Forest Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Engineers Corps
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Workers Compensation Programs Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
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.
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
Final rule.
The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB) adopts as final, without changes, a proposed rule concerning the methodology used to calculate earnings and losses in connection with court-ordered payments to spouses, former spouses, children, or dependents (
The effective date is March 24, 2025.
The FRTIB administers the TSP, which was established by the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), Public Law 99-335, 100 Stat. 514. The TSP is a retirement savings plan for Federal civilian employees and members of the uniformed services. It is similar to cash or deferred arrangements established for private-sector employees under section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 401(k)). The provisions of FERSA that govern the TSP are codified, as amended, largely at 5 U.S.C. 8351 and 8401-79.
Section 8435(c) of FERSA requires the FRTIB to obey certain domestic relations court orders requiring payments from a TSP participant's account to the participant's spouse, former spouse, child, or dependent. A TSP account can be divided by means of a court decree of divorce, annulment, or legal separation; or a court order or court-approved property settlement agreement resulting from such a decree. A court order to divide a TSP account may be issued at any stage of a divorce, annulment, or legal separation proceeding.
Court orders sometimes award the participant's spouse, former spouse, child, or dependent (
The FRTIB contracts with Accenture Federal Services to provide, maintain, and operate the technology platforms necessary to deliver retirement plan record keeping services to TSP participants. These services include processing retirement benefits court orders. The FRTIB updates its methodology for calculating court ordered earnings to align with the methodology used by Accenture Federal Services. Accenture Federal Services calculates earnings by using a money-weighted return commonly referred to in the financial industry as the internal rate of return. This methodology considers the influence of cash flows (for example, contributions, withdrawals, loans, and loan payments) on asset allocation, and the resulting effect on investment performance.
Specifically, the FRTIB will calculate earnings by (i) identifying the beginning balance, ending balance, and the cash flows between the two balances over the period of time between the entitlement date and the payment date, (ii) calculating the rate of return that increases (or reduces in the case of a loss) the balance at the beginning of the period, accounting for all cash flows, to equal the balance at the end of the period; and then (iii) multiplying the payee's award amount by the resulting rate of return.
The methodology ensures that the payee's entitlement consists of an award component and an earnings component that each reflects the percentage or fraction specified in the court order. The award component reflects the percentage or fraction of the participant's account on the entitlement date as specified in the order. The earnings component is based on the rate of return experienced on the participant's account during the period from the entitlement date to the payment date.
On November 26, 2024, the FRTIB published a proposed rule with request for public comments in the
I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation will affect Federal employees and members of the uniformed services who participate in the Thrift Savings Plan, which is a Federal defined contribution retirement savings plan created under the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), Public Law 99-335, 100 Stat. 514, and which is administered by the FRTIB.
I certify that these regulations do not require additional reporting under the criteria of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 602, 632, 653, 1501 1571, the effects of this regulation on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector have been assessed. This regulation will not compel the expenditure in any one year of $100 million or more by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 1532 is not required.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), the FRTIB submitted a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Government Accountability Office before publication of this rule in the
Alimony, Child support, Government employees, Pensions, Retirement.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the FRTIB amends 5 CFR chapter VI as follows:
5 U.S.C. 8432d, 8435, 8436(b), 8437(e), 8439(a)(3), 8467, 8474(b)(5) and 8474(c)(1).
(b) * * *
(f) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) The anticipated payment date;
(a) For purposes of computing the amount of a payee's entitlement under this section, a participant's TSP account balance will include any loan balance outstanding as of the entitlement date unless the court order provides otherwise.
(c) If the court order awards a percentage of an account but does not contain a specific date as of which to apply that percentage, the TSP record keeper will use the effective date of the court order.
(d) * * *
(2) The vested account balance on the payment date.
(f) The payee's entitlement will be credited with TSP investment earnings as described:
(1) The entitlement calculated under this section will not be credited with TSP investment earnings unless the court order specifically provides otherwise. The court order may not specify a rate for earnings.
(2) If earnings are awarded, the TSP record keeper will calculate earnings by:
(i) Identifying the beginning balance, ending balance, and the cash flows between the two balances over the period of time between the entitlement date and the payment date;
(ii) Calculating the rate of return that increases (or reduces in the case of a loss) the balance at the beginning of the period, accounting for all cash flows, to equal the balance at the end of the period; and
(iii) Multiplying the payee's award amount by the resulting rate of return.
(d) Payment will be made pro rata from the participant's traditional and Roth balances. The distribution from the traditional balance will be further pro rated between the tax-deferred balance and tax-exempt balance. The payment from the Roth balance will be further pro rated between contributions in the Roth balance and earnings in the Roth balance. In addition, all payments will be distributed pro rata from all TSP core funds in which the participant's account is invested. All pro rated amounts will be based on the balances in each fund or source of contributions on the payment date. The TSP record keeper will not honor provisions of a court order that require payment to be made from a specific TSP core fund, source of contributions, or balance.
(h) If the payee dies before a payment is disbursed from the TSP, payment will be made to the estate of the payee, unless otherwise specified by the court order. A distribution to the estate of a deceased court order payee will be reported as income to the decedent's estate. If the participant dies before the payment date, the order will be honored so long as it is submitted to the TSP record keeper before the TSP account has been closed.
A qualifying legal process can only require the payment of a specified dollar amount from the TSP. Payment pursuant to a qualifying legal process will be calculated in accordance with § 1653.4(a), (d), (f), and (g), except that the term “payment date” shall mean the date the payment is disbursed from the TSP.
Payment pursuant to a qualifying legal process will be made in accordance with § 1653.5, except the term “payment date” shall mean the date the payment is disbursed from the TSP.
(d) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) The anticipated date of disbursement.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Memorial Hospital Heliport, North Conway, NH, by adding airspace for the heliport,
Effective 0901 UTC, June 12, 2025. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
A copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
Rachel Cruz, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; telephone: (404) 305-5571.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, as it establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Memorial Hospital Heliport, North Conway, NH.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA 2024-2453 in the
Class E airspace is published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. FAA Order JO 7400.11J is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of the Memorial Hospital Heliport, North Conway, NH. This amendment provides the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the heliport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations in the area.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant the preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of Memorial Hospital Heliport, North Conway, NH.
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Notification of review and effective date of final rule.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is reviewing, for consistency with the Administration's policies and Executive Orders, the final rule that published on January 16, 2025 to designate Papahānaumokuākea National Marine Sanctuary (PNMS). The designation and regulations for PNMS became effective on March 3, 2025.
The final rule to designate PNMS, which was published at 90 FR 4856 on January 16, 2025, became effective March 3, 2025.
Eric Roberts, Papahānaumokuākea National Marine Sanctaury Superintendent, at
Pursuant to Section 304(b) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) (16 U.S.C. 1434(b)(1)), a sanctuary designation and its regulations become effective following the close of a review period of 45 days of continuous session of Congress beginning on the date of publication of the final rule. For PNMS, the final rule published on January 16, 2025, and by operation of NMSA Section 304(b), the designation and regulations became effective as of March 3, 2025.
NOAA is reviewing the final rule for this designation for consistency with the Administration's policies and Executive Orders, including Executive Order 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative.
Administrative practice and procedure; Coastal zone; Cultural resources; Environmental; Protection; Fishing; Historic preservation; Marine protected areas; Marine resources; Natural resources; National marine sanctuaries; Penalties; Recreation and recreation areas; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Shipwrecks; Wildlife.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services.
Final rule.
In the January 17, 2025, issue of the
As of March 20, 2025, the effective dates of the final rules amending 21 CFR part 1306 and 42 CFR part 12 published in the
Heather Achbach, Regulatory Drafting and Policy Support Section, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Telephone: (571) 776-3882.
On January 17, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published two final rules titled “Expansion of Buprenorphine Treatment via Telemedicine Encounter” (90 FR 6504) and “Continuity of Care via Telemedicine for Veterans Affairs Patients” (90 FR 6523). These rules, respectively, amended their regulations to expand the circumstances under which: (1) practitioners registered by DEA are authorized to prescribe schedule III-V controlled substances approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of opioid use disorder via a telemedicine encounter, including an audio-only telemedicine encounter
On January 20, 2025, the President of the United States issued a memorandum to all executive departments and agencies titled “Regulatory Freeze
In the preamble to that rule, DEA explained that the “new effective dates will not delay or limit the ability of the practitioners covered by these two rules to prescribe via telemedicine, because the `Temporary Extension of COVID-19 Telemedicine Flexibilities for Prescription of Controlled Medications,' which has been in effect since May 10, 2023, permits practitioners to prescribe via telemedicine through December 31, 2025.”
DEA solicited public comment regarding the delayed effective dates of these two final rules. DEA also solicited public comment on whether there may be a need for their effective dates to be extended beyond the new effective date of March 21, 2025, and to address issues of fact, law, and policy raised by these rules, for consideration by officials of the two agencies. DEA received a total of 32 comments. Of the 32 comments received, three commenters specifically requested a further delay in the effective date of the two final rules and 13 commenters requested that the final rules become effective as soon as possible. Since a new effective date will not delay or limit the ability of the practitioners covered by these two rules to prescribe via telemedicine, because the `Temporary Extension of COVID-19 Telemedicine Flexibilities for Prescription of Controlled Medications permits practitioners to prescribe via telemedicine through December 31, 2025, and to allow DOJ additional time to further review any questions of fact, law, and policy that the rules may raise, DEA and HHS will further delay the effective date of the two final rules published in the January 17, 2025, issue of the
DEA received 32 comments in response to the request for comments regarding the effective date of the two final rules in the January 17, 2025, issue of the
Three commenters explicitly requested that the effective date be delayed beyond March 21, 2025; however, these comments did not provide an alternative effective date for these two final rules. Four commenters generally agreed with the final rules without specifying a preference with respect to their effective dates. Eleven commenters expressed concerns unrelated to the effective date. One commenter provided general comments but did not respond with respect to the delayed effective date.
Based on the foregoing reasons, DEA and HHS are further delaying the effective date of the two final rules published in the January 17, 2025, issue of the
Change to the effective date of these final rules does not affect the economic impact calculated in the final rules. Per Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4, analysis is conducted on a time frame which includes all important benefits and costs, and such time frame generally begins at the point when the final rule is expected to begin to have effects.
The change to the effective date has no change on the analysis conducted in this section in these two rules. This document merely effectuates a limited delay in the effective dates of two rules, previously scheduled to take effect March 21, 2025. There is no change to the substance of these two final rules.
The change to the effective date has no change on the analysis conducted in this section in the final rules.
The change to the effective date has no change on the analysis conducted in this section in the final rules.
This document 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 document does not have federalism implications warranting the application of E.O. 13132. The document does 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.
DEA and HHS are committed to the principles of collaboration and consultation with Tribal governments, as demonstrated through its plans to
The estimated annual impact of this notice is minimal. Thus, DEA and HHS have determined in accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on March 19, 2025, by Acting Administrator Derek Maltz. 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
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is altering the operating regulations and signaling requirements that govern the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 3.5, over the Sandusky Bay.
This rule is effective April 23, 2025.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth Coast Guard District; telephone 216-902-6085, email
The Coast Guard published an NPRM on May 8, 2023, entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sandusky Bay, Sandusky, OH in the
In addition to modernizing the regulation, this final rule will address two specific concerns of the Coast Guard as they relate to the operation of the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 3.5, and the responsiveness of drawtenders to marine traffic. The Coast Guard has received several complaints on the operations of the bridge, including, specifically, that the remote drawtender ignores telephone and radio calls from mariners. Sandusky Bay hosts over 12,000 registered recreational vessels a year and is home to the busiest amusement park in America. Federal, State, Local, and commercial search and rescue departments require dependable access to the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 3.5, to reach emergencies on both sides of Sandusky Bay. Emergency responders and the greater public need a simple, reliable, and consistent method for requesting bridge openings.
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
Of the two comments received from bridge owner, Norfolk Southern, one comment requested an extension to the comment period and the other comment was in opposition to many aspects of the proposed rule.
Norfolk Southern's position outlined in their comment makes train operations paramount to all other considerations. The intent of this regulation, as well as the Coast Guard's broader congressionally mandated duty to regulate the operation of bridges, is simple: to provide for the reasonable needs of navigation at the bridge.
Norfolk Southern alleges that we have failed to engage them on this issue before starting a rulemaking. On the contrary, we have engaged Norfolk Southern each time a mariner reports an unreasonable delay to a bridge opening and have reiterated the need for prompt openings and improved communication with the public. We have also conveyed this need at regularly scheduled monthly meetings with Norfolk Southern where we have continually asserted the long-standing legal requirement to provide timely bridge openings to satisfy the reasonable needs of navigation. We have also provided Norfolk Southern notice and reasonable opportunity to be heard through the present NPRM.
Norfolk Southern asserted that the Coast Guard's bridge regulations and requirements will jeopardize the safety of train crews and equipment. The Coast Guard disagrees. Railroads across the country operate trains over movable bridges every day without loss of life or equipment. There is no evidence that Norfolk Southern is at a disadvantage to any competitor in the region or that Norfolk Southern will suffer any decreased ability to cross bridges safely
Norfolk Southern also asserts that the Coast Guard's regulatory actions improperly violate or pre-empt bridge regulations of other federal agencies. However, the Coast Guard's authority to regulate bridges has been well established since at least 1894 and those authorities have been recognized by Congress in 33 U.S.C. 499. This regulation is squarely within long-standing Coast Guard authority and does not conflict with the authorities of any other federal agency.
A reasonable balance between modes of transportation must be maintained. The mechanism for balancing respective need is found within federal statutes. Consistent with their delegated authority in 33 CFR 1.05-1(e), in 33 CFR part 117 subpart B, the Coast Guard District Commander has created permanent specific requirements for operation of individual drawbridges that are in addition to or vary from existing general bridge regulations found in 33 CFR part 117, subpart A.
Norfolk Southern alleges that this rule impermissibly regulates employment of “wind blocker” rail cars, which are rails cars which are occasionally parked on bridges to block high winds in an effort to provide protection to moving trains running on parallel tracks. However, the Coast Guard implements this rule to prevent unreasonable obstructions to maritime navigation. All trains, including trains utilized as wind blockers, can present unreasonable delays to maritime navigation when they are not removed in a timely fashion. Therefore, if Norfolk Southern maintains the capacity for timely removal when a vessel signals for a bridge opening, then Norfolk Southern may place a wind blocker on the bridge anytime they wish. In the alternative, if Norfolk Southern wants to remove the train crew and operate the bridge with a deviation to open with advance notice, that deviation must be listed in 33 CFR part 117 subpart B, or they must first receive a temporary letter of authorization from the Coast Guard District Commander.
The most readily apparent problem at mechanical bridges is communication breakdowns. Whether the breakdowns are between the mariners and the drawtenders, or between the drawtenders and the train dispatchers, communications require improvement to ensure timely bridge openings. The placement of appropriate signage advising the public of means of communication with drawtenders at bridges where there are high volumes of recreational boaters, the required use of telephones by drawtenders at bridges, and the continuous review of remote bridge operations are all positive steps towards enhanced bridge operations, which both ensure the right of navigation on waterways while providing for efficient land transportation.
At Norfolk Southern's request, we will rescind the permanent deviation allowing them to use a wind blocker that was included in the NPRM. This will require Norfolk Southern to provide the Ninth District Commander's staff a request, in writing and in accordance with 33 CFR 117.35, for any temporary deviation to the bridge regulations. These requests may be made electronically to the Ninth District Bridge Manager: Mr. W. Blair Stanifer, email
The bridge is remotely operated by the drawtender at the Toledo bridge, that is already required to maintain and answer a telephone. That number will be made available to the boaters of Sandusky Bay to call to request a bridge opening. Additionally, because the remote drawtender in Toledo operates three bridges, the new signage at the bridge will state the name of the bridge to improve boaters' ability to identify the bridge from which they are requesting an opening.
The drawtender will still be responsible for receiving visual and sound signals from vessels as required in 33 CFR 117, and by radio telephone as required in the original remote operations authorization, but the addition of a telephone as an approved means of communications will make requesting bridge openings easier because the ease of use in mobile telephone devices is more popular than marine band radios.
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.
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. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the bridge given advance notice.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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 did not receive any comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. 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 bridge 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 contact 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-
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this 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.
We did not receive any comments from 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 did not receive any comments from State, local, or Tribal governments.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series) which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The Coast Guard has 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 promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges and is categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph L49, of Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, Table 1, and Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementation Procedures.
Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum for the Record are required for this rule.
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and DHS Delegation No. 00170.1. Revision No. 01.3.
The draw of the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 3.5, is remotely operated, and is required, in addition to the other signals, to operate a radiotelephone and telephone and shall open on signal; except from October 31 through March 31 when it will open on signal if provided a 12-hours advance notice of arrival.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to the State of New York's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) related to a Source-specific SIP (SSSIP) revision for Knowlton Technologies LLC, located at 213 Factory Street, Watertown, New York (the Facility). The control options in this SSSIP revision address volatile organic compound (VOC) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for the Facility source identified as two 10,000-gallon underground storage tanks holding virgin methanol. This action is being taken in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for implementation of the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA proposed to approve this rule on November 26, 2024, and received no comments. This final action will not interfere with ozone NAAQS requirements and meets all applicable requirements of the CAA.
