport models should be used to address single-source impacts. Special considerations are needed when using these models to evaluate the ozone impact from an individual source. Guidance on the use of models and other analyses for demonstrating the impacts of single sources for ozone is available.
a. Models that estimate PM
a. Models for PM
a. Depending on the magnitude of emissions, estimating the impact of an individual source's emissions on secondary particulate matter concentrations may be necessary for obtaining a permit. Primary PM
b. The first tier of assessment for secondary PM
c. The second tier of assessment for secondary PM
a. Other Federal government agencies and State, local, and Tribal agencies with air quality and land management responsibilities have also developed specific modeling approaches for their own regulatory or other requirements. Although such regulatory requirements and guidance have come about because of EPA rules or standards, the implementation of such regulations and the use of the modeling techniques is under the jurisdiction of the agency issuing the guidance or directive. This section covers such situations with reference to those guidance documents, when they are available.
b. When using the model recommended or discussed in the
a. The 1990 CAA Amendments give FLMs an “affirmative responsibility” to protect the natural and cultural resources of Class I areas from the adverse impacts of air pollution and to provide the appropriate procedures and analysis techniques. The CAA identifies the FLM as the Secretary of the department, or their designee, with authority over these lands. Mandatory Federal Class I areas are defined in the CAA as international parks, national parks over 6,000 acres, and wilderness areas and memorial parks over 5,000 acres, established as of 1977. The FLMs are also concerned with the protection of resources in federally managed Class II areas because of other statutory mandates to protect these areas. Where State or Tribal agencies have successfully petitioned the EPA and lands have been redesignated to Class I status, these agencies may have equivalent responsibilities to that of the FLMs for these non-Federal Class I areas as described throughout the remainder of section 6.2.
b. The FLM agency responsibilities include the review of air quality permit applications from proposed new or modified major pollution sources that may affect these Class I areas to determine if emissions from a proposed or modified source will cause or contribute to adverse impacts on air quality related values (AQRVs) of a Class I area and making recommendations to the FLM. AQRVs are resources, identified by the FLM agencies, that have the potential to be affected by air pollution. These resources may include visibility, scenic, cultural, physical, or ecological resources for a particular area. The FLM agencies take into account the particular resources and AQRVs that would be affected; the frequency and magnitude of any potential impacts; and the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of any potential impacts in making their recommendations.
c. While the AQRV notification and impact analysis requirements are outlined in the PSD regulations at 40 CFR 51.166(p) and 40 CFR 52.21(p), determination of appropriate analytical methods and metrics for AQRV's are determined by the FLM agencies and are published in guidance external to the general recommendations of this paragraph.
d. To develop greater consistency in the application of air quality models to assess potential AQRV impacts in both Class I areas and protected Class II areas, the FLM agencies have developed the Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Work Group Phase I Report (FLAG).
a. Visibility in important natural areas (
b. Visibility regulations (40 CFR 51.300 through 51.309) require State, local, and Tribal agencies to mitigate current and prevent future visibility impairment in any of the 156 mandatory Federal Class I areas where visibility is considered an important attribute. In 1999, the EPA issued revisions to the regulations to address visibility impairment in the form of regional haze, which is caused by numerous, diverse sources (
c. The FLAG visibility modeling recommendations are divided into two distinct sections to address different requirements for: (1) near field modeling where plumes or layers are compared against a viewing background, and (2) distant/multi-source modeling for plumes and aggregations of plumes that affect the general appearance of a scene.
a. To calculate the potential impact of a plume of specified emissions for specific transport and dispersion conditions (“plume blight”) for source-receptor distances less than 50 km, a screening model and guidance are available.
a. Chemical transformations can play an important role in defining the concentrations and properties of certain air pollutants. Models that take into account chemical reactions and physical processes of various pollutants (including precursors) are needed for determining the current state of air quality, as well as predicting and projecting the future evolution of these pollutants. It is important that a modeling system provide a realistic representation of chemical and physical processes leading to secondary pollutant formation and removal from the atmosphere.
b. Chemical transport models treat atmospheric chemical and physical processes such as deposition and motion. There are two types of chemical transport models, Eulerian (grid based) and Lagrangian. These types of models are differentiated from each other by their frame of reference. Eulerian models are based on a fixed frame of reference and Lagrangian models use a frame of reference that moves with parcels of air between the source and receptor point.
c. Development of the requisite meteorological and emissions databases necessary for use of photochemical grid models to estimate AQRVs should conform to recommendations in section 8 and those outlined in the EPA's
a. For many Class I areas, AQRVs have been identified that are sensitive to atmospheric deposition of air pollutants. Emissions of NO
b. The FLM deposition modeling recommendations are divided into two distinct sections to address different requirements for: (1) near field modeling, and (2) distant/multi-source modeling for cumulative effects. The recommendations separately address deposition assessments for sources proposing to locate relatively near and at farther distances from these areas.
a. Dispersion and photochemical grid modeling may need to be conducted to ensure that individual and cumulative offshore oil and gas exploration, development, and production plans and activities do not significantly affect the air quality of any State as required under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). Air quality modeling requires various input datasets, including emissions sources, meteorology, and pre-existing pollutant concentrations. For sources under the reviewing authority of the Department of Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), guidance for the development of all necessary Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) air quality modeling inputs and appropriate model selection and application is available from the BOEM's website:
b. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the appropriate reviewing authority for air quality assessments of primary pollutant impacts at airports and air bases. The Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) is developed and supported by the FAA, and is appropriate for air quality assessment of primary pollutant impacts at airports or air bases. AEDT has adopted AERMOD for treating dispersion. Application of AEDT is intended for estimating the change in emissions for aircraft operations, point source, and mobile source emissions on airport property and quantify the associated pollutant level- concentrations. AEDT is not intended for PSD, SIP, or other regulatory air quality analyses of point or mobile sources at or peripheral to airport property that are unrelated to airport operations. The latest version of AEDT may be obtained from the FAA at:
a. This section contains recommendations concerning a number of different issues not explicitly covered in other sections of the
a. For any dispersion modeling exercise, the urban or rural determination of a source
b. The selection of rural or urban dispersion coefficients in a specific application should follow one of the procedures suggested by Irwin
i.
ii.
c. Population density should be used with caution and generally not be applied to highly industrialized areas where the population density may be low and, thus, a rural classification would be indicated. However, the area is likely to be sufficiently built-up so that the urban land use criteria would be satisfied. Therefore, in this case, the classification should be “urban” and urban dispersion parameters should be used.
d. For applications of AERMOD in urban areas, under either the Land Use Procedure or the Population Density Procedure, the user needs to estimate the population of the urban area affecting the modeling domain because the urban influence in AERMOD is scaled based on a user-specified population. For non-population oriented urban areas, or areas influenced by both population and industrial activity, the user will need to estimate an equivalent population to adequately account for the combined effects of industrialized areas and populated areas within the modeling domain. Selection of the appropriate population for these applications should be determined in consultation with the appropriate reviewing authority (paragraph 3.0(b)) and the latest version of the AERMOD Implementation Guide.
e. It should be noted that AERMOD allows for modeling rural and urban sources in a single model run. For analyses of whole urban complexes, the entire area should be modeled as an urban region if most of the sources are located in areas classified as urban. For tall stacks located within or adjacent to small or moderate sized urban areas, the stack height or effective plume height may extend above the urban boundary layer and, therefore, may be more appropriately modeled using rural coefficients. Model users should consult with the appropriate reviewing authority (paragraph 3.0(b)) and the latest version of the AERMOD Implementation Guide
f. Buoyancy-induced dispersion (BID), as identified by Pasquill,
a.
i.
ii.
iii.
a. Gravitational settling and deposition may be directly included in a model if either is a significant factor. When particulate matter sources can be quantified and settling and dry deposition are problems, use professional judgment along with coordination with the appropriate reviewing authority (paragraph 3.0(b)). AERMOD contains algorithms for dry and wet deposition of gases and particles.
a. The use of stack height credit in excess of Good Engineering Practice (GEP) stack height or credit resulting from any other dispersion technique is prohibited in the development of emissions limits by 40 CFR 51.118 and 40 CFR 51.164. The definition of GEP stack height and dispersion technique are contained in 40 CFR 51.100. Methods and procedures for making the appropriate stack height calculations, determining stack height credits and an example of applying those
b. If stacks for new or existing major sources are found to be less than the height defined by the EPA's refined formula for determining GEP height, then air quality impacts associated with cavity or wake effects due to the nearby building structures should be determined. The EPA refined formula height is defined as H + 1.5L.
a. The plume rise methods of Briggs
b. Gradual plume rise is generally recommended where its use is appropriate: (1) in AERMOD; (2) in complex terrain screening procedures to determine close-in impacts; and (3) when calculating the effects of building wakes. The building wake algorithm in AERMOD incorporates and exercises the thermodynamically based gradual plume rise calculations as described in paragraph (a) of this subsection. If the building wake is calculated to affect the plume for any hour, gradual plume rise is also used in downwind dispersion calculations to the distance of final plume rise, after which final plume rise is used. Plumes captured by the near wake are re-emitted to the far wake as a ground-level volume source.
c. Stack tip downwash generally occurs with poorly constructed stacks and when the ratio of the stack exit velocity to wind speed is small. An algorithm developed by Briggs
d. On a case-by-case basis, refinements to the preferred model may be considered for plume rise and downwash effects and shall occur in agreement with the appropriate reviewing authority (paragraph 3.0(b)) and approval by the EPA Regional Office based on the requirements of section 3.2.2.
a. Emissions of primary pollutants from mobile sources can be modeled with an appropriate model identified in section 4.2. Screening of mobile sources can be accomplished by using screening meteorology,
b. Mobile sources can be modeled in AERMOD as either line (
c. The EPA's quantitative PM hot-spot guidance
a. Databases and related procedures for estimating input parameters are an integral part of the modeling process. The most appropriate input data available should always be selected for use in modeling analyses. Modeled concentrations can vary widely depending on the source data or meteorological data used. This section attempts to minimize the uncertainty associated with database selection and use by identifying requirements for input data used in modeling. More specific data requirements and the format required for the individual models are described in detail in the user's guide and/or associated documentation for each model.
a. The modeling domain is the geographic area for which the required air quality analyses for the NAAQS and PSD increments are conducted.
a. For a NAAQS or PSD increments assessment, the modeling domain or project's impact area shall include all locations where the emissions of a pollutant from the new or modifying source(s) may cause a significant ambient impact. This impact area is defined as an area with a radius extending from the new or modifying source to: (1) the most distant location where air quality modeling predicts a significant ambient impact will occur, or (2) the nominal 50 km distance considered applicable for Gaussian dispersion models, whichever is less. The required air quality analysis shall be carried out within this geographical area with characterization of source impacts, nearby source impacts, and background concentrations, as recommended later in this section.
b. For SIP attainment demonstrations for ozone and PM
a. Sources of pollutants can be classified as point, line, area, and volume sources. Point sources are defined in terms of size and may vary between regulatory programs. The line sources most frequently considered are roadways and streets along which there are well-defined movements of motor vehicles. They may also be lines of roof vents or stacks, such as in aluminum refineries. Area
b. For point sources, there are many source characteristics and operating conditions that may be needed to appropriately model the facility. For example, the plant layout (
c. Modeling mobile emissions from streets and highways requires data on the road layout, including the width of each traveled lane, the number of lanes, and the width of the median strip. Additionally, traffic patterns should be taken into account (
d. Emission factors can be determined through source-specific testing and measurements (
a. For SIP attainment demonstrations for the purpose of projecting future year NAAQS attainment for ozone, PM
b. For the purpose of SIP revisions for stationary point sources, the regulatory modeling of inert pollutants shall use the emissions input data shown in Table 8-1 for short-term and long-term NAAQS. To demonstrate compliance and/or establish the appropriate SIP emissions limits, Table 8-1 generally provides for the use of “allowable” emissions in the regulatory dispersion modeling of the stationary point source(s) of interest. In such modeling, these source(s) should be modeled sequentially with these loads for every hour of the year. As part of a cumulative impact analysis, Table 8-1 allows for the model user to account for actual operations in developing the emissions inputs for dispersion modeling of nearby sources, while other sources are best represented by air quality monitoring data. Consultation with the appropriate reviewing authority (paragraph 3.0(b)) is advisable on the establishment of the appropriate emissions inputs for regulatory modeling applications with respect to SIP revisions for stationary point sources.
c. For the purposes of demonstrating NAAQS compliance in a PSD assessment, the regulatory modeling of inert pollutants shall use the emissions input data shown in Table 8-2 for short and long-term NAAQS. The new or modifying stationary point source shall be modeled with “allowable” emissions in the regulatory dispersion modeling. As part of a cumulative impact analysis, Table 8-2 allows for the model user to account for actual operations in developing the emissions inputs for dispersion modeling of nearby sources, while other sources are best represented by air quality monitoring data. For purposes of situations involving emissions trading, refer to current EPA policy and guidance to establish input data. Consultation with the appropriate reviewing authority (paragraph 3.0(b)) is advisable on the establishment of the appropriate emissions inputs for regulatory modeling applications with respect to PSD assessments for a proposed new or modifying source.
d. For stationary source applications, changes in operating conditions that affect the physical emission parameters (
e. Emissions from mobile sources also have physical and temporal characteristics that should be appropriately accounted. For example, an appropriate emissions model shall be used to determine emissions profiles. Such emissions should include speciation specific for the vehicle types used on the roadway (
a. Background concentrations are essential in constructing the design concentration, or total air quality concentration, as part of a cumulative impact analysis for NAAQS and PSD increments (section 9.2.3). To assist applicants and reviewing authorities with appropriately characterizing background concentrations, EPA has developed the
i.
ii.
b. The monitoring network used for developing background concentrations is expected to conform to the same quality assurance and other requirements as those networks established for PSD purposes.
c. For photochemical grid modeling conducted in SIP attainment demonstrations for ozone, PM
d. For NAAQS assessments and SIP attainment demonstrations for inert pollutants, the development of the appropriate background concentration for a cumulative impact analysis involves proper accounting of each contribution to the design concentration and will depend upon whether the project area's situation consists of either an isolated single source(s) or a multitude of sources. For PSD increment assessments, all impacts after the appropriate baseline dates (
a. In areas with an isolated source(s), determining the appropriate background concentration should focus on characterization of contributions from all other sources through adequately representative ambient monitoring data. The application of EPA's recommended framework for determining an appropriate background concentration should be consistent with appropriate EPA modeling guidance
b. The EPA recommends use of the most recent quality assured air quality monitoring data collected in the vicinity of the source to determine the background concentration for the averaging times of concern. In most cases, the EPA recommends using data from the monitor closest to and upwind of the project area. If several monitors are available, preference should be given to the monitor with characteristics that are most similar to the project area. If there are no monitors located in the vicinity of the new or modifying source, a “regional site” may be used to determine background concentrations. A regional site is one that is located away from the area of interest but is impacted by similar or adequately representative sources.
c. Many of the challenges related to cumulative impact analyses arise in the context of defining the appropriate metric to characterize background concentrations from ambient monitoring data and determining the appropriate method for combining this monitor-based background contribution to the modeled impact of the project and other nearby sources. For many cases, the best starting point would be use of the current design value for the applicable NAAQS as a uniform monitored background contribution across the project area. However, there are cases in which the current design value may not be appropriate. Such cases include but are not limited to:
i. For situations involving a modifying source where the existing facility is determined to impact the ambient monitor, the background concentration at each monitor can be determined by excluding values when the source in question is impacting the monitor. In such cases, monitoring sites inside a 90° sector downwind of the source may be used to determine the area of impact.
ii. There may be other circumstances which would necessitate modifications to the ambient data record. Such cases could include removal of data from specific days or hours when a monitor is being impacted by activities that are not typical or not expected to occur again in the future (
iii. For short-term standards, the diurnal or seasonal patterns of the air quality monitoring data may differ significantly from the patterns associated with the modeled concentrations. When this occurs, it may be appropriate to pair the air quality monitoring data in a temporal manner that reflects these patterns (
iv. For situations where monitored air quality concentrations vary across the modeling domain, it may be appropriate to consider air quality monitoring data from multiple monitors within the project area.
d. Considering the spatial and temporal variability throughout a typical modeling domain on an hourly basis and the complexities and limitations of hourly observations from the ambient monitoring network, the EPA does not recommend hourly or daily pairing of monitored background and modeled concentrations except in rare cases of relatively isolated sources where the available monitor can be shown to be representative of the ambient concentration levels in the areas of maximum impact from the proposed new source. The implicit assumption underlying hourly pairing is that the background monitored levels for each hour are spatially uniform and that the monitored values are fully representative of background levels at each receptor for each hour. Such an assumption clearly ignores the many factors that contribute to the temporal and spatial variability of ambient concentrations across a typical modeling domain on an hourly basis. In most cases, the seasonal (or quarterly) pairing of monitored and modeled concentrations should sufficiently address situations to which the impacts from modeled emissions are not temporally correlated with background monitored levels.
e. In those cases where adequately representative monitoring data to characterize background concentrations are not available, it may be appropriate to use results from a regional-scale photochemical grid model, or other representative model application, as background concentrations consistent with the considerations discussed above and in consultation with the appropriate reviewing authority (paragraph 3.0(b)).
a. In multi-source areas, determining the appropriate background concentration involves: (1) characterization of contributions from other sources through adequately representative ambient monitoring data, and (2) identification and characterization of contributions from nearby sources through explicit modeling. A key point here is the interconnectedness of each component in that the question of which nearby sources to include in the cumulative modeling is inextricably linked to the question of what the ambient monitoring data represents within the project area.
b.
i. The determination of nearby sources relies on the selection of adequately representative ambient monitoring data (section 8.3.2). The EPA recommends determining the representativeness of the monitoring data through a visual assessment of the modeling domain considering any relevant nearby sources and their respective air quality data. The visual assessment should consider any relevant air quality data such as the proximity of nearby sources to the project source and the ambient monitor, the nearby source's level of emissions with respect to the ambient data, and the dispersion environment (
ii. Nearby sources not adequately represented by the ambient monitor through visual assessment should undergo further qualitative and quantitative analysis before being explicitly modeled. The EPA recommends evaluating any modeling, monitoring, or emissions data that may be available for the identified nearby sources with respect to possible exceedances of the appropriate SIL or violations to the NAAQS.
iii. The number of nearby sources to be explicitly modeled in the air quality analysis is expected to be few except in unusual
c. For cumulative impact analyses of short-term and annual ambient standards, the nearby sources as well as the project source(s) must be evaluated using an appropriate addendum A model or approved alternative model with the emission input data shown in Table 8-1 or 8-2.
i. When modeling a nearby source that does not have a permit and the emissions limits contained in the SIP for a particular source category is greater than the emissions possible given the source's maximum physical capacity to emit, the “maximum allowable emissions limit” for such a nearby source may be calculated as the emissions rate representative of the nearby source's maximum physical capacity to emit, considering its design specifications and allowable fuels and process materials. However, the burden is on the permit applicant to sufficiently document what the maximum physical capacity to emit is for such a nearby source.
ii. It is appropriate to model nearby sources only during those times when they, by their nature, operate at the same time as the primary source(s) or could have impact on the averaging period of concern. Accordingly, it is not necessary to model impacts of a nearby source that does not, by its nature, operate at the same time as the primary source or could have impact on the averaging period of concern, regardless of an identified significant concentration gradient from the nearby source. The burden is on the permit applicant to adequately justify the exclusion of nearby sources to the satisfaction of the appropriate reviewing authority (paragraph 3.0(b)). The following examples illustrate two cases in which a nearby source may be shown not to operate at the same time as the primary source(s) being modeled: (1) Seasonal sources (only used during certain seasons of the year). Such sources would not be modeled as nearby sources during times in which they do not operate; and (2) Emergency backup generators, to the extent that they do not operate simultaneously with the sources that they back up. Such emergency equipment would not be modeled as nearby sources.
d.
a. This subsection covers meteorological input data for use in dispersion modeling for regulatory applications and is separate from recommendations made for photochemical grid modeling. Recommendations for meteorological data for photochemical grid modeling applications are outlined in the latest version of EPA's
b. The meteorological data used as input to a dispersion model should be selected on the basis of spatial and climatological (temporal) representativeness as well as the ability of the individual parameters selected to characterize the transport and dispersion conditions in the area of concern. The representativeness of the measured data is dependent on numerous factors including, but not limited to: (1) the proximity of the meteorological monitoring site to the area under consideration; (2) the complexity of the terrain; (3) the exposure of the meteorological monitoring site; and (4) the period of time during which data are collected. The spatial representativeness of the data can be adversely affected by large distances between the source and receptors of interest and the complex topographic characteristics of the area. Temporal representativeness is a function of the year-to-year variations in weather conditions. Where appropriate, data representativeness should be viewed in terms of the appropriateness of the data for constructing realistic boundary layer profiles and, where applicable, three-dimensional meteorological fields, as described in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this subsection.
c. The meteorological data should be adequately representative and may be site-specific data (land-based or buoy data for overwater applications), data from a nearby National Weather Service (NWS) or comparable station, or prognostic meteorological data. The implementation of NWS Automated Surface Observing Stations (ASOS) in the early 1990's should not preclude the use of NWS ASOS data if such a station is determined to be representative of the modeled area.
D. Model input data are normally obtained either from the NWS or as part of a site-specific measurement program. State climatology offices, local universities, FAA, military stations, industry, and pollution control agencies may also be sources of such data. In specific cases, prognostic meteorological data may be appropriate for use and obtained from similar sources. Some recommendations and requirements for the use of each type of data are included in this subsection.
a. AERMET
b. Regulatory application of AERMOD necessitates careful consideration of the meteorological data for input to AERMET. Data representativeness, in the case of AERMOD, means utilizing data of an appropriate type for constructing realistic boundary layer profiles. Of particular importance is the requirement that all meteorological data used as input to AERMOD should be adequately representative of the transport and dispersion within the analysis domain. Where surface conditions vary significantly over the analysis domain, the emphasis in assessing representativeness should be given to adequate characterization of transport and dispersion between the source(s) of concern and areas where maximum design concentrations are anticipated to occur. The EPA recommends that the surface characteristics input to AERMET should be representative of the land cover in the vicinity of the meteorological data,
c. Regulatory application of CTDMPLUS requires the input of multi-level measurements of wind speed, direction, temperature, and turbulence from an appropriately sited meteorological tower. The measurements should be obtained up to the representative plume height(s) of interest. Plume heights of interest can be determined by use of screening procedures such as CTSCREEN.
d. Regulatory application of OCD requires meteorological data over land and over water. The over land or surface data, processed through PCRAMMET
e. The model user should acquire enough meteorological data to ensure that worst-case meteorological conditions are adequately represented in the model results. The use of 5 years of adequately representative NWS or comparable meteorological data, at least 1 year of site-specific (either land-based or overwater based), or at least 3 years of prognostic meteorological data, are required. If 1 year or more, up to 5 years, of site-specific data are available, these data are preferred for use in air quality analyses. Depending on completeness of the data record, consecutive years of NWS, site-specific, or prognostic data are preferred. Such data must be subjected to quality assurance procedures as described in section 8.4.4.2.
f. Objective analysis in meteorological modeling is to improve meteorological analyses (the “
a. The NWS meteorological data are routinely available and familiar to most model users. Although the NWS does not provide direct measurements of all the needed dispersion model input variables, methods have been developed and successfully used to translate the basic NWS data to the needed model input. Site-specific measurements of model input parameters have been made for many modeling studies, and those methods and techniques are becoming more widely applied, especially in situations such as complex terrain applications, where available NWS data are not adequately representative. However, there are many modeling applications where NWS data are adequately representative and the applications still rely heavily on the NWS data.
b. Many models use the standard hourly weather observations available from the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI).
a. The preferred models listed in addendum A all accept, as input, the NWS meteorological data preprocessed into model compatible form. If NWS data are judged to be adequately representative for a specific modeling application, they may be used. The NCEI makes available surface and upper air meteorological data online and in CD-ROM format. Upper air data are also available at the Earth System Research Laboratory Global Systems Divisions website and from NCEI. For the latest websites of available surface and upper air data see reference 100.
b. Although most NWS wind measurements are made at a standard height of 10 m, the actual anemometer height should be used as input to the preferred meteorological processor and model.
c. Standard hourly NWS wind directions are reported to the nearest 10 degrees. Due to the coarse resolution of these data, a specific set of randomly generated numbers has been developed by the EPA and should be used when processing standard hourly NWS data for use in the preferred EPA models to ensure a lack of bias in wind direction assignments within the models.
d. Beginning with year 2000, NCEI began archiving 2-minute winds, reported every minute to the nearest degree for NWS ASOS sites. The AERMINUTE processor was developed to read those winds and calculate hourly average winds for input to AERMET. When such data are available for the NWS ASOS site being processed, the AERMINUTE processor should be used, in most cases, to calculate hourly average wind speed and direction when processing NWS ASOS data for input to AERMOD.
e. Data from universities, FAA, military stations, industry and pollution control agencies may be used if such data are equivalent in accuracy and detail (
f. After valid data retrieval requirements have been met,
a. Spatial or geographical representativeness is best achieved by collection of all of the needed model input data in close proximity to the actual site of the source(s). Site-specific measured data are, therefore, preferred as model input, provided that appropriate instrumentation and quality assurance procedures are followed, and that the data collected are adequately representative (free from inappropriate local or microscale influences) and compatible with the input requirements of the model to be used. It should be noted that, while site-specific measurements are frequently made “on-property” (
a. The EPA guidance
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
b. All processed site-specific data should be in the form of hourly averages for input to the dispersion model.
i.
ii.
iii. The SRDT method, described in section 6.4.4.2 of reference 110, is modified slightly from that published from earlier work
c.
a. For some modeling applications, there may not be a representative NWS or comparable meteorological station available (
b. The EPA has developed a processor, the MMIF,
a.
b.
c.
a. Calculations of boundary layer parameters for the marine boundary layer present special challenges as the marine boundary layer can be very different from the boundary layer over land. For example, convective conditions can occur in the overnight hours in the marine boundary layer while typically over land, stable conditions occur at night. Also, surface roughness in the marine environment is a function of wave height and wind speed and less static with time than surface roughness over land.
b. While the Offshore and Coastal Dispersion Model (OCD) is the preferred model for overwater applications, there are applications where the use of AERMOD is applicable. These include applications that utilize features of AERMOD not included in OCD (
c. For the reasons stated above, a standalone pre-processor to AERMOD, called AERCOARE
a.
b.
a. Treatment of calm or light and variable wind poses a special problem in modeling applications since steady-state Gaussian plume models assume that concentration is inversely proportional to wind speed, depending on model formulations. Procedures have been developed to prevent the occurrence of overly conservative concentration estimates during periods of calms. These procedures acknowledge that a steady-state Gaussian plume model does not apply during calm conditions, and that our knowledge of wind patterns and plume behavior during these conditions does not, at present, permit the development of a better technique. Therefore, the procedures disregard hours that are identified as calm. The hour is treated as missing and a convention for handling missing hours is recommended. With the advent of the AERMINUTE processor, when processing NWS ASOS data, the inclusion of hourly averaged winds from AERMINUTE will, in some instances, dramatically reduce the number of calm and missing hours, especially when the ASOS wind are derived from a sonic anemometer. To alleviate concerns about these issues, especially those introduced with AERMINUTE, the EPA implemented a wind speed threshold in AERMET for use with ASOS derived winds.
b. AERMOD, while fundamentally a steady-state Gaussian plume model, contains algorithms for dealing with low wind speed (near calm) conditions. As a result, AERMOD can produce model estimates for conditions when the wind speed may be less than 1 m/s, but still greater than the instrument threshold. Required input to AERMET for site-specific data, the meteorological processor for AERMOD, includes a threshold wind speed and a reference wind speed. The threshold wind speed is the greater of the threshold of the instrument used to collect the wind speed data or wind direction sensor.
a. Hourly concentrations calculated with steady-state Gaussian plume models using calms should not be considered valid; the wind and concentration estimates for these hours should be disregarded and considered to be missing. Model predicted concentrations for 3-, 8-, and 24-hour averages should be calculated by dividing the sum of the hourly concentrations for the period by the number of valid or non-missing hours. If the total number of valid hours is less than 18 for 24-hour averages, less than 6 for 8-hour averages, or less than 3 for 3-hour averages, the total concentration should be divided by 18 for the 24-hour average, 6 for the 8-hour average, and 3 for the 3-hour average. For annual averages, the sum of all valid hourly concentrations is divided by the number of non-calm hours during the year. AERMOD has been coded to implement these instructions. For hours that are calm or missing, the AERMOD hourly concentrations will be zero. For other models listed in addendum A, a post-processor computer program, CALMPRO
b. Stagnant conditions that include extended periods of calms often produce high concentrations over wide areas for relatively long averaging periods. The standard steady-state Gaussian plume models are often not applicable to such situations. When stagnation conditions are of concern, other modeling techniques should be considered on a case-by-case basis (
c. When used in steady-state Gaussian plume models other than AERMOD, measured site-specific wind speeds of less than 1 m/s but higher than the response threshold of the instrument should be input as 1 m/s; the corresponding wind direction should also be input. Wind observations below the response threshold of the instrument should be set to zero, with the input file in ASCII format. For input to AERMOD, no such adjustment should be made to the site-specific wind data, as AERMOD has algorithms to account for light or variable winds as discussed in section 8.4.6.1(a). For NWS ASOS data, see the AERMET User's Guide
a. Standardized procedures are valuable in the review of air quality modeling and data analyses conducted to support SIP submittals and revisions, NSR, or other EPA requirements to ensure consistency in their regulatory application. This section recommends procedures specific to NSR that facilitate some degree of standardization while at the same time allowing the flexibility needed to assure the technically best analysis for each regulatory application. For SIP attainment demonstrations, refer to the appropriate EPA guidance
b. Air quality model estimates, especially with the support of measured air quality data, are the preferred basis for air quality demonstrations. A number of actions have been taken to ensure that the best air quality model is used correctly for each regulatory application and that it is not arbitrarily imposed.
• First, the
• Second, the preferred models have been subjected to a systematic performance evaluation and a scientific peer review. Statistical performance measures, including measures of difference (or residuals) such as bias, variance of difference and gross variability of the difference, and measures of correlation such as time, space, and time and space combined, as described in section 2.1.1, were generally followed.
• Third, more specific information has been provided for considering the incorporation of new models into the
c. Air quality modeling is the preferred basis for air quality demonstrations. Nevertheless, there are rare circumstances where the performance of the preferred air quality model may be shown to be less than reasonably acceptable or where no preferred air quality model, screening model or technique, or alternative model are suitable for the situation. In these unique instances, there is the possibility of assuring compliance and establishing emissions limits for an existing source solely on the basis of observed air quality data in lieu of an air quality modeling analysis. Comprehensive air quality monitoring in the vicinity of the existing source with proposed modifications will be necessary in these cases. The same attention should be given to the detailed analyses of the air quality data as would be applied to a model performance evaluation.
d. The current levels and forms of the NAAQS for the six criteria pollutants can be found on the EPA's NAAQS website at
e. This section discusses general recommendations on the regulatory application of models for the purposes of NSR, including PSD permitting, and particularly for estimating design concentration(s), appropriately comparing these estimates to NAAQS and PSD increments, and developing emissions limits. This section also provides the criteria necessary for considering use of an analysis based on measured ambient data in lieu of modeling as the sole basis for demonstrating compliance with NAAQS and PSD increments.
a. Every effort should be made by the appropriate reviewing authority (paragraph 3.0(b)) to meet with all parties involved in either a SIP submission or revision or a PSD permit application prior to the start of any work on such a project. During this meeting, a protocol should be established between the preparing and reviewing parties to define the procedures to be followed, the data to be collected, the model to be used, and the analysis of the source and concentration data to be performed. An example of the content for such an effort is contained in the Air Quality Analysis Checklist posted on the EPA's SCRAM website (section 2.3). This checklist suggests the appropriate level of detail to assess the air quality resulting from the proposed action. Special cases may require additional data collection or analysis and this should be determined and agreed upon at the pre-application meeting. The protocol should be written and agreed upon by the parties concerned, although it is not intended that this protocol be a binding, formal legal document. Changes in such a protocol or deviations from the protocol are often necessary as the data collection and analysis progresses. However, the protocol establishes a common understanding of how the demonstration required to meet regulatory requirements will be made.
a. Under the PSD permitting program, an air quality analysis for criteria pollutants is required to demonstrate that emissions from the construction or operation of a proposed new source or modification will not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS or PSD increments.
i. For a NAAQS assessment, the design concentration is the combination of the appropriate background concentration (section 8.3) with the estimated modeled impact of the proposed source. The NAAQS design concentration is then compared to the applicable NAAQS.
ii. For a PSD increment assessment, the design concentration includes impacts occurring after the appropriate baseline date from all increment-consuming and increment-expanding sources. The PSD increment design concentration is then compared to the applicable PSD increment.
b. The specific form of the NAAQS for the pollutant(s) of concern will also influence how the background and modeled data should be combined for appropriate comparison with the respective NAAQS in such a modeling demonstration. Given the potential for revision of the form of the NAAQS and the complexities of combining background and modeled data, specific details on this process can be found in the applicable modeling guidance available on the EPA's SCRAM website (section 2.3). Modeled concentrations should not be rounded before comparing the resulting design concentration to the NAAQS or PSD increments. Ambient monitoring and dispersion modeling address different issues and needs relative to each aspect of the overall air quality assessment.
c. The PSD increments for criteria pollutants are listed in 40 CFR 52.21(c) and 40 CFR 51.166(c). For short-term increments, these maximum allowable increases in pollutant concentrations may be exceeded once per year at each site, while the annual increment may not be exceeded. The highest, second-highest increase in estimated concentrations for the short-term averages, as determined by a model, must be less than or equal to the permitted increment. The modeled annual averages must not exceed the increment.
d. Receptor sites for refined dispersion modeling should be located within the modeling domain (section 8.1). In designing a receptor network, the emphasis should be placed on receptor density and location, not total number of receptors. Typically, the density of receptor sites should be progressively more resolved near the new or modifying source, areas of interest, and areas with the highest concentrations with sufficient detail to determine where possible violations of a NAAQS or PSD increments are most likely to occur. The placement of receptor sites should be determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the source characteristics, topography, climatology, and monitor sites. Locations of particular importance include: (1) the area of maximum impact of the point source; (2) the area of maximum impact of nearby sources; and (3) the area where all sources combine to cause maximum impact. Depending on the complexities of the source and the environment to which the source is located, a dense array of receptors may be required in some cases. In order to avoid unreasonably large computer runs due to an excessively large array of receptors, it is often desirable to model the area twice. The first model run would use a moderate number of receptors more resolved near the new or modifying source and over areas of interest. The second model run would modify the receptor network from the first model run with a denser array of receptors in areas showing potential for high concentrations and possible violations, as indicated by the results of the first model run. Accordingly, the EPA neither anticipates nor encourages that numerous iterations of modeling runs be made to continually refine the receptor network.
a. As described in this subsection, the recommended procedure for conducting either a NAAQS or PSD increments assessment under PSD permitting is a multi-stage approach that includes the following two stages:
i. The EPA describes the first stage as a single-source impact analysis, since this stage involves considering only the impact of the new or modifying source. There are two possible levels of detail in conducting a single-source impact analysis with the model user beginning with use of a screening model and proceeding to use of a refined model as necessary.
ii. The EPA describes the second stage as a cumulative impact analysis, since it takes into account all sources affecting the air quality in an area. In addition to the project source impact, this stage includes consideration of background, which includes contributions from nearby sources and other sources (
b. Each stage should involve increasing complexity and details, as required, to fully demonstrate that a new or modifying source will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or PSD increment. As such, starting with a single-source impact analysis is recommended because, where the analysis at this stage is sufficient to demonstrate that a source will not cause or contribute to any potential violation, this may alleviate the need for a more time-consuming and comprehensive cumulative modeling analysis.
c. The single-source impact analysis, or first stage of an air quality analysis, should begin by determining the potential of a proposed new or modifying source to cause or contribute to a NAAQS or PSD increment violation. In certain circumstances, a screening model or technique may be used instead of the preferred model because it will provide estimated worst-case ambient impacts from the proposed new or modifying source. If these worst case ambient concentration estimates indicate that the source will not cause or contribute to any potential violation of a NAAQS or PSD increment, then the screening analysis should generally be sufficient for the required demonstration under PSD. If the ambient concentration estimates indicate that the source's emissions have the potential to cause or contribute to a violation, then the use of a refined model to estimate the source's impact should be pursued. The refined modeling analysis should use a model or technique consistent with the
d. The cumulative impact analysis, or the second stage of an air quality analysis, should be conducted with the same refined model or technique to characterize the project source and then include the appropriate background concentrations (section 8.3). The resulting design concentrations should be used to determine whether the source will cause or contribute to a NAAQS or PSD increment violation. This determination should be based on: (1) The appropriate design concentration for each applicable NAAQS (and averaging period); and (2) whether the source's emissions cause or contribute to a violation at the time and location of any modeled violation (
a. Emissions limits and resulting control requirements should be established to provide for compliance with each applicable NAAQS (and averaging period) and PSD increment. It is possible that multiple emissions limits will be required for a source to demonstrate compliance with several criteria pollutants (and averaging periods) and PSD increments. Case-by-case determinations must be made as to the appropriate form of the limits,
a. As described throughout the
b. There may be rare circumstances where the performance of the preferred air quality model will be shown to be less than reasonably acceptable when compared with air quality monitoring data measured in the vicinity of an existing source. Additionally, there may not be an applicable preferred air quality model, screening technique, or justifiable alternative model suitable for the situation. In these unique instances, there may be the possibility of establishing emissions limits and demonstrating compliance with the NAAQS and PSD increments solely on the basis of analysis of observed air quality data in lieu of an air quality modeling analysis. However, only in the case of a modification to an existing source should air quality monitoring data alone be a basis for determining adequate emissions limits or for demonstration that the modification will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or PSD increment.
c. The following items should be considered prior to the acceptance of an analysis of measured air quality data as the sole basis for an air quality demonstration or determining an emissions limit:
i. Does a monitoring network exist for the pollutants and averaging times of concern in the vicinity of the existing source?
ii. Has the monitoring network been designed to locate points of maximum concentration?
iii. Do the monitoring network and the data reduction and storage procedures meet EPA monitoring and quality assurance requirements?
iv. Do the dataset and the analysis allow impact of the most important individual sources to be identified if more than one source or emission point is involved?
v. Is at least one full year of valid ambient data available?
vi. Can it be demonstrated through the comparison of monitored data with model results that available air quality models and techniques are not applicable?
d. Comprehensive air quality monitoring in the area affected by the existing source with proposed modifications will be necessary in these cases. Additional meteorological monitoring may also be necessary. The appropriate number of air quality and meteorological monitors from a scientific and technical standpoint is a function of the situation being considered. The source configuration, terrain configuration, and meteorological variations all have an impact on number and optimal placement of monitors. Decisions on the monitoring network appropriate for this type of analysis can only be made on a case-by-case basis.
e. Sources should obtain approval from the appropriate reviewing authority (paragraph 3.0(b)) and the EPA Regional Office for the monitoring network prior to the start of monitoring. A monitoring protocol agreed to by all parties involved is necessary to assure that ambient data are collected in a consistent and appropriate manner. The design of the network, the number, type, and location of the monitors, the sampling period, averaging time, as well as the need for meteorological monitoring or the use of mobile sampling or plume tracking techniques, should all be specified in the protocol and agreed upon prior to start-up of the network.
f. Given the uniqueness and complexities of these rare circumstances, the procedures can only be established on a case-by-case basis for analyzing the source's emissions data and the measured air quality monitoring data, and for projecting with a reasoned basis
(1) This appendix summarizes key features of refined air quality models preferred for specific regulatory applications. For each model, information is provided on availability, approximate cost (where applicable), regulatory use, data input, output format and options, simulation of atmospheric physics, and accuracy. These models may be used without a formal demonstration of applicability provided they satisfy the recommendations for regulatory use; not all options in the models are necessarily recommended for regulatory use.
(2) These models have been subjected to a performance evaluation using comparisons with observed air quality data. Where possible, the models contained herein have been subjected to evaluation exercises, including: (1) statistical performance tests recommended by the American Meteorological Society, and (2) peer scientific reviews. The models in this appendix have been selected on the basis of the results of the model evaluations, experience with previous use, familiarity of the model to various air quality programs, and the costs and resource requirements for use.
(3) Codes and documentation for all models listed in this addendum are available from the EPA's Support Center for Regulatory Air Models (SCRAM) website at
The model codes and associated documentation are available on EPA's SCRAM website (paragraph A.0(3)).
AERMOD is a steady-state plume dispersion model for assessment of pollutant concentrations from a variety of sources. AERMOD simulates transport and dispersion from multiple point, area, volume, and line sources based on an up-to-date characterization of the atmospheric boundary layer. Sources may be located in rural or urban areas, and receptors may be located in simple or complex terrain. AERMOD accounts for building wake effects (
(1) AERMOD is appropriate for the following applications:
• Point, volume, and area sources;
• Buoyant, elevated line sources (
• Mobile sources;
• Surface, near-surface, and elevated releases;
• Rural or urban areas;
• Simple and complex terrain;
• Transport distances over which steady- state assumptions are appropriate, up to 50 km;
• 1-hour to annual averaging times,
• Continuous toxic air emissions; and,
• Applications in the marine boundary layer environment where the effects of shoreline fumigation and/or platform downwash are adequately assessed or are not applicable.
(2) For regulatory applications of AERMOD, the regulatory default option should be set,
(1)
(2)
(i) Data used as input to AERMET should possess an adequate degree of representativeness to ensure that the wind, temperature and turbulence profiles derived by AERMOD are both laterally and vertically representative of the source impact area. The adequacy of input data should be judged independently for each variable. The values for surface roughness, Bowen ratio, and albedo should reflect the surface characteristics in the vicinity of the meteorological tower or representative grid cell when using prognostic data, and should be adequately representative of the modeling domain. Finally, the primary atmospheric input variables, including wind speed and direction, ambient temperature, cloud cover, and a morning upper air sounding, should also be adequately representative of the source area when using observed data.
(ii) For applications involving the use of site-specific meteorological data that includes turbulences parameters (
(iii) For recommendations regarding the length of meteorological record needed to perform a regulatory analysis with AERMOD,
(3) Receptor data: Receptor coordinates, elevations, height above ground, and hill height scales are produced by the AERMAP terrain preprocessor for input to AERMOD. Discrete receptors and/or multiple receptor grids, Cartesian and/or polar, may be employed in AERMOD. AERMAP requires input of DEM or 3DEP terrain data produced by the USGS, or other equivalent data. AERMAP can be used optionally to estimate source elevations.
Printed output options include input information, high concentration summary tables by receptor for user-specified averaging periods, maximum concentration summary tables, and concurrent values summarized by receptor for each day processed. Optional output files can be generated for: a listing of occurrences of exceedances of user-specified threshold value; a listing of concurrent (raw) results at each receptor for each hour modeled, suitable for post-processing; a listing of design values that can be imported into graphics software for plotting contours; a listing of results suitable for NAAQS analyses including NAAQS exceedances and culpability analyses; an unformatted listing of raw results above a threshold value with a special structure for use with the TOXX model component of TOXST; a listing of concentrations by rank (
AERMOD is a steady-state plume model, using Gaussian distributions in the vertical and horizontal for stable conditions, and in the horizontal for convective conditions. The vertical concentration distribution for convective conditions results from an assumed bi-Gaussian probability density function of the vertical velocity.
AERMOD is applicable to primary pollutants and continuous releases of toxic and hazardous waste pollutants. Chemical transformation is treated by simple exponential decay.
AERMOD applies user-specified locations for sources and receptors. Actual separation between each source-receptor pair is used. Source and receptor elevations are user input or are determined by AERMAP using USGS DEM or 3DEP terrain data. Receptors may be
(1) In the convective boundary layer (CBL), the transport and dispersion of a plume is characterized as the superposition of three modeled plumes: (1) the direct plume (from the stack); (2) the indirect plume; and (3) the penetrated plume, where the indirect plume accounts for the lofting of a buoyant plume near the top of the boundary layer, and the penetrated plume accounts for the portion of a plume that, due to its buoyancy, penetrates above the mixed layer, but can disperse downward and re-enter the mixed layer. In the CBL, plume rise is superposed on the displacements by random convective velocities (Weil,
(2) In the stable boundary layer, plume rise is estimated using an iterative approach to account for height-dependent lapse rates, similar to that in the CTDMPLUS model (
(3) Stack-tip downwash and buoyancy induced dispersion effects are modeled. Building wake effects are simulated for stacks subject to building downwash using the methods contained in the PRIME downwash algorithms (Schulman,
(4) For elevated terrain, AERMOD incorporates the concept of the critical dividing streamline height, in which flow below this height remains horizontal, and flow above this height tends to rise up and over terrain (Snyder,
Vertical profiles of wind are calculated for each hour based on measurements and surface-layer similarity (scaling) relationships. At a given height above ground, for a given hour, winds are assumed constant over the modeling domain. The effect of the vertical variation in horizontal wind speed on dispersion is accounted for through simple averaging over the plume depth.
In convective conditions, the effects of random vertical updraft and downdraft velocities are simulated with a bi-Gaussian probability density function. In both convective and stable conditions, the mean vertical wind speed is assumed equal to zero.
Gaussian horizontal dispersion coefficients are estimated as continuous functions of the parameterized (or measured) ambient lateral turbulence and also account for buoyancy-induced and building wake-induced turbulence. Vertical profiles of lateral turbulence are developed from measurements and similarity (scaling) relationships. Effective turbulence values are determined from the portion of the vertical profile of lateral turbulence between the plume height and the receptor height. The effective lateral turbulence is then used to estimate horizontal dispersion.