This final rule is effective on April 23, 2025.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2024-0042. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Linda Longo, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866, at (212) 637-3565, or by email at
A SSSIP revision was submitted to the EPA by the State of New York on February 22, 2023, for Knowlton Technologies LLC, located at 213 Factory Street, Watertown, New York (the Facility), and it replaces and withdraws the SSSIP that was submitted
The EPA is determining through this final action that the VOC RACT emission limits included in the February 22, 2023, SSSIP revision are demonstrated to be RACT for the two underground storage tanks. The underground storage tanks have the lowest emission limits with the application of control technology that are reasonably available given the technological and economic feasibility considerations. Furthermore, the VOC RACT emission limits for the underground storage tanks comply with the New York State regulations, 6 NYCRR part 212, “Process Operations,” subpart 212-3, “Reasonably Available Control Technology for Major Facilities,” last approved into New York's SIP by the EPA on October 1, 2021,
The specific details of New York's SIP submittals and the rationale for the EPA's approval action are explained in the EPA's proposed rulemaking and are not restated in this final action. For this detailed information, the reader is referred to the EPA's November 26, 2024, proposed rulemaking.
The EPA provided a 45-day review and comment period for the November 26, 2024, proposed rulemaking. The comment period ended on January 10, 2025. We received no comments on the EPA's action.
The EPA is approving the SSSIP revision because the limits included in the SSSIP are demonstrated to implement RACT for the two 10,000-gallon underground storage tanks holding virgin methanol. Based on information provided by NYSDEC, a review of similar sources, and an analysis of the February 22, 2023, SSSIP revision, the EPA is approving the VOC emission limits for the two tanks as implementing RACT.
Specifically, the EPA is approving the following limits and associated requirements as implementing RACT: the Facility must: (1) Limit VOC emissions by restricting the methanol throughput to 2,500,000 pounds/year with a 12-month rolling total; (2) maintain monthly records to verify the throughput in support of a 12-month rolling total; (3) upon any increase in throughput beyond 2,500,000 pounds/year, submit a VOC RACT demonstration that implements RACT at the higher methanol throughput rate.
In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Knowlton Technologies VOC case-by-case RACT limit described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 as discussed in section I. of this preamble. These documents are available in the docket of this rulemaking through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 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);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and it 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 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 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 May 23, 2025. 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, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting, Recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile organic compound.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(d) * * *
National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Final rule; further delay of effective date.
On January 16, 2025, the Department of Health and Human Services published a final rule to make effective the exemptions that were previously proposed for a new Privacy Act system of records, “NIH Police Records,” maintained by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), from certain requirements of the Act. That final rule was originally scheduled to take effect on February 18, 2025. Subsequently, the effective date was delayed until March 21, 2025, in response to the memorandum titled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” issued by the President on January 20, 2025. This notice further delays the effective date until May 5, 2025.
As of March 21, 2025, the effective date of the final rule published on January 16, 2025 (90 FR 4673), delayed until March 21, 2025 (90 FR 9844), is further delayed until May 5, 2025.
Dustin Close, Office of Management Assessment, National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 601, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, telephone 301-402-6469, email
On January 16, 2025, HHS issued a final rule (90 FR 4673) to make effective the exemptions that were proposed (89 FR 48536) for a new Privacy Act system of records maintained by NIH from certain requirements of the Act. The new system of records covers criminal and non-criminal law enforcement investigatory material maintained by the NIH Division of Police, a component of NIH which performs criminal law enforcement as its principal function. The exemptions are necessary and appropriate to protect the integrity of law enforcement proceedings and records compiled during the course of NIH Division of Police activities, prevent disclosure of investigative techniques, and protect the identity of confidential sources involved in those activities.
On January 20, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued a memorandum titled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” (90 FR 8249) that instructs Federal agencies to consider delaying the effective date of rules published in the
The effective date of that final rule, which would have been March 21, 2025, is now May 5, 2025.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) modifies its existing call blocking rules. Specifically, the Commission requires all domestic voice service providers to block based on a reasonable do-not-originate (DNO) list. Second, it requires voice service providers to return Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) code 603+ when calls are blocked based on reasonable analytics.
Effective March 25, 2026, except for the amendment to 47 CFR 64.1200(o) which are delayed indefinitely. The amendments to 47 CFR 64.1200(o) will become effective following publication
Jerusha Burnett, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, email at
This is a summary of the Commission's
To request this document in accessible formats for people with disabilities (
This document contains new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. This document will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the new or modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding.
The Commission sent a copy of the
1. In this Report and Order, the Commission strengthens its call blocking and robocall mitigation rules in key areas. First, the Commission expands its requirement to block calls based on a reasonable do-not-originate (DNO) list to include all U.S.-based providers in the call path. The Commission next establishes Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) code 603+ as the exclusive code to notify callers when calls on internet Protocol (IP) networks are blocked based on reasonable analytics to better correct erroneous blocking.
2. The Commission adopts its proposal to require all providers in the call path to block calls that are highly likely to be illegal based on a reasonable DNO list. Requiring all providers to block using a reasonable DNO list ensures that this type of blocking protects all voice customers. Even if some providers use more limited lists that are nonetheless reasonable, either out of concern that lawful calls may be blocked or because of technical limitations, consumers will be better protected because other providers in the call path may use more extensive lists, or even slightly different lists. The Commission therefore agrees with commenters that broadly support extension of the DNO blocking requirement to all voice service providers. The Commission makes this requirement effective 90 days after publication of a notice of Office of Management and Budget approval in the
3. While the Commission agrees with USTelecom that many providers already block based on such lists, it disagrees with it that this makes a mandate unnecessary. Requiring more providers to block based on a DNO list will ensure that more consumers are protected from illegal calls. Further, the Commission is unpersuaded that any potential inefficiencies that stem from requiring all providers to block based on a reasonable DNO list outweigh the potential benefits. A provider may implement this requirement in whatever method makes sense for its network, so long as the list is applied to all calls that transit the provider's network. The Commission also declines to adopt a safe harbor for blocking based on a reasonable DNO list, as Cloud Communications Alliance suggests, because it is unclear what liability a provider would face for blocking based on a such a list and the Commission is unaware of any provider facing such liability since the Commission first authorized this blocking in 2017.
4.
5. Consistent with the Commission's rule, it does not adopt a single uniform list or establish a minimum list. Providers must constantly update DNO lists, especially if they include unused numbers that could go into use at any time, and there is not currently a standardized way to ensure that these updates would happen in real time for all providers. While this is true of either a centralized list or a provider-maintained list, a provider-maintained list may, for example, include only unused numbers assigned to that provider and automate number drop-off upon putting the number into use—or simply leave off these numbers if they cannot reasonably do so. Additionally, as Neustar notes, some voice service providers may have “limitations in the number of DNO numbers that they can use” due to “older or less capable networking equipment.” A provider-selected list better accounts for this issue than a uniform list, and technical limitations provide a valid reason for some numbers to be excluded. The Commission also recognizes that providers know their own networks and may be better positioned to determine what types of numbers should be prioritized. By contrast, a central list would need to include rules prioritizing particular numbers across the U.S. network, which may not be the best
6. The Commission therefore disagrees with commenters who argue that it should adopt a uniform list or establish a minimum list, require a more comprehensive list, or “set the criteria for inbound-only numbers to be the same as for government inbound-only numbers.” Because of the potential technological limitations discussed above, the Commission declines to mandate a more extensive list at this time. The Commission also maintains its previous approach, which allows providers to exercise discretion as to what numbers they include on their lists, so long as the list includes, at a minimum: (1) “any inbound-only government numbers where the government entity has requested the number be included;” and (2) “private inbound-only numbers that have been used in imposter scams, when a request is made by the private entity assigned such a number.” Providers may, of course, include inbound-only numbers that have not been used in imposter scams if they are capable of doing so.
7. Moreover, while Somos correctly notes that “the more comprehensive the DNO list . . . the more spoofed calls that will be blocked before reaching the intended victim,” the Commission finds that the burden of requiring all providers, including smaller providers, to use an expansive DNO list is unnecessary at this time. This is particularly true when all other providers in the call path must block. Some providers will use or already use these more expansive lists, and a single call will often pass through several networks on its path to the recipient. As a result, many consumers will be protected by these more comprehensive lists even when one provider in the call path uses a more restricted list. The Commission recommends that providers, when technically feasible, use a more comprehensive list to safeguard even more consumers.
8. The Commission modifies its requirement for terminating providers to provide immediate notification to callers when calls are blocked based on reasonable analytics. The Commission now requires the exclusive use of SIP code 603+ for this purpose on IP networks. The Commissions directs providers that block based on reasonable analytics to return SIP code 603+. This will ensure that callers learn when and why their calls are blocked based on reasonable analytics, which in turn will allow these callers to access redress when blocking errors occur. The Commission clarifies that this requirement only applies when providers block calls based on analytics; the Commission does not require providers to provide immediate notification when blocking based on a DNO list, pursuant to Commission notification if not based on analytics, or at the request of a customer without the use of analytics. As required by the Commission's rules, the Commission directs all providers to perform necessary software upgrades to ensure the codes it requires for such notification are appropriately mapped. Providers must ensure that calls that transit over Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) and IP networks return an appropriate code when calls are blocked based on an analytics program, and the correct ISUP code for this purpose remains 21. The Commission further directs voice service providers to cease using the standard version of SIP code 603, or SIP codes 607 or 608, for this purpose.
9.
10. The record demonstrates that SIP code 603+ will provide more information to providers more quickly than SIP code 608, and likely at lower cost to providers. While both SIP codes 603+ and 608 could ultimately provide the information callers need, commenters disagree as to whether SIP code 603+ or 608 is the best code for this purpose. Despite the contention by some commenters that some providers currently use SIP code 608, it appears a limited number of providers use it for a limited number of calls and without the jCard. In the SIP code 608 specification, the jCard is an optional feature but it is necessary to provide information such as the identity of the blocking provider and redress information. As a result, current uses of SIP code 608 tell a caller that a call was blocked based on analytics but not which provider blocked the call or how to file a dispute. Therefore, while SIP code 608 provides callers with the basic information that a call is blocked, it provides minimal actionable information. USTelecom notes that currently very few providers have implemented SIP code 608, which means that, when a caller receives a 608, there is a limited list of providers that may have blocked the call; it further notes that broader deployment will make identifying the blocking provider significantly more difficult, especially in cases where SIP Code 608 may be used by non-terminating providers. Some commenters argue that implementing the jCard would take a significant amount of time—even years. By contrast, SIP code 603+ is not currently in use, but can provide the same information without the complexity of the jCard; furthermore, since it builds on an existing code, it appears to be substantially less technically complex to implement.
11. SIP code 603+ builds on SIP code 603, which is already in use in the network and is different from it in a few key ways. First, instead of the status line reading “Decline” as in the standard SIP code 603, 603+ will read “Network Blocked.” This provides immediate, standardized information to originating providers and callers that the code is being used to indicate analytics-based blocking. Additionally, ATIS has standardized the reason header to define and require text fields that indicate blocking is based on analytics, as well as contact information for redress. This contains significantly more information than that provided by SIP code 608 without the use of the optional jCard, and at least comparable to what that code would provide if fully implemented with the jCard.
12. Commenters are correct that SIP code 603 was not originally intended for use as a notification for blocking. Indeed, when it was originally established, analytics-based blocking as we currently know it did not exist. And the Commission agrees with commenters that it has characterized the use of SIP code 603 as a temporary measure to satisfy the TRACED Act requirement to provide transparency
13. The Commission disagrees with commenters who argue that SIP code 608 is the more appropriate code because it is more readily accessible and easier for callers to analyze. The Commission understands that caller equipment may need to be modified to look for the text in the status line, rather than simply the number of the code, and that system changes may need to be done to read the text fields that include redress information. The Commission is not convinced that this is a particularly challenging hurdle for callers to overcome, however. The status line that includes the numerical code, whether 603 or 608, also includes the reason phrase (in the case of 603+, “Network Blocked”). While software may not currently be configured to read this reason phrase, commenters do not make a clear case that this software cannot be reconfigured. Indeed, at least one group of caller commenters appears to believe that such reconfiguration is possible and specifically supports the use of SIP code 603+, citing the “Network Blocked” portion of the status line, among other factors, as evidence it will work for their needs. Additionally, implementation of SIP code 603+ will make specific redress information available to callers, which should significantly reduce, if not eliminate, the current need for callers to invest significant time into investigation and outreach in order to initiate redress with the correct provider. Moreover, if SIP code 608 were implemented with the jCard to provide this information, callers would presumably also need to make modifications to read the information provided by the jCard. Therefore, use of either code would appear to require some investment by callers. The Commission therefore expects that most high-volume callers will choose to modify their equipment to recognize SIP code 603+ and have sufficient incentive to do so.
14. As part of the Commission's requirement for voice service providers to return SIP code 603+, the Commission clarifies that all providers in the call path must transmit the appropriate code to the origination point of the call, including ensuring that SIP code 603+ maps appropriately to ISUP code 21. Similarly, any IP provider that receives SIP code 603+ must ensure it transmits the full header, including all mandatory text fields established in the standard.
15.
16. The Commission also directs providers to cease using SIP codes 603, 607, and 608 when calls are blocked using analytics once they have implemented 603+ and in no instance later than 12 months from publication of this Order in the
17. Providers may continue to use SIP code 603 where otherwise appropriate, but not for analytics-based blocking except when an intermediate or terminating providers receive ISUP code 21 and cannot reasonably determine whether SIP code 603 or 603+ is appropriate. SIP code 607 may be used for its intended purpose: to indicate that a call was blocked at the subscriber's direction without the use of analytics. Because the Commission requires immediate notification only when providers block based on reasonable analytics, it declines to mandate the use of SIP code 607. The Commission therefore disagrees with the commenter that urges it to require use of SIP code 607. While this information may be valuable to some callers, comments in previous proceedings indicate that there may be privacy concerns with its use. At this time, the Commission finds that these concerns outweigh the potential benefits and therefore decline to mandate the use of SIP code 607.
18.
19. The Commission declines to require the display of caller name information when a provider chooses to display an indication that caller ID has been authenticated. Although the Commission does not adopt such a mandate, it urges providers to continue to develop next-generation tools, such as Rich Call Data (RCD) and branded calling solutions, to ensure that consumers receive this information and welcome any updates industry has on its progress. The Commission notes that
20. Though the Commission declines to adopt a mandate at this time, it nonetheless believes that displaying caller name or other enhanced call information, once a reliable solution is available, will provide significant benefit to consumers, particularly when combined with an indication that caller ID has been authenticated. The Commission therefore strongly encourages industry to develop and standardize tools to ensure that this information is provided to consumers without additional charge to the call recipient. The Commission is concerned that, absent this information, an indication that caller ID has been authenticated provides little actionable information to consumers and may provide consumers with a false sense of security. The Commission intends to continue monitoring developments in this area in order to take action as appropriate in the future.
21. The Commission's legal authority for the rules it adopts today stems from sections 201(b), 202(a), and 251(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), as well as from the Truth in Caller ID Act, and the TRACED Act. These sections have formed the basis for much of the Commission's work to combat illegal calls. In particular, sections 201(b) and 202(a) grant the Commission broad authority to adopt rules governing just and reasonable practices of common carriers.
22. The Commission's authority under section 251(e)(1) provides independent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of U.S. North American Numbering Plan (NANP) resources. This is particularly relevant to the rules the Commission adopts today that require blocking based on a reasonable DNO list, where there is no legitimate reason for the caller to use the number. Similarly, the Truth in Caller ID Act grants the Commission authority to prescribe rules to make unlawful the spoofing of caller ID information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain something of value, and provides us authority to require blocking based on a reasonable DNO list where the number has clearly been spoofed.
23. Section 10(b) of the TRACED Act directs the Commission to ensure that providers are transparent about blocking and give both consumers and callers effective redress for erroneous blocking. It provides authority for the Commission's designation of SIP code 603+ as the appropriate code for immediate notification of callers when calls are blocked based on reasonable analytics. The Commission adopted its original immediate notification requirement based on the authority of that section. The Commission now simply modify that requirement to ensure that callers receive greater transparency.
24. The record supports the Commission's conclusion that the actions it takes now to strengthen its rules will yield benefits to consumers that exceed the costs of their implementation. The Commission previously estimated that illegal and unwanted calls cost consumers $13.5 billion annually. Even if the actions the Commission takes now to strengthen its rules eliminate only a small fraction of these unwanted and fraudulent calls, the benefits will be substantial and will outweigh the costs.
25.
26.
27. Additionally, requiring providers to use SIP code 603+ for immediate notification to callers of analytics-based blocking is less technically complex than other potential solutions, and thus likely minimizes the costs of implementation for providers. SIP code 603+ builds on an existing code and thus requires less development than adoption of a new release code. In addition, voice service providers have 12 months after the publication of this Report and Order in the
28. Although the record is sparse, the new requirements in this Report and Order to reduce illegal calls can likely be implemented at a relatively modest cost. Given that unwanted and illegal calls reduce public welfare by billions of dollars annually, even a small percentage reduction in those will generate benefits that exceed the costs of the new rules.
29. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the
30. The
31. Although the Commission did not receive comments specifically addressing the IRFA in the
32. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
33. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
34.
35. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2022, there were approximately 530,109 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
36. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2022 Census of Governments indicate there were 90,837 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number, there were 36,845 general purpose governments (county, municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 11,879 special purpose governments (independent school districts) with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, the Commission estimates that at least 48,724 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”
37.
38. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51. The
52. The rules adopted in
53. Although small and other entities will incur costs to implement the requirements of the
54. The RFA requires an agency to provide, “a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.”
55. In the
56. In addition to the blocking requirements, the
57. The Commission will send a copy of the
58. It is ordered that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201, 202, 217, 227, 251(e), 301, 303, 307, 316, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 201, 202, 217, 227, 251(e), 301, 303, 307, 316, and 403, this
59. It is further ordered that the revisions to § 64.1200(o) shall be effective 90 days after publication of a notice of Office of Management and Budget approval in the
Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220, 222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 255, 262, 276, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 716, 1401-1473, unless otherwise noted; Pub. L. 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091; Pub. L. 117-338, 136 Stat. 6156.
(k)(9) Any terminating provider that blocks calls based on any analytics program, either itself or through a third-party blocking service, must immediately return, and all voice service providers in the call path must transmit, an appropriate response code to the origination point of the call. For purposes of this rule, an appropriate response code is:
(i) In the case of a call terminating on an IP network, the use of Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) code 603+, as defined in ATIS-1000099, adopted August 16, 2022;
(ii) In the case of a call terminating on a non-IP network, the use of ISDN User Part (ISUP) code 21 with the cause location “user”;
(iii) In the case of a code transmitting from an IP network to a non-IP network, SIP code 603+ must map to ISUP code 21; and
(iv) In the case of a code transmitting from a non-IP network to an IP network, ISUP code 21 must map to SIP code 603 or 603+ where the cause location is “user.”
(o) A voice service provider must block any calls purporting to originate from a number on a reasonable do-not-originate list. A list so limited in scope that it leaves out obvious numbers that could be included with little effort may be deemed unreasonable. The do-not-originate list may include only:
(1) Numbers for which the subscriber to the number has requested that calls purporting to originate from that number be blocked because the number is used for inbound calls only;
(2) North American Numbering Plan numbers that are not valid;
(3) Valid North American Numbering Plan Numbers that are not allocated to a provider by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator; and
(4) Valid North American Numbering Plan numbers that are allocated to a provider by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator, but are unused, so long as the provider blocking the calls is the allocatee of the number and confirms that the number is unused or has obtained verification from the allocatee that the number is unused at the time of blocking.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements an accountability measure (AM) for the recreational harvest of gag in South Atlantic Federal waters. NMFS reduces the length of the 2025 recreational fishing season for gag to prevent landings from exceeding the recreational annual catch limit (ACL) as occurred in 2024. Accordingly, NMFS announces the adjusted closure date for the recreational harvest of gag in South Atlantic Federal waters to protect the gag resource.
This temporary rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. on June 26, 2025, through December 31, 2025.
Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes gag and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and NMFS, was approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and is implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). All weights in this temporary rule are in gutted weight.
Regulations at 50 CFR 622.193(c)(2) specify the 2025 recreational ACL for gag of 176,665 pounds (80,134 kilograms) and the recreational AMs. The recreational AM at 50 CFR 622.193(b)(2)(ii) states that if recreational landings of gag exceed its ACL, then NMFS will reduce the recreational fishing season during the following fishing year to prevent recreational landings from again exceeding the recreational ACL. NMFS is reducing the length of the 2025 recreational season to prevent landings from exceeding the recreational ACL, because this condition was met in 2024.
The recreational season for gag will start on May 1, 2025. Data from the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center have informed NMFS' projection that recreational landings will reach the recreational ACL for 2025 by June 26. Therefore, NMFS announces that the 2025 recreational season for gag in South Atlantic Federal waters will be closed beginning on June 26 and will continue to be closed through December 31, 2025. During the recreational closure, the bag and possession limits for gag in or from South Atlantic Federal waters are zero. The next recreational fishing season for gag begins on May 1, 2026.
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 622.193(c)(2)(ii), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment is unnecessary. Such procedure is unnecessary because the rule that established the recreational AMs for gag has already been subject to public notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the adjusted end date of the recreational season. Additionally, providing as much
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; recreational fishing season.
NMFS announces that the recreational fishing season for black sea bass in South Atlantic Federal waters will extend throughout the 2025-2026 recreational fishing year. Announcing the length of the recreational fishing season for black sea bass is one of the accountability measures (AMs) for the recreational sector. This announcement allows recreational fishers to maximize their opportunity to harvest the recreational annual catch limit (ACL) for black sea bass while NMFS manages harvest to protect the black sea bass resource.
This temporary rule is effective from April 23, 2025, through March 31, 2026.
Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery includes black sea bass south of 35°15.19′ N latitude, which is due east of Cape Hatteras Light, North Carolina, and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and NMFS prepared the FMP, the FMP was approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and NMFS implements the FMP through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Black sea bass is not managed by the FMP or regulated by 50 CFR part 622 north of 35°15.19′ N latitude in South Atlantic Federal waters, the latitude of Cape Hatteras Light, North Carolina; black sea bass north of 35°15.19′ N latitude is regulated by 50 CFR part 648.
The recreational fishing year for black sea bass is April 1 through March 31. One of the recreational AMs for black sea bass requires that before the April 1 start date of each recreational fishing year, NMFS will project the length of the recreational fishing season based on when NMFS projects recreational landings of black sea bass will reach its ACL, and announce the recreational season end date in the
The recreational ACL for black sea bass during the 2025-2026 fishing year is 310,602 pounds (lb) or 140,887 kilograms (kg) in gutted weight, or 366,510 lb (166,246 kg) in round weight [50 CFR 622.193(e)(2)].
NMFS estimates that recreational landings of black sea bass during the 2025-2026 fishing year will be less than the 2025-2026 recreational ACL. To make this determination, NMFS compared recreational landings of black sea bass in the last 3 fishing years with available data (2021-2022 through 2023-2024) to the recreational ACL for the 2025-2026 fishing year. Recreational landings in each of these past 3 fishing years have been less than the 2025-2026 recreational ACL, and NMFS expects similar landings for the 2025-2026 fishing season. Therefore, because NMFS projects that the recreational landings of black sea bass will be less than the 2025-2026 recreational ACL, NMFS does not expect to close the recreational harvest of black sea bass during the fishing year. Accordingly, the season end date for the recreational harvest of black sea bass in South Atlantic Federal waters is March 31, 2026.
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 622.193(e)(2), issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment is unnecessary. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule establishing the recreational AM has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is for NMFS to notify the public of the recreational season length.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; technical correction.
This document contains technical corrections to a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-112261-24) that was published in the
March 24, 2025.
Justin R. Du Mouchel at (202) 317-6975 (not a toll-free number).
The notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-112261-24) that was published in the
Accordingly, FR Document 2025-00321 (REG-112261-24), appearing on page 5220 in the
1. On page 5235, in the first column, in the first full paragraph, in the twelfth line from the top of the paragraph, the language “two taxable years” is corrected to read “two consecutive taxable years”.
2. On page 5235, in the first column, in the second full paragraph, in the fifteenth and sixteenth lines from the top of the paragraph, the language “two taxable years” is corrected to read “two consecutive taxable years”.
3. On page 5246, in the first column, in the first full paragraph, in the seventh and eighth lines from the top of the paragraph, the language “proposed proposed § 1.361-5(c)(3)(iii)” is corrected to read “proposed § 1.361-5(c)(3)(iii)”.
4. On page 5246, in the first column, in the first full paragraph, in the twenty-fifth line from the top of the paragraph, the language “corporatrion” is corrected to read “corporation”.
5. On page 5247, in the second column, in the first full paragraph, the fifth line from the top of the paragraph, the language “ending on the control distribution date” is corrected to read “before its satisfaction with section 361 consideration”.
6. On page 5248, in the first column, in the first full paragraph, in the fifth and sixth lines from the top of the paragraph, the language “ending on the control distribution date” is corrected to read “before its satisfaction with section 361 consideration”.
7. On page 5248, in the first column, in the first full paragraph, in the tenth line from the top of the paragraph, the language “ending on control distribution” is corrected to read “before its satisfaction with section 361 consideration”.
8. On page 5248, in the first column, in the fourth full paragraph, in the sixteenth and seventeenth lines from the top of the paragraph, the language “ending on the control distribution date” is corrected to read “before its satisfaction with section 361 consideration”.
9. On page 5254, in the second column, in the first full paragraph, in the seventh line from the top of the paragraph, the language “hade” is corrected to read “had”.
10. On page 5255, in the first column, in the fourth line from the bottom of the page, the language “tothe” is corrected to read “to the”.
11. On page 5256, in the second column, in the first full paragraph, in the fifth line from the top of the paragraph, following the words “
16. On page 5281, in the third column, in paragraph (e)(3)(vi), in the fourth and fifth lines from the top of the paragraph, the language “ending on the control distribution date” is corrected to read “before its satisfaction with section 361 consideration”.
17. On page 5282, in the second column, in paragraph (e)(4)(ii)(B)(
18. On page 5282, in the second column, in paragraph (e)(4)(ii)(B)(
19. On page 5282, in the third column, in paragraph (e)(4)(iii)(B), the fourth line from the top of the paragraph, the language “ending on the control distribution date” is corrected to read “before its satisfaction with section 361 consideration”.
20. On page 5283, in the second column, in paragraph (g)(1)(i), in the seventeenth line from the bottom of the paragraph, the language “Subsidary” is corrected to read “Subsidiary”.
21. On page 5285, in the first column, in paragraph (g)(6)(ii), in the eleventh line from the bottom of the paragraph, the language “creditorexchange” is corrected to read “creditor exchange”.
22. On page 5285, in the second column, in paragraph (g)(7)(ii), in the eleventh line from the bottom of the paragraph, the language “creditorexchange” is corrected to read “creditor exchange”.
23. On page 5285, in the third column, in paragraph (g)(8)(i)(B), in the fourth line from the bottom of the paragraph, the language “ending on the distribution date” is corrected to read “before its satisfaction with section 361 consideration”.
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense; and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; announcement of listening sessions and solicitation of stakeholder feedback.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army intend to engage with State and Tribal co-regulators; industry and agricultural stakeholders; environmental and conservation stakeholders; and the public on certain key topics related to the implementation of the definition of “waters of the United States” in light of the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in
This notice includes an announcement of forthcoming listening sessions on specific key topic areas to hear interested stakeholders' perspectives on defining “waters of the United States” consistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction and how to implement that interpretation as the agencies consider next steps. The agencies are also accepting written recommendations from members of the public via a recommendations docket. These opportunities are intended to provide for broad, transparent engagement with a full spectrum of stakeholders.
Written recommendations must be received on or before April 23, 2025. Please refer to the
You may send written feedback, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0093, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Stacey Jensen, Oceans, Wetlands and Communities Division, Office of Water (4504-T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2281; email address:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of the Army (“Army”; collectively, “the agencies”) understand that farmers, landowners, and developers across the country have concerns and questions about certain key issues related to the definition of “waters of the United States” following the Supreme Court's decision in
“Waters of the United States” is a threshold term in the Clean Water Act that establishes the geographic scope of federal jurisdiction under the Act.
The “Amended 2023 Rule” refers to the final rule “Revised Definition of `Waters of the United States,' ” 88 FR 3004 (January 18, 2023) (“2023 Rule”) as amended by the rule “Revised Definition of `Waters of the United States'; Conforming,” 88 FR 61964 (September 8, 2023) (“Conforming Rule”) (codified at 33 CFR 328.3 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and 40 CFR 120.2 (EPA)) which was issued without notice and comment under the “good cause” exemption to the Administrative Procedure Act. However, due to ongoing litigation,
On March 12, 2025, the EPA and the Army signed a memorandum providing guidance for implementing the “continuous surface connection” requirement and related issues under both regulatory regimes that are currently in effect across the country. In that memorandum, the agencies stated that they planned to issue a public notice in the
The agencies have heard numerous concerns raised by stakeholders about the Amended 2023 Rule, including implementation-related issues and issues raised in ongoing litigation challenging the amended regulations. The EPA and the Army have heard concerns that the Amended 2023 Rule does not adequately comply with the
To assist the agencies in further clarifying the definition of “waters of the United States,” the agencies welcome feedback on specific key topic areas that can be provided by participating in one of several listening sessions or by submitting written recommendations through the open public docket. This feedback will inform any future administrative actions; however, the agencies will not be providing a specific written response to individual submissions and recommendations. When providing feedback, it will be helpful to the agencies if information is provided to support input on the particular issues described below, such as statutory citations, case law, references to longstanding agency practice, etc. The agencies are seeking input on the following issues:
•
• The agencies seek feedback on whether certain characteristics, such as flow regime, flow duration, or seasonality should inform a definition of “relatively permanent” as well as to which features this phrase should apply to in light of
• The agencies are particularly interested in feedback regarding how to identify “relatively permanent” tributaries in the field to assist with transparent, efficient, and predictable implementation.
•
The preamble to the 2023 Rule states that wetlands and relatively permanent lakes and ponds meet the continuous surface connection requirement if they physically abut or touch a requisite jurisdictional water; if they are connected to a requisite jurisdictional water by a discrete feature like a non-jurisdictional ditch, swale, pipe, or culvert; or if they are behind a natural berm or similar natural landform where that natural landform provides evidence of a continuous surface connection. However, the agencies recently rescinded any components of agency interpretation, guidance, or training materials that assumed a discrete feature established a continuous surface connection to align the agencies' implementation with the pre-2015 regime and
• The agencies seek feedback on defining “continuous surface connection,” including what it means to “abut” a jurisdictional water; if it includes wetlands behind a natural berm or similar natural landforms to the extent the natural landforms provide evidence of a continuous surface connection; and whether certain features, such as flood or tide gates, pumps, or similar artificial features do or do not remove a wetland from being considered “adjacent” to the jurisdictional water on the other side of the feature.
• The agencies specifically seek feedback on the scope of “connection to” as well as to which features this phrase applies, to describe wetlands as adjacent to relatively permanent waters when they have a continuous surface “connection to” those waters.
• The agencies also specifically seek feedback on the interpretation and implementation of the language in
• Under the Amended 2023 Rule, the agencies have defined adjacent as “having a continuous surface connection” and the continuous surface connection requirement applies to both adjacent wetlands and relatively permanent lakes and ponds assessed under paragraph (a)(5). The agencies seek input on the definition of “adjacent” as well as which are the appropriate categories to properly assess using the continuous surface connection requirement.
• The agencies are interested in developing an approach for continuous surface connection that provides for clarity and implementability, including whether there are factors to limit continuous surface connection and whether there are certain characteristics that could provide clear distinctions to meet the continuous surface connection requirement. The agencies are also interested in recommendations for implementation approaches to address continuous surface connection.
•
• The agencies solicit feedback on whether flow regime (
• The agencies also seek input on whether a definition of ditch, as was provided in the 2020 NWPR, which defined ditch to mean a constructed or excavated channel used to convey water,
The agencies will hold a series of listening sessions intended to solicit recommendations as the agencies seek to pursue further administrative action. During these sessions, the agencies intend to present brief background information and provide an opportunity for stakeholders to share input, with regard to the topics above. The agencies will hold at least six listening sessions, with two open to all stakeholders, one open to States, one open to Tribes, one open to industry and agricultural stakeholders, and one open to environmental and conservational stakeholders.
The listening sessions will be held as web and in-person conferences in April-May 2025. Registration instructions and dates will be forthcoming at the following website:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reopening the public comment period on the proposed rule entitled “Air Plan Approval; AK, Fairbanks North Star Borough; 2006 24-hour PM
The comment period for the proposed rule published on January 8, 2025, at 90 FR 1600, is reopened to allow more time to review the proposal and prepare comments. The EPA is reopening the comment period and the comments must be received on or before April 23, 2025.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2024-0595, at
Matthew Jentgen, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue—Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-0340,
On January 8, 2025, the EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking to approve changes to the Alaska State Implementation Plan (90 FR 1600). The changes, submitted by the State of Alaska on December 4, 2024, address Clean Air Act requirements for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM
The January 8, 2025, notice of proposed rulemaking also started the transportation conformity adequacy process for the motor vehicle emissions budgets in Alaska's submitted SIP. As noted in the proposal, the EPA may find budgets adequate before the SIP submission is approved in a final rule, once the public has been provided with a comment period of at least 30 days. The EPA is not reopening the public comment period for the adequacy process, and it intends to proceed with the adequacy process outside of this rulemaking, as described in 40 CFR 93.118(f).
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.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) seeks comment on several proposed updates to broadcast radio and TV rules to better reflect current application processing requirements, clarify ambiguity, and remove references to outdated procedures and legacy filing systems. Such action ensures that the Commission's rules are accurate, reducing potential confusion among the public, applicants, licensees, and practitioners, and alleviating unnecessary burdens.
Comments due on or before April 23, 2025; reply comments due on or before May 8, 2025.
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 24-626, by any of the following methods:
•
•
• Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
• Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
•
For additional information on this proceeding, contact Ariane Rangel, Audio Division, Media Bureau at
This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in MB Docket No. 24-626; FCC 24-126, adopted December 11, 2024, and released December 13, 2024. The full text of this document is available by downloading the text from the Commission's website at:
1. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) adopted on December 11, 2024, and released on December 13, 2024, the Commission seeks comment on proposed revisions to various broadcast radio and television regulations in parts 1, 73, 74 and 76 of the CFR. The NPRM proposes to update rules to better reflect current application processing requirements, clarify and harmonize provisions, and remove references to outdated procedures and legacy filing systems. The NPRM also proposes to clarify certain terms and procedures used in the comparative processes for mutually exclusive (MX) noncommercial educational (NCE) stations and low power FM (LPFM) stations.
2. This NPRM continues our efforts to update broadcast radio and television rules. In the past three decades, the Media Bureau (Bureau) has transitioned from paper-filing to electronic filing, and subsequently transitioned from its initial filing database to a new one. Various rules still reference outdated terms from the Commission's paper-filing processing procedures and discontinued database, and are therefore incompatible with current electronic filing procedures. Additionally, other outdated rules are no longer necessary to ensure administrative efficiency and can result in application processing delays and confusion. This NPRM seeks to update and clarify these rules to better reflect current processing procedures, and improve how the public, applicants, and licensees engage with the Commission.
3. We propose to amend §§ 1.5000(b), 1.5004(d)(2), 1.30001(d), 1.30004(a), 73.202(a), 73.3700(b)(5)(iv), and 76.66(d)(2)(ii) to replace references to the Bureau's Consolidated Database System (CDBS) electronic filing system with references to the Bureau's new Licensing and Management System (LMS) electronic filing system. The Bureau is in the final stage of transitioning from CDBS to LMS. We propose to amend rule sections that mention CDBS to instead refer to LMS. We seek comment on this proposal.
4. We propose to update §§ 73.30(c), 73.45(d)(1), 73.51(c), 73.311(a), 73.512(a), 73.625(c)(4)(i), 73.872(b)(1), 73.875, 73.1670(b), 73.1690(c)(9), 73.3580(d)(2), and 73.5002(b) to update application references. The rules we propose to amend reference outdated form designations used in CDBS, such as “FCC Form 301,” and we propose to update the references to conform to current conventions used in LMS such as “FCC Form 2100, Schedule 301.” For example, FCC Form 301 would become FCC Form 2100, Schedule 301. We seek comment on this proposal and whether other Rules need to be updated to conform to LMS naming conventions.
5. We propose to update inconsistent terminology concerning references to the tables governing FM and TV allotments. Sections 1.401, 1.403, 1.420 and 73.3573 currently use inconsistent terminology to refer to the “Table of FM Allotments” and the “Table of TV Allotments.” Accordingly, we propose to change references in these sections from “FM Table of Allotments” to “Table of FM Allotments” and from “TV Table of Allotments” to “Table of TV Allotments.” In addition, we propose to change references from “FM Table of Assignments” to “Table of FM Allotments” and from “TV Table of Assignments” to “Table of TV Allotments.” These proposed changes are editorial in nature and correspond with the standard language used in §§ 73.202, 73.606 and 73.622. We seek comment on this proposal and whether other Rules should be similarly revised.
6. We propose to eliminate language concerning a cap on the number of applications each applicant could submit in the 2021 NCE FM filing window. Section 73.503(g) (Application Limit) mandates that an NCE FM applicant may file no more than a total of 10 applications in the 2021 NCE FM filing window. This Application Limit was intended for the limited purpose of the 2021 NCE FM filing window, which has passed. Upon resolution and finality of the remaining NCE FM applications, we propose to delegate authority to the Bureau to effectuate this change and remove § 73.503(g). We seek comment on this proposal.
7. We propose to eliminate the requirement that AM stations seeking power increases must request at least a 20% increase in nominal power. We tentatively conclude that this change will provide AM broadcasters greater flexibility and will afford new opportunities for stations to optimize their operations, thus providing continued AM service to the public. Due to increased efficiency in administrative processing, we do not expect this change will adversely affect the processing time for other pending applications. We also propose an update to our AM rules to conform to international agreements and several minor administrative changes.
8. Section 73.3571(e)(1) and (2) sets forth requirements for AM stations proposing a power increase. The rule was adopted in 1985 when the Commission revised the AM technical rules to reflect then-newly enacted international agreements. To address concerns about the potential administrative impact from the large number of AM applications that the rule changes were expected to engender, and to reduce the number of modification applications, the Commission established a minimum threshold for power increases. Specifically, the Commission determined that any application which does not involve a change in site must propose at least a 20% increase in the AM station's nominal power.
9. We tentatively conclude that due to changed circumstances, this restriction is outdated, and propose to delete the requirement that an applicant proposing to increase the power for an AM station must propose either a site change or at least a 20% increase in the station's nominal power. Due to increased administrative efficiencies and the electronic application filing system currently in place, we tentatively find that applications proposing an increase of less than 20% power do not present the same processing burdens and do not warrant this restrictive benchmark. Accordingly, we propose to delete § 73.3571(e)(1) and (2), and seek comment on this proposal. We also seek comment on whether there is a public benefit to allowing increases of less than 20%. We also propose to delete § 73.3571(e)(3), which clarifies that Class D stations were not subject to the requirements of § 73.3571(e)(1) and (e)(2).
10. We also propose to update § 73.3571(e)(4), which outlines procedures for authorizing certain Class D daytime-only stations to operate unlimited-time. Paragraph (e)(4) was not updated when the stations were reclassified in 1991, and the current rule still reflects the old classifications. Accordingly, we propose to revise the station classes in § 73.3571(e)(4) to reflect current station classifications, including Class B and Class D designations mirroring the definitions in § 73.21(a)(2) and (a)(3), and seek comment on this proposal.
11. We propose to remove the Note to this rule section, and add it to paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of § 73.3571.
12. We propose to update Incentive Auction rules to remove obsolete language. In 2014, the Commission adopted rules to implement the broadcast television spectrum incentive auction (Incentive Auction). The post-incentive auction transition period concluded on July 3, 2020. All full power and Class A TV stations that elected to relinquish their licenses have terminated operations and all repacked stations are now operating on their post-auction channel assignments. As such, we propose to delete § 73.3700(c) and revise §§ 73.3801(h)(4)(i), 73.6029(h)(4)(i), and 74.782(i)(4)(i).
13. Section 73.3700(c) requires repacked stations to provide notice to viewers before a station transitions to its post-auction channel and requires license relinquishment stations to provide notice to viewers before terminating operations. Because all repacked stations are now operating on their post-incentive auction channels and all license relinquishment stations have terminated operations, this notice provision is obsolete.
14. Sections 73.3801(h)(4)(i), 73.6029(h)(4)(i), and 74.782(i)(4)(i) require 120-days advance notification by Next Gen TV stations to MVPDs (Multichannel Video Programming Distributors) for ATSC 1.0 service relocations that occur during the post-incentive auction transition period and 90-days advance notice for relocations that occur after the post-incentive auction transition period. Since the post-incentive auction transition period concluded, we propose to revise these rules to remove references to the post-incentive auction transition period and the extended MVPD notice period that was only required during that time. We seek comment on each of these proposals. These proposed revisions do not alter the 90-day MVPD notice requirement that is currently in effect for Next Gen TV.
15. We propose to codify in the rules the existing interpretation of § 73.870(e) that LPFM minor modification applications received on the same day will be treated as simultaneously filed. Section 73.3573 outlines the processing procedures for full service FM broadcast station applications. Generally, applications for minor modifications of FM broadcast and FM translator stations “may be filed at any time, unless restricted by the FCC, and will be processed on a `first come/first served' basis.” Section 73.3573(e)(1), which governs reserved channel FM broadcast stations, states that “[c]onflicting minor change FM applications received on the same day are treated as simultaneously filed and mutually exclusive.” With respect to non-reserved FM broadcast stations, § 73.3573(f)(1) states that “[a]ll applications received on the same day will be treated as simultaneously tendered and, if they are found to be mutually exclusive, must be resolved through settlement or technical amendment.” The same processing procedures apply to conflicting minor change FM translator applications received on the same day pursuant to § 74.1233.
16. There is no similar language in the rule for minor change LPFM applications indicating the processing standard for applications received on the same day. Section 73.870(e) simply states: “Minor change LPFM applications may be filed at any time, unless restricted by the staff, and generally, will be processed in the order in which they are tendered. Such applications must meet all technical and legal requirements applicable to new LPFM station applications.”
17. There is no indication in either the text of § 73.870(e) or in the order adopting the rule that the Commission intended to implement a different procedure for processing minor change LPFM applications than for minor change full service FM and FM translator applications.
18. Accordingly, we propose to codify in the rules the existing interpretation of § 73.870(e) that LPFM minor modification applications received on the same day will be treated as simultaneously filed. This will harmonize § 73.870(e) with the processing procedures for minor change full service FM and FM translator applications under §§ 73.3573(e)(1) and (f)(1), and 74.1233(b)(1) and (d)(1). We also propose to revise § 73.870(e) to codify the existing practice that first-come, first-served processing for LPFM minor modification applications will follow the well-established general procedures, under which applicants filing on the same day are considered simultaneously filed and, if mutually exclusive, directed to use engineering solutions and good faith negotiation to resolve their mutual exclusivity. We seek comment on our proposals.
19. We propose to codify the existing interpretation of the term “authorized” station in § 73.807 as including construction permittees in addition to licensees. Under § 73.807(a)(1), to be authorized, LPFM applicants must satisfy the minimum distance separation requirements specified in the Table to paragraph (a)(1) with respect to “authorized FM stations” and “authorized LPFM stations” among other separation requirements, and must also meet the minimum separation requirements in the Table to paragraph (c) with respect to “authorized FM translator stations.”
20. Although the term “authorized” in the context of § 73.807(a)(1) and (c) is not defined in the rule or LPFM Report and Order, the Commission's long-standing interpretation of this term is that it encompasses stations having a granted license and/or a granted construction permit. We tentatively conclude to codify in § 73.807(a) and (c) the existing interpretation of the term “authorized” stations as including both licensed stations and/or granted construction permits for FM, LPFM, and FM translator stations. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion that this will provide clarity to LPFM applicants regarding minimum distance separation requirements.
21. We propose to modify §§ 73.807(a)(1) and 73.807(c) to state that LPFM applicants must protect FM, LPFM, and FM translator applications submitted prior to a public notice announcing the procedures for an LPFM filing window.
22. Under § 73.807(a)(1), LPFM applicants must satisfy the minimum distance separation requirements in the Table to paragraph (a)(1) with respect to “applications for new and existing FM stations filed prior to the release of the public notice announcing an LPFM window period.” Under § 73.807(c), LPFM applicants must also satisfy the
23. We propose to modify §§ 73.807(a)(1) and 73.807(c) to state that FM, LPFM and FM translator applications filed prior to the release of the Public Notice announcing the filing procedures that will apply to any upcoming LPFM application filing window must be protected under these rule sections. In recent application filing windows, the Bureau has released multiple Public Notices announcing the window including providing early announcements of upcoming window dates, in order to afford potential applicants adequate time to prepare their applications. This proposed rule change will provide that: a public notice that just announces the filing window dates will not serve to terminate protection requirements for prior-filed applications under §§ 73.807(a)(1) and 73.807(c); and only a detailed public notice setting out the procedures for the window terminates the need to protect prior-filed applications.
24. Section 73.807(c) requires that LPFM applications must meet the minimum separation requirements “. . . with respect to . . . cutoff FM translator applications . . . .” We propose to remove the reference to “cutoff FM translator applications,” because our proposed rule amendment will make clear that any FM translator application that is filed prior to the issuance of the LPFM filing window procedures public notice is entitled to protection. We seek comment on these proposals.
25. We propose to codify the existing interpretation of the Signature Rule (§ 73.3513), applicable to all broadcast services, that “directors” of corporations may sign applications. We also propose to modify the Signature Rule to expand the definition of who may sign an application on behalf of a corporation, a partnership, and an unincorporated association, to include a “duly authorized employee.” Section 73.3513 of the Rules specifies who must sign “[a]pplications, amendments thereto, or related statements of fact required by the FCC” on behalf of various broadcast entities. According to the Signature Rule, an officer of a corporation may sign applications or amendments on a broadcast entity's behalf. For a partnership, a partner may sign applications on behalf of a partnership. For an unincorporated association, a member who is an officer may sign applications on behalf of an unincorporated association. We adhere to the Signature Rule requirements and violations of the Signature Rule are not curable. The Bureau has interpreted the Signature Rule to permit applications signed by corporate directors, rather than officers, finding that the director at issue was as capable as a subordinate corporate officer to ensure accuracy and accountability of the broadcast application. We seek comment on the Bureau's rationale regarding corporate directors and now propose to codify in the rules the existing interpretation of § 73.3513 that “directors” of corporations may sign applications.
26. Under the existing rule, a corporation cannot allow an employee, such as a general manager, to sign applications or amendments on its behalf. The existing rule, which does not permit a corporation to designate an authorized employee to sign applications or amendments, leads to numerous application dismissals of otherwise qualified applicants.
27. We propose to permit a corporation, partnership, or unincorporated association to designate a “duly authorized employee,” to sign applications or amendments on its behalf. This would harmonize the Signature Rule with similar rules used by other bureaus and offices that permit both directors and authorized employees to sign applications or amendments on behalf of the corporation. We seek comment on this proposed modification to the Signature Rule and on how to define the term “duly authorized employee.” Should we limit the types of employees that may sign, or require written delegation of authority that predates the filing of applications or amendments on behalf of the corporation, partnership, or unincorporated association? How significant is the potential for misrepresentation or abuse if duly authorized employees sign broadcast applications? Does allowing an authorized employee to sign applications provide adequate assurance that the applicant has personally reviewed the application? How would the proposed rule change benefit small corporations, partnerships, or unincorporated associations that may be unrepresented by counsel? We also seek comment on whether we should amend our rules to specify which individuals associated with a limited liability company (LLC) can sign an application. Should only “members” of an LLC be authorized to sign?
28. We also propose to revise the Signature Rule to clarify that the term “signed,” for applications submitted in LMS, includes an electronic signature that consists of the individual's typed name. We seek comment on these modifications.
29. We propose to codify the long time practice concerning when applicants for new NCE FM, NCE TV, or LPFM construction permits must give local public notice of their applications. Section 73.3580 sets out what types of applicants and licensees are required to provide local public notice, what applications trigger the requirement, the timing of the notice and the content of the notice. The rule currently provides that the Commission's release of an “acceptance public notice” of a newly filed application triggers the applicant's local public notice obligation. Section 73.3580(a)(1) defines an acceptance public notice as: “A Commission public notice announcing that an application has been accepted for filing.” Section 73.3580(c)(1) specifies that an applicant filing an application for a construction permit for a new “noncommercial educational full power television [station]; . . . noncommercial educational full-service . . . FM radio station; . . . [or] low-power FM” radio station must provide local public notice through an online notice. However, the current definition of an acceptance public notice does not take into account all of the ways that the Commission announces tentative selectees for new NCE FM, NCE TV, and LPFM construction permits. Therefore, we propose to add language to §§ 73.3580, 73.7002, 73.7003, and 73.872, to state that for NCE FM, NCE TV, and LPFM applications, a public notice, a Threshold Fair Distribution of Service Order, an NCE Comparative Points Order, an LPFM Tentative Selectee Order or Public Notice, or the equivalent can all serve as an acceptance public notice under § 73.3580, and each will trigger that applicant's local public notice obligation.
30. The Bureau routinely releases in its “Applications” public notice that singleton NCE and LPFM new station construction permit applications have been accepted for filing. However, in the context of MX NCE and LPFM new station construction permit applications, the “acceptance for filing” notice, which triggers the § 73.3580 local notice obligation, occurs via other procedural means. In an MX situation, the NCE or LPFM tentative selectee is
• A Threshold Fair Distribution of Service Order, issued under delegated authority, designating a tentative selectee for a full service NCE FM construction permit pursuant to section 307(b) of the Act (Section 307(b) Order).
• An NCE Comparative Points Order designating a tentative selectee pursuant to § 73.7003.
• An LPFM MX Tentative Selectee Order or Public Notice identifying tentative selectees pursuant to § 73.872.
• A Bureau decision issued under delegated authority announcing a new tentative selectee following dismissal of prior tentative selectee.