In the stable boundary layer, Gaussian vertical dispersion coefficients are estimated as continuous functions of parameterized vertical turbulence. In the convective boundary layer, vertical dispersion is characterized by a bi-Gaussian probability density function and is also estimated as a continuous function of parameterized vertical turbulence. Vertical turbulence profiles are developed from measurements and similarity (scaling) relationships. These turbulence profiles account for both convective and mechanical turbulence. Effective turbulence values are determined from the portion of the vertical profile of vertical turbulence between the plume height and the receptor height. The effective vertical turbulence is then used to estimate vertical dispersion.
Chemical transformations are generally not treated by AERMOD. However, AERMOD does contain an option to treat chemical transformation using simple exponential decay, although this option is typically not used in regulatory applications except for sources of sulfur dioxide in urban areas. Either a decay coefficient or a half-life is input by the user. Note also that the Generic Reaction Set Method, Plume Volume Molar Ratio Method and the Ozone Limiting Method (section 4.2.3.4) for NO
AERMOD can be used to treat dry and wet deposition for both gases and particles. Currently, Method 1 particle deposition is available for regulatory applications. Method 2 particle deposition and gas deposition are currently alpha options and not available for regulatory applications
The model codes and associated documentation are available on the EPA's SCRAM website (paragraph A.0(3)).
CTDMPLUS is a refined point source Gaussian air quality model for use in all stability conditions for complex terrain applications. The model contains, in its entirety, the technology of CTDM for stable and neutral conditions. However, CTDMPLUS can also simulate daytime, unstable conditions, and has a number of additional capabilities for improved user friendliness. Its use of meteorological data
CTDMPLUS is appropriate for the following applications:
• Elevated point sources;
• Terrain elevations above stack top;
• Rural or urban areas;
• Transport distances less than 50 kilometers; and
• 1-hour to annual averaging times when used with a post-processor program such as CHAVG.
(1) Source data: For each source, user supplies source location, height, stack diameter, stack exit velocity, stack exit temperature, and emission rate; if variable emissions are appropriate, the user supplies hourly values for emission rate, stack exit velocity, and stack exit temperature.
(2) Meteorological data: For applications of CTDMPLUS, multiple level (typically three or more) measurements of wind speed and direction, temperature and turbulence (wind fluctuation statistics) are required to create the basic meteorological data file (“PROFILE”). Such measurements should be obtained up to the representative plume height(s) of interest (
(3) Receptor data: receptor names (up to 400) and coordinates, and hill number (each receptor must have a hill number assigned).
(4) Terrain data: user inputs digitized contour information to the terrain preprocessor which creates the TERRAIN data file (for up to 25 hills).
(1) When CTDMPLUS is run, it produces a concentration file, in either binary or text format (user's choice), and a list file containing a verification of model inputs,
• Input meteorological data from “SURFACE” and “PROFILE,”
• Stack data for each source,
• Terrain information,
• Receptor information, and
• Source-receptor location (line printer map).
(2) In addition, if the case-study option is selected, the listing includes:
• Meteorological variables at plume height,
• Geometrical relationships between the source and the hill, and
• Plume characteristics at each receptor,
(3) If the user selects the TOPN option, a summary table of the top four concentrations at each receptor is given. If the ISOR option is selected, a source contribution table for every hour will be printed.
(4) A separate output file of predicted (1-hour only) concentrations (“CONC”) is written if the user chooses this option. Three forms of output are possible:
(i) A binary file of concentrations, one value for each receptor in the hourly sequence as run;
(ii) A text file of concentrations, one value for each receptor in the hourly sequence as run; or
(iii) A text file as described above, but with a listing of receptor information (names, positions, hill number) at the beginning of the file.
(5) Hourly information provided to these files besides the concentrations themselves includes the year, month, day, and hour information as well as the receptor number with the highest concentration.
CTDMPLUS is a refined steady-state, point source plume model for use in all stability conditions for complex terrain applications.
CTDMPLUS may be used to model non- reactive, primary pollutants.
Up to 40 point sources, 400 receptors and 25 hills may be used. Receptors and sources are allowed at any location. Hill slopes are assumed not to exceed 15°, so that the linearized equation of motion for Boussinesq flow are applicable. Receptors upwind of the impingement point, or those associated with any of the hills in the modeling domain, require separate treatment.
(1) As in CTDM, the basic plume rise algorithms are based on Briggs' (1975) recommendations.
(2) A central feature of CTDMPLUS for neutral/stable conditions is its use of a critical dividing-streamline height (H
(3) The model calculates on an hourly (or appropriate steady averaging period) basis how the plume trajectory (and, in stable/neutral conditions, the shape) is deformed by each hill. Hourly profiles of wind and temperature measurements are used by CTDMPLUS to compute plume rise, plume penetration (a formulation is included to handle penetration into elevated stable layers, based on Briggs (1984)), convective scaling parameters, the value of H
CTDMPLUS does not simulate calm meteorological conditions. Both scalar and vector wind speed observations can be read by the model. If vector wind speed is unavailable, it is calculated from the scalar wind speed. The assignment of wind speed (either vector or scalar) at plume height is done by either:
• Interpolating between observations above and below the plume height, or
• Extrapolating (within the surface layer) from the nearest measurement height to the plume height.
Vertical flow is treated for the plume component above the critical dividing streamline height (H
Horizontal dispersion for stable/neutral conditions is related to the turbulence velocity scale for lateral fluctuations, σv, for which a minimum value of 0.2 m/s is used. Convective scaling formulations are used to estimate horizontal dispersion for unstable conditions.
Direct estimates of vertical dispersion for stable/neutral conditions are based on observed vertical turbulence intensity,
Chemical transformation is not treated by CTDMPLUS.
Physical removal is not treated by CTDMPLUS (complete reflection at the ground/hill surface is assumed).
The model codes and associated documentation are available on EPA's SCRAM website (paragraph A.0(3)).
(1) OCD is a straight-line Gaussian model developed to determine the impact of offshore emissions from point, area or line sources on the air quality of coastal regions. OCD incorporates overwater plume transport and dispersion as well as changes that occur as the plume crosses the shoreline. Hourly meteorological data are needed from both offshore and onshore locations. These include water surface temperature, overwater air temperature, mixing height, and relative humidity.
(2) Some of the key features include platform building downwash, partial plume penetration into elevated inversions, direct use of turbulence intensities for plume dispersion, interaction with the overland internal boundary layer, and continuous shoreline fumigation.
OCD is applicable for overwater sources where onshore receptors are below the lowest source height. Where onshore receptors are above the lowest source height, offshore plume transport and dispersion may be modeled on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the appropriate reviewing authority (paragraph 3.0(b)).
(1)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(3)
(1) All input options, specification of sources, receptors and land/water map including locations of sources and receptors.
(2) Summary tables of five highest concentrations at each receptor for each averaging period, and average concentration for entire run period at each receptor.
(3) Optional case study printout with hourly plume and receptor characteristics. Optional table of annual impact assessment from non-permanent activities.
(4) Concentration output files can be used by ANALYSIS postprocessor to produce the highest concentrations for each receptor, the cumulative frequency distributions for each receptor, the tabulation of all concentrations exceeding a given threshold, and the manipulation of hourly concentration files.
OCD is a Gaussian plume model constructed on the framework of the MPTER model.
OCD may be used to model primary pollutants. Settling and deposition are not treated.
(1) Up to 250 point sources, 5 area sources, or 1 line source and 180 receptors may be used.
(2) Receptors and sources are allowed at any location.
(3) The coastal configuration is determined by a grid of up to 3600 rectangles. Each element of the grid is designated as either land or water to identify the coastline.
(1) The basic plume rise algorithms are based on Briggs' recommendations.
(2) Momentum rise includes consideration of the stack angle from the vertical.
(3) The effect of drilling platforms, ships, or any overwater obstructions near the source are used to decrease plume rise using a revised platform downwash algorithm based on laboratory experiments.
(4) Partial plume penetration of elevated inversions is included using the suggestions of Briggs (1975) and Weil and Brower (1984).
(5) Continuous shoreline fumigation is parameterized using the Turner method where complete vertical mixing through the thermal internal boundary layer (TIBL) occurs as soon as the plume intercepts the TIBL.
(1) Constant, uniform wind is assumed for each hour.
(2) Overwater wind speed can be estimated from overland wind speed using relationship of Hsu (1981).
(3) Wind speed profiles are estimated using similarity theory (Businger, 1973). Surface layer fluxes for these formulas are calculated from bulk aerodynamic methods.
Vertical wind speed is assumed equal to zero.
(1) Lateral turbulence intensity is recommended as a direct estimate of horizontal dispersion. If lateral turbulence intensity is not available, it is estimated from boundary layer theory. For wind speeds less than 8 m/s, lateral turbulence intensity is assumed inversely proportional to wind speed.
(2) Horizontal dispersion may be enhanced because of obstructions near the source. A virtual source technique is used to simulate the initial plume dilution due to downwash.
(3) Formulas recommended by Pasquill (1976) are used to calculate buoyant plume enhancement and wind direction shear enhancement.
(4) At the water/land interface, the change to overland dispersion rates is modeled using a virtual source. The overland dispersion rates can be calculated from either lateral turbulence intensity or Pasquill-Gifford curves. The change is implemented where the plume intercepts the rising internal boundary layer.
(1) Observed vertical turbulence intensity is not recommended as a direct estimate of vertical dispersion. Turbulence intensity should be estimated from boundary layer theory as default in the model. For very stable conditions, vertical dispersion is also a function of lapse rate.
(2) Vertical dispersion may be enhanced because of obstructions near the source. A virtual source technique is used to simulate the initial plume dilution due to downwash.
(3) Formulas recommended by Pasquill (1976) are used to calculate buoyant plume enhancement.
(4) At the water/land interface, the change to overland dispersion rates is modeled using a virtual source. The overland dispersion rates can be calculated from either vertical turbulence intensity or the Pasquill-Gifford coefficients. The change is implemented where the plume intercepts the rising internal boundary layer.
Chemical transformations are treated using exponential decay. Different rates can be specified by month and by day or night.
Physical removal is also treated using exponential decay.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to amend its regulations governing H-1B specialty occupation workers to modernize and improve the efficiency of the H-1B program, add benefits and flexibilities, and improve integrity measures. Some of the proposed provisions would narrowly impact other nonimmigrant classifications, including: H-2, H-3, F-1, L-1, O, P, Q-1, R-1, E-3, and TN. DHS intends to finalize the proposals contained in this rulemaking through one or more final rules, depending on agency resources.
Written comments must be submitted on or before December 22, 2023.
You may submit comments on the entirety of this proposed rulemaking package, identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS-2023-0005 through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Comments submitted in a manner other than the one listed above, including emails or letters sent to DHS or USCIS officials, will not be considered comments on the proposed rule and may not receive a response from DHS. Please note that DHS and USCIS cannot accept any comments that are hand-delivered or couriered. In addition, DHS and USCIS cannot accept comments contained on any form of digital media storage devices, such as CDs/DVDs and USB drives. USCIS is also not accepting mailed comments at this time. If you cannot submit your comment by using
Charles L. Nimick, Chief, Business and Foreign Workers Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 5900 Capital Gateway Drive, Camp Springs, MD 20746; telephone (240) 721-3000.
AAO—Administrative Appeals Office
AC21—American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act
ACWIA—American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998
BLS—Bureau of Labor Statistics
CEQ—Council on Environmental Quality
CFR—Code of Federal Regulations
CMSA—Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area
COS—Change of Status
CPI-U—Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers
D/S—Duration of status
DHS—U.S. Department of Homeland Security
DOL—U.S. Department of Labor
DOS—U.S. Department of State
FDNS—Fraud Detection and National Security
FR—Federal Register
FY—Fiscal Year
HR—Human Resources
HSA—Homeland Security Act of 2002
ICE—Immigration and Customs Enforcement
IMMACT 90—Immigration Act of 1990
INA—Immigration and Nationality Act
INS—legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service
IRFA—Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
IRS—Internal Revenue Service
LCA—Labor Condition Application
MSA—Metropolitan Statistical Area
NAICS—North American Industry Classification System
NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act
NOID—Notice of Intent to Deny
NPRM—Notice of proposed rulemaking
OIRA—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
OMB—Office of Management and Budget
OP&S—Office of Policy and Strategy
OPT—Optional Practical Training
PM—Policy Memorandum
PMSA—Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area
PRA—Paperwork Reduction Act PRD—Policy Research Division
Pub. L.—Public Law
RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
RFE—Request for Evidence RIA—Regulatory Impact Analysis
RIN—Regulation Identifier Number
SBA—Small Business Administration
SEVP—Student and Exchange Visitor Program
SOC—Standard Occupational Classification
Stat.—U.S. Statutes at Large
TLC—Temporary Labor Certification
UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S.C.—United States Code
USCIS—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
DHS invites all interested parties to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, comments, and arguments on all aspects of this proposed rule. DHS also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this proposed rule. Comments must be submitted in English, or an English translation must be provided. Comments that will provide the most assistance to USCIS in implementing these changes will reference a specific portion of the proposed rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change. Comments submitted in a manner other than the one listed above, including emails or letters sent to DHS or USCIS officials, will not be considered comments on the proposed rule and may not receive a response from DHS.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to modernize and improve the regulations relating to the H-1B program by: (1) streamlining the requirements of the H-1B program and improving program efficiency; (2) providing greater benefits and flexibilities for petitioners and beneficiaries; and (3) improving integrity measures. Some of the proposed provisions would narrowly impact other nonimmigrant classifications.
DHS proposes to streamline requirements for the H-1B program by: (1) revising the regulatory definition and criteria for a “specialty occupation”; (2) clarifying that “normally” does not mean “always” within the criteria for a specialty occupation; and (3) clarifying that a position may allow a range of degrees, although there must be a direct relationship between the required degree field(s) and the duties of the position. As 21st century employers strive to generate better hiring outcomes, improving the match between required skills and job duties, employers have increasingly become more aware of a skills-first culture, led by the Federal Government's commitment to attract and hire individuals well-suited to available jobs.
DHS also proposes to clarify when an amended or new petition must be filed due to a change in an H-1B worker's place of employment to be consistent with current policy guidance.
Additionally, DHS proposes to codify and clarify its deference policy to state that, if there has been no material change in the underlying facts, adjudicators generally should defer to a prior determination involving the same parties and underlying facts. DHS also proposes to update the regulations to expressly require that evidence of maintenance of status must be included with the petition if a beneficiary is seeking an extension or amendment of stay. This policy would impact all employment-based nonimmigrant classifications that use Form I-129,
DHS proposes to modernize the definition of employers who are exempt from the annual statutory limit on H-1B visas to create more flexibility for nonprofit and governmental research organizations and beneficiaries who are not directly employed by a qualifying organization. Specifically, DHS proposes to change the definition of “nonprofit research organization” and “governmental research organization” by replacing “primarily engaged” and “primary mission” with “fundamental activity” to permit a nonprofit entity or governmental research organization that conducts research as a fundamental activity, but is not primarily engaged in research or where research is not a primary mission, to meet the definition of a nonprofit research entity. Additionally, DHS proposes to revise the requirements for beneficiaries to qualify for H-1B cap exemption when they are not directly employed by a qualifying organization, but still provide essential work, even if their duties do not necessarily directly further the organization's essential purpose.
DHS also proposes to provide flexibilities, such as automatically extending the duration of F-1 status, and any employment authorization granted under 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(3)(i)(B) or (C), until April 1 of the relevant fiscal year, rather than October 1 of the same fiscal year, to avoid disruptions in lawful status and employment authorization for F-1 students changing their status to H-1B. Additionally, DHS is proposing to clarify the requirements regarding the requested employment start date on H-1B cap-subject petitions to permit filing with requested start dates that are after October 1 of the relevant fiscal year, consistent with current USCIS policy.
DHS proposes to address H-1B cap registration abuse by changing the way USCIS selects registrations. Instead of selecting by registration, USCIS would select registrations by unique beneficiary, thereby reducing the potential for gaming the process to increase chances for selection and helping ensure that each beneficiary would have the same chance of being selected, regardless of how many registrations are submitted on their behalf. DHS also proposes to clarify that related entities are prohibited from submitting multiple registrations for the same beneficiary, similar to the prohibition on related entities filing multiple cap-subject petitions for the same beneficiary for the same fiscal year's numerical allocations. Additionally, DHS proposes to codify USCIS's ability to deny H-1B petitions or revoke an approved H-1B petition where the underlying registration contained a false attestation or was otherwise invalid.
DHS further proposes to improve the integrity of the H-1B program by: (1) codifying its authority to request contracts; (2) requiring that the petitioner establish that it has an actual, non-speculative position in a specialty occupation available for the beneficiary as of the requested start date; (3) ensuring that the labor condition application (LCA) properly supports and corresponds with the petition; (4) revising the definition of “United States employer” by codifying the existing requirement that the petitioner has a bona fide job offer for the beneficiary to work within the United States as of the requested start date, consistent with current DHS policy; and (5) adding a requirement that the petitioner have a legal presence and be amenable to service of process in the United States.
DHS additionally proposes to clarify that beneficiary-owners may be eligible for H-1B status, while setting reasonable conditions for when the beneficiary owns a controlling interest in the petitioning entity.
DHS also proposes to codify USCIS's authority to conduct site visits and clarify that refusal to comply with site visits may result in denial or revocation of the petition. Additionally, DHS proposes to clarify that if an H-1B worker will be staffed to a third party, meaning they will be contracted to fill a position in the third party's organization, it is the requirements of that third party, and not the petitioner, that are most relevant when determining whether the position is a specialty occupation. Through these provisions, DHS aims to prevent fraud and abuse and maintain H-1B program integrity.
As discussed in the preamble, the purpose of this rulemaking is to modernize and improve the regulations relating to the H-1B program by: (1) streamlining H-1B program requirements and improving program efficiency; (2) providing greater benefits and flexibilities for petitioners and beneficiaries; and (3) improving integrity measures.
For the 10-year period of analysis of the proposed rule, DHS estimates the annualized net costs of this rulemaking would be $6,339,779 annualized at 3 percent and 7 percent. Table 12 provides a more detailed summary of the proposed rule provisions and their impacts.
Finally, DHS is requesting preliminary public input on ideas that would curb or eliminate the possibility that petitioners may have speculative job opportunities as of the requested start date and delay admission of H-1B beneficiaries until the petitioner has secured work for the H-1B beneficiary, including two potential approaches DHS is considering for future action. DHS is also seeking preliminary public input on ways to provide H-1B and other Form I-129 beneficiaries with notice of USCIS actions taken on petitions filed on their behalf.
After carefully considering any public comments received on the proposals in this NPRM, DHS may move to finalize the proposed provisions through one or more final rules, and may possibly do so in time for the fiscal year (FY) 2025 cap season, depending on agency resources.
The Secretary of Homeland Security's authority for these proposed regulatory amendments is found in various sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA or the Act), 8 U.S.C. 1101
• Section 101(a)(15) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15), which establishes
• Section 214(a)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(a)(1), which authorizes the Secretary to prescribe, by regulation, the time and conditions of the admission of nonimmigrants;
• Section 214(c) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(c), which,
• Section 214(e) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(e), which provides for the admission of citizens of Canada or Mexico as TN nonimmigrants;
• Section 214(g) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(g), which,
• Section 214(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(i), which sets forth the definition and requirements of a “specialty occupation”;
• Section 235(d)(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1225(d)(3) (“any immigration officer shall have the power to administer oaths and to take and consider evidence of or from any person touching the privilege of any alien or person he believes or suspects to be an alien to enter, reenter, transit through, or reside in the United States or concerning any matter which is material and relevant to the enforcement of this chapter and the administration of the Service.”);
• Section 248 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1258, which authorizes a noncitizen to change from any nonimmigrant classification to any other nonimmigrant classification (subject to certain exceptions) if the noncitizen was lawfully admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant and is continuing to maintain that status, and is not otherwise subject to the 3- or 10-year bar applicable to certain noncitizens who were unlawfully present in the United States;
• Section 274A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a, which recognizes the Secretary's authority to extend employment authorization to noncitizens in the United States;
• Section 287(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1357(b), which authorizes the taking and consideration of evidence concerning any matter that is material or relevant to the enforcement of the INA;
• Section 402 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA), Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 202, which charges the Secretary with “[e]stablishing and administering rules . . . governing the granting of visas or other forms of permission . . . to enter the United States” and “[e]stablishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities,”
• Section 451(a)(3) and (b) of the HSA, 6 U.S.C. 271(a)(3) and (b), transferring to USCIS the authority to adjudicate petitions for nonimmigrant status, establish policies for performing that function, and set national immigration services policies and priorities.
The H-1B nonimmigrant visa program allows U.S. employers to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations, defined by statute as occupations that require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent.
The Immigration Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-649) (IMMACT 90) significantly reformed the H-1B program. To protect U.S. workers, IMMACT 90 required a certified LCA by the Secretary of Labor as a prerequisite for classification as an H-1B nonimmigrant. The LCA requirement, and the associated obligations the employer must attest to and comply with, including the prevailing or actual wage requirement, were intended to safeguard the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers.
Congress also set up several exemptions to the annual H-1B cap. For example, workers who will be employed at an institution of higher education (as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended) or a related or affiliated nonprofit entity, and workers who will be employed at a nonprofit or governmental research organization, are exempt from the cap. These exemptions are not numerically capped.
To manage the annual cap, USCIS used a random selection process in years of high demand to determine which petitions were selected toward the projected number of petitions needed to reach the annual H-1B numerical allocations.
Section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i), permits bona fide students to be temporarily admitted to the United States for the purpose of pursuing a full course of study at an established college, university, seminary, conservatory, academic high school, elementary school, or other academic institution or accredited language training program. Principal applicants are categorized as F-1 nonimmigrants and their spouses and minor children may accompany or follow to join them as F-2 dependents.
In 1992, legacy Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) amended its longstanding regulations relating to an employment program for students called Optional Practical Training (OPT) such that students in F-1 nonimmigrant status who have been enrolled on a full-time basis for at least one full academic year in a college, university, conservatory, or seminary (which now must be certified by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE's) Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP)) are allowed up to 12 months of OPT to work for a U.S. employer in a job directly related to the student's major area of study.
DHS proposes to revise the regulatory definition and standards for a “specialty occupation” to better align with the statutory definition of that term. Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), describes nonimmigrants coming to the United States temporarily to perform services in a specialty occupation. Section 214(i)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(i)(1) states that the term “specialty occupation” means: “an occupation that requires—(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and (B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States.”
Currently, 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(ii) defines “specialty occupation” as an occupation which requires theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in fields of human endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts, and which requires the attainment of a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States.
This proposed rule would add language to this definition to codify existing USCIS practice that there must be a direct relationship between the required degree field(s) and the duties of the position; there may be more than one acceptable degree field for a specialty occupation; and a general degree is insufficient.
A position for which a bachelor's degree in any field is sufficient to qualify for the position, or for which a bachelor's degree in a wide variety of fields unrelated to the position is sufficient to qualify, would not be considered a specialty occupation as it would not require the application of a body of highly specialized knowledge.