31. Accordingly, we propose to amend: § 73.7002(b) to indicate that the “acceptance for filing” of the various tentative selectee(s) in a Section 307(b) Order triggers the applicant's local public notice obligation; § 73.7003(a) to indicate that the “acceptance for filing” of the various tentative selectee(s) in an NCE Comparative Points Order triggers the applicant's local public notice obligation; and § 73.872(a) to indicate that the “acceptance for filing” of the various tentative selectee(s) in an LPFM MX Tentative Selectee Order or Public Notice, triggers the applicant's local public notice obligation. We also propose to revise § 73.3580(a)(1) to define “an acceptance public notice” as a Commission or Bureau public notice announcing that an application has been accepted for filing, or an equivalent Order accepting for filing applications from a filing window under §§ 73.7002, 73.7003 or 73.872. We seek comment on this proposal, and on any other changes to the local notice obligations.
32. We propose to amend § 73.1635(a)(4) to remove language providing that an initial special temporary authorization (STA) necessitated by technical or equipment problems may only be granted for 90 days with a limited number of 90-day extensions, rather than the full 180-day period permitted for STAs for other reasons. Based on previous STA submissions, the Bureau engineering staff has observed that technical or equipment malfunctions frequently take more than 90 days to resolve. Requiring an update every 90 days typically results in the licensee raising the same issues and repeating the identical request from the original STA filing, and places an extra burden on licensees and Bureau processing staff. Therefore, we propose to delete this 90-day restriction language and apply the 180-day period to STAs necessitated by technical or equipment problems, consistent with the time period we apply to other types of STAs. We also propose to correct a typo in the fourth sentence of paragraph (a)(4) by replacing “expeditions” with “expeditious.” We seek comment on this proposal.
33. We propose to modify our application processing rules to remove and revise references to various application processing procedures that are no longer used. The removal and revision of obsolete language will streamline our rules and eliminate the potential for confusion among the public, licensees, and practitioners, such as attorneys or engineers, that submit filings to the Commission. Prior to the adoption of electronic filing, applications were paper-filed under a two-step submission process. First, applicants “tendered for filing” applications. Second, after a preliminary review for completeness, the Bureau would then review the application for core technical and legal requirements. If the application was “accepted for filing,” the Bureau would assign the application a file number, and place the application on an “accepted for filing” public notice.
34. Under the current electronic filing system, applications are no longer physically “tendered for filing” but are now filed electronically in the Bureau's filing database, LMS. Upon filing, applications appear in the Bureau's daily “Applications” public notice. Applications that require a fee do not appear on the Bureau's daily “Applications” public notice until the fee is paid. Numerous rule sections still reference outdated terms from the Commission's legacy paper-filing processing procedures and are therefore inconsistent with current electronic filing procedures. For example, the continued use of the term “tendered” is potentially confusing to applicants, practitioners, and the public because it reflects a processing procedure that no longer exists.
35. We first propose to remove references to applications and pleadings as being “tendered” with the Commission and instead refer to applications as being “filed” with the Commission in the following rules: 73.37(c), which addresses application requirements for new AM stations; 73.3516(e), which sets forth the process for filing a petition to deny during a license renewal proceeding; 73.3526 and 73.3527, which describe required online public inspection file documents; 73.3573(f)(1), which outlines the processing of FM applications; 73.3578(a), which concerns amendments to applications; 73.3591(b), which explains the processing of applications without a hearing; and 73.3597(b)(2), which addresses the processing of transfer and assignment applications.
36. Second, we propose to amend § 73.3564, which addresses the acceptance of applications and in certain places still reflects obsolete paper-filing procedures. We propose to delete all obsolete paper-filing procedures from § 73.3564(a) and replace the term “tendered for filing” with “filed” throughout § 73.3564. We also propose to delete § 73.3564(c) references to cut-off procedures for reserved band FM NCE applications that have since been eliminated by the Commission in favor of a filing window approach.
37. Finally, we propose to remove Note 1 to § 73.3522, which addresses amendments to applications, because the Note also reflects processing procedures that have been eliminated with the implementation of electronic filing. We seek comment on these proposed revisions and additional references to outdated processing that should be updated.
38. We propose to consolidate our rules for petitions to deny under a single rule section. While § 73.3516 generally deals with applications for new broadcast facilities, paragraph (e) of § 73.3516 addresses deadlines for filing petitions to deny license renewal applications. Our general rule related to the filing of petitions to deny under Part 73 is § 73.3584. We propose to redesignate the revised § 73.3516(e) as a new paragraph to § 73.3584, which specifically addresses the procedures for filing petitions to deny against license renewal applications. We also propose to replace cross-references to current
39. We propose to revise the informal objection rule to require that informal objections and responsive pleadings be served upon the relevant applicant or objector. We also propose to limit the type of responsive pleadings that may be filed, and impose filing deadlines for responsive pleadings that align with the limitations set for responsive pleadings to petitions to deny.
40. In processing broadcast applications, we encounter two types of pleadings that we process and treat as an informal objection: (1) a pleading intentionally filed directly as an informal objection under § 73.3587, and (2) a pleading initially submitted as a petition to deny, but is treated as an informal objection because it falls short of the procedural requirements of a petition to deny. The goal of the informal objection rule is to afford the public opportunity to submit information that the Commission should consider when evaluating whether grant of an application would serve the public interest, with fewer procedural requirements than the statutory and rule provisions covering petitions to deny. Under our current rule, informal objections are not required to be served upon the applicant. We have found that the existing rule, which does not require service of informal objections, often leads to considerable inefficiencies in the resolution of contested proceedings because of the lack of procedures. For example, because informal objections do not need to be served, Bureau staff must often forward an informal objection to an applicant and afford the applicant an opportunity to respond to the informal objection. Additionally, our current rules contain no restriction on the number or type of pleadings that can be filed in response to an informal objection, and provide no pleading deadlines, which similarly delays the resolution of contested proceedings.
41. We first propose to require that the first above-mentioned category of informal objections, those intentionally filed directly as an informal objection under § 73.3587, must be served upon the applicant. We propose that service may be by mail or email to the address listed in the “Applicant” or “Contact Representatives” sections of the contested application. Both the street address and email address are mandatory fields within the “Applicant” and “Contact Representatives” sections. Therefore, the service information is readily available to the objector. We believe that requiring service of informal objections will ensure that parties are timely informed of these filings, thereby promoting a more efficient resolution of contested proceedings. The Bureau successfully implemented a requirement for applications in the 2023 LPFM filing window that filers of both petitions to deny and informal objections were required to serve a copy of their filings on applicants. This approach expedited review without hindering public participation in the regulatory process. We seek comment on whether, in the renewal context—where listeners and viewers most frequently file informal objections—it would be beneficial to include similar language in pre-renewal public notices to inform the public about the service requirements. Should service be to the Applicant instead of a choice between the Applicant and Contact Representative? Additionally, we note that our proposal to permit electronic service aligns with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's electronic service requirements. We seek comment on this proposal. Specifically, what should be the consequence of not serving a filing? Should the filing be subject to dismissal? Do these proposals create any barriers for certain parties?
42. Second, we propose to limit the types of responsive pleadings that may be filed and establish pleading deadlines on responsive pleadings to ensure a prompt resolution of the contested matter. Specifically, we propose that responsive pleadings shall be limited to one opposition and one reply. In the case of an informal objection against an application for renewal of license, an opposition thereto may be filed within 30 days after the informal objection is filed. The party that filed the informal objection against the renewal application may reply to the opposition within 20 days after the opposition is due or within 20 days after the opposition is filed, whichever occurs later. For all other pleadings, we propose that an opposition is required to be filed by the applicant within 10 days after the informal objection is filed and a reply filed by the objector within five days after the opposition is due or within five days after the opposition is filed, whichever occurs later. These pleading limitations and filing deadlines align with the pleading limitations and deadlines provided for petitions to deny, and we tentatively conclude they are appropriate for informal objections in order to balance the need of administrative efficiency with the filer's need to submit information that it believes the Commission should consider when evaluating whether grant of an application would serve the public interest. Our proposal to implement pleading limitations and deadlines on responses to informal objections has been successfully used by other Bureaus, and we believe these reforms will provide greater transparency and clarity for all interested parties.
43. We seek comment on this proposal. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether we should adopt longer time frames for responsive pleadings, or whether shorter time periods are sufficient, given the additional time provided under § 1.4 of our Rules. We also propose that such responsive pleadings must be served by mail or to the email address provided in the informal objection or application, as applicable. Our proposal for service of objections and responsive pleadings aligns with the electronic service requirements of other Bureaus and offices within the Commission, including, for example, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau which requires service of all pleadings. We seek comment on these proposals.
44. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments in the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the
45. In the NPRM, the Commission initiates this rulemaking proceeding to obtain comments from small and other entities regarding its proposal to update several of its rules to better reflect current application processing requirements, clarify and harmonize provisions, and remove references to outdated procedures and legacy filing systems. In the past three decades, the Bureau has transitioned from paper-filing to electronic filing, and has
46. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the following proposed rule changes: (1) replacing references to the Bureau's legacy Consolidated Database System (CDBS) electronic filing system with references to the new Licensing and Management System (LMS) electronic filing system and conforming the rules to the current LMS designation for applications; (2) changing the table of assignments/allotments references to conform to existing language; (3) delegating authority to the Bureau to remove a ten application cap rule adopted for the 2021 noncommercial educational (NCE) FM new station filing window, upon finality of the remaining NCE FM applications; (4) updating the AM station power increase rules to eliminate the requirement that stations request at least a 20% increase in nominal power and to reflect current station classifications and other administrative updates; (5) updating Incentive Auction rules to remove the obsolete post-incentive auction transition period language; (6) codifying and harmonizing the processing procedures for minor change low power FM (LPFM) applications with the current processing procedures for minor change full-service FM and FM translator applications; (7) defining the term “authorized stations” and codifying which applications an LPFM applicant must protect for purposes of the minimum distance separation requirements; (8) modifying the signature rule to expand the definition of who may sign a certification to include a “duly authorized employee”; (9) codifying the current practice when applicants for new NCE FM, NCE TV, or LPFM construction permits must give local public notice of their applications; (10) removing language providing that an initial special temporary authorization (STA) necessitated by technical or equipment problems may only be granted for 90 days with a limited number of 90-day extensions, rather than the full 180-day period permitted for other reasons; (11) modifying the application processing rules to remove and revise references to various application processing procedures that are now obsolete; (12) consolidating the rules for petitions to deny under a single rule section; and (13) revising the informal objection rule to require service upon the relevant applicant and objector, limit the number of responsive pleadings, and impose filing deadlines.
47. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to §§ 1, 4, 7, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, and 336 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 157, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, and 336.
48. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. The rules proposed herein will directly affect small television and radio broadcast stations. Below, we provide a description of these small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, where feasible.
49.
50. The Commission estimates that as of September 30, 2024, there were 4,400 licensed commercial AM radio stations and 6,618 licensed commercial FM radio stations, for a combined total of 11,018 commercial radio stations. Of this total, 11,017 stations (or 99.99%) had revenues of $47 million or less in 2023, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Database (BIA) on October 15, 2024, and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In addition, the Commission estimates that as of September 30, 2024, there were 4,377 licensed noncommercial (NCE) FM radio stations, 1,967 low power FM (LPFM) stations, and 8,894 FM translators and boosters. The Commission however does not compile, and otherwise does not have access to financial information for these radio stations that would permit it to determine how many of these stations qualify as small entities under the SBA small business size standard. Nevertheless, given the SBA's large annual receipts threshold for this industry and the nature of radio station licensees, we presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.
51. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as “small” under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, another element of the definition of “small business” requires that an entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific radio or television broadcast station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which the rules may apply does not exclude any radio or television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive. An additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. Because it is difficult to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, the estimate of small businesses to which the rules may apply does not exclude any radio or television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and similarly may be over-inclusive.
52.
53. As of September 30, 2024, there were 1,384 licensed commercial television stations. Of this total, 1,307 stations (or 94.4%) had revenues of $47 million or less in 2023, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on October 15, 2024, and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In addition, the Commission estimates as of September 30, 2024, there were 382 licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations, 379 Class A TV stations, 1,812 LPTV stations and 3,092 TV translator stations. The Commission, however, does not compile and otherwise does not have access to financial information for these television broadcast stations that would permit it to determine how many of these stations qualify as small entities under the SBA small business size standard. Nevertheless, given the SBA's large annual receipts threshold for this industry and the nature of these television station licensees, we presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.
54. The NPRM proposes to amend existing rules to better reflect current application processing requirements, clarify and harmonize provisions, and remove references to outdated procedures and legacy filing systems. Some of these rule changes may require new or modified reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance obligations for small and other broadcasters, as detailed below.
55. The proposed rules will eliminate the requirement that an AM station requesting to increase power must propose at least a 20% increase in the station's nominal power. This change will provide small, AM broadcasters greater flexibility and allow for new opportunities for stations to optimize their operations. The NPRM also proposes to codify the processing procedures for LPFM minor modification applications, thereby creating consistency in the language in the rules on how these modifications are processed across different FM classes. The proposed rules also revise the minimum distance separation requirements for new and modified LPFM applications to explain which applications must be protected, define “authorized station,” and clarify that a public notice that just announces the filing window dates will not serve to terminate protection requirements for prior-filed applications. The NPRM further defines the acceptance public notice, which triggers the local public notice obligations for applicants for new NCE FM, NCE TV, or LPFM construction permits, many of whom are small entities. The proposed rules also removes language providing that an initial STA required by technical or equipment problems may only be granted for 90 days with a limited number of 90-day extensions, rather than the full 180-day period, which would ease the regulatory burden on small entities.
56. In addition, the NPRM proposes to expand the definition of who may sign a certification beyond an officer of the corporation, a partner in the partnership, or a member who is an officer of the unincorporated association, to include a “duly authorized employee,” similar to rules used by other bureaus and offices that allow for directors and authorized employees to sign applications and amendments for the organization. The rules also propose to revise the informal objection rule, requiring that informal objections be served upon the applicant as well as limiting the number of pleadings that may be filed in response to an informal objection to one objection and one reply. The proposed service requirement would result in a small paperwork obligation for small and other entities. The minimal burden would be offset by the benefit of promoting a more efficient resolution of contested proceedings. In the case of an informal objection against an application for renewal of license, an opposition must be filed within 30 days after the informal objection is filed, and replies would be due within 20 days after the opposition is due or within 20 days after the opposition is filed, whichever occurs later. For all other pleadings, the NPRM proposes that an opposition must be filed by the applicant within 10 days after the informal objection is filed and a reply filed by the objector within five days after the opposition is due or within five days after the opposition is filed, whichever occurs later.
57. We believe these revisions will make the rules more transparent and accessible to small entities and thus reduce the need for professional services such as expert engineering or legal assistance with compliance and reporting requirements. We anticipate the information we receive in comments, including where requested, cost and benefit analyses, will help the Commission identify and evaluate relevant compliance issues impacting small entities, including costs to hire professionals to comply with these rules, and other burdens that may result from the proposed revisions in the NPRM.
58. The RFA requires an agency to describe any alternatives that could minimize impacts to small entities that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.”
59. In the NPRM, the Commission considered alternatives such as retaining the existing rules, while amending other related rules to further improve the accuracy of the Code of Federal Regulations, many of which may minimize the impact of the regulations on small broadcasters. For example, in proposing to revise the signature rule, we considered whether to permit a “duly authorized employee” to sign for the corporation, partnership or unincorporated association, or, in the alternative, to maintain our current rules requiring officers, partners, or members who are officers to sign, which often results in application dismissals. We also considered whether we should limit this to specific employees, and how this decision, if adopted, might impact small broadcasters that may not be represented by counsel. In considering the proposed revisions to the informal objection rule, we seek comment on whether we should adopt
60. The Commission seeks comment on whether any of the burdens associated the filing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements described in the NPRM can be minimized for small entities. The Commission is open to considering alternatives to the rules proposed in the NPRM, including but not limited to alternatives that will minimize significant economic burdens on small and other broadcasters.
61. None.
62. Accordingly,
63.
Administrative Practice and Procedure, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Television.
Communications equipment, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Television.
Television.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 1, 73, 74, and 76 as follows:
47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 47 U.S.C. 1754, unless otherwise noted.
(d) Petitions for amendment of the Table of FM Allotments (§ 73.202 of this chapter) or the Table of TV Allotments (§ 73.606) shall be served by petitioner on any Commission licensee or permittee whose channel assignment would be changed by grant of the petition. The petition shall be accompanied by a certificate of service on such licensees or permittees. Petitions to amend the Table of FM Allotments must be accompanied by the appropriate construction permit application and payment of the appropriate application filing fee.
All petitions for rulemaking (other than petitions to amend the Table of FM Allotments, Table of TV Allotments, and Air-Ground Table of Assignments) meeting the requirements of § 1.401 will be given a file number and, promptly thereafter, a “Public Notice” will be issued (by means of a Commission release entitled “Petitions for Rule Making Filed”) as to the petition, file number, nature of the proposal, and date of filing. Petitions for rulemaking are available through the Commission's Reference Information Center at the FCC's main office, and electronically at
The revisions read as follows:
(a) Comments filed in proceedings for amendment of the Table of FM Allotments (§ 73.202 of this chapter) or the Table of TV Allotments (§ 73.622(j) of this chapter) which are initiated on a petition for rule making shall be served on petitioner by the person who files the comments.