Under this proposed addition to 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(ii), the petitioner would continue to have the burden of demonstrating that there is a direct relationship between the required degree in a specific specialty (in other words, the degree field(s) that would qualify someone for the position) and the duties of the position. In many cases, the relationship will be clear and relatively easy to establish. For example, it should not be difficult to establish that a required medical degree is directly related to the duties of a physician. Similarly, a direct relationship may readily be established between the duties of a lawyer and a required law degree and the duties of an architect and a required architecture degree. In other cases, the direct relationship may be less apparent, and the petitioner may have to explain and provide documentation to meet its burden of demonstrating the relationship. As in the past, to establish a direct relationship, the petitioner would need to provide information regarding the course(s) of study associated with the required degree, or its equivalent, and the duties of the proffered position, and demonstrate the connection between the course of study and the duties and responsibilities of the position.
The requirement of a direct relationship between a degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, and the position, however, should not be construed as requiring a singular field of study.
In cases where the petitioner lists degrees in multiple disparate fields of study as the minimum entry requirement for a position, the petitioner has the burden of establishing how each field of study is in a specific specialty providing “a body of highly specialized knowledge” directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position. The petitioner must show that its position meets the requirements of sections 214(i)(1)(A) and (B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(i)(1)(A) and (B), and the regulatory definition.
As such, under this proposed rule, a minimum entry requirement of a bachelor's or higher degree, or its equivalent, in multiple disparate fields of study would not automatically disqualify a position from being a specialty occupation. For example, a petitioner may be able to establish that a bachelor's degree in the specific specialties of either education or chemistry, each of which provide a body of highly specialized knowledge, is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of a chemistry teacher. In such a scenario, the “body of highly specialized knowledge” requirement of section 214(i)(1)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(i)(1)(A), and the “degree in the specific specialty” requirement of section 214(i)(1)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(i)(1)(B), would both be met by either degree and the chemistry teacher position listing multiple disparate fields of study would qualify as a specialty occupation.
In determining whether a position involves a specialty occupation, USCIS currently interprets the “specific specialty” requirement in section 214(i)(1)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(i)(1)(B), to relate back to the body of highly specialized knowledge requirement referenced in section 214(i)(1)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(i)(1)(A), required by the specialty occupation in question. The “specific specialty” requirement is only met if the degree in a specific specialty or specialties, or its equivalent, provides a body of highly specialized knowledge directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the particular position as required by section 214(i)(1)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(i)(1)(A).
If the minimum entry requirement for a position is a general degree without further specialization or an explanation of what type of degree is required, the “degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent)” requirement of INA section 214(i)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1184(i)(1)(B),
Similarly, a petition with a requirement of any engineering degree in any field of engineering for a position of software developer would generally not satisfy the statutory requirement, as it is unlikely the petitioner could establish how the fields of study within any engineering degree provide a body of highly specialized knowledge directly relating to the duties and responsibilities of the software developer position.
Further, if a position requires a bachelor's degree in an unspecified “quantitative field” (which could include mathematics, statistics, economics, accounting, or physics) the petitioner must identify specific specialties, such as the majors or degree fields, within the wide variety of “quantitative fields” and establish how each identified degree in a specific specialty provides a body of highly specialized knowledge, consistent with INA section 214(i)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1184(i)(1)(A), that is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the software developer position. While a position may allow a range of degrees, and apply multiple bodies of highly specialized knowledge, each of those qualifying degree fields or each body of highly specialized knowledge must be directly related to the proffered position.
Under INA section 214(i)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1184(i)(1), a “specialty occupation” requires attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. The current regulatory criteria at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(
In addition, DHS proposes to codify its current practices by revising the criteria for a specialty occupation at current 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). First, DHS proposes to replace the phrase “To qualify as a specialty occupation, the position must meet one of the following criteria” with “A position does not meet the definition of specialty occupation in paragraph (h)(4)(ii) of this section unless it also satisfies at least one of the following criteria at paragraphs (h)(4)(iii)(A)(
DHS is also proposing to amend 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(
DHS further proposes to amend 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(
USCIS proposes to change the third criterion at proposed 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(
Furthermore, DHS proposes to add “or third party if the beneficiary will be staffed to that third party” to proposed 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(
DHS proposes to clarify when an amended or new H-1B petition must be filed due to a change in an H-1B worker's place of employment. Specifically, this rule proposes to clarify that any change of work location that requires a new LCA is itself considered a material change and therefore requires the petitioning employer to file an amended or new petition with USCIS before the H-1B worker may perform work under the changed conditions. Further, DHS proposes to consolidate and clarify guidance on when an amended or new petition is required for short-term placement of H-1B workers at a worksite not listed on the approved petition or corresponding LCA.
Under 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B), an H-1B petition for a specialty occupation worker must include a certified LCA from DOL. DOL regulation at 20 CFR 655.731 provides details on the LCA requirements, including that an employer seeking to employ an H-1B worker in a specialty occupation must attest on the LCA that it will pay the H-1B worker the required wage rate. The required wage rate is the higher of either the prevailing wage
In its precedent decision
In proposed 8 CFR 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E)(
Proposed 8 CFR 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E)(
Additionally, proposed 8 CFR 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E)(
Proposed 8 CFR 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E)(
Note that proposed 8 CFR 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E)(
DHS proposes to revise and redesignate current 8 CFR 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E) as proposed 8 CFR 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E)(
DHS seeks to codify and clarify its existing deference policy at proposed 8 CFR 214.1(c)(5). Deference helps promote consistency and efficiency for both USCIS and its stakeholders. The deference policy instructs officers to consider prior determinations involving the same parties and facts, when there is no material error with the prior determination, no material change in circumstances or in eligibility, and no new material information adversely impacting the petitioner's, applicant's, or beneficiary's eligibility. Through this proposed regulation, DHS seeks to clarify when petitioners may expect adjudicators to exercise deference in reviewing their petitions, so petitioners will be more likely to submit necessary, relevant supporting evidence. This creates predictability for petitioners and beneficiaries and leads to fairer and more reliable outcomes. Codifying and clarifying when USCIS gives deference would also better ensure consistent adjudications.
In 2004, USCIS issued a memorandum discussing the significance of prior USCIS adjudications.
Consistent with current guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual, proposed 8 CFR 214.1(c)(5) would provide that when adjudicating a request filed on Form I-129 involving the same parties and the same underlying facts, USCIS gives deference to its prior determination of the petitioner's, applicant's, or beneficiary's eligibility. However, USCIS need not give deference to a prior approval if: there was a material error involved with a prior approval; there has been a material change in circumstances or eligibility requirements; or there is new, material information that adversely impacts the petitioner's, applicant's, or beneficiary's eligibility.
Proposed 8 CFR 214.1(c)(5) would apply to all nonimmigrants using Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, and would include a request on Form I-129 involving the same parties and same material facts. Currently, the USCIS Policy Manual frames its deference policy as applying to requests for an “extension of petition validity.”
DHS seeks to clarify current requirements and codify current practices concerning evidence of maintenance of status at proposed 8 CFR 214.1(c)(1) through (7). Maintenance of status in this context generally refers to the applicant or beneficiary abiding by the terms and conditions of admission or extension of stay, as applicable (for example, if admitted as an H-1B nonimmigrant, the individual worked according to the terms and conditions of the H-1B petition approval on which their status was granted and did not engage in activities that would constitute a violation of status, such as by working without authorization). Primarily, DHS seeks to clarify that evidence of maintenance of status is required for petitions where there is a request to extend or amend the beneficiary's stay. These changes would impact the population of nonimmigrants named in 8 CFR 214.1(c)(1): E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, H-2A, H-2B, H-3, L-1, O-1, O-2, P-1, P-2, P-3, Q-1, R-1, and TN nonimmigrants.
First, DHS would add a new provision at proposed 8 CFR 214.1(c)(6), which would provide, in part, that an applicant or petitioner seeking an extension of stay must submit supporting evidence to establish that the applicant or beneficiary maintained the previously accorded nonimmigrant status before the extension request was filed.
Requiring petitioners (or applicants, in the case of E nonimmigrants) to submit supporting evidence to establish that the beneficiary (or applicant) maintained the previously accorded nonimmigrant status before the extension of stay request was filed would not conflict with USCIS's current and proposed deference policy. Although USCIS defers to prior USCIS determinations of eligibility in extension requests, USCIS would not be able to defer to a prior determination of maintenance of status during the preceding stay because it would not have made such a determination until adjudicating the extension of stay request. Even if there was a prior determination, USCIS need not give deference when there was a material error involved with a prior approval; a material change in circumstances or eligibility requirements; or new, material information that adversely impacts the petitioner's, applicant's, or beneficiary's eligibility. Without supporting evidence to demonstrate maintenance of status, it is unclear how USCIS would determine if there was a material error, material change, or other new material information. For example, evidence pertaining to the beneficiary's continued employment (
Thus, proposed 8 CFR 214.1(c)(6) would make clear that it is the filers' burden to demonstrate that status was maintained before the extension of stay request was filed. This would be consistent with current 8 CFR 214.1(c)(4), which states that, “An extension of stay may not be approved for an applicant who failed to maintain the previously accorded status . . ., ” as well as proposed 8 CFR 214.1(c)(4)(i), which would state that, “An extension or amendment of stay may not be approved for an applicant or beneficiary who failed to maintain the previously accorded status . . .”
In line with proposed 8 CFR 214.1(c)(6), DHS is proposing to amend 8 CFR 214.2(h)(14) by removing the sentence “Supporting evidence is not required unless requested by the director.” This sentence causes confusion because it implies that supporting evidence is not required, contrary to current 8 CFR 214.1(c)(1) (a request for an extension of stay must be filed “on the form designated by USCIS, . . . with the initial evidence specified in § 214.2, and in accordance with the form instructions”) and the form instructions (“[f]or all classifications, if a beneficiary is seeking a [COS] or extension of stay, evidence of maintenance of status must be included with the new petition”).
For the same reasons, DHS is also proposing to remove the same or similar sentence found in the regulations for the L, O, and P nonimmigrant classifications. Specifically, DHS proposes to amend 8 CFR 214.2(l)(14)(i) by removing the sentence “Except in those petitions involving new offices, supporting documentation is not required, unless requested by the director.” DHS proposes to amend 8 CFR 214.2(o)(11) and (p)(13) by removing the sentence “Supporting documents are not required unless requested by the Director.” DHS is proposing technical changes to add the word “generally” to 8 CFR 214.2(l)(14)(i), (o)(11), and (p)(13), to account for untimely filed extensions that are excused consistent with 8 CFR 214.1(c)(4). As stated above, removing this sentence should reduce the need for RFEs or NOIDs. Further, it would not add an additional burden on the petitioner or applicant.
In addition, DHS proposes to codify its longstanding practice of requiring evidence of maintenance of status for petitions requesting to amend a beneficiary's stay in the United States. The proposed rule would add language to clarify that the petitioner must submit initial evidence that the beneficiary maintained the previously accorded status before the amendment of stay petition was filed. Failure to establish maintenance of status would result in a denial of the request to amend the beneficiary's stay in the United States, unless USCIS determines that the failure to timely file the amendment of stay was due to extraordinary circumstances.
Current 8 CFR 214.1(c)(1) generally requires evidence of maintenance of status with an extension of stay request, and 8 CFR 214.1(c)(4) generally states that an extension of stay may not be approved where a beneficiary failed to maintain the previously accorded status. DHS proposes to add specific references to requests to “amend the terms and conditions of the nonimmigrant's stay without a request for additional time” or for an “amendment of stay” to proposed 8 CFR 214.1(c)(1), (4), (6), and (7), so that these regulations clearly convey that evidence of maintenance of status is also required for petitions requesting to amend a beneficiary's stay in the United States, even when the petition is not requesting additional time beyond the period previously granted. For example, a petitioner may request to amend the stay of the beneficiary when filing an amended petition but not seek additional time for the beneficiary's stay because the beneficiary may have an unexpired I-94 that has been granted until the end of the 6-year period of admission and is not yet eligible for an exemption from the 6-year period of admission limitation. In that example, the petitioner may seek authorization for the beneficiary to remain in the United States, but under different terms and conditions than previously granted, without requesting additional time. A petitioner filing an amended petition with a request to amend the terms and conditions of the beneficiary's stay, but without a request for additional time, would not specifically request an “extension of stay” on the Form I-129 petition. Nevertheless, DHS considers a petition requesting to amend the terms and conditions of the beneficiary's stay to be substantively equivalent to an extension of stay request for purposes of establishing maintenance of status and will exercise discretion when granting such requests. In other words, DHS considers an amendment of stay request as a request to continue to allow the beneficiary to remain in the United States based upon the amended
Currently, most petitioners filing to amend a beneficiary's stay already submit evidence of maintenance of status; however, if an amended petition does not contain evidence of maintenance of status, USCIS typically issues a request for such evidence. By proposing to codify current practice in 8 CFR 214.1(c), DHS hopes to clarify that petitioners should demonstrate eligibility by submitting evidence of maintenance of status with the amendment of stay request (just like with an extension of stay request), rather than waiting for USCIS to request this information. By clearly stating what types of supporting documentation will help USCIS in adjudicating requests to amend a beneficiary's stay, DHS hopes to further reduce the need for RFEs and NOIDs, which can be burdensome for petitioners and USCIS, and generally extends the time needed to complete the adjudication of the petition.
Specifically, DHS proposes to revise 8 CFR 214.1(c)(4), to add a reference to an “amendment” of stay. Aside from clarifying that evidence of maintenance of status would be required in an amendment of stay request, this change would also clarify that USCIS can excuse the late filing of an amendment of stay request under the circumstances described at proposed 8 CFR 214.1(c)(4)(i)(A) through (D). “Late filing” in this context would include certain extension of stay requests filed after the expiration date on the Form I-94. A “late filing” would also encompass, for example, a request for an amendment of stay that was filed after the beneficiary temporarily stopped working due to extraordinary circumstances beyond their control. DHS would clarify in proposed 8 CFR 214.1(c)(4)(ii) that, if USCIS excuses the late filing of an amendment of stay request, it would do so without requiring the filing of a separate application or petition and would grant the amendment of stay, if otherwise eligible, from the date the petition was filed.
DHS proposes nonsubstantive edits to improve readability to 8 CFR 214.1(c)(4). DHS also proposes nonsubstantive edits in proposed 8 CFR 214.1(c)(1) and (4) to add references to a “beneficiary,” “petition,” or “Form I-129,” to account for the extension or amendment of stay being requested on the Form I-129 petition, and to replace “alien” with “beneficiary” and “Service” with “USCIS.” With respect to proposed 8 CFR 214.1(c)(7), this provision would contain the same language as current 8 CFR 214.1(c)(5), except that DHS would add references to an “amendment” of stay and make other nonsubstantive edits similar to the ones described above.
DHS is proposing to eliminate the H programs' itinerary requirement.
The information provided in an itinerary is largely duplicative of information already provided in the LCA for H-1B petitions and the temporary labor certification (TLC) for H-2 petitions. The LCA and TLC require the petitioner to the list the name and address where work will be performed, as well as the name and address of any secondary entity where work will be performed. It is also largely duplicative of information already provided on the Form I-129, which requires the petitioner to provide the address where the beneficiary will work if different from the petitioner's address listed on the form.
To eliminate the unnecessary duplication of work, DHS also proposes to eliminate the itinerary requirement for agents acting as petitioners at current 8 CFR 214.2(h)(2)(i)(F). In proposing to eliminate the itinerary requirement for agents at paragraph (h)(2)(i)(F), DHS also proposes to incorporate technical changes to this provision by moving language currently found in paragraph (h)(2)(i)(F)(
DHS proposes to allow H-1B petitions to be approved or have their requested validity period dates extended if USCIS adjudicates and deems the petition approvable after the initially requested validity period end-date, or the period for which eligibility has been established, has passed. This typically would happen if USCIS deemed the petition approvable upon a favorable motion to reopen, motion to reconsider, or appeal. Specifically, under proposed 8 CFR 214.2(h)(9)(ii)(D)(
If in response to the RFE the petitioner confirms that it wants to update the dates of intended employment and submits a different LCA that corresponds to the new requested validity dates, even if that LCA was certified after the date the H-1B petition was filed, and assuming all other eligibility criteria are met, USCIS would approve the H-1B petition for the new requested period or the period for which eligibility has been established, as appropriate, rather than require the petitioner to file a new or amended petition. The petitioner's request for new dates of employment and submission of an LCA with a new validity period that properly corresponds to the revised requested validity period on the petition and an updated prevailing or proffered wage, if applicable, would not be considered a material change, except that the petitioner may not reduce the proffered wage from that originally indicated in their petition.
Currently, if USCIS adjudicates and deems these types of petitions approvable after the initially requested validity period, or the last day for which eligibility has been established, has elapsed, the petition must be denied. The petitioner is also not able to change the requested validity period using the same petition. Instead, the petitioner must file an amended or new petition requesting a new validity period if they seek to employ or continue to employ the beneficiary.
Aside from changing the requested validity period, the petitioner would also be able to increase the proffered wage to conform with a new prevailing wage if the prevailing wage has increased due to the passage of time. The petitioner would also be able to increase the proffered wage for other reasons, such as to account for other market wage adjustments. An increase to the proffered wage would not be considered a material change, so long as there are no other material changes to the position. However, a petitioner would not be allowed to reduce the proffered wage, even if the prevailing wage decreased due to the passage of time. If the petitioner intends to reduce the proffered wage or make any other material change to the proposed employment, it would have to file an amended or new petition in accordance with existing provisions at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E) and (h)(11)(i)(A).
Under proposed 8 CFR 214.2(h)(9)(ii)(D), USCIS would not be required to issue an RFE, as it could instead proceed to approve the petition for the originally requested period or until the last day for which eligibility has been established, as appropriate. For example, USCIS would not be required to issue an RFE when the beneficiary has already been granted H-1B status through another employer, changed nonimmigrant status, adjusted status, or has reached their 6-year limitation on stay, such that an RFE asking the petitioner if they want to update the requested dates of H-1B employment would serve little or no purpose. Consistent with these examples, DHS would consider potential factors that could inform whether USCIS issues an RFE as including, but not limited to, additional petitions filed or approved on the beneficiary's behalf, or the beneficiary's eligibility for additional time in H-1B status.
Proposed 8 CFR 214.2(h)(9)(ii)(D)(
DHS proposes to revise the requirements to qualify for H-1B cap exemption under 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(F)(
Congress set the current annual regular cap for the H-1B visa category at 65,000.
Currently, DHS regulations state that an H-1B nonimmigrant worker is exempt from the cap if employed by: (1) an institution of higher education; (2) a nonprofit entity related to or affiliated with such an institution; (3) a nonprofit research organization; or (4) a governmental research organization.
The H-1B cap exemption regulations define “nonprofit entity,” “nonprofit research organization,” and “governmental research organization” at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(F)(
Specifically, DHS proposes to change the phrase “the majority of” at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(F)(
DHS also proposes to revise 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(F)(
Proposed 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(F)(
DHS also proposes to clarify that the requirement that the beneficiary spend at least half of their work time performing job duties “at” a qualifying institution should not be taken to mean the duties need to be physically performed onsite at the qualifying institution. DHS is aware that many positions can be performed remotely. When considering whether such a position is cap-exempt, the proper focus is on the job duties, rather than where the duties are performed physically.
DHS also proposes to revise 8 CFR 214.2(h)(19)(iii)(C), which states that a nonprofit research organization is an entity that is “primarily engaged in basic research and/or applied research,” and a governmental research organization is a Federal, State, or local entity “whose primary mission is the performance or promotion of basic research and/or applied research.” DHS proposes to replace “primarily engaged” and “primary mission” with “a fundamental activity of” to permit a nonprofit entity or governmental research organization that conducts research as a fundamental activity, but is not
DHS acknowledges that the “primarily” and “primary” requirements at current 8 CFR 214.2(h)(19)(iii)(C) have been in effect for over a decade for purposes of cap exemptions, and that DHS declined to make the same changes it is currently proposing in response to commenters' suggestions when codifying this regulation in 2016.
In 2015, DHS proposed using the phrase “primary purpose” at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(F)(
In addition, DHS believes that the proposed “fundamental activity” standard would still protect the integrity of the cap. While changing this terminology may somewhat expand who is eligible for the cap exemption, it would still require that an employer demonstrate that research is a “fundamental activity,” which is a meaningful limiting standard. Not every activity an organization engages in would be considered a “fundamental activity.” A fundamental activity would still have to be an important and substantial activity, although it need not be the organization's principal or foremost activity as required under the current “primary” construct.
DHS believes that the “primarily” and “primary” requirements at current 8 CFR 214.2(h)(19)(iii)(C) are too restrictive.
DHS also proposes to revise 8 CFR 214.2(h)(19)(iii)(C) to state that a “nonprofit research organization or governmental research organization may perform or promote more than one fundamental activity.”
Finally, DHS proposes to add language that both basic and applied research may also include “designing, analyzing, and directing the research of others if on an ongoing basis and throughout the research cycle.”
Taken together, these proposed changes clarify, simplify, and modernize eligibility for cap-exempt H-1B employment.
DHS further proposes to amend the definition of “nonprofit or tax exempt organizations” by eliminating 8 CFR 214.2(h)(19)(iv)(B), which currently requires that the petitioner provide evidence that it “[h]as been approved as a tax exempt organization for research or educational purposes by the Internal Revenue Service.” In its experience, USCIS has found that Internal Revenue Service (IRS) letters generally do not identify the reasons why an entity received approval as a tax exempt organization, so current 8 CFR 214.2(h)(19)(iv)(B) imposes an evidentiary requirement that is unduly difficult to meet. Proposed 8 CFR 214.2(h)(19)(iv) would more simply state that a nonprofit organization or entity “must be determined by the Internal Revenue Service as a tax exempt organization under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, section 501(c)(3) (c)(4), or (c)(6), 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3), (c)(4), or (c)(6).” While this change would remove the requirement that the IRS letter itself state that the petitioner's approval as a tax exempt organization was “for research or educational purposes,” DHS is not proposing to eliminate or otherwise change the overarching requirement that a qualifying nonprofit or tax exempt petitioner be an institution of higher education or a related or affiliated nonprofit entity, or a nonprofit research organization or a governmental research organization institution, as required by the regulations and INA section 214(g)(5). The petitioner would still need to submit documentation to demonstrate that it meets such a requirement, except that the submitted documentation would not need to be in the form of an IRS letter.
DHS proposes to revise 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(vi) to provide an automatic extension of duration of status and post-completion OPT or 24-month extension of post-completion OPT, as applicable, until April 1 of the relevant fiscal year for which the H-1B petition is requested.
Each year, a number of U.S. employers seek to employ F-1 students via the H-1B program by requesting a COS and filing an H-1B cap petition with USCIS. Because petitioners may not file H-1B petitions more than six months before the date of actual need for the employee,
DHS proposes to further extend F-1 status and post-completion OPT, including STEM OPT, in this context.