(b) Reply comments filed in proceedings for amendment of the Table of FM Allotments or the Table of TV Allotments shall be served on the person(s) who filed the comments to which the reply is directed.
(j) Whenever an expression of interest in applying for, constructing, and operating a station has been filed in a proceeding to amend the Table of FM Allotments or the Table of TV Allotments, and the filing party seeks to dismiss or withdraw the expression of interest, either unilaterally or in exchange for financial consideration, that party must file with the Commission a request for approval of the dismissal or withdrawal, a copy of any written agreement related to the dismissal or withdrawal, and an affidavit setting forth:
(b) * * * Petitions for declaratory ruling required by paragraph (a) of this section involving broadcast stations only shall be filed electronically on the internet through the Media Bureau's Licensing and Management System (LMS) or any successor system thereto when submitted to the Commission as part of an application for a construction permit, assignment, or transfer of control of a broadcast license; if there is no associated construction permit, assignment or transfer of control application, petitions for declaratory ruling should be filed with the Office of
(d) * * *
(2) * * * The letter must also reference the licensee's foreign ownership ruling(s) by ICFS File No. and FCC Record citation, if available; or, if a broadcast licensee, the letter must reference the licensee's foreign ownership ruling(s) by LMS File No., Docket No., call sign(s), facility identification number(s), and FCC Record citation, if available. * * *
(d)
(a) * * * Notice shall be provided to any AM station that is licensed or operating under Program Test Authority using the official licensee information and address listed in LMS or any successor database. * * *
47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339.
The revision reads as follows:
(c) If awarded an allotment, a petitioner will have sixty (60) days from the date of public notice of selection to file an application for construction permit on FCC Form 2100, Schedule 301. (See §§ 73.24 and 73.37(e) for filing requirements). Unless instructed by the Commission to do otherwise, the application shall specify Model I facilities. (See § 73.14). Upon grant of the application and subsequent construction of the authorized facility, the applicant must file a license application on FCC Form 2100, Schedule 302.
(c) If otherwise consistent with the public interest, an application requesting an increase in the daytime power of an existing Class C station on a local channel from 250 watts to a maximum of 1kW, or from 100 watts to a maximum of 500 watts, may be granted notwithstanding overlap prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section. In the case of a 100 watt Class C station increasing daytime power, the provisions of this paragraph shall not be construed to permit an increase in power to more than 500 watts, if prohibited overlap would be involved, even if successive applications should be filed.
(d) * * *
(1) Whenever the measurements show that the antenna or common point resistance differs from that shown on the station authorization by more than 2%, FCC Form 2100, Schedule 302 must be filed with the information and measurement data specified in § 73.54(d).
(c) Applications for authority to operate with antenna input power which is less than nominal power and/or to employ a dissipative network in the antenna system shall be made on FCC Form 2100, Schedule 302. The technical information supplied on section II-A of this form shall be that applying to the proposed conditions of operation. In addition, the following information shall be furnished, as pertinent:
(a) * * * Channels to which licensed, permitted, and “reserved” facilities have been assigned are reflected in the Media Bureau's publicly available Licensing and Management System.
(a) Applications for FM broadcast authorizations must show the field strength contours required by FCC Form 2100, Schedule 301 or 340, as appropriate.
(a) All Class D stations seeking renewal of license for any term expiring June 1, 1980, or thereafter shall comply with the requirements set forth below and shall simultaneously file an application on FCC Form 2100, Schedule 340, containing full information regarding such compliance with the provisions set forth in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
(c) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * * A formal application (FCC Form 2100, Schedule 301, or FCC Form 2100, Schedule 340 for a noncommercial educational station) will be required if the proposal involves substantial change in the physical height or radiation characteristics of the AM broadcast antennas; otherwise an informal application will be acceptable.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) An LPFM station will not be authorized initially unless the minimum distance separations in the following table are met with respect to authorized FM stations, applications for new and existing FM stations filed prior to the release of the public notice announcing the filing procedures for the LPFM window period, authorized LPFM stations, LPFM station applications that were timely-filed within a previous window, and vacant FM allotments. The term authorized [FM or LPFM] station means the FM or LPFM station currently holds a granted construction permit and/or a granted license. LPFM modification applications must either meet the distance separations in the following table or, if short-spaced, not lessen the spacing to subsequently authorized stations.
(c) In addition to meeting the separations specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, LPFM applications must meet the minimum separation requirements in the following table with respect to authorized FM translator stations, and FM translator applications filed prior to the release of the Public Notice announcing the filing procedures for the LPFM window period. The term authorized FM translator station means the FM translator station currently holds a granted construction permit and/or a granted license.
(e) Minor change LPFM applications must meet all technical and legal requirements applicable to new LPFM station applications. Such applications may be filed at any time, unless restricted by the staff, and generally, will be processed on a “first come/first served” basis, with the first acceptable application cutting off the filing rights of subsequent, competing applicants. The FCC will periodically release a Public Notice listing those applications accepted for filing. Applications received on the same day will be treated as simultaneously filed and, if they are found to be mutually exclusive, must be resolved through settlement or technical amendment. Conflicting applications received after the filing of the first acceptable application will be grouped, according to filing date, behind the lead application in the queue. The priority rights of the lead applicant, against all other applicants, are determined by the date of filing, but the filing date for subsequent conflicting applicants only reserves a place in the queue. The right of an applicant in a queue ripens only upon a final determination that the lead applicant is unacceptable and that the queue member is reached and found acceptable. The queue will remain behind the lead applicant until the construction permit is finally granted, at which time the queue dissolves.
(a) Following the close of each window for new LPFM stations and for modifications in the facilities of authorized LPFM stations, the Commission will issue a public notice identifying all groups of mutually exclusive applications. Such applications will be awarded points to determine the tentative selectee. Unless resolved by settlement pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section, the tentative selectee will be the applicant within each group with the highest point total under the procedure set forth in this section, except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. Acceptance for filing of a tentative selectee's application in the LPFM Mutually Exclusive Tentative Selectee Order or Public Notice, or an equivalent Order, triggers the applicant's local public notice obligation under § 73.3580.
(b) * * *
(1)
(b) The following changes may be made only after the grant of a construction permit application on FCC Form 2100, Schedule 318.
(c) * * * A modification of license application (FCC Form 2100, Schedule 319) must be submitted to the Commission within 10 days of commencing program test operations pursuant to § 73.1620. * * *
(b) For the deadline for filing petitions to deny renewal applications, see § 73.3584(f).
(a) * * *
(4) An STA may be granted for an initial period not to exceed 180 days. A limited number of extensions of such authorizations may be granted for additional periods not exceeding 180 days per extension. The permittee or licensee must demonstrate that any further extensions requested are necessary and that all steps to resume normal operation are being undertaken in an expeditious and timely fashion. The license of a broadcasting station that fails to transmit broadcast signals for any consecutive 12-month period expires as a matter of law at the end of that period, notwithstanding any STA or provision, term, or condition of the license to the contrary.
(b) Authorization to install an auxiliary transmitter for use with other than the main antenna or authorized auxiliary antenna must be obtained by filing an application for a construction permit on FCC Form 2100, Schedule 301 (FCC Form 2100, Schedule 340 for noncommercial educational stations).
(c) * * *
(9) The licensee of an AM, FM, or TV commercial station may propose to change from commercial to noncommercial educational on a modification of license application, provided that the application contains the completed Eligibility Certifications and Financial sections from FCC Form 2100, Schedule 340. * * *
(a) * * *
(3)
(e) The Commission only accepts electronic applications. An electronic application is “signed” when there is an electronic signature. An electronic signature is the typed name of the person “signing” the application, which is then electronically transmitted via LMS.
The revisions read as follows:
(e) * * *
(2)
(4)
(f) * * *
(1) For purposes of this section, action taken on an application filed with the FCC becomes final when that action is no longer subject to reconsideration, review, or appeal either at the FCC or in the courts.
(2) For purposes of this section, the term “all related material” includes all exhibits, letters, and other documents filed with the FCC as part of an application, report, or other document, all amendments to the application, report, or other document, copies of all documents incorporated therein by reference and not already maintained in the public inspection file, and all correspondence between the FCC and the applicant pertaining to the application, report, or other document, which according to the provisions of §§ 0.451 through 0.461 of this chapter are open for public inspection at the offices of the FCC.
(e) * * *
(2)
(3)
(f) * * *
(1) For purposes of this section, a decision made with respect to an application filed with the FCC becomes final when that decision is no longer subject to reconsideration, review, or appeal either at the FCC or in the courts.
(2) For purposes of this section, the term “all related material” includes all exhibits, letters, and other documents filed with the FCC as part of an application, report, or other document, all amendments to the application, report, or other document, copies of all documents incorporated therein by reference and not already maintained in the public inspection file, and all correspondence between the FCC and the applicant pertaining to the application, report, or other document, which according to the provisions of §§ 0.451 through 0.461 of this chapter are open for public inspection at the offices of the FCC.
(a)(1) Applications are dated upon filing in LMS. Except for applications for minor modifications of facilities in the non-reserved FM band, as defined in § 73.3573(a)(2), long form applications subject to the provisions of § 73.5005 found to be complete or substantially complete are accepted for filing and are given file numbers. In the case of minor defects as to completeness, a deficiency letter will be issued and the applicant will be required to supply the missing or corrective information. Applications that are not substantially complete will not be considered and will be returned to the applicant.
(3) Applications found not to meet minimum filing requirements will be returned to the applicant. Applications found to meet minimum filing requirements, but that contain deficiencies, shall be given an opportunity for corrective amendment pursuant to 73.3522. Applications found to be substantially complete and in accordance with the Commission's core legal and technical requirements will be accepted for filing. Applications with uncorrected defects remaining after the opportunity for corrective amendment will be dismissed with no further opportunity for amendment.
(c) At regular intervals, the FCC will issue a Public Notice listing all long form applications which have been accepted for filing. Pursuant to §§ 73.3571(h), 73.3572, and 73.3573(f), such notice shall establish a cut-off date for the filing of petitions to deny. However, no application will be accepted for filing unless certification of compliance with the local notice requirements of § 73.3580(h) has been made in the tendered application.
(e) Applications for minor modification of facilities may be filed at any time, unless restricted by the FCC. These applications will be processed on a “first come/first served” basis and will be treated as simultaneously filed if filed on the same day. Any applications received after the filing of a lead application will be grouped according to filing date, and placed in a queue behind the lead applicant. The FCC will periodically release a Public Notice listing those minor modification of facilities applications accepted for filing.
The revision and addition read as follows:
(e) The following special procedures will be followed in authorizing Class D daytime-only stations on 940 and 1550 kHz, and Class D daytime-only stations on the 41 regional channels listed in § 73.26(a), to operate unlimited-time.
(1) Each eligible daytime-only station in the foregoing categories will receive an Order to Show Cause why its license should not be modified to specify operation during nighttime hours with the facilities it is licensed to start using at local sunrise, using the power stated in the Order to Show Cause, that the Commission finds is the highest nighttime level—not exceeding 0.5 kW—at which the station could operate without causing prohibited interference to other domestic or foreign stations, or to co-channel or adjacent channel stations for which pending applications were filed before December 1, 1987.
(2) Stations accepting such modification shall be reclassified. Those authorized in such Show Cause Orders to operate during nighttime hours with a power of 0.25 kW or more, or with a power that, although less than 0.25 kW, is sufficient to enable them to attain an equivalent RMS field strength of at least 107.5 mV/m at 1 kilometer, shall be redesignated as Class B stations if they are assigned to 940 or 1550 kHz, and as unlimited-time Class B stations if they are assigned to regional channels.
(3) Stations accepting such modification that are authorized to operate during nighttime hours at powers less than 0.25 kW, and that cannot with such powers attain an equivalent RMS field strength of less than 107.5 mV/m at 1 kilometer, shall be redesignated as Class D stations if they are assigned to 940 or 1550 kHz, and as Class D stations if they are assigned to regional channels.
(4) Applications for new stations may be filed at any time on 940 and 1550 kHz and on the regional channels. Also, stations assigned to 940 or 1550 kHz, or to the regional channels, may at any time, regardless of their classifications, apply for power increases up to the maximum generally permitted. Such applications for new or changed facilities will be granted without taking into account interference caused to Class D stations, but will be required to show interference protection to other classes of stations, including stations that were previously classified as Class D, but were later reclassified as Class B unlimited-time stations.
(h) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(D) For purposes of this paragraph (h)(1)(ii), § 73.182(k) interference standards apply when determining nighttime mutual exclusivity between applications to provide AM service that are filed in the same window. Two applications would be deemed to be mutually exclusive if either application would be subject to dismissal because it would enter into,
(f) * * *
(1) Applications for minor modifications for non-reserved FM broadcast stations, as defined in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, may be filed at any time, unless restricted by the FCC, and, generally, will be processed in the order in which they are tendered. The FCC will periodically release a Public Notice listing those applications accepted for filing. Processing of these applications will be on a “first come/first serve” basis with the first acceptable application cutting off the filing rights of subsequent applicants. All applications received on the same day will be treated as simultaneously filed and, if they are found to be mutually exclusive, must be resolved through settlement or technical amendment. Applications received after the filing of a lead application will be grouped, according to filing date, behind the lead application in a queue. The priority rights of the lead applicant, as against all other applicants, are determined by the date of filing, but the filing date for subsequent applicants for that channel and community only reserves a place in the queue. The rights of an applicant in a queue ripen only upon a final determination that the lead applicant is unacceptable and if the queue member is reached and found acceptable. The queue will remain behind the lead applicant until a construction permit is finally granted, at which time the queue dissolves.
(a) Any amendments to an application for renewal of any instrument of authorization shall be considered to be a minor amendment. However, the FCC may, within 15 days after filing of any amendment, advise the applicant that the amendment is considered to be a major amendment and therefore is subject to the provisions of § 73.3580.
(a) * * *
(1)
(d) * * *
(2) Consent to an involuntary assignment or transfer or to a voluntary assignment or transfer which does not result in a change of control and which may be applied for on FCC Form 2100, Schedule 316, or any successor form released in the future, pursuant to the provisions of § 73.3540(b).
(a) For mutually exclusive applications subject to selection by competitive bidding (non-reserved channels) or fair distribution/point system (reserved channels), petitions to deny may be filed only against the winning bidders or tentative selectee(s), and such petitions will be governed by §§ 73.5006 and 73.7004, respectively. For all other applications the following rules will govern. Except in the case of applications for new low power TV and TV translator stations, for major changes in the existing facilities of such stations, or for applications for a change in output channel tendered by displaced low power TV and TV translator stations pursuant to § 73.3572(a)(1), any party in interest may file with the Commission a Petition to Deny any application (whether as originally filed or if amended so as to require a new file number pursuant to § 73.3571(j), § 73.3572(b), § 73.3573(b), § 73.3574(b) or § 73.3578) for which local notice pursuant to § 73.3580 is required, provided such petitions are filed prior to the day such applications are granted or designated for hearing; but where the FCC issues a public notice pursuant to the provisions of § 73.3571(c), § 73.3572(c) or § 73.3573(d), establishing a “cut-off” date, such petitions must be filed by the date specified. In the case of applications for transfers and assignments of construction permits or station licenses, Petitions to Deny must be filed not later than 30 days after issuance of a public notice of the acceptance for filing of the applications. In the case of applications for renewal of license, Petitions to Deny may be filed at any time up to the deadline established in paragraph (f) of this section. Requests for extension of time to file Petitions to Deny applications for new broadcast stations or major changes in the facilities of existing stations or applications for renewal of license will not be granted unless all parties concerned, including the applicant, consent to such requests, or unless a compelling showing can be made that unusual circumstances make the filing of a timely petition impossible and the granting of an extension warranted.
(c) In the case of applications for new low power TV and TV translator stations, for major changes in the existing facilities of such stations, or for applications for a change in output channel tendered by displaced low power TV and TV translator stations pursuant to § 73.3572(a)(1), any party in interest may file with the FCC a Petition to Deny any application (whether as originally filed or if amended so as to require a new file number pursuant to § 73.3572(b)) for which local notice pursuant to § 73.3580 is required, provided such petitions are filed within 30 days of the FCC Public Notice proposing the application for grant (applicants may file oppositions within 15 days after the Petition to Deny is filed); but where the FCC selects a tentative permittee pursuant to Section 1.1601
(f) A petition to deny an application for renewal of license of an existing broadcast station will be considered as timely filed if it is filed by the end of the first day of the last full calendar month of the expiring license term.
(1) If the license renewal application is not timely filed as prescribed in § 73.3539, the deadline for filing petitions to deny thereto is the 90th day after the FCC gives public notice that it has accepted the late-filed renewal application for filing.
(2) If any deadline falls on a nonbusiness day, the cutoff shall be the close of business of the first full business day thereafter.
(3) The dates when the licenses of all broadcast and broadcast auxiliary services regularly expire are listed in §§ 73.733, 73.1020 and 74.15.