DHS has reconsidered its position in light of recent adjudication delays and to avoid potential disruptions in employment authorization. With the consistently high volume of cap-subject H-1B petitions filed within a short period of time each year and the long timeframes afforded to respond to RFEs, USCIS has, in some years, been unable to complete the adjudication of all H-1B cap-subject petitions by October 1. This has resulted in situations where some individuals must stop working on October 1 because the employment authorization provided under 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(vi) ends on that date, although these individuals generally have been allowed to remain in the United States in an authorized period of stay while the H-1B petition and COS application is pending.
To account for this operational issue, DHS is proposing to revise 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(vi) to provide an automatic extension of F-1 status and post-completion OPT, or 24-month extension of post-completion OPT, as applicable, until April 1 of the fiscal year for which the H-1B petition is filed, or until the validity start date of the approved H-1B petition, whichever is earlier. This provision would extend the student's F-1 status and employment authorization, as applicable, automatically if a nonfrivolous H-1B petition requesting a COS is timely filed on behalf of the F-1 student.
Changing the automatic extension end date from October 1 to April 1 of the relevant fiscal year would prevent the disruptions in employment authorization that some F-1 nonimmigrants seeking cap-gap extensions have experienced over the past several years. DHS recognizes the hardships that a disruption in employment authorization could cause to both the affected individual and their employer and seeks to prevent potential future disruptions by extending cap-gap relief. According to USCIS data for FY 2016-22, USCIS has adjudicated approximately 99 percent of H-1B cap-subject petitions requesting a COS from F-1 to H-1B by April 1 of the relevant fiscal year.
In addition to avoiding employment disruptions, the lengthier extension of F-1 status and post-completion OPT or 24-month extension of post-completion OPT employment authorization for students with pending H-1B petitions until April 1, which is one year from the typical initial cap filing start date, accounts for USCIS' competing operational considerations and would enable the agency to balance workloads more appropriately for different types of petitions.
Although DHS previously expressed the concern that extending cap-gap employment authorization could potentially enable students who ultimately may be found not to qualify for H-1B status to continue to benefit from the cap-gap extension,
DHS proposes to eliminate all the text currently at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(
The current regulation at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(
As stated above, DHS's proposal to eliminate the current language at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(
Although USCIS permitted employers to file petitions after October 1, 2020, USCIS rejected or administratively closed many petitions that did not list a start date of October 1, 2020, pursuant to current 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(
The proposed changes would eliminate the language at current 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(
DHS's proposal to eliminate the current language at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(
Through issuance of a final rule in 2019,
Under this process, prospective petitioners (also known as registrants) that seek to employ H-1B cap-subject workers must complete a registration process that requires only basic information about the prospective petitioner and each requested worker. The H-1B selection process is then run on properly submitted electronic registrations. Only those with valid selected registrations are eligible to file H-1B cap-subject petitions.
Per regulation, USCIS takes into account historical data related to approvals, denials, revocations, and other relevant factors to calculate the number of petitions needed to meet the H-1B cap for a given fiscal year.
As stated in the proposed rule for the registration requirement, DHS proposed this new process, “to reduce costs for petitioners who currently spend significant time and resources preparing petitions and supporting documentation for each intended beneficiary without knowing whether such petitions will be accepted for processing by USCIS due to the statutory allocations.”
As DHS noted in the final rule implementing the registration system, USCIS has authority to collect sufficient information for each registration to mitigate the risk that the registration system will be flooded with frivolous registrations.
As detailed in the table below, DHS has seen an increase in the number of beneficiaries with multiple registrations submitted on their behalf, an increase in the number and percentage of registrations submitted for beneficiaries with multiple registrations, an increase in the number of beneficiaries having five or more registrations submitted on their behalf, and a substantial increase in the total number of registrations submitted for a unique individual.
While DHS recognizes that simply being the beneficiary of multiple registrations is not necessarily indicative of fraud or misuse, as beneficiaries may legitimately have multiple job offers by different employers that are not working together to game the system, it is still worth noting the significant increase in individuals with multiple registrations for FY22 and FY23. For instance, while DHS is aware that multiple petitioners may submit registrations for a highly qualified beneficiary, it raises red flags if one beneficiary has 41 or 83 registrations submitted on their behalf, which occurred in FY22 and FY23, respectively.
Under current regulations, there is no limit on the number of registrations that may be submitted on behalf of one unique individual by different registrants. DHS is not proposing to limit the number of registrations that may be submitted on behalf of a unique individual by different registrants, provided that the registrants are not working with (or have not agreed to work with) another registrant, petitioner, agent, or other individual or entity to submit a registration to unfairly increase the chances of selection for a beneficiary. However, the data show that multiple registrations on behalf of the same individual are increasing. DHS is concerned that this increase in multiple registrations may indicate strategic behavior by registrants (and beneficiaries working with registrants) to submit increasing numbers of registrations, which may be frivolous, to greatly increase a beneficiary's chance of selection. This negatively affects the integrity of the registration system and selection process.
DHS is concerned that individuals with large numbers of registrations submitted on their behalf are potentially misusing the registration system to increase their chances of selection and that the registrations submitted may not represent legitimate job offers. The possible effect of this increase in multiple registrations, which potentially do not represent legitimate job offers, is to skew the selection process. Beneficiaries who have multiple registrations submitted on their behalf have a significantly higher chance of selection. At the same time, an individual's chance of selection with a single registration is greatly reduced, as the number of beneficiaries with multiple registrations increases.
Registration data also show patterns of groups of companies submitting registrations for the same groups of beneficiaries. When selected, these companies then go on to file a minimal number of petitions compared to the number of registrations they submitted for those beneficiaries. The following tables exemplify how one group of companies has submitted large numbers of registrations for a smaller number of common beneficiaries over three fiscal years, with the vast majority of their total registrations made up of beneficiaries for whom other companies in the group also submitted registrations.
The degree of duplication between the companies raises concern that the companies are working with each other to increase their chances of selection. This coupled with the fact that the companies routinely have over 150 registrations selected each year, but only file between 1 and 19 petitions, suggests that the registrations submitted by the companies for the duplicate beneficiaries may not have represented legitimate, bona fide offers of employment. This practice creates a disadvantage for companies that are adhering to the requirements of the registration and selection process.
Although there may have been legitimate reasons why a company did not file a petition for a beneficiary whose registration was selected, the non-filing rates for beneficiaries with multiple registrations is significantly higher than that of beneficiaries with single registrations. The non-filing rates for beneficiaries with multiple registrations raises the question of whether these companies actually intended to file an H-1B petition on behalf of the beneficiary when they submitted their registrations and did not work with others to unfairly improve their chance of selection, as they attested to on the Registration Tool when each registration was submitted.
The registration data also show that the companies with the highest rates of non-filing submitted a high percentage of registrations for beneficiaries with multiple registrations. In FY23, 97 companies with 10 or more selections had a non-filing rate of 90 percent or greater. Of those 97, the average rate of common beneficiaries among them was 90.72 percent. Eighteen of the 97 companies had a common beneficiary rate of 100 percent. Amongst these 97 companies, the average number of registrations per beneficiary was 8.03. In contrast, the companies with 10 or more selections and a non-filing rate of 10 percent or less, of which there were 667, had an average rate of common beneficiaries of 8.01 percent and submitted registrations for beneficiaries who had an average of 1.40 registrations per beneficiary.
Stakeholders have also identified opportunities for improving the registration system in response to a DHS Request for Public Input.
DHS has a strong interest in ensuring that the annual numerical allocations are going to petitioners that truly intend to employ an H-1B worker, rather than prospective petitioners using the registration system as a relatively cheap placeholder for the possibility that they may want to employ an H-1B worker or as a way to game the selection process. The current registration and selection process would benefit from additional guardrails to better ensure the fair allocation of the limited H-1B cap numbers to employers and individuals that are complying with the regulations and have bona fide, legitimate employment in which they intend to employ qualified beneficiaries. Accordingly, this rule proposes to further limit the potential for abuse of the registration process in three ways.
First, if USCIS determines that a random selection process should be conducted, DHS proposes to shift from selecting by registration, to selecting by unique beneficiary. Under the new proposal, each unique individual who has a registration submitted on their behalf would be entered into the selection process once, regardless of the number of registrations filed on their behalf. By selecting by a unique beneficiary, DHS would better ensure that each individual has the same chance of being selected, regardless of how many registrations were submitted on their behalf.
Second, DHS proposes to extend the existing prohibition on related entities filing multiple petitions
Third, DHS proposes to codify USCIS's ability to deny an H-1B petition or revoke an H-1B petition's approval when the petition is based on a registration where the statement of facts (including the attestations) was not true and correct, inaccurate, fraudulent, or misrepresented a material fact.
Under the proposed update to the random selection process, registrants
To ensure that USCIS can accurately identify each potential beneficiary, registrants will continue to be required to submit identifying information about the beneficiaries as part of the registration process. Currently, each registration includes, in addition to other basic information, fields for the registrant to provide the beneficiary's full name, date of birth, country of birth, country of citizenship, gender, and passport number if the beneficiary has a passport. Although the Registration Final Rule said the passport number would be required and it is requested during registration, registrants have been able to effectively bypass the passport requirement by affirmatively indicating that the beneficiary does not have a passport.
Because the integrity of the new selection process would rely on USCIS's ability to accurately identify each individual beneficiary, DHS proposes to require the submission of valid passport information, including the passport number, country of issuance, and expiration date, in addition to the currently required information.
Any H-1B cap-subject petition must contain and be supported by the same identifying information about the beneficiary as provided in the selected registration for the beneficiary named in the petition, and DHS proposes to require that petitioners submit evidence of the passport used at the time of registration to identify the beneficiary.
DHS recognizes that some individuals may not possess a valid passport, and therefore the proposed passport requirement would require these individuals to obtain a valid passport, at some cost, by the time of registration or even preclude individuals from being registered if they were unable to obtain a valid passport by the time of registration. However, DHS has a strong interest in requiring passport information for each beneficiary, regardless of nationality, to better identify unique beneficiaries and enhance the integrity of the H-1B registration system. Further, DHS believes that requiring passport information is reasonable because each registration should represent a legitimate job offer. Except in limited situations where the Department of State issued a beneficiary a visa on Form DS-232, Unrecognized Passport or Waiver Cases, in the absence of a passport, it is not clear how most beneficiaries could enter the United States in H-1B status pursuant to that job offer. Therefore, the proposed rule, if finalized, would only accelerate the time by which the beneficiary needed to obtain a passport if the beneficiary did not already have a passport.
DHS recognizes that stateless individuals may be unable to obtain a valid passport and that this passport requirement could preclude some stateless individuals from being registered. DHS considered proposing an exception to the passport requirement limited solely to stateless individuals, but providing an exception would leave open the risk of registrants submitting a registration for an individual claiming to be stateless and having no passport number and submitting another registration for the
Furthermore, DHS considered available data for individuals issued H-1B visas or otherwise granted H-1B status from FYs 2010-23. While the data are imperfect, the data nevertheless suggest that the proposed passport requirement would likely impact a small population of stateless individuals. For instance, available data for FYs 2022 and 2023 show that USCIS received H-1B petitions for nine and four individuals, out of a total of 370,110 and 94,649 H-1B petitions, respectively, whose country of citizenship were listed as “stateless.”
As discussed above, conducting the registration selection process based on unique beneficiaries would significantly reduce or remove the advantage of submitting multiple registrations solely to increase the chances of selection and better allow for an equal playing field for both employers and beneficiaries, while continuing to allow beneficiaries to have multiple job offers and multiple registrations. This would significantly reduce or remove an incentive for employers and individuals to pursue registration without the existence of a bona fide job offer and an intent to employ the individual for each registration.
The proposed change would potentially benefit beneficiaries by giving them greater autonomy to choose the employer for whom they ultimately work. If multiple unrelated companies submitted registrations for a beneficiary and the beneficiary were selected, then the beneficiary could have greater bargaining power or flexibility to determine which company or companies could submit an H-1B petition for the beneficiary, because all of the companies that submitted a registration for that unique beneficiary would be notified that their registration was selected and they are eligible to file a petition on behalf of that beneficiary. Under the current selection process, however, the beneficiary could only be petitioned for by the specific company that submitted the selected registration. While another company could subsequently file a petition for concurrent employment, the beneficiary would still have to be initially employed in H-1B status by the same company that filed the initial cap-subject petition based on the selected registration.
The proposed change may also potentially benefit companies that submit legitimate registrations for unique beneficiaries by increasing their chances to employ a specific beneficiary in H-1B status. Again, under the current selection process, a company could file a petition for and employ a beneficiary in H-1B status only if their registration for that specific beneficiary was selected. Under the proposed beneficiary-centric selection process, any company that submitted a registration for a selected beneficiary could file a petition for and potentially employ a beneficiary in H-1B status because all of the prospective petitioners that submitted a registration for that selected beneficiary would receive a selection notice. As previously discussed, the data show that the current system may result in an unfair advantage of selection for registrations potentially involving prospective petitioners that worked together to submit multiple registrations for the same beneficiary to unfairly improve their chance of selection. The beneficiary-centric process is intended to correct this and level the playing field for companies submitting legitimate registrations for unique beneficiaries and not attempting to unfairly improve their chance of selection.
DHS is also proposing minor changes to 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(
DHS expects USCIS to have sufficient time to develop, thoroughly test, and implement the modifications to the registration system and selection process and give stakeholders sufficient time to adjust to these new procedures by the time the rule finalizing this proposed rule would publish and become effective. USCIS has already begun planning the development work of the new selection process in the electronic H-1B registration tool. As indicated before, DHS may move to finalize certain provisions through one or more final rules after carefully considering all public comments and may possibly do so in time for the FY 2025 cap season, depending on agency resources. In particular, DHS may seek to finalize the provisions relating to the beneficiary centric registration selection process in proposed 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(
However, DHS and USCIS cannot predict, with certainty, agency resources for the next few years or even when the
DHS may need to delay the effective date if it determines that USCIS does not have sufficient time to ensure proper functionality of the beneficiary-centric selection process, including completing all requisite user testing. DHS may need to delay the effective date for other reasons as well, such as to avoid the confusion that could result if the final rule took effect too close to the start of the initial registration period for the upcoming cap season, or to avoid disparate treatment of registrations if the final rule took effect in the middle of the initial registration period, or during a subsequent registration and selection period, particularly if USCIS needed to open a subsequent registration period later that year. In the event DHS needed to further delay the effective date of these provisions beyond the effective date of the final rule, DHS would publish a
DHS regulations already preclude the filing of multiple H-1B cap-subject petitions by related entities for the same beneficiary, unless the related petitioners can establish a legitimate business need for filing multiple cap-subject petitions for the same beneficiary.
While DHS anticipates that changing the way beneficiaries are selected would reduce frivolous registrations and their negative effects, DHS cannot guarantee with certainty that this change would completely eliminate entities from working with each other to submit registrations to unfairly increase chances of selection for a beneficiary by submitting slightly different identifying information or other means that DHS cannot anticipate. Therefore, adding this provision would serve as an additional tool available to DHS to militate against such abuse and bolster the integrity of the registration process. Furthermore, proposed 8 CFR 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) is necessary because of the possibility that registration could be suspended, or that the implementation of the beneficiary-centric selection process could be delayed. If registration were suspended, the bar on multiple petitions would still be relevant, and if implementation of the beneficiary-centric selection process were delayed, the bar on multiple registrations would still be relevant.
Although registration is an antecedent procedural step undertaken prior to filing an H-1B cap-subject petition, the validity of the registration information is key to the registrant's eligibility to file a petition. The information contained in the registration, including the required attestations, must be valid. Currently, the regulations state that it is grounds for denial or revocation if the statements of facts contained in the petition are not true and correct, inaccurate, fraudulent, or misrepresented a material fact.
To allow companies to provide false information on the registration without consequence would allow them to potentially take a cap number for which they are ineligible. As such, DHS proposes codifying that providing untrue, incorrect, inaccurate, or fraudulent statements of fact, or misrepresenting material facts, including providing false attestations on the registration, would be grounds for denial or revocation of the petition that was based on that registration.
DHS is also proposing changes to the regulations governing registration that would provide USCIS with clearer authority to deny or revoke the approval of a petition based on a registration that was not properly submitted or was otherwise invalid. Specifically, DHS is proposing to add that if a petitioner submits more than one registration per beneficiary in the same fiscal year, all registrations submitted by that petitioner relating to that beneficiary for that fiscal year may be considered not only invalid, but that “USCIS may deny or revoke the approval of any petition filed for the beneficiary based on those registrations.”
Additionally, DHS is proposing to add that USCIS may deny or revoke the approval of an H-1B petition if it determines that the fee associated with the registration is declined, not reconciled, disputed, or otherwise invalid after submission.
DHS considered the alternative of eliminating the registration system and reverting to the paper-based filing system stakeholders used prior to implementing registration. However, when DHS considered the immense cost savings that registration provides to both USCIS and stakeholders and the significant resources the agency would incur to revert back to a paper-based filing system for all cap-subject cases, the benefits of having a registration system still outweigh the costs and any potential problems caused by frivolous filings. As a result, DHS is proposing to make changes to the registration system to improve it and militate against the potential for frivolous filings. DHS continues to consider options to
Under proposed 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(iv)(C), DHS proposes to codify USCIS' authority to request contracts, work orders, or similar evidence, in accordance with 8 CFR 103.2(b) (USCIS may request additional evidence if the evidence submitted does not establish eligibility) and 8 CFR 214.2(h)(9) (“USCIS will consider all the evidence submitted and any other evidence independently required to assist in adjudication.”). Such evidence may take the form of contracts or legal agreements, if available, or other evidence including technical documentation, milestone tables, or statements of work. Evidence submitted should show the contractual relationship between all parties, the terms and conditions of the beneficiary's work, and the minimum educational requirements to perform the duties. Uncorroborated statements about a claimed in-house project for a company with no history of developing projects in-house, standing alone, would generally be insufficient to establish that the claimed in-house work exists.
The submitted contracts should include both the master services agreement and accompanying statement(s) of work (or similar legally binding agreements under different titles) signed by an authorized official of any party in the contractual chain, including the petitioner, the end-client company for which the beneficiary will perform work, and any intermediary or vendor company. In general, the master services agreement (also commonly called a supplier agreement) sets out the essential contractual terms and provides the basic framework for the overall relationship between the parties.
Other types of documentation petitioners may provide include technical documentation, milestone tables, marketing analyses, cost-benefit analyses, brochures, and funding documents. Overall, these documents should be detailed enough to provide a sufficiently comprehensive view of the position being offered to the beneficiary and the terms and conditions under which the work would be performed. The documentation should also include the minimum educational requirements to perform the duties. Documentation that merely sets forth the general obligations of the parties to the agreement, or that does not provide specific information pertaining to the actual work to be performed, would generally be insufficient.
Through proposed 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(iv)(C), DHS seeks to put stakeholders on notice of the kinds of evidence that could be requested to establish the terms and conditions of the beneficiary's work and the minimum educational requirements to perform the duties. This evidence, in turn, could establish that the petitioner has a bona fide job offer for a specialty occupation position for the beneficiary. DHS is proposing conforming changes to the introductory paragraph (h)(4)(iv) to distinguish the types of evidence that are required as initial evidence addressed in paragraphs (h)(4)(iv)(A) and (B), from the evidence USCIS may request under new paragraph (h)(4)(iv)(C).
DHS proposes to codify its requirement that the petitioner must establish, at the time of filing, that it has a non-speculative position in a specialty occupation available for the beneficiary as of the start date of the validity period as requested on the petition.
The requirement of non-speculative employment derives from the statutory definition of an H-1B nonimmigrant worker as someone who is “coming temporarily to the United States to perform services . . . in a specialty occupation . . . .”
The agency has long held and communicated the view that speculative employment is not permitted in the H-1B program. For example, a 1998 proposed rule documented this position, stating that, historically, USCIS (or the Service, as it was called at the time) has not granted H-1B classification on the basis of speculative, or undetermined, prospective employment.
Note, however, that establishing non-speculative employment does not mean demonstrating non-speculative daily work assignments through the duration of the requested validity period. DHS does not propose to require employers to establish non-speculative and specific assignments for every day of the intended period of employment.
DHS is proposing to update the regulations to expressly include DHS's existing authority to ensure that the LCA properly supports and corresponds with the accompanying H-1B petition. The proposed text at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(
The current statute and regulations require that a petitioner file an LCA certified by the Secretary of Labor with its H-1B petition, unless filing for certain Department of Defense workers.
DHS proposes to amend existing regulations to state clearly that, although the Secretary of Labor certifies the LCA, DHS has the authority and obligation to determine whether the certified LCA properly supports and corresponds with the H-1B petition.
This proposed regulation would more clearly summarize DHS's existing authority under INA section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 103(a), and 214(a)(1) and (c)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 1103(a), and 1184(a)(1) and (c)(1). This authority is also referenced, in part, in DOL's regulation at 20 CFR 655.705(b), which states in pertinent part that DHS accepts an employer's H-1B petition with the DOL-certified LCA attached, and in doing so, “DHS determines whether the petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition” and otherwise meets the statutory requirements for the classification.
When determining whether the submitted certified LCA properly
DHS notes that the LCA, H-1B petition, and supporting documentation must be for the same position; however, the same position does not necessarily mean that all information describing the position must be identical. A petitioner may legitimately supplement or clarify the record with additional information about the offered position in response to an RFE, on motion, or on appeal. So long as the supplemental information does not materially change the position described in the original H-1B petition, DHS would consider the position to be the same. DHS would view a change to be material for these purposes if the change would have required the petitioner to file an amended or new petition with the corresponding LCA or if the change was made to make the position description comport with an originally submitted LCA.
Additionally, DHS proposes to improve 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B), by redesignating existing paragraphs (h)(4)(i)(B)(
In separate provisions that are also related to the LCA, DHS proposes to revise the grounds for denial or revocation related to the statements of facts contained in the petition, TLC, or the LCA.
While current 8 CFR 214.2(h)(11)(iii)(A)(
DHS is proposing to revise the definition of “United States employer.” Currently, 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(ii) defines the term “United States employer” as a person, firm, corporation, contractor, or other association, or organization in the United States that: (1) Engages a person to work within the United States; (2) has an employer-employee relationship with respect to employees under 8 CFR part 214, as indicated by the fact that it may hire, pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of any such employee; and (3) has an Internal Revenue Service Tax identification number.
DHS proposes several changes to the “United States employer” definition at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(ii) to bring it in line with our current practice. First, in place of the employer-employee relationship requirement, DHS proposes to codify the existing requirement that the petitioner has a bona fide job offer for the beneficiary to work within the United States. DHS also proposes to replace the requirement that the petitioner “[e]ngages a person to work within the United States” with the requirement that the petitioner have a legal presence and is amenable to service of process in the United States. DHS is not proposing to change the current requirement at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(ii) that the petitioner must have an IRS Tax identification number.