Before FCC action on any application for an instrument of authorization, any person may file informal objections to the grant in LMS. Such objections may be submitted in letter form (without extra copies), shall include an email address for receiving electronic service, and shall be signed. The objector must serve a copy of the objection upon the applicant by mail to the mailing address or electronically to the email address provided in either the Applicant or Contact Representatives sections of the application. The limitation on pleadings in response to the informal objection and time for filing such responsive pleadings provided for in § 1.45 of this chapter shall be applicable to any objections duly filed under this section, except that as to an informal objection against an application for renewal of license, an opposition thereto may be filed within 30 days after the informal objection is filed, and the party that filed the informal objection may reply to the opposition within 20 days after the opposition is due or within 20 days after the opposition is filed, whichever is longer. Responsive pleadings must be served by mail to the mailing address or electronically to the email address provided in the informal objection or application, as applicable.
(b) In making its determinations pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, the FCC will not consider any other application, or any application if amended so as to require a new file number, as being mutually exclusive or in conflict with the application under consideration unless such other application was substantially complete, and filed by:
(2) The date prescribed in § 73.3584(f) in the case of applications which are mutually exclusive with applications for renewal of license of broadcast stations; or
(b) * * *
(2) In determining whether the station has been operating on-air for one year, the FCC will calculate the period between the date of initiation of program tests (as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section) and the date the application for transfer or assignment is filed with the FCC.
The revision reads as follows:
(b) * * *
(5) * * *
(iv) Applications for additional time to complete construction must be filed electronically in LMS using FCC Form 337 no less than 90 days before the expiration of the construction permit.
(h) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Next Gen TV stations must provide notice at least 90 days in advance of relocating their ATSC 1.0 signals.
(b) * * * So determinations of mutual exclusivity for auction purposes can be made, applicants for non-table broadcast services must also submit the engineering data contained in the appropriate FCC application FCC Form 2100, Schedule 301, 346, or 349).
(h) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Next Gen TV stations must provide notice at least 90 days in advance of relocating their ATSC 1.0 signals.
(b) In an analysis performed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, a full-service FM applicant that identifies itself as a Tribal Applicant, that proposes Tribal Coverage, and that proposes the first reserved channel NCE service owned by any Tribal Applicant at a community of license located on Tribal Lands, will be awarded a construction permit. If two or more full-service FM applicants identify themselves as Tribal Applicants and meet the above criteria, the applicant providing the most people with reserved channel NCE service to Tribal Lands will be awarded a construction permit, regardless of the magnitude of the superior service or the populations of the communities of license proposed, if different. If two or more full-service FM applicants identifying themselves as Tribal Applicants each meet the above criteria and propose identical levels of NCE aural service to Tribal Lands, only those applicants shall proceed to be considered together in a point system analysis. In an analysis performed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section that does not include a Tribal Applicant, a full service FM applicant that will provide the first or second reserved channel noncommercial educational (NCE) aural signal received by at least 10% of the population within the station's 60dBu (1mV/m) service contours will be considered to substantially further fair distribution of service goals and to be superior to mutually exclusive applicants not proposing that level of service, provided that such service to fewer than 2,000 people will be considered insignificant. First service to 2,000 or more people will be considered superior to second service to a population of any size. If only one applicant will provide such first or second service, that applicant will be selected as a threshold matter. If more than one applicant will provide an equivalent level (first or second) of NCE aural service, the size of the population to receive such service from the mutually exclusive applicants will be compared. The applicant providing the most people with the highest level of service will be awarded a construction permit, if it will provide such service to
(a) If timely filed applications for reserved FM channels or reserved TV channels are determined to be mutually exclusive, applications will be processed and assessed points to determine the tentative selectee for the particular channels. The tentative selectee will be the applicant with the highest point total under the procedure set forth in this section and will be awarded the requested permit if the Commission determines that an award will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Acceptance for filing of a tentative selectee's application in an NCE Comparative Points Order, or an equivalent Order, determined under this section triggers the applicant's local public notice obligation under § 73.3580.
47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 310, 325, 336 and 554.
(i) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Next Gen TV stations must provide notice at least 90 days in advance of relocating their ATSC 1.0 signals.
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 335, 338, 339, 340, 341, 503, 521, 522, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 562, 571, 572, 573.
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Except as provided in this paragraph (d)(2)(ii), satellite carriers shall transmit the notices required by paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section via certified mail to the address for such television station licensee listed in the Licensing and Management System maintained by the Commission. After July 31, 2020, the written notices required by paragraphs (d)(1)(vi), (d)(2)(i), (v), and (vi), (d)(3)(iv), (d)(5)(i), (f)(3) and (4), and (h)(5) of this section shall be delivered electronically via email to the email address for carriage-related questions that the station lists in its public file in accordance with §§ 73.3526 and 73.3527 of this subchapter.
Federal Communications Commission.
Request for comments.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission), on behalf of the Federal-State Joint Board on Jurisdictional Separations (Joint Board), seeks comment on issues and questions that the Commission referred to the Joint Board for consideration in the 2024 Separations Freeze Extension and Referral Order to determine the future course of the Part 36 separations rules.
Comments are due on or before April 23, 2025; reply comments are due on or before May 8, 2025.
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated above. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). You may submit comments, identified by CC Docket No. 80-286, FCC 25J-1, by either of the following methods:
•
•
• Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service.
• Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
• Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
•
•
Marv Sacks, Pricing Policy Division of the Wireline Communications Bureau, at (202) 418-2017 or via email at
This is a summary of the Public Notice released on February 14, 2025, in CC Docket No. 80-286, FCC 25J-1. The full text of this document is available at the following internet address:
On November 13, 2024, the Commission adopted the 2024 Separations Freeze Extension and Referral Order that extends, for up to an additional six years to December 31, 2030, the freeze of the separations rules for rate-of-return incumbent local exchange carriers. To fully address the future of these rules, last revised more than 35 years ago in a vastly different telecommunications marketplace, the Commission also referred to the Joint Board additional issues for its consideration.
First, the Commission reiterated a prior referral asking the Joint Board “whether separations rules are still needed during the transition from a regulated to a competitive marketplace” and whether the Commission should still pursue comprehensive reform or allow the separations rules to become increasingly obsolete over time. More specifically, the Commission asked the Joint Board for a recommended decision on “whether comprehensive reform is still in the public interest when the industry is naturally transitioning away from legacy technologies and cost-based ratemaking and the burdens of compliance with any new set of rules, were they to be reformed, would be significant for the limited number of small carriers still subject to the separations rules.”
Second, the Commission asked the Joint Board for a recommended decision on whether it would be in the public interest to adopt a permanent freeze of the rules while considering the future course of the separations rules and framework. The Commission explained that consideration of a permanent freeze is particularly relevant in light of the referral on whether the separations rules still need to be reformed. The Commission observed that, if the Joint Board determines that comprehensive reform of the separations rules is no longer necessary and that these rules should be allowed to become obsolete due to technological transitions and regulatory reforms, then a permanent freeze appears to be prudent.
Third, if the Joint Board were to recommend a permanent separations freeze, the Commission asked the Joint Board to consider whether carriers should be given an opportunity to unfreeze their category relationships to enable carriers to update their cost data for categorizing investments and expenses. Relatedly, in asking the Joint Board to assess whether the Commission should allow carriers to unfreeze their category relationships, the Commission asked the Joint Board to consider whether this opportunity should be available only once or periodically, and whether or not these carriers should be permitted to refreeze their category relationships.
The Joint Board seeks comment on these issues and questions as it prepares to respond to the Commission's referrals and requests for recommended decisions in the 2024 Separations Freeze Extension and Referral Order.
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of meeting.
The Colville Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will hold a public meeting according to the details shown below. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act, as well as make recommendations on recreation fee proposals for sites on the Colville National Forest within Ferry, Pend Oreille, and Stevens Counties, consistent with the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act.
An in-person and virtual meeting will be held on April 16, 2025, 12 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time.
All RAC 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 and virtually at the Colville National Forest Supervisor's Office, located at 765 South Main Street, Colville, Washington 99114. RAC information and meeting details can be found at the following website:
Josh White, Designated Federal Officer, by phone at 509-684-7118 or email at
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Elect a Chairperson;
2. Hear from Title II project proponents and discuss Title II project proposals;
3. Make funding recommendations on Title II projects;
4. Recreation fee change proposal recommendation.
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
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of public meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the Utah Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a public meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the Committee's project,
Wednesday, April 16, 2025, from 3:00 p.m.-4:30 p.m. Mountain Time. Comments must be received no later than Friday, May 16, 2025.
The meeting will be held via Zoom Webinar.
See
Brooke Peery, Designated Federal Officer, at
This committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link in the
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Brooke Peery at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via the file sharing website,
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable March 24, 2025.
Dana Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 481-1391.
On February 4, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated a countervailing duty (CVD) investigation on imports of temporary steel fencing from the People's Republic of China (China).
Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in a CVD investigation within 65 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 703(c)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which Commerce imitated the investigation if: (A) the petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement; or (B) Commerce concludes that the parties concerned are cooperation, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.
On March 4, 2025, the petitioner
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner submitted its request for postponement of the preliminary determination in this investigation 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and stated the reasons for its request. For the reasons stated above, and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, in accordance with section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, Commerce is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination to no later than 130 days after the date on which this investigation was initiated,
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe (seamless pipe) from Ukraine was sold at prices below normal value during the period of review (POR) August 1, 2022, through July 31, 2023.
Applicable March 24, 2025.
Reginald Anadio, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3166.
On September 13, 2024, Commerce published the
Interpipe,
The merchandise covered by the scope of the
Commerce addressed all the issues raised by interested parties in their briefs in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached as an appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
We determine that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period August 1, 2022, through July 31, 2023:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed for these final results of review to parties to the proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with these final results of review.
In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate POR entries of the subject merchandise that Interpipe produced and sold, but did not know it was destined for the United States, at the all-others rate (
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice in the
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these final results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable March 18, 2025.
Jose Rivera at (202) 482-0842 (Mexico) and Ian Riggs at (202) 482-3810 (Thailand), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of certain chassis and subassemblies thereof (chassis) from Mexico and Thailand filed in proper form on behalf of the U.S. Chassis Manufacturers Coalition (the petitioner),
Between February 28, and March 10, 2025, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions in supplemental questionnaires.
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the Government of Mexico (GOM) and Government of Thailand (GOT) (collectively, Governments) are providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of chassis in Mexico and Thailand, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing chassis in the United States. Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we are initiating CVD investigations, the Petitions were accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.
Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry, because the petitioner is an interested party, as defined in section 771(9)(F) of the Act.
Because the Petitions were filed on February 26, 2025, the period of investigation for the Mexico and Thailand CVD investigations is January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024.
The products covered by these investigations are chassis from Mexico and Thailand. For a full description of the scope of these investigations,
On February 28, and March 7, 2025, Commerce requested information and clarification from the petitioner regarding the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the
Commerce requests that any factual information that parties consider relevant to the scope of these investigations be submitted during that time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party must contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All scope comments must be filed simultaneously on the records of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies.
Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified the GOM and GOT of the receipt of the Petitions and provided an opportunity for consultations with respect to the Petition.
Additionally, given the nature of certain subsidy programs alleged in the Petitions, on February 27, 2025, Commerce issued a letter to the Government of the People's Republic of China (China), providing the Government of China (GOC) with the opportunity to meet with Commerce officials.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations.
In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided the 2024 production of the domestic like product for the U.S. producers that support the Petitions and compared this to the estimated total production of the domestic like product in 2024 by the entire U.S. chassis industry.
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the First General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petitions.
Because Mexico and Thailand are “Subsidies Agreement Countries” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Mexico and/or Thailand materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
The petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are benefiting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports from Mexico and Thailand exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by the significant increase in the volumes of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression and/or suppression; lost sales and revenues; declines in domestic producers' U.S. shipments, production, and capacity utilization; decline in employment variables; adverse impact on financial performance; and negative impact on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic industry.
Based upon the examination of the Petitions and supplemental responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating CVD investigations to determine whether imports of chassis from Mexico and Thailand benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOM and GOT, respectively. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.
Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 19 of the 19 programs
Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 20 of the 20 programs alleged by the petitioner. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program,
In the Petitions, the petitioner identified 13 companies in Mexico and three companies in Thailand as producers and/or exporters of chassis.
Commerce will post the Q&V questionnaires along with filing instructions on Commerce's website at
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order (APO) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petitions has been provided to the GOM and GOT via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
Commerce will notify the ITC of its initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of chassis from Mexico and/or Thailand are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors of production under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Section 351.301(c) of Commerce's regulations states that during a proceeding, Commerce may issue to any person questionnaires, which includes both and initial and supplemental questionnaires. For all investigations initiated after January 15, 2025, the following time limits apply:
(i) Initial questionnaire responses are due 30 days from the date of receipt of such questionnaire. The time limit for response to individual sections of the questionnaire, if Commerce requests a separate response to such sections, may be less than the 30 days allotted for response to the full questionnaire. In general, the date of receipt will be considered to be seven days from the date on which the initial questionnaire was transmitted.
(ii) Supplemental questionnaire responses are due on the date specified by Commerce.
(iii) A notification by an interested party, under section 782(c)(1) of the Act, of difficulties in submitting information in response to a questionnaire issued by Commerce is to be submitted in writing within 14 days after the date of the questionnaire or, if the questionnaire is due in 14 days or less, within the time specified by Commerce.
(iv) A respondent interested party may request in writing that Commerce conduct a questionnaire presentation. Commerce may conduct a questionnaire presentation if Commerce notifies the government of the affected country and that government does not object.
(v) Factual information submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct questionnaire responses. Within 14 days after an initial questionnaire response and within 10 days after a supplemental questionnaire response has been filed with Commerce, an interested party other than the original submitter is permitted one opportunity to submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information contained in the questionnaire response. Within seven days of the filing of such rebuttal, clarification, or correction to a questionnaire response, the original submitter of the questionnaire response is permitted one opportunity to submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information submitted in the interested party's rebuttal, clarification or correction. Commerce will reject any untimely filed rebuttal, clarification, or correction submission and provide, to the extent practicable, written notice stating the reasons for rejection. If insufficient time remains before the due date for the final determination or final results of review, Commerce may specify shorter deadlines under this section.
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce.
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.103(d) (
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The merchandise covered by these investigations consists of chassis and subassemblies thereof, whether finished or unfinished, whether assembled or unassembled, whether coated or uncoated, regardless of the number of axles, for carriage of containers, or other payloads (including self-supporting payloads) for road, marine roll-on/roll-off (RORO) and/or rail transport. Chassis are typically, but are not limited to, rectangular framed trailers with a suspension and axle system, wheels and tires, brakes, a lighting and electrical system, a coupling for towing behind a truck tractor, and a locking system or systems to secure the shipping container or containers to the chassis using twistlocks, slide pins or similar attachment devices to engage the corner fittings on the container or other payload.
Subject merchandise includes, but is not limited to, the following subassemblies:
• Chassis frames, or sections of chassis frames, including kingpin assemblies, bolsters consisting of transverse beams with locking or support mechanisms, goosenecks, drop assemblies, extension mechanisms and/or rear impact guards;
• Running gear assemblies or axle assemblies for connection to the chassis frame, whether fixed in nature or capable of sliding fore and aft or lifting up and lowering down, which may or may not include suspension(s) (mechanical or pneumatic), wheel end components, slack adjusters, dressed axles, brake chambers, locking pins, and tires and wheels; and
• Assemblies that connect to the chassis frame or a section of the chassis frame, such as but not limited to, pintle hooks or B-trains (which include a fifth wheel), which are capable of connecting a chassis to a converter dolly or another chassis.
Importation of any of these subassemblies, whether assembled or unassembled, constitutes an unfinished chassis for purposes of these investigations.
Subject merchandise also includes chassis, whether finished or unfinished, entered with components such as, but not limited to: hub and drum assemblies, brake assemblies (either drum or disc), bare axles, brake chambers, suspensions and suspension components, wheel end components, landing gear legs, spoke or disc wheels, tires, brake control systems, electrical harnesses and lighting systems.
Processing of finished and unfinished chassis and components such as trimming, cutting, grinding, notching, punching, drilling, painting, coating, staining, finishing, assembly, or any other processing either in the country of manufacture of the in-scope product or in a third country does not remove the product from the scope. Inclusion of other components not identified as comprising the finished or unfinished chassis does not remove the product from the scope.
Individual components entered and sold by themselves are not subject to the investigations, but components entered with a finished or unfinished chassis are subject merchandise. A finished chassis is ultimately comprised of several different types of subassemblies. Within each subassembly there are numerous components that comprise a given subassembly.