DHS proposes to remove from the definition of U.S. employer the reference to an employer-employee relationship, which, in the past, was interpreted using common law principles and was a significant barrier to the H-1B program for certain petitioners, including beneficiary-owned petitioners. This proposed change is consistent with current USCIS policy guidance, and removing the employer-employee relationship language from the regulations would promote clarity and transparency in the regulations. It would also support DHS's overall commitment to reducing administrative barriers, including those that unnecessarily impede access to USCIS immigration benefits.
As indicated above, the previous analysis created significant barriers to the H-1B program for certain petitioners, including beneficiary-owned petitioners. For example, a beneficiary-owner may have been unlikely to establish a common-law employer-employee relationship with the petitioning entity, even if working for the petitioning entity in a specialty occupation and as a W-2 employee, and thus denied classification as an H-1B specialty occupation worker. Furthermore, USCIS's previous policy was not entirely consistent with DOL's regulatory definition of an H-1B employer. DOL's definition of “employer” at 20 CFR 655.715 states, in pertinent part, “In the case of an H-1B nonimmigrant (not including E-3 and H-1B1 nonimmigrants), the person, firm, contractor, or other association or organization in the United States
Under the second prong of the definition of “U.S. employer” at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(ii), DHS proposes to codify the existing requirement that the petitioner have a bona fide job offer for the beneficiary to work within the United States.
This proposed change would also be consistent with the current H-1B Registration Tool, where the petitioner must attest at the time of registration that each registration for an H-1B cap-subject beneficiary reflects a legitimate job offer. DHS's proposal to codify the requirement for a bona fide job offer requirement would complement DHS's proposal to codify the requirement to demonstrate a non-speculative position in a specialty occupation for the beneficiary at proposed 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(F).
DHS proposes to codify the bona fide job offer requirement in place of the current requirement that the petitioner “[e]ngages a person to work within the United States” under the first prong of current 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(ii). As currently written, the requirement for a petitioner to “engage[ ] a person to work within the United States” has limited practical value because it does not specify that the petitioner should engage the beneficiary (rather than “a person”) and it does not specify that the work to be performed must be within the United States.
Furthermore, DHS proposes to add clarification that the bona fide job offer may include “telework, remote work, or other off-site work within the United States.”
In the second prong of the definition of U.S. employer at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(iv)(D), DHS proposes to add a new requirement that the petitioner has a legal presence in the United States
“Amenable to service of process” means that the petitioner may be sued in a court in the United States. Since the petitioner undertakes legal obligations to employ the beneficiary according to the terms and conditions on the petition and LCA, the petitioner should not be able to avoid liability for not complying with these obligations by later claiming that it is not the employer or is not amenable to service of process. The requirement that the petitioner is amenable to service of process in the United States is also found in other classifications, such as H-2B, O-1, and P-1. Those regulations state that “a foreign employer is any employer who is not amenable to service of process in the United States.”
In the fourth prong of the definition of U.S. employer at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(ii), DHS proposes to codify a petitioner's ability to qualify as a U.S. employer even when the beneficiary possesses a controlling interest in that petitioner. As discussed above, historically, USCIS's common law analysis of the employer-employee relationship has been an impediment for certain beneficiary-owned businesses to use the H-1B program. While USCIS has not applied the common law analysis of the employer-employee relationship since June 2020, when it rescinded its 2010 policy memorandum,
The United States has long been a destination for top talent from all over the world, including for entrepreneurs and innovators. The United States continues to build and expand initiatives to support its evolving workforce with policies such as the passage of the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, which will foster innovation in many ways, including by reducing the barriers of entry to startups.
One of the proposed conditions is that the beneficiary may perform duties that are directly related to owning and directing the petitioner's business as long as the beneficiary will perform specialty occupation duties authorized under the petition a majority of the time.
By requiring that the beneficiary perform specialty occupation duties a majority of the time, the beneficiary-owner would have flexibility to perform non-specialty occupation duties that are directly related to owning and directing the petitioner's business. This proposed rule would not preclude the beneficiary from being authorized for concurrent employment with two or more entities (including another entity where the beneficiary is also an owner with a controlling interest) so long as each entity has been approved to employ the beneficiary in a specialty occupation and the individual otherwise satisfies all eligibility requirements. In this concurrent employment scenario, where a beneficiary seeks concurrent employment with more than one entity and the beneficiary owns a controlling interest in each of the petitioners filing to authorize concurrent employment, the “majority of the time” standard must be met with respect to each petition, and the beneficiary must comply with the terms and conditions of each petition.
The proposed language at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(ii) would state that a beneficiary may perform non-specialty occupation duties as long as such non-specialty occupation duties are directly related to owning and directing the petitioner's business. Additionally and similar to other H-1B petitions, a beneficiary-owner may perform some incidental duties, such as making copies or answering the telephone. DHS expects a beneficiary-owner would need to perform some non-specialty
The proposed “majority of the time” framework would allow a beneficiary-owner to perform some non-specialty occupation duties that are directly related to owning and directing the business, as long as a majority of their time performing the job would be spent performing the specialty occupation duties authorized in the approved petition. USCIS would analyze all of the job duties—specialty occupation duties and non-specialty occupation duties—which the petitioner must accurately describe in the petition along with the expected percentage of time to be spent performing each job duty, to determine whether the job would be in a specialty occupation and to determine whether the non-specialty occupation duties are directly related to owning and directing the business. If the beneficiary would spend a majority of their time performing specialty occupation duties, and if the non-specialty occupation duties are directly related to owning and directing the business, then the position may qualify as a specialty occupation.
The “majority of the time” analysis would be similar to the approach generally taken for other H-1B petitions, although it would be more limiting in order to mitigate against potential abuse.
DHS is also proposing to limit the validity period for beneficiary-owned entities. DHS proposes to limit the validity period for the initial petition and first extension (including an amended petition with a request for an extension of stay) of such a petition to 18 months each.
Pursuant to its authority under INA sections 103(a), 214(a), 235(d)(3) and 287(b), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), 1184(a), 1225(d)(3) and 1357(b), sections 402, 428 and 451(a)(3) of the HSA, 6 U.S.C. 202, 236 and 271(a)(3), and 8 CFR 2.1, USCIS conducts inspections, evaluations, verifications, and compliance reviews, to ensure that a petitioner and beneficiary are eligible for the benefit sought and that all laws have been complied with before and after approval of such benefits. These inspections, verifications, and other compliance reviews may be conducted telephonically or electronically, as well as through physical on-site inspections (site visits). The existing authority to conduct inspections, verifications, and other compliance reviews is vital to the
In July 2009, USCIS started a compliance review program as an additional way to verify information in certain visa petitions.
The site visits conducted by USCIS through its compliance review program have uncovered a significant amount of noncompliance in the H-1B program. For instance, during FYs 2019-22, USCIS conducted a total of 27,062 H-1B compliance reviews and found 5,037 of them, equal to 18.6 percent, to be noncompliant or indicative of fraud.
The data from FYs 2013-19 include data only from the Administrative Site Visit and Verification Program.
Site visits are important to maintaining the integrity of the H-1B program and in detecting and deterring fraud and noncompliance with H-1B program requirements.
The proposed regulations would make clear that inspections may include, but are not limited to, an on-site visit of the petitioning organization's facilities, interviews with its officials, review of its records related to compliance with immigration laws and regulations, and interviews with any other individuals or review of any other records that USCIS may lawfully obtain and that it considers pertinent to verify facts related to the adjudication of the petition, such as facts relating to the petitioner's and beneficiary's eligibility and continued compliance with the requirements of the H-1B program.
The proposed regulation also states that if USCIS is unable to verify facts related to an H-1B petition, including due to the failure or refusal of the petitioner or third party to cooperate in an inspection or other compliance review, then the lack of verification of pertinent facts, including from failure or refusal to cooperate, may result in denial or revocation of the approval of any petition for workers who are or will be performing services at the location or locations that are a subject of inspection or compliance review, including any third-party worksites.
This new provision would put petitioners on notice of the specific consequences for noncompliance or lack of cooperation, whether by them or by a third party. It has long been established that, in H-1B visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought.
In certain circumstances where an H-1B worker provides services for a third party, USCIS would look to that third party's requirements for the beneficiary's position, rather than the petitioner's stated requirements, in assessing whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. As required by both INA section 214(i)(1) and 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(
Specifically, under proposed 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(
As stated in proposed 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(
Compared to all cases where the H-1B beneficiary provides services to a third party, a third party would not always be in a better position than the petitioner to set the requirements of the proffered position. For example, a beneficiary may provide software development services to a third party as part of the petitioner's team of software developers on a discrete project, or a beneficiary employed by a large accounting firm may provide accounting services to various third-party clients. In these examples, proposed 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(
Proposed 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(i)(B)(
DHS wants to ensure that the limited number of H-1B cap-subject visas and new H-1B status grants available each fiscal year are used for non-speculative job opportunities. Demand for H-1B workers who would be subject to the annual numerical limitations, including those eligible under the advanced degree exemption, has routinely exceeded the annual H-1B numerical allocations. DHS believes there is a problem of petitioners filing H-1B cap-subject petitions even though there is no job opportunity available as of the requested start date. As illustrated by the data below, a significant percentage of H-1B beneficiaries do not enter the United States within six months of the requested employment start date or H-1B petition approval date, whichever was later, or within 90 days of the visa validity start date. The data also show a large percentage of new or amended petitions received before the beneficiary's arrival in the United States, suggesting that there may not have been a bona fide job opportunity available at the time of filing and the initial petition filed was simply to secure an H-1B cap number for the worker. Given the history of demand for H-1B visas that greatly exceeds supply, it is of great concern when a petitioner requests an H-1B cap number and receives approval, but does not use that approved H-1B petition to employ an H-1B worker when the petitioner claimed to need that worker to start and significantly delays such employment by six months or more.
DHS has compiled internal data to help demonstrate the potential scale of the problem. The first two tables below focus on delayed entry into the United States by beneficiaries of H-1B cap-subject petitions that selected consular processing. The third table looks at the same population of cases and amended or new petitions received prior to the beneficiary's arrival in the United States. DHS believes that these may be indicators that the petitioners in these cases had speculative job opportunities at the time of filing their H-1B petitions.
Table 9 shows data on H-1B cap-subject petitions that selected consular processing into the United States and that DHS was able to match with the beneficiary's arrival data into the United States.
This table shows that, from FYs 2017 through 2022 (excepting FY 2021),
DHS is aware that there have been significant visa delays at some consulates, especially during the last few years. Table 10 takes this into account by showing data on H-1B beneficiaries who went through consular processing, who arrived more than 90 days after their DOS visa validity start date, and for whom DHS was able to match with arrival data into the United States with corresponding H-1B petitions.
This table shows that, from FYs 2017 through 2022 (excepting FY 2021),
DHS has also compiled internal data on the number of amended or new petitions received prior to the beneficiary's arrival in the United States, which may also be an indicator that a petitioner had a speculative job opportunity at the time of filing. Table 11 shows data on the percentage of amended or new petitions received prior to the beneficiary's arrival in the United States that DHS was able to match with the beneficiary's arrival data into the United States.
Table 11 shows that from FYs 2017 through 2022 (excepting FY 2021),
DHS is looking for the most effective ways to prevent petitioners from receiving approval for speculative H-1B employment, and to curtail the practice of delaying H-1B cap-subject beneficiary's employment in the United States until a bona fide job opportunity materializes. DHS has considered various approaches—two of which are discussed below but has determined that each of them has potentially significant downsides.
For example, although current 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(ii)(B) requires petitioners to notify USCIS if a petition goes unused because the beneficiary does not apply for admission to the United States, so that the agency may revoke approval of the petition, this regulatory provision does not include a deadline for admission or a reporting deadline. Thus, one approach DHS considered would be to amend 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(ii)(B) to require petitioners to notify USCIS if a beneficiary does not apply for admission after a certain amount of time, so that USCIS may revoke the approval of the petition. DHS could add a reporting requirement, so that a failure to report, or reporting that the beneficiary had not yet been admitted within the required timeframe, could be a basis for revocation. This proposal would also afford petitioners an opportunity to provide legitimate reasons for the delay in admission and avoid revocation. However, this approach would not prevent a petitioner without a legitimate reason for the delay from circumventing the intent of this provision, such as by filing an amended petition for the cap-subject beneficiary and further delaying their admission, or having the beneficiary enter the United States one day before the deadline and then leaving shortly thereafter. In addition, while the revocation of the H-1B petition may serve as a disincentive to the petitioner and discourage such conduct the next time around, it may not be the most efficient way to deter the filing of the H-1B petition itself given the time that would have elapsed between the time of filing and the final revocation.
Another approach DHS considered would be to create a rebuttable presumption that a petitioner had only a speculative position available for the beneficiary of an approved H-1B cap-subject petition, which would be triggered if certain circumstances occurred. These circumstances might include delayed entry or filing an amended petition before the beneficiary would have been admitted to the United States in H-1B status. If the petitioner were unable to rebut this presumption, USCIS could deny any extension request based on the previously approved cap-subject H-1B cap-subject petition and could revoke the initial petition approval. Regarding delayed entry, DHS considered proposing that the rebuttable presumption would be triggered if the beneficiary had not entered the United States in H-1B status either within a certain number of days of the requested start date or within a
As discussed, DHS is aware that either option could have a broad reach and potentially include petitions for beneficiaries whose admission into the United States was delayed for legitimate reasons beyond their control, such as lengthy consular processing times. Either option would place an additional burden on petitioners, which may be particularly difficult to overcome for a subsequent petitioner that is distinct from the original petitioner that filed the initial H-1B cap-subject petition. Further, the above options would focus on the beneficiary's timely admission into the United States but would not account for the beneficiary's or petitioner's subsequent actions.
Therefore, because DHS believes there is a problem of petitioners filing H-1B cap-subject petitions for speculative job opportunities that would not be fully resolved by the changes at proposed 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(F), DHS is seeking preliminary public comments on the approaches described above, as well as soliciting ideas that would further curb or eliminate the possibility that petitioners may have speculative job opportunities at the time of filing or approval of H-1B petitions and delay admission of H-1B beneficiaries until they have secured work for them. DHS is hoping to use the public input it receives to develop proposals that would further strengthen the programmatic framework and complement provisions already proposed in this NPRM, such as the proposed requirement that the petitioner establish a non-speculative position for the beneficiary as of the start date of the validity period under proposed 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(F) and the proposed requirement that a petitioner have a bona fide job offer under proposed 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(ii). Specifically, DHS is requesting ideas and, where possible, supporting data for future regulatory, subregulatory, and enforcement actions that USCIS could take, alone or in partnership with other agencies, to mitigate this behavior. With respect to the two approaches discussed above, DHS encourages commenters to provide input on how a time restriction on admission, or a rebuttable presumption as described above, could impact legitimate business practices. DHS also encourages commenters to provide ideas on other ways DHS could better ensure petitions are filed only for non-speculative job opportunities without imposing an unnecessary burden on H-1B cap-subject petitioners.
DHS is seeking preliminary public input on ways to provide H-1B and other Form I-129 beneficiaries with notice of USCIS actions taken on petitions filed on their behalf, including receipt notices for a petition to extend, amend, or change status filed on their behalf. USCIS does not currently provide notices directly to Form I-129 beneficiaries. DHS is aware that the lack of petition information may leave Form I-129 beneficiaries unable to verify their own immigration status and susceptible to employer abuse.
DHS is committed to addressing the issue of beneficiary notification but is not at this time proposing a specific beneficiary notification process or regulation. The agency continues to research and consider the feasibility, benefits, and costs of various options separate and apart from this proposed rule. At this time, DHS would like to solicit preliminary public comments on various options, and in particular, one option currently being considered for potential future action separate from this rulemaking. This option would require Form I-129 petitioners to provide a copy of the notice of USCIS action to beneficiaries in the United States seeking extension or change of status. DHS believes such notification may be especially beneficial in the context of extensions or changes of status. While beneficiaries who are outside of the United States will receive basic petition information on Form I-94, Arrival-Departure Record, and on their nonimmigrant visa, beneficiaries who are already in the United States must rely entirely on petitioners and employers to provide such information.
DHS recognizes this option would leave open the possibility that petitioners would not comply with this requirement, something DHS intends to forestall, but believes it would still provide benefits and worker protections while USCIS continues to explore other options, including the feasibility of technological solutions that would allow USCIS to directly notify beneficiaries or allow beneficiaries to directly access case status.
As indicated earlier in this preamble, after carefully considering public comments it receives on this NPRM, DHS may publish one or more final rules to codify the provisions proposed in this NPRM.
DHS intends for the provisions of this proposed rule, if finalized through one or more final rules, to be severable from each other such that if a court were to hold that any provision is invalid or unenforceable as to a particular person or circumstance, the rule would remain in effect as to any other person or circumstance. While the various provisions of this proposed rule, taken together, would provide maximum benefit with respect to modernizing the H-1B program and strengthening program integrity, none of the provisions are interdependent and unable to operate separately, nor is any single provision essential to the rule's overall workability. DHS welcomes public input on the severability of provisions contained in this proposed rule.
Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review), and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if a regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has designated this proposed rule a “significant regulatory action” as defined under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, but it is not significant under section 3(f)(1) because its annual effects on the economy do not exceed $200 million in any year of the analysis. Accordingly, OMB has reviewed this proposed rule.
As discussed in the preamble, the purpose of this rulemaking is to modernize and improve the regulations governing the H-1B program by: (1) modernizing and streamlining H-1B program requirements and improving program efficiency; (2) providing greater benefits and flexibilities for petitioners and beneficiaries; and (3) improving integrity measures.
For the 10-year period of analysis of the proposed rule DHS estimates the annualized net costs of this rulemaking will be $6,339,779 annualized at 3 percent and 7 percent. Table 12 provides a more detailed summary of the proposed rule provisions and their impacts.
In
The purpose of this rulemaking is to propose changes that DHS believes would modernize and improve the regulations relating to the H-1B program by: (1) streamlining the requirements of the H-1B program and improving program efficiency; (2) providing greater benefits and flexibilities for petitioners and beneficiaries; and (3) improving integrity measures. Some of the proposed provisions would narrowly impact other nonimmigrant classifications.
DHS proposes to clarify when an amended or new H-1B petition must be filed due to a change in an H-1B worker's place of employment. Specifically, this rule proposes to clarify that any change of work location that requires a new LCA is itself considered a material change and therefore requires the petitioning employer to file an amended or new petition with USCIS before the H-1B worker may perform work under the changed conditions.
This proposed change would clarify requirements for H-1B amended petitions by codifying
USCIS received a low of 17,057 amended petitions in FY 2022, and a high of 80,102 amended petitions in FY 2018. Based on the 5-year annual average, DHS estimates that 59,947 petitioners file for an amended petition each year shown in Table 14. DHS does not know if all of these amended petitions are due to a change in an H-1B worker's place of employment. Because of this, DHS cannot estimate how many of these new and amended petitions would benefit by consolidating existing requirements and providing clearer regulatory text pertaining to when a petitioner must submit an amended or new petition.
DHS conducted a sensitivity analysis to estimate the number of petitions that may benefit from this proposed change. Table 15 presents the lower and upper bound number of petitions filed annually for amended petitions and for new petitions, which corresponds to a range of 10 to 90 percent.
Using the lower and upper bounds of the estimated annual population for the petitioners who would file amended petitions, DHS estimates the cost savings based on the opportunity cost of time of gathering and submitting information by multiplying the estimated time burden savings for those filing an amended petition (5 minutes or 0.08 hours) by the compensation rate of an HR specialist, in-house lawyer, or outsourced lawyer, respectively. DHS does not know the exact number of petitioners who will choose an in-house or an outsourced lawyer but assumes it may be a 50/50 split and therefore provides an average. Table 16 shows that the total annual cost savings would range from $59,545 to $535,801. DHS estimates the total cost savings to be the average between the lower bound and the upper bound estimates. Based on this DHS estimates the average cost savings from this provision to be $297,673.
DHS seeks to codify and clarify its existing deference policy at proposed 8 CFR 214.1(c)(5). Deference has helped promote consistency and efficiency for both USCIS and its stakeholders. The deference policy instructs officers to consider prior determinations involving the same parties and facts, when there is no material error with the prior determination, no material change in circumstances or in eligibility, and no new material information adversely impacting the petitioner's, applicant's, or beneficiary's eligibility. This provision proposes to codify the deference policy
Table 17 shows the number for Form I-129 RFEs filed for an extension of stay or amendment of stay, who are applying for a continuation of previously approved employment or a change in previously approved employment from FY 2018 through FY 2022. USCIS received a low of 13,467 RFEs for Form I-129 classifications in FY 2022, and a high of 43,430 RFEs for Form I-129 classifications in FY 2020. Based on a 5-year annual average, 31,327 petitioners who filed for an extension of stay or amendment of stay, who are applying for a continuation of previously approved employment or a change in previously approved employment receive an RFE for Form I-129 per year.
DHS is proposing to codify the deference policy that applies to the adjudication of a petition. This proposed change could affect the number of RFEs that USCIS sends for Form I-129. USCIS estimates that there may be a reduction in RFEs, as officers adjudicating a Form I-129 involving the same parties and the same underlying facts would not need to re-adjudicate eligibility. The reduction in RFEs may save time and make the overall process faster for petitioners and USCIS.
Table 18 shows the number of Form I-129 receipts, submitted concurrently with a Form G-28, filed for a continuation of previously approved employment or a change in previously approved employment, and requesting an extension of stay or amendment of stay, on which USCIS issued an RFE. Based on the 5-year annual average, DHS estimates that 23,475 petitioners who received an RFE filed with a Form G-28 and 7,853 petitioners who received an RFE filed without a Form G-28.
DHS conducted a sensitivity analysis to estimate the number of petitions that may benefit from codifying and clarifying its existing deference policy. Table 19 presents the lower and upper bound number of petitions filed annually for amended petitions and for new petitions, which corresponds to a range of 10 to 90 percent.
Using the lower and upper bounds of the estimated annual population for the petitioners who may no longer have to provide duplicative data, DHS estimates the cost savings based on the opportunity cost of time of gathering and submitting duplicative information by multiplying the estimated time burden to gather information 10 minutes (0.167 hours) by the compensation rate of an HR specialist, in-house lawyer, or outsourced lawyer, respectively. DHS does not know the exact number of petitioners who will choose an in-house or an outsourced lawyer but assumes it may be a 50/50 split and therefore provides an average. Table 20 shows that the total annual cost savings due to the codifying and clarifying its existing deference policy would range from $67,691 to $609,132. DHS estimates the total cost savings to be the average between the lower bound and the upper bound estimates. Based on this DHS estimates the average cost savings from this provision to be $338,412.
DHS seeks to clarify current requirements and codify current practices concerning evidence of maintenance of status at proposed 8 CFR 214.1(c)(1) through (7). Primarily, DHS seeks to clarify that evidence of maintenance of status is required for petitions where there is a request to extend or amend the beneficiary's stay.
This proposed change would list examples of additional evidence types that petitioners may provide, but would not limit petitioners to those specific evidence types. The proposed form instructions further state that if the beneficiary is employed in the United States, the petitioner may submit copies of the beneficiary's last two pay stubs, Form W-2, and other relevant evidence, as well as a copy of the beneficiary's Form I-94, passport, travel document, or Form I-797. This proposed change may decrease the number of RFEs and NOIDs by clearly stating what types of supporting documentation are relevant and clarifying that petitioners should submit such supporting documentation upfront, rather than waiting for USCIS to issue a request for additional information. This may benefit petitioners by saving them the time to review and respond to RFEs and NOIDs.
DHS is proposing to codify into regulation the instructions that, when seeking an extension of stay, the applicant or petitioner must submit supporting evidence to establish that the
Based on the 5-year annual average, DHS estimates that 299,025 Form I-129 petitions are filed requesting an extension of stay. Of those total filed petitions, DHS estimates that 61,781 petitioners who requested an extension of stay received an RFE and the remaining 237,244 did not receive and RFE as shown in Table 21.
DHS estimates that 29,195 petitions are filed requesting to amend the stay. Of those, DHS estimates that 9,723 petitions that are filed requesting to amend the stay receive an RFE and 19,473 do not receive an RFE.
DHS estimates that 89,241 petitions are filed requesting to change status and extend the stay. Of those, DHS estimates that 30,318 petitions that are filed requesting to change status and extend the stay receive an RFE and 58,922 do not receive an RFE.
It is important to note that issuing RFEs and NOIDs takes time and effort for adjudicators—to send, receive, and adjudicate documentation—and it requires additional time and effort for applicants or petitioners to respond, resulting in extended timelines for adjudications.
DHS anticipates that USCIS adjudicators may issue fewer RFEs and NOIDs related to maintenance of status under this proposed rule due to clarity of what types of supporting documentation are relevant and clarification that petitioners should submit such supporting documentation upfront, rather than waiting for USCIS to issue a request for additional information, which would reduce the burden on applicants, petitioners, and adjudicators, and save time processing applications and petitions. Because the data are not standardized or tracked consistently DHS cannot estimate how many RFEs and NOIDs are related to maintenance of status.
DHS is proposing to eliminate the H programs' itinerary requirement.
DHS recognizes this change may affect H-1B petitioners filing for beneficiaries performing services in more than one location and submitting itineraries. However, due to the absence of detailed data on petitioners submitting itineraries, DHS estimates the affected population as the estimated number of petitions filed annually for workers placed at off-site locations. DHS assumes the petitions filed for workers placed at off-site locations are likely to indicate that beneficiaries may be performing services at multiple locations and, therefore, petitioners are likely to submit itineraries. Eliminating the itinerary requirement would reduce petitioner burden and promote more efficient adjudications, without compromising program integrity. This proposed change may benefit petitioners who have beneficiaries at alternative worksites.
Table 24 shows the total number of Form I-129 H-1B Receipts with and without Form G-28, FY 2018 through FY 2022. USCIS received a low of 398,285 Form I-129 H-1B Receipts in FY 2021, and a high of 474,311 Form I-129 H-1B Receipts in FY 2022. Based on the 5-year annual average, DHS estimates that there are 427,822 Form I-129 H-1B petitioners each year.
Table 25 shows the average number of Form I-129 H-1B petitions approved in FYs 2018-22 for workers placed at off-site locations. Nearly 31 percent of petitions were approved for workers placed at off-site locations. DHS uses the estimated 31 percent as the proportion of both the population of received petitions and the population of approved petitions that are for workers placed at off-site locations.
DHS conducted a sensitivity analysis to estimate the number of H-1B petitions filed annually for workers placed at off-site locations that may contain itineraries (132,625).
Using the lower and upper bounds of the estimated annual population for H-1B petitioners who may no longer be required to gather and submit itinerary information, DHS estimates the cost savings based on the opportunity cost of time of gathering and submitting itinerary information by multiplying the estimated time burden to gather
DHS acknowledges the proposal to eliminate the itinerary requirement may also affect H petitions filed by agents as well as H-2 petitions filed for beneficiaries performing work in more than one location or for multiple employers, however, DHS has not estimated these cost savings here.
DHS proposes to allow H-1B petitions to be approved or have their requested validity period dates extended if USCIS adjudicates and deems the petition approvable after the initially requested validity period end-date, or the period for which eligibility has been established, has passed. This typically would happen if USCIS deemed the petition approvable upon a favorable motion to reopen, motion to reconsider, or appeal.
If USCIS adjudicates an H-1B petition and deems it approvable after the initially requested validity period end-date, or the last day for which eligibility has been established, USCIS may issue an RFE asking whether the petitioner wants to update the dates of intended employment. This change may increase the number of RFE's; however, it may save petitioners from having to file another H-1B petition and USCIS from having to intake and adjudicate another petition.
If in response to the RFE the petitioner confirms that it wants to update the dates of intended employment and submits a different LCA that corresponds to the new requested validity dates, even if that LCA was certified after the date the H-1B petition was filed, and assuming all other eligibility criteria are met, USCIS would approve the H-1B petition for the new requested period or the period for
DHS proposes to revise the requirements to qualify for H-1B cap exemption when a beneficiary is not directly employed by a qualifying institution, organization, or entity at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(F)(
DHS is also proposing to revise 8 CFR 214.2(h)(19)(iii)(C), which states that a nonprofit research organization is an entity that is “primarily engaged in basic research and/or applied research,” and a governmental research organization is a Federal, State, or local entity “whose primary mission is the performance or promotion of basic research and/or applied research.” DHS proposes to replace “primarily engaged” with “a fundamental activity of” in order to permit a nonprofit entity that conducts research as a fundamental activity but is not primarily engaged in research to meet the definition of a nonprofit research entity. This would likely increase the population of petitioners who are now eligible for the cap exemption and, by extension, would likely increase the number of petitions that may be cap-exempt.
These proposed changes would result in a transfer to petitioners who qualify for a cap exemption for their employees under the proposed rule. This would reduce transfers for petitioners because the petitioners would no longer have to pay the registration fee or ACWIA fees applicable to initial cap-subject petitions. DHS does not have data to precisely estimate how many additional petitioners would now qualify for these cap exemptions, but we welcome public comment on this topic to help inform analysis in the final rule. This proposed change would be a reduction in transfers from the petitioners to USCIS because USCIS would no longer receive these petitioners' registration fees. There would be no change in DHS resources. While DHS cannot estimate the precise reduction in transfers, DHS estimates that a fairly small population, between 0.3 percent-0.8 percent of annual petitioners, may no longer use the H-1B registration tool as a result of these new exemptions. Using these percentages, DHS estimates that approximately 1,067
Aside from the reduction in transfers from not having to pay the registration fee, petitioners that qualify under the proposed cap exemptions would also benefit from not having to wait for H-1B cap season to commence employment. This may allow approved petitioners to have their H-1B workers commence employment earlier, prior to the beginning of the fiscal year on October 1.
DHS proposes to extend the automatic cap-gap extension at 8 CFR 214.2(f)(5)(vi). Currently, the automatic extension is valid only until October 1 of the fiscal year for which H-1B status is being requested, but DHS proposes to extend this until April 1 of the fiscal year.
Each year, a number of U.S. employers seek to employ F-1 students via the H-1B program by requesting a COS and filing an H-1B cap petition with USCIS. Many F-1 students complete a program of study or post-completion OPT in mid-spring or early summer. Per current regulations, after completing their program or post-completion OPT, F-1 students have 60 days to take the steps necessary to maintain legal status or depart the United States.
Under current regulations, the automatic cap-gap extension is valid only until October 1 of the fiscal year for which H-1B status is being requested. DHS is proposing to change the automatic extension end date from October 1 to April 1 to avoid disruptions in employment authorization that some F-1 nonimmigrants awaiting the change to H-1B status have been experiencing over the past several years. Table 28 shows the historical completions volumes. Based on the 5-year annual average, DHS estimates that 31,834 F-1 nonimmigrants annually may be able to avoid employment disruptions while waiting to obtain H-1B status. Preventing such employment disruptions would also benefit employers of F-1 nonimmigrants with cap-gap extensions. The change in the automatic extension end date may benefit petitioners as well.
This proposed change in the automatic extension end date would also allow USCIS greater flexibility in allocating officer resources to complete adjudications without the pressure of completing as many COS requests as possible before October 1. There are additional benefits of this proposed rule that have not been captured in the summary of costs and benefits of this rulemaking. DHS estimates that this change would benefit up to 5 percent (1,592) of the population (31,834) on an annual basis and on the low end 318 (1 percent); however, F-1 students who are beneficiaries of H-1B cap petitions that provide cap-gap relief would be able to avoid employment disruptions while waiting to obtain H-1B status. DHS estimates that an F-1 student who is the beneficiary of an H-1B cap petition makes $42.48
DHS proposes to eliminate all the text currently at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(
In 2020, USCIS implemented the first electronic registration process for the FY 2021 H-1B cap. In that year, and for each subsequent fiscal year, prospective petitioners seeking to file H-1B cap-subject petitions (including for beneficiaries eligible for the advanced degree exemption) were required to first electronically register and pay the associated H-1B registration fee for each prospective beneficiary. Because of this DHS only has data for Cap Year 2021 through FY 2023. Table 29 shows the number of cap-subject registrations received and selected by USCIS during Cap Year 2021 through FY 2023. Based on the 3-year annual average DHS estimates that 127,980 registrations are selected each year. DHS cannot estimate the number of petitioners that would benefit from this clarification to the start date on their petition.
This proposed change is also a potential cost savings to petitioners who, in the event USCIS cap-subject petitions that were rejected solely due to start date, would no longer need to re-submit their petition(s).
Through issuance of a final rule in 2019,
Table 30 shows the number of cap registration receipts by year, as well as the number of registrations that were selected to file I-129 H-1B petitions. The number of registrations has increased over the past 3 years. DHS believes that this increase is partially due to the increase in multiple companies submitting registrations for the same beneficiary. USCIS received a low of 274,237 H-1B Cap-Subject Registrations for cap year FY 2021, and a high of 483,927 H-1B Cap-Subject Registrations for cap year 2023. DHS has not included cap year 2024 data into this analysis because such data are incomplete.
DHS estimates the current public reporting time burden for an H-1B Registration is 31 minutes (0.5167 hours), which includes the time for reviewing instructions, gathering the
The number of Form G-28 submissions allows USCIS to estimate the number of H-1B registrations that an attorney or accredited representative submits and thus estimate the opportunity costs of time for an attorney or accredited representative to file each form. Table 31 shows the number of Cap-Subject registrations received with and without Form G-28. USCIS received a low of 148,964 Cap-Subject Registrations with Form G-28 in cap year 2022, and a high of 207,053 Cap-Subject Registrations with Form G-28 in cap year 2023. Based on a 3-year annual average, DHS estimates the annual average receipts of Cap-Subject Registrations to be 171,330 with 48 percent of registrations submitted by an attorney or accredited representative.
In order to estimate the opportunity costs of time for completing and filing an H-1B registration DHS assumes that a registrant will use an HR specialist, an in-house lawyer, or an outsourced lawyer to prepare an H-1B registration.
DHS accounts for worker benefits when estimating the total costs of compensation by calculating a benefits-to-wage multiplier using the BLS report detailing the average employer costs for employee compensation for all civilian workers in major occupational groups and industries. DHS estimates that the benefits-to-wage multiplier is 1.45 and, therefore, is able to estimate the full opportunity cost per petitioner, including employee wages and salaries and the full cost of benefits such as paid leave, insurance, retirement, etc.
Table 32 displays the estimated annual opportunity cost of time for submitting an H-1B registration employing an in-house or outsourced lawyer to complete and submit an H-1B registration. DHS does not know the exact number of registrants who will choose an in-house or an outsourced lawyer but assumes it may be a 50/50 split and therefore provides an average. These current opportunity costs of time for submitting an H-1B registration using an attorney or other representative are estimated to range from $10,107,038 to $17,426,385 with an average of $13,766,712.
To estimate the current remaining opportunity cost of time for an HR specialist submitting an H-1B registration without a lawyer, DHS applies the estimated public reporting time burden (0.5167 hours) to the compensation rate of an HR specialist. Table 33 estimates the current total annual opportunity cost of time to HR specialists completing and submitting an H-1B registration will be approximately $4,849,904.
Table 34 shows the proposed estimated time burden will increase by 5 minutes to 36 minutes (0.6 hours) to the eligible population and compensation rates of those who may submit registrations with or without a lawyer due to changes in the instructions, adding clarifying language regarding denying or revoking approved H-1B petitions, adding passport instructional language, and adding verification before submitting instructions. DHS does not know the exact number of registrants who will choose an in-house or an outsourced lawyer but assumes it may be a 50/50 split and therefore provides an average. DHS estimates that these current opportunity costs of time for submitting an H-1B registration using an attorney or other representative range from $11,736,448 to $20,235,786 with an average of $15,986,117.
To estimate the current remaining opportunity cost of time for an HR specialist submitting an H-1B registration without a lawyer, DHS applies the proposed estimated public reporting time burden (0.6 hours) to the compensation rate of an HR specialist. Table 35 estimates the current total annual opportunity cost of time to HR specialists completing and submitting the H-1B registration will be approximately $5,631,784.
DHS estimates the total additional annual cost to petitioners completing and filing Form I-129 H-1B are expected to be $3,001,285 shown in Table 36. This table shows the current total opportunity cost of time to submit an H-1B registration and the proposed total opportunity cost of time.
Under the proposed provision, DHS would modify the random selection process. Registrants would continue to submit registrations on behalf of beneficiaries, and beneficiaries would continue to be able to have more than one registration submitted on their behalf, as generally allowed by applicable regulations. If a random selection were necessary (meaning, more registrations are submitted than the number of registrations USCIS projected as needed to reach the numerical allocations), then the random selection would be based on each unique beneficiary identified in the registration pool, rather than each registration. If a beneficiary is selected, then all registrants who properly submitted a registration for that selected beneficiary would be notified of the selection and that they are eligible to file an H-1B cap petition on behalf of the beneficiary during the applicable petition filing period.
DHS believes that changing how USCIS conducts the selection process to select by unique beneficiaries instead of registrations would give each unique beneficiary an equal chance at selection and would reduce the advantage that beneficiaries with multiple registrations submitted on their behalf have over beneficiaries with a single registration submitted on their behalf. DHS believes that it would also reduce the incentive that registrants may have to work with others to submit registrations for the same beneficiary to unfairly increase the chance of selection for the beneficiary because doing so under the beneficiary-centric selection approach would not result in an increase in the odds of selection. Selecting by unique beneficiary could also result in other benefits, such as giving beneficiaries greater autonomy regarding their H-1B employment and improving the chances of selection for legitimate registrations.
Because the integrity of the new selection process would rely on USCIS's ability to accurately identify each individual beneficiary, and all registrations submitted on their behalf, DHS proposes to require the submission of valid passport information, including the passport number, country of issuance, and expiration date, in addition to the currently required information.
DHS estimates that the annual average receipts of H-1B registrations is 355,592 with 71 percent of registrations being submitted for a beneficiary with only a single registration. DHS estimates that 29 percent
DHS estimates that 73,501
Table 38 displays the estimated annual opportunity cost of time for submitting an H-1B registration employing an in-house or outsourced lawyer to complete and submit an H-1B registration. DHS does not know the exact number of prospective petitioners who will choose an in-house or an outsourced lawyer but assumes it may be a 50/50 split and therefore provides an average. DHS estimates that these current opportunity costs of time for submitting an H-1B registration using an attorney or other representative range from $2,081,225 to $3,588,413, with an average of $2,834,819.
To estimate the current remaining opportunity cost of time for an HR specialist submitting an H-1B registration without a lawyer, DHS applies the estimated public reporting time burden (0.5167 hours) to the compensation rate of an HR specialist. Table 39 estimates the current total annual opportunity cost of time to HR specialists completing and submitting an H-1B registration will be approximately $1,006,003.
DHS estimates the total annual opportunity cost savings of time for not having to complete and submit H-1B registrations for beneficiaries with multiple registrations are expected to be $3,840,822, shown in Table 40.
Prospective
DHS regulations already preclude the filing of multiple H-1B cap-subject petitions by related entities for the same beneficiary unless the related petitioners can establish a legitimate business need for filing multiple cap-subject petitions for the same beneficiary. DHS is not proposing to change this in the current regulation. Rather, DHS is proposing to extend a similar limitation to the submission of registrations by related entities.
While the proposed changes to the beneficiary centric selection are intended to reduce frivolous registrations, DHS cannot guarantee with certainty that such change would eliminate entities from working with each other to submit registrations to unfairly increase chances of selection for a beneficiary by submitting slightly different identifying information or other means. Therefore, this provision may serve as an additional deterrent to further reduce the incentive for companies filing multiple registrations to have a higher chance of selection. This change may benefit petitioners whose chances of selection have been negatively affected by companies filing multiple registrations to increase the chances of selection. DHS cannot estimate the number of petitioners that this provision may benefit, because DHS cannot accurately measure how many petitioners are not submitting legitimate registrations or filing legitimate petitions in this manner.
Although registration is an antecedent procedural step undertaken prior to filing an H-1B cap-subject petition, the validity of the registration information is key to the registrant's eligibility to file a petition. As stated in the current regulations, “[t]o be eligible to file a petition for a beneficiary who may be counted against the H-1B regular cap or the H-1B advanced degree exemption for a particular fiscal year, a registration must be properly submitted in accordance with 8 CFR 103.2(a)(1), [8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii),] and the form instructions.”
DHS is also proposing changes to the regulations governing registration that would provide USCIS with clearer authority to deny or revoke the approval of a petition based on a registration that was not properly submitted or was otherwise invalid.
Specifically, DHS is proposing to add that if a petitioner submits more than one registration per beneficiary in the same fiscal year, all registrations filed by that petitioner relating to that beneficiary for that fiscal year may be considered not only invalid, but that “USCIS may deny or revoke the approval of any petition filed for the beneficiary based on those registrations.”
Additionally, DHS is proposing to add that USCIS may deny or revoke the approval of an H-1B petition if it determines that the fee associated with the registration is declined, not reconciled, disputed, or otherwise invalid after submission.
These proposed changes may increase the need for RFEs and NOIDs. It is important to note that issuing RFEs and NOIDs takes time and effort for adjudicators—to send, receive, and adjudicate documentation—and it requires additional time and effort for petitioners to respond, resulting in extended timelines for adjudications.
DHS proposes to codify USCIS' authority to request contracts, work orders, or similar evidence.
While USCIS already has the authority to request contracts and other similar evidence, the regulations do not state this authority. By proposing to codify this authority, USCIS is putting stakeholders on notice of the kinds of evidence that could be requested to establish the terms and conditions of the beneficiary's work and the minimum educational requirements to perform the duties. This evidence, in turn, could establish that the petitioner has a bona fide job offer for a specialty occupation position for the beneficiary. Relative to the no action baseline, this change has no costs associated with it, and there may be transparency benefits due to this proposed change. Relative to the pre policy baseline petitioners may have taken time to find contracts or legal agreements, if available, or other evidence including technical documentation, milestone tables, or statements of work. DHS cannot estimate how much time it would have taken for petitioners to provide that information.
DHS proposes to codify its requirement that the petitioner must establish, at the time of filing, that it has a non-speculative position in a specialty occupation available for the beneficiary as of the start date of the validity period as requested on the petition.
DHS is proposing to update the regulations to expressly include DHS's existing authority to ensure that the LCA properly supports and corresponds with the accompanying H-1B petition. Relative to the no action baseline, this change has no costs and may yield transparency benefits due to consistency between regulation and current policy. Relative to the pre policy baseline petitioners may have taken time to provide their LCA to DHS, however DHS cannot estimate how much time it would have taken for petitioners to provide that information.
DHS is proposing to revise the definition of “United States employer.” First, DHS proposes to eliminate the employer-employee relationship requirement. In place of the employer-employee relationship requirement, DHS proposes to codify the requirement that the petitioner has a bona fide job offer for the beneficiary to work, which may include telework, remote work, or other off-site work within the United States. DHS also proposes to replace the requirement that the petitioner “[e]ngages a person to work within the United States” with the requirement that the petitioner have a legal presence and is amenable to service of process in the United States. Relative to the no action baseline, this change has no costs associated with it, and there may be transparency benefits due to this proposed change. Relative to the pre policy baseline, petitioners may require time to provide documentation establishing a bona fide job offer for the beneficiary to work. DHS cannot estimate how much time petitioners take to provide that information.
DHS proposes to eliminate the employer-employee relationship requirement, which, in the past, has been a significant barrier to the H-1B program for certain petitioners, including beneficiary-owned petitioners. This proposed change would benefit petitioners because it may decrease confusion and increase clarity for stakeholders. Relative to the no action baseline, this change has no costs associated with it, and there may be transparency benefits due to this proposed change. Relative to the pre policy baseline petitioners may have taken time to understand the change.
DHS proposes to codify a petitioner's ability to qualify as a U.S. employer even when the beneficiary possesses a controlling interest in that petitioner. To promote access to H-1Bs for entrepreneurs, start-up entities, and other beneficiary-owned businesses, DHS is proposing to add provisions to specifically address situations where a potential H-1B beneficiary owns a controlling interest in the petitioning entity. If more entrepreneurs are able to obtain H-1B status to develop their business enterprise, the United States could benefit from the creation of jobs, new industries, and new opportunities.
DHS is also proposing to limit the validity period for beneficiary-owned entities. DHS proposes to limit the validity period for the initial petition and first extension (including an amended petition with a request for an extension of stay) of such a petition to 18 months.
USCIS conducts inspections, evaluations, verifications, and compliance reviews, to ensure that a petitioner and beneficiary are eligible for the benefit sought and that all laws have been complied with before and after approval of such benefits. These inspections, verifications, and other compliance reviews may be conducted telephonically or electronically, as well as through physical on-site inspections (site visits). DHS is proposing to add regulations specific to the H-1B program to codify its existing authority and clarify the scope of inspections and the consequences of a petitioner's or third party's refusal or failure to fully cooperate with these inspections. Currently, site visit inspections are not mandatory for petitioners filing Form I-129 on behalf of H-1B specialty occupation nonimmigrant workers. Using its general authority, USCIS may conduct audits, on-site inspections, reviews, or investigations to ensure that a beneficiary is entitled to the benefits sought and that all laws have been complied with before and after approval of such benefits.
In July 2009, USCIS started the Administrative Site Visit and Verification Program
The site visits conducted under USCIS's existent, general authority, and thus part of the baseline against which this proposed rule's impact should be measured, have uncovered a significant amount of noncompliance in the H-1B program.
DHS believes that site visits are important to maintain the integrity of the H-1B program to detect and deter fraud and noncompliance in the H-1B program, which in turn ensures the appropriate use of the H-1B program and the protection of the interests of U.S. workers. These site visits would continue in the absence of this proposed rule and DHS notes that current Form I-129 instructions notify petitioners of USCIS' legal authority to verify information before or after a case decision, including by means of unannounced physical site inspection. Hence, DHS is proposing additional requirements specific to the H-1B program to set forth the scope of on-site inspections, and the consequences of a petitioner's or third party's refusal or failure to fully cooperate with existing inspections. DHS does not foresee the rule leading to more on-site inspections.
This proposed rule would provide a clear disincentive for petitioners that do not cooperate with compliance reviews and inspections while giving USCIS greater authority to access and confirm information about employers and workers as well as identify fraud.
The proposed regulations would make clear that inspections may include, but are not limited to, an on-site visit of the petitioning organization's facilities, interviews with its officials, review of its records related to compliance with immigration laws and regulations, and interviews with any other individuals or review of any other records that USCIS may lawfully obtain and that it considers pertinent to verify facts related to the adjudication of the petition, such as facts relating to the petitioner's and beneficiary's eligibility and continued compliance with the requirements of the H-1B program.
In order to estimate the population impacted by site visits, DHS uses site inspection data used to verify facts pertaining to the H-1B petition adjudication process. The site inspections were conducted at H-1B petitioners' on-site locations and third-party worksites during FY 2018 through FY 2022. For instance, from FY 2019 through FY 2022, USCIS conducted a total of 27,062 H-1B compliance reviews and found 5,037 of them, equal to 19 percent, to be noncompliant or indicative of fraud.
Table 42 shows the number of H-1B worksite inspections conducted each year and the number of visits that resulted in compliance and noncompliance. USCIS received a low of 1,057 fraudulent/noncompliant cases in FY 2022, and a high of 1,469 fraudulent/noncompliant cases in FY 2021. DHS estimates that, on average, USCIS conducted 6,766 H-1B worksite inspections annually from FY 2019 through FY 2022 and of those DHS finds a noncompliance rate of 19 percent. Assuming USCIS continues worksite inspections at the 4-year annual average rate, the population impacted by this proposed provision would be 1,259 or 19 percent of H-1B petitioners visited who are found noncompliant or indicative of fraud. The outcomes of site visits under the proposed rule are indeterminate as currently noncooperative petitioners might be found to be fully compliant, might continue to not cooperate with site visits despite penalties, or might be forced to reveal fraudulent practices to USCIS. The expected increase in cooperation from current levels would be the most important impact of the proposed provision, which DHS discusses below. DHS notes that the increased cooperation might come disproportionately from site visits of third-party worksites that did not sign Form I-129 attesting to permit
Table 43 shows the average duration of time to complete each inspection was 1.08 hours. Therefore, DHS assumes that USCIS would continue to conduct the same number of annual worksite inspections (7,252), on average, and that the average duration of time for a USCIS immigration officer to conduct each worksite inspection would be an average of 1.08 hours. The data in Table 42 and Table 43 differ slightly based on the different search criteria, pull dates and systems accessed. DHS also assumes that the average duration of time of 1.08 hours to conduct an inspection covers the entire inspection process, which includes interviewing the beneficiary, the on-site supervisor or manager and other workers, as applicable, and reviewing all records pertinent to the H-1B petitions available to USCIS when requested during inspection.
DHS assumes that a supervisor or manager, in addition to the beneficiary, would be present on behalf of a petitioner while a USCIS immigration officer conducts the worksite inspection. The officer would interview the beneficiary to verify the date employment started, work location, hours, salary, and duties performed to corroborate with the information provided in an approved petition. The supervisor or manager would be the most qualified employee at the location who could answer all questions pertinent to the petitioning organization and its H-1B nonimmigrant workers. They would also be able to provide the proper records available to USCIS immigration officers. Consequently, for the purposes of this economic analysis, DHS assumes that on average two individuals would be interviewed during each worksite inspection: the beneficiary and the supervisor or manager. DHS uses their respective compensation rates in the estimation of the worksite inspection costs.
DHS uses hourly compensation rates to estimate the opportunity cost of time a beneficiary and supervisor or manager would incur during worksite inspections. Based on data obtained from a USCIS report in 2022, DHS estimates that an H-1B worker earned an average of $116,000 per year in FY 2021.
In Table 44, DHS estimates the total annual opportunity cost of time for worksite inspections of H-1B petitions by multiplying the average annual number of worksite inspections (7,252) by the average duration the interview would take for a beneficiary or supervisor or manager and their respective compensation rates. DHS obtains the total annual cost of the H-1B worksite inspections to be $674,881 for this proposed rule.
This proposed change may affect employers who do not cooperate with site visits who would face denial or revocation of their petition(s), which could result in costs to those businesses. Petitioners may face financial losses because they may lose access to labor for extended periods, which could result in too few workers, loss of revenue, and some could go out of business. DHS expects program participants to comply with program requirements, however, and notes that those that do not could experience significant impacts due to this proposed rule. DHS expects that the proposed rule would hold certain petitioners more accountable for violations, including certain findings of labor law and other violations, and would prevent registrations with false information from taking a cap number for which they are ineligible.
In this proposed provision, in certain circumstances USCIS would look at the third party's requirements for the beneficiary's position, rather than the petitioner's stated requirements, in assessing whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation.
As required by both INA section 214(i)(1) and 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(
DHS estimates the current public reporting time burden is 2 hours and 20 minutes (2.34 hours), which includes the time for reviewing instructions, gathering the required documentation and information, completing the petition, preparing statements, attaching necessary documentation, and submitting the petition.
In order to estimate the opportunity costs of time for completing and filing Form I-129 H-1B, DHS assumes that a petitioner will use an HR specialist, an in-house lawyer, or an outsourced lawyer to prepare Form I-129 H-1B petitions.
DHS accounts for worker benefits when estimating the total costs of compensation by calculating a benefits-to-wage multiplier using the BLS report detailing the average employer costs for employee compensation for all civilian workers in major occupational groups and industries. DHS estimates that the benefits-to-wage multiplier is 1.45 and, therefore, is able to estimate the full opportunity cost per petitioner, including employee wages and salaries and the full cost of benefits such as paid leave, insurance, retirement, etc.
The DHS ICE rule “Final Small Entity Impact Analysis: `Safe-Harbor Procedures for Employers Who Receive a No-Match Letter' ” at G-4 (Aug. 25, 2008),
Also, the analysis for a DHS ICE rule, “Final Small Entity Impact Analysis: `Safe-Harbor Procedures for Employers Who Receive a No-Match Letter' ” at G-4 (Aug. 25, 2008),
To estimate the opportunity cost of time to complete and file Form I-129 H-1B, DHS applies the estimated time burden (2.34 hours) to the eligible population and compensation rates of those who may file with or without a lawyer.
To estimate the current remaining opportunity cost of time for an HR specialist filing Form I-129 H-1B without a lawyer, DHS applies the estimated public reporting time burden (2.34 hours) to the compensation rate of an HR specialist. Table 47 estimates the current total annual opportunity cost of time to HR specialists completing and filing I-129 H-1B requests will be approximately $10,605,427.
Table 48 shows the proposed estimated time burden (2.42 hours) to the eligible population and compensation rates of those who may file with or without a lawyer. DHS does not know the exact number of petitioners who will choose an in-house or an outsourced lawyer but assumes it may be a 50/50 split and therefore provides an average. These current opportunity costs of time for Form I-129 H-1B petitioners using an attorney or other representative are estimated to range from $93,621,341 to $161,420,346 with an annual average of $127,520,844.
To estimate the current remaining opportunity cost of time for an HR specialist filing Form I-129 H-1B without a lawyer, DHS applies the estimated public reporting time burden (2.42 hours) to the compensation rate of an HR specialist. Table 49 estimates the current total annual opportunity cost of time to HR specialists completing and filing I-129 H-1B requests will be approximately $10,968,006.
DHS estimates the total additional annual cost to petitioners completing and filing Form I-129 H-1B are expected to be $4,578,144 shown in Table 50. This table shows the current total opportunity cost of time to file Form I-129 H-1B and the proposed total opportunity cost of time.
Finally, many DHS rulemakings include monetized or unquantified familiarization costs. This is appropriate when a likely consequence of proposed regulations could be additional individuals seeking out and consuming more specialized resources, such as immigration attorneys' time in order to access the same benefits. This section has emphasized that employers of H-1B beneficiaries already consume significant specialized resources. In contrast to policies that impose additional requirements upon petitioners and registrants, DHS believes the proposed modernization, efficiencies, flexibilities and integrity improvements have no likely consequence to current consumption of specialized resources such as HR Specialists' time, in-house attorneys'
DHS estimates the current public reporting time burden at 2 hours, for the H Classification Supplement, which includes the time for reviewing instructions, gathering the required documentation and information, completing the petition, preparing statements, attaching necessary documentation, and submitting the petition.
Table 51 shows the total receipts received for H-1B petitions for FY 2018 through FY 2022. The table also shows the number of H-1B petitions submitted by an attorney or accredited representative using Form G-28. The number of Form G-28 submissions allows USCIS to estimate the number of H-1B petitions that an attorney or accredited representative submitted and thus estimate the opportunity costs of time for an attorney or accredited representative to file each form USCIS received a low of 398,285 of H-1B petitions in FY 2021, and a high of 474,311 of H-1B petitions in FY 2022. Based on a 5-year annual average, DHS estimates the annual average receipts of H-1B petitions to be 338,850 with 79 percent of petitions filed by an attorney or accredited representative.
Table 52 shows the estimated annual opportunity cost of time for submitting an H-1B petition employing an in-house or outsourced lawyer to complete and submit an H-1B petition. DHS does not know the exact number of petitioners who will choose an in-house or an outsourced lawyer but assumes it may be a 50/50 split and therefore provides an average. DHS estimates that these current annual opportunity costs of time for filing an H-1B petition using an attorney or other representative range from $77,373,009 to $133,405,245 with an average of $105,389,127.
To estimate the current remaining opportunity cost of time for an HR specialist filing Form I-129 H-1B without a lawyer, DHS applies the estimated public reporting time burden (2 hours) to the compensation rate of an HR specialist. Table 53 estimates the current total annual opportunity cost of time to HR specialists completing and
Table 54 shows the proposed increased estimated time burden of 2 hours and 4 minutes (2.07 hours) to the eligible population and compensation rates of those who may file with or without a lawyer. DHS does not know the exact number of petitioners who will choose an in-house or an outsourced lawyer but assumes it may be a 50/50 split and therefore provides an average. DHS estimates that these current annual opportunity costs of time for filing an H-1B petition using an attorney or other representative range from $80,081,064 to $138,074,429 with an average of $109,077,747.
To estimate the current remaining opportunity cost of time for an HR specialist filing Form I-129 H-1B without a lawyer, DHS applies the estimated public reporting time burden (2.07 hours) to the compensation rate of an HR specialist. Table 55 estimates the current total annual opportunity cost of time to HR specialists completing and filing an H-1B petition will be approximately $9,381,724.
DHS estimates the total additional annual cost to petitioners completing and filing Form I-129 H-1B are expected to be $4,005,877 shown in Table 56. This table shows the current total opportunity cost of time to file an H-1B H Supplement and the proposed total opportunity cost of time.
DHS considered the alternative of eliminating the registration system and reverting to the paper-based filing system stakeholders used prior to implementing registration. However, when DHS considered the immense cost savings that registration provides to both USCIS and stakeholders and the significant resources the agency would incur to revert back to a paper-based H-1B cap selection process, the benefits of having a registration system still outweigh the costs of potential abuse of the system.
DHS is also seeking public comment on how to ensure that the limited number of H-1B cap-subject visas, and new H-1B status grants available each fiscal year are used for non-speculative job opportunities. DHS is seeking public comments on the possible approaches described in the preamble, as well as soliciting ideas that would further curb or eliminate the possibility that petitioners may have speculative job opportunities at the time of filing or approval of H-1B petitions and delay admission of H-1B beneficiaries until they have secured work for them.
In this section, DHS presents the total annual cost savings of this proposed rule annualized over a 10-year period of analysis. Table 57 details the annual cost savings of this proposed rule. DHS estimates the total cost savings is $5,920,408.
DHS summarizes the annual costs of this proposed rule. Table 58 details the annual costs of this proposed rule. DHS estimates the total cost is $12,260,187.
Net costs to the public of $6,339,779 are the total costs minus cost savings.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 and 602, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations during the development of their rules. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
An “individual” is not considered a small entity and costs to an individual are not considered a small entity impact for RFA purposes. In addition, the courts have held that the RFA requires an agency to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis of small entity impacts only when a rule directly regulates small entities.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to modernize and improve the regulations relating to the H-1B program by: (1) streamlining the requirements of the H-1B program; (2) improving program efficiency; (3) providing greater flexibility for petitioners and beneficiaries; and (4) improving integrity measures.
DHS's objectives and legal authority for this proposed rule are discussed earlier in the preamble.
For this analysis, DHS conducted a sample analysis of historical Form I-129 H-1B petitions to estimate the number of small entities impacted by this proposed rule. DHS utilized a subscription-based electronic database of U.S. entities, ReferenceUSA, as well as three other open-access, free databases of public and private entities, Manta, Cortera, and Guidestar to determine the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code, revenue, and employee count for each entity. To determine whether an entity is small for purposes of RFA, DHS first classified the entity by its NAICS code and then used Small Business Administration (SBA) guidelines to classify the revenue or employee count threshold for each entity. Some entities were classified as small based on their annual revenue, and some by their numbers of employees.
Using FY 2022 internal data on actual filings of Form I-129 H-1B petitions, DHS identified 44,593 unique entities. DHS devised a methodology to conduct the small entity analysis based on a representative, random sample of the potentially impacted population. DHS first determined the minimum sample size necessary to achieve a 95-percent
DHS randomly selected a sample of 3,396 entities from the population of 44,593 entities that filed Form I-129 for H-1B petitions in FY 2022. Of the 3,396 entities, 1,724 entities returned a successful match of a filing entity in the ReferenceUSA, Manta, Cortera, and Guidestar databases; 1,672 entities did not return a match. Using these databases' revenue or employee count and their assigned NAICS code, DHS determined 1,209 of the 1,724 matches to be small entities, 515 to be non-small entities. DHS assumes filing entities without database matches or missing revenue/employee count data are likely to be small entities. As a result, in order to prevent underestimating the number of small entities this proposed rule would affect, DHS considers all the non-matched and missing entities as small entities for the purpose of this analysis. Therefore, DHS classifies 2,881 of 3,396 entities as small entities, including combined non-matches (1,672), and small entity matches (1,209). Thus, DHS estimates that 84.8 percent (2,881 of 3,396) of the entities filing Form I-129 H-1B petitions are small entities.
In this analysis DHS assumes that the distribution of firm size for our sample is the same as the entire population of Form I-129 H-1B petitioners. Thus, DHS estimates the number of small entities to be 84.8 percent of the population of 44,593 entities that filed Form I-129 under the H-1B classification, as summarized in Table 60 below. The annual numeric estimate of the small entities impacted by this proposed rule is 37,815 entities.
It should be acknowledged here that DHS's sample frame excludes H-2 petitioners identified by the RIA as benefitting from the proposal to no longer require itineraries, because this requirement has no adverse impacts to small entities and DHS has not identified opportunities to further enhance this benefit to small entities. Similarly, the proposal to codify deference has no adverse impacts to small entities. Additionally, while the proposed clarity for evidence of maintenance of status may indirectly impact small entities filing such petitions and applications, the costs and benefits fall predominantly and more directly upon the individuals.
Following the distributional assumptions above, DHS uses the set of 1,209 small entities with matched revenue data to estimate the economic impact of the proposed rule on each small entity. The economic impact, in percentage, for each small entity is the sum of the impacts of the proposed changes divided by the entity's sales revenue.
The cost of one petition for entity
The entity's sales revenue is taken from ReferenceUSA, Manta, Cortera, and Guidestar databases.
In addition to the quantitated costs to small entities, employers who do not cooperate with site visits who would face denial or revocation of their petition(s), which could result in costs to those businesses.
The proposed beneficiary-centric selection process would result in additional burden to employers reporting beneficiaries' passport information in the registration system, on Form I-129 H-1B petition and on H Classification Supplement to Form I-129. DHS estimates increase for each of these respective burdens is 5 minutes.
DHS is unaware of any duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules, but invites any comment and information regarding any such rules.
With respect to beneficiary-centric lottery, there are no burdens to be minimized. While collection of passport information imposes some burden to prospective employers, USCIS found no other alternatives that achieved stated objectives with less burden to small entities.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of UMRA requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed rule, or final rule for which the agency published a
In addition, the inflation-adjusted value of $100 million in 1995 is approximately $192 million in 2022 based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).
This proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
This proposed rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance with E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule was written to provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct and was carefully reviewed to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguities, so as to minimize litigation and undue burden on the Federal court system. DHS has determined that this proposed rule meets the applicable standards provided in section 3 of E.O. 12988.
This proposed rule does not have “tribal implications” because, if finalized, it would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Accordingly, E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, requires no further agency action or analysis.
DHS and its components analyze proposed actions to determine whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Under DHS NEPA implementing procedures, for an action to be categorically excluded, it must satisfy each of the following three conditions: (1) The entire action clearly fits within one or more of the categorical exclusions; (2) the action is not a piece of a larger action; and (3) no extraordinary circumstances exist that create the potential for a significant environmental effect.
As discussed throughout this preamble, this rulemaking includes a number of proposed regulatory improvements affecting H-1B specialty occupation workers, as well as a couple of provisions affecting other nonimmigrant classifications, including: H-2, H-3, F-1, L-1, O, P, Q-1, R-1, E-3, and TN. If finalized, this proposed rule is intended to modernize and improve the efficiency of the H-1B program by: (1) amending the definition of a “specialty occupation” and the specialty occupation criteria; (2) clarifying when to file an amended petition; (3) codifying deference given to prior USCIS determinations regarding the petitioner's, beneficiary's, or applicant's eligibility, when adjudicating certain extension requests (both H-1B and other nonimmigrant classifications) involving the same parties and the same underlying facts; (4) clarifying when a petitioner is required to submit evidence of maintenance of status; (5) eliminating the itinerary requirement for H nonimmigrant classifications; and (6) allowing H-1B petitioners to amend requested validity periods when the validity expires before adjudication. If finalized, this rulemaking will also modernize exemptions from the H-1B cap, extend automatic “cap-gap” extensions, and codify start date flexibility for certain cap-subject H-1B petitions. In addition, any final rule resulting from this NPRM will improve program integrity by curbing abuse of the H-1B registration process, including through beneficiary-centric selection; codifying USCIS's authority to request contracts; requiring that the petitioner establish that it will employ the beneficiary in a non-speculative position in a specialty occupation; verifying that the LCA corresponds with the petition; revising the definition of U.S. employer; eliminating the employer-employee relationship requirement; codifying the existing requirement that the petitioner have a bona fide job offer for the beneficiary to work within the United States; requiring that petitioners have a legal presence in the United States and be amenable to service of process in the United States; clarifying that beneficiary-owners may qualify for H-1B status; conducting site visits; and codifying the requirement that the specialty occupation determination be assessed based on the third party, rather than the petitioner, if a beneficiary will be staffed to a third party.
DHS is not aware of any significant impact on the environment, or any change in the environmental effect from
The proposed amendments, if finalized, would be stand-alone rule changes and are not a part of any larger action. In accordance with the Instruction Manual, DHS finds no extraordinary circumstances associated with the proposed rules that may give rise to significant environmental effects requiring further environmental analysis and documentation. Therefore, this action is categorically excluded and no further NEPA analysis is required.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-12, DHS must submit to OMB, for review and approval, any reporting requirements inherent in a rule unless they are exempt.
DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the agency name and OMB Control Number 1615-0144 and/or 1615-0009 in the body of the letter. Please refer to the
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Cultural exchange program, Employment, Foreign officials, Health professions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Students.
Accordingly, DHS proposes to amend chapter I of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
6 U.S.C. 202, 236; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1102, 1103, 1182, 1184, 1186a, 1187, 1221, 1281, 1282, 1301-1305, 1357, and 1372; sec. 643, Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-708; Pub. L. 106-386, 114 Stat. 1477-1480; section 141 of the Compacts of Free Association with the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and with the Government of Palau, 48 U.S.C. 1901 note and 1931 note, respectively; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8 CFR part 2; Pub. L. 115-218, 132 Stat. 1547 (48 U.S.C. 1806).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(1)
(4)
(A) The delay was due to extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the applicant or petitioner, and USCIS finds the delay commensurate with the circumstances;
(B) The applicant or beneficiary has not otherwise violated their nonimmigrant status;
(C) The applicant or beneficiary remains a bona fide nonimmigrant; and
(D) The applicant or beneficiary is not the subject of deportation proceedings under section 242 of the Act (prior to April 1, 1997) or removal proceedings under section 240 of the Act.
(ii) If USCIS excuses the late filing of an extension of stay or amendment of stay request, it will do so without requiring the filing of a separate application or petition and will grant the extension of stay from the date the previously authorized stay expired or the amendment of stay from the date the petition was filed.
(5)
(6)
(7)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(f) * * *
(5) * * *
(vi) * * *
(A) The duration of status, and any employment authorization granted under 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(3)(i)(B) or (C), of an F-1 student who is the beneficiary of an H-1B petition subject to section 214(g)(1)(A) of the Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(A)) and who requests a change of status will be automatically extended until April 1 of the fiscal year
(
(
(
(h) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(E)
(
(
(
(
(F)
(
(
(G)
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
(B)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(ii) * * *
(
(
(
(
(iii)
(
(
(
(
(
(F)
(iv)
(C) In accordance with 8 CFR 103.2(b) and paragraph (h)(9) of this section, USCIS may request evidence such as contracts, work orders, or other similar evidence between all parties in a contractual relationship showing the terms and conditions of the beneficiary's work and the minimum educational requirements to perform the duties.
(8) * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(D)
(
(
(E)
(F) * * *
(
(
(
(9) * * *
(i)
(B) Where an H-1B petition is approved for less time than requested on the petition, the approval notice will provide or be accompanied by a brief explanation for the validity period granted.
(ii) * * *
(D)(
(
(iii) * * *
(E)
(10) * * *
(ii)
(iii)
(11) * * *
(ii)
(iii) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(
(
(
(14)
(19) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) * * *
(
(C)
When a fundamental activity of a nonprofit organization is engaging in basic research and/or applied research, that organization is a nonprofit research organization. When a fundamental activity of a governmental organization is the performance or promotion of basic research and/or applied research, that organization is a government research organization. A governmental research organization may be a Federal, state, or local entity. A nonprofit research organization or governmental research organization may perform or promote more than one fundamental activity. Basic research is general research to gain more comprehensive knowledge or understanding of the subject under study, without specific applications in mind. Basic research is also research that advances scientific knowledge but does not have specific immediate commercial objectives although it may be in fields of present or potential commercial interest. Applied research is research to gain knowledge or understanding to determine the means by which a specific, recognized need may be met. Applied research includes investigations oriented to discovering new scientific knowledge that has specific commercial objectives with respect to products, processes, or services. Both basic research and applied research may include research and investigation in the sciences, social sciences, or humanities and may include designing, analyzing, and directing the research of others if on an ongoing basis and throughout the research cycle.
(iv)
(l) * * *
(14) * * *
(i)
(o) * * *
(11)
(p) * * *
(13)