This scope excludes dry van trailers, refrigerated van trailers and flatbed trailers. Dry van trailers are trailers with a wholly enclosed cargo space comprised of fixed sides, nose, floor and roof, with articulated panels (doors) across the rear and occasionally at selected places on the sides, with the cargo space being permanently incorporated in the trailer itself. Refrigerated van trailers are trailers with a wholly enclosed cargo space comprised of fixed sides, nose, floor and roof, with articulated panels (doors) across the rear and occasionally at selected places on the sides, with the cargo space being permanently
The finished and unfinished chassis subject to these investigations are typically classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 8716.39.0090 and 8716.90.5060. Imports of finished and unfinished chassis may also enter under HTSUS subheading 8716.90.5010. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable March 18, 2025.
Jun Jack Zhao at (202) 482-1396 (Mexico), Aleksandras Nakutis at (202) 482-3147 (Thailand), and Benito Ballesteros at (202) 482-7425 (the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam)), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of certain chassis and subassemblies thereof (chassis) from Mexico, Thailand, and Vietnam filed in proper form on behalf of the U.S. Chassis Manufacturers Coalition (the petitioner),
Between February 28 and March 11, 2025, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions in supplemental questionnaires.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of chassis from Mexico, Thailand, and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that imports of such products are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the chassis industry in the United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions were accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner to support its allegations.
Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party, as defined in section 771(9)(F) of the Act.
Because the Petitions were filed on February 26, 2025, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) for the Mexico and Thailand LTFV investigations is January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. Because Vietnam is a non-market economy (NME) country, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the POI for the Vietnam LTFV investigation is July 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024.
The products covered by these investigations are chassis from Mexico, Thailand, and Vietnam. For a full description of the scope of these investigations,
On February 28 and March 7, 2025, Commerce requested information and clarification from the petitioner regarding the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the
Commerce requests that any factual information that parties consider relevant to the scope of these investigations be submitted during that period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party must contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All scope comments must be filed simultaneously on the records of the concurrent LTFV and CVD investigations.
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies.
Commerce is providing interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of chassis to be reported in response to Commerce's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors of production (FOP) or cost of production (COP) accurately, as well as to develop appropriate product comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) general product characteristics; and (2) product comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product comparison criteria. We base product comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe chassis, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, Commerce attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on April 7, 2025, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on April 17, 2025, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline. All comments and submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of the each of the LTFV investigations.
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations.
In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided the 2024 production of the domestic like product for the supporters of the Petitions and compared this to the estimated total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the First General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petitions.
The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at LTFV. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant increase in the volume of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression and/or suppression; lost sales and revenues; declines in domestic producers' U.S. shipments, production, and capacity utilization; decline in employment variables; adverse impact on financial performance; negative impact on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic industry; and the magnitude of the alleged dumping margins.
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at LTFV upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate LTFV investigations of imports of chassis from Mexico, Thailand, and Vietnam. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and normal value (NV) are discussed in greater detail in the Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists.
For Mexico and Vietnam, the petitioner based export price (EP) on pricing information for chassis produced in each country and sold or offered for sale in the U.S. market during the POI.
For Mexico, the petitioner based NV on home market pricing information obtained for chassis produced in and sold or offered for sale in Mexico during the POI.
For Thailand, the petitioner stated that it was unable to obtain home market or third-country pricing information for chassis in Thailand to use as a basis for NV.
Commerce considers Vietnam to be an NME country.
The petitioner claims that Indonesia is an appropriate surrogate country for Vietnam because it is a market economy that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of Vietnam and is a significant producer of comparable merchandise.
Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.
Because information regarding the volume of inputs consumed by Vietnamese producers/exporters was not reasonably available, the petitioner used the production experience and product-specific consumption rates of a U.S. producer of chassis as a surrogate to value Vietnamese manufacturers' FOPs.
As noted above for Thailand, the petitioner stated that it was unable to obtain home market or third-country prices for chassis to use as a basis for NV. Therefore, for Thailand, the petitioner calculated NV based on CV.
Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, the petitioner calculated CV as the sum of the cost of manufacturing, SG&A expenses, financial expenses, and profit.
Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports Chassis from Mexico, Thailand, and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. Based on comparisons of EP or CEP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for chassis from each of the countries covered by this initiation are as follows: (1) Mexico—32.37 percent; (2) Thailand—181.57 percent; (3) and Vietnam—302.52 percent.
Based upon the examination of the Petitions and supplemental responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating LTFV investigations to determine whether imports of chassis from Mexico, Thailand, and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of these initiations.
In the Petitions, the petitioner identified 13 companies in Mexico and three companies in Thailand as producers and/or exporters of chassis.
Commerce will also post the Q&V questionnaires along with filing instructions on Commerce's website at
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under an administrative protective order (APO) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). As stated above, instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at
In the Petitions, the petitioner identified four companies in Vietnam as producers and/or exporters of chassis.
Commerce will post the Q&V questionnaires along with filing instructions on Commerce's website at
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). As stated above, instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at
In order to obtain separate rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate rate application. The specific requirements for submitting a separate rate application in an NME investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, which is available on Commerce's website at
Commerce will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petitions has been provided to the governments of Mexico, Thailand, and Vietnam via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
Commerce will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of chassis from Mexico, Thailand, and/or Vietnam are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Section 773(e) of the Act addresses the concept of particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of CV, stating that “if a particular market situation exists such that the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind does not accurately reflect the cost of production in the ordinary course of trade, the administering authority may use another calculation methodology under this subtitle or any other calculation methodology.” When an interested party submits a PMS allegation pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act (
Neither section 773(e) of the Act, nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v), sets a deadline for the submission of cost-based PMS allegations and supporting factual information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should an interested party wish to submit a cost-based PMS allegation and supporting new factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later than 20 days after submission of a respondent's initial section D questionnaire response.
We note that a PMS allegation filed pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(III) or 773(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act (
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Section 351.301(c) of Commerce's regulations states that during a proceeding, Commerce may issue to any person questionnaires, which includes both and initial and supplemental questionnaires. For all investigations initiated after January 15, 2025, the following time limits apply:
(i) Initial questionnaire responses are due 30 days from the date of receipt of such questionnaire. The time limit for response to individual sections of the questionnaire, if Commerce requests a separate response to such sections, may be less than the 30 days allotted for response to the full questionnaire. In general, the date of receipt will be considered to be seven days from the date on which the initial questionnaire was transmitted.
(ii) Supplemental questionnaire responses are due on the date specified by Commerce.
(iii) A notification by an interested party, under section 782(c)(1) of the Act, of difficulties in submitting information in response to a questionnaire issued by Commerce is to be submitted in writing within 14 days after the date of the questionnaire or, if the questionnaire is due in 14 days or less, within the time specified by Commerce.
(iv) A respondent interested party may request in writing that Commerce conduct a questionnaire presentation. Commerce may conduct a questionnaire presentation if Commerce notifies the government of the affected country and that government does not object.
(v) Factual information submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct questionnaire responses. Within 14 days after an initial questionnaire response and within 10 days after a supplemental questionnaire response has been filed with Commerce, an interested party other than the original submitter is permitted one opportunity to submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information contained in the questionnaire response. Within seven days of the filing of such rebuttal, clarification, or correction to a questionnaire response, the original submitter of the questionnaire response is permitted one opportunity to submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information submitted in the interested party's rebuttal, clarification or correction. Commerce will reject any untimely filed rebuttal, clarification, or correction submission and provide, to the extent practicable, written notice stating the reasons for rejection. If insufficient time remains before the due date for the final determination or final results of review, Commerce may specify shorter deadlines under this section.
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce.
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.103(d) (
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The merchandise covered by these investigations consists of chassis and subassemblies thereof, whether finished or unfinished, whether assembled or unassembled, whether coated or uncoated, regardless of the number of axles, for carriage of containers, or other payloads (including self-supporting payloads) for road, marine roll-on/roll-off (RORO) and/or rail transport. Chassis are typically, but are not limited to, rectangular framed trailers with a suspension and axle system, wheels and tires, brakes, a lighting and electrical system, a coupling for towing behind a truck tractor, and a locking system or systems to secure the shipping container or containers to the chassis using twistlocks, slide pins or similar attachment devices to engage the corner fittings on the container or other payload.
Subject merchandise includes, but is not limited to, the following subassemblies:
• Chassis frames, or sections of chassis frames, including kingpin assemblies, bolsters consisting of transverse beams with locking or support mechanisms, goosenecks, drop assemblies, extension mechanisms and/or rear impact guards;
• Running gear assemblies or axle assemblies for connection to the chassis frame, whether fixed in nature or capable of
• Assemblies that connect to the chassis frame or a section of the chassis frame, such as but not limited to, pintle hooks or B-trains (which include a fifth wheel), which are capable of connecting a chassis to a converter dolly or another chassis.
Importation of any of these subassemblies, whether assembled or unassembled, constitutes an unfinished chassis for purposes of these investigations.
Subject merchandise also includes chassis, whether finished or unfinished, entered with components such as, but not limited to: hub and drum assemblies, brake assemblies (either drum or disc), bare axles, brake chambers, suspensions and suspension components, wheel end components, landing gear legs, spoke or disc wheels, tires, brake control systems, electrical harnesses and lighting systems.
Processing of finished and unfinished chassis and components such as trimming, cutting, grinding, notching, punching, drilling, painting, coating, staining, finishing, assembly, or any other processing either in the country of manufacture of the in-scope product or in a third country does not remove the product from the scope. Inclusion of other components not identified as comprising the finished or unfinished chassis does not remove the product from the scope.
Individual components entered and sold by themselves are not subject to the investigations, but components entered with a finished or unfinished chassis are subject merchandise. A finished chassis is ultimately comprised of several different types of subassemblies. Within each subassembly there are numerous components that comprise a given subassembly.
This scope excludes dry van trailers, refrigerated van trailers and flatbed trailers. Dry van trailers are trailers with a wholly enclosed cargo space comprised of fixed sides, nose, floor and roof, with articulated panels (doors) across the rear and occasionally at selected places on the sides, with the cargo space being permanently incorporated in the trailer itself. Refrigerated van trailers are trailers with a wholly enclosed cargo space comprised of fixed sides, nose, floor and roof, with articulated panels (doors) across the rear and occasionally at selected places on the sides, with the cargo space being permanently incorporated in the trailer and being insulated, possessing specific thermal properties intended for use with self-contained refrigeration systems. Flatbed (or platform) trailers consist of load carrying main frames and a solid, flat or stepped loading deck or floor permanently incorporated with and supported by frame rails and cross members.
The finished and unfinished chassis subject to these investigations are typically classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 8716.39.0090 and 8716.90.5060. Imports of finished and unfinished chassis may also enter under HTSUS subheading 8716.90.5010. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of cancellation; SEDAR 101 Data Workshop for Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Sandbar Sharks.
The SEDAR 101 assessment process of HMS sandbar sharks will consist of a Data Workshop, an Assessment Workshop and a Center for Independent Experts (CIE) Desk Review. See
The SEDAR 101 Data Workshop was scheduled for May 12-16, 2025.
Emily Ott, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 302-8434; email:
The meeting notice published on March 18, 2025 (90 FR 12528). This announces that the meeting is cancelled and will be rescheduled at a later date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.
NMFS has received a request from the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to Angoon Ferry Terminal Modification Project in Angoon, Alaska. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on a possible one-time, 1-year renewal that could be issued under certain circumstances and if all requirements are met, as described in Request for Public Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorization and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
Comments and information must be received no later than April 23, 2025.
Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service and should be submitted via email to
Leah Davis, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of the takings. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms used above are included in the relevant sections below and can be found in section 3 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362) and NMFS regulations at 50 CFR 216.103.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
On September 6, 2024, NMFS received a request from ADOT&PF for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving (installation and removal) associated with construction for one ferry terminal in Angoon, Alaska. Following NMFS' review of the application, ADOT&PF submitted revised versions on November 6, 2024, November 12, 2024, November 26, 2024, and December 23, 2024. A final revised application was submitted on January 6, 2025 and the application was deemed adequate and complete on January 27, 2025. The ADOT&PF request is for take of eight species (12 stocks) by Level B harassment and, for a subset five of these species, Level A harassment. Neither ADOT&PF nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
ADOT&PF is proposing to make improvements to Angoon Ferry Terminal within Killisnoo Harbor in Angoon, Alaska. The existing Angoon Ferry terminal was originally designed for the Alaska Marine Highway System fast ferries and motor vessels but ADOT&PF is in the process of replacing these aging vessels with longer and wider Alaska Class Ferries. Ferry replacement requires mooring dolphin rearrangement to accommodate these larger vessels as well as upgrades to the lift system from electric to hydraulic actuators for more reliable operations. Construction would occur on approximately 143 non-consecutive in-water work days over the course of 1 year. The proposed activities that have the potential to take marine mammals, by Level A and level B harassment, include down-the-hole drilling (DTH) of rock sockets and tension anchors, vibratory installation and removal of temporary steel pipe piles, vibratory and impact installation of permanent steel pipe piles, and vibratory removal of permanent piles (in cases where piles cannot be removed with direct pull methods).
ADOT&PF anticipates the project would require 143 non-consecutive -in water days of pile installation and removal over the course of 1 year. The effective date of the IHA, if issued, would be from May 1, 2026 through April 30, 2027.
The Angoon Ferry Terminal Modifications Project is located in Killisnoo Harbor in Angoon, Alaska as shown in figure 1. Angoon is a small southeast Alaskan village and the only permanent settlement on Admiralty Island. The ferry terminal is approximately 2 miles (3.2 kilometers (km)) south of Angoon's city center. The ferry terminal is adjacent to the City of Angoon's deep draft dock serving as the community's fuel supply operation, and other marine facilities in Angoon include a small boat harbor and seaplane base on Kootznahoo Inlet. Killisnoo Harbor is approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) wide and is situated between the west shore of Admiralty Island on the eastern side of Chatham Strait, which is one of the most extensive inside passages in Southeast Alaska. Water depths in the harbor are generally 150 feet (45.7 meters (m)) or shallower.
ADOT&PF is proposing to upgrade the existing Angoon Ferry Terminal to accommodate the new larger Alaska Class Vessel berthing. Work would include installation of three new floating fender dolphins (N4, N8, and N10), replacement of a mooring dolphin (S3), and modification of an existing dolphin (N7, to be renamed N9) to be an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene panel fender pile, as well as some other above-water work.
The N4 floating fender dolphin would be comprised of one 30 inch (70 centimeters (cm)) steel pipe fender pile, two 24 inch (61 cm) vertical steel pipe piles, and two 24 inch (61 cm) batter piles. The N8 and N10 floating fender pile dolphins would each consist of one fender pile, two vertical piles, and two batter piles, all 30-in steel pipe piles. S3 mooring dolphin replacement would include removal and replacement of two 20 inch (51 cm) batter piles and potentially one 24 inch (61 cm) steel pipe pile. Tension anchors for the S3 mooring dock piles would also be cut at the mudline. ADOT&PF would also install and remove 16 temporary steel pipe piles up to 24 inch (61 cm) in diameter using a vibratory hammer as part of the construction process. ADOT&PF anticipates that pile removal would occur via direct pull, cutting, clipping, or other above water activities when feasible, but may use a vibratory hammer to extract piles if necessary. In addition to vibratory and impact pile driving, ADOT&PF may install rock sockets and tension anchors at some locations. Table 1 includes the total number of piles of each type and the proposed construction method.
The construction crew may use a single installation method for multiple piles on a single day or find other efficiencies to increase production; the anticipated ranges of possible values are provided in table 1. All of the construction activities described above have the potential to result in both Level A and Level B behavioral harassment of marine mammals.
Existing dolphin N7 (to be renamed N9) would be modified by cutting and replacing a portion of the pile about 10 feet (3.0 m) above high tide line. Other out-of-water work would include converting the existing electrical actuated bridge and apron lift system to a hydraulic actuated system; installing new hydraulic actuators, hydraulic power unit, and associated electrical components; and making improvements to the dock's transfer bridge and other uplands components. Modification of dolphin N7 and the other out-of-water work described here is not anticipated to result in take of marine mammal, and therefore, these activities are not discussed further in this document.
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions, instead of reprinting the information. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs;
Table 2 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and proposed to be authorized for the activities at the Angoon Ferry Terminal, and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality (M/SI) from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species or stocks and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' Alaska and Pacific SARs. All values presented in table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication and are available online at:
As indicated above, all 8 species (with 12 managed stocks) in table 2 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. All species that could potentially occur in the proposed action area are included in table 3 of the IHA application. While gray whales have been documented in the area, the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of these species is such that take is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further beyond the explanation provided here. Gray whales are considered to be very rare with no local knowledge of sightings and no sightings in recent years have been reported in recent years.
In addition, the Northern sea otter (
The Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA and Hawaii stocks of humpback whale occur in the project area. Wild
Minke whale surveys in Southeast Alaska have consistently identified individuals throughout inland waters in low numbers (Dahlheim
Killer whales occur throughout the North Pacific and along the entire Alaska coast, in British Columbia and Washington inland waterways, and along the outer coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. Of the eight recognized killer whale stocks, only the Eastern North Pacific Alaska Resident, Eastern Northern Pacific Northern Resident, and West Coast Transient stocks are expected to occur in the project area. Transient killer whales often occur in long-term stable social units (pods) of 1 to 16 whales. Average pod sizes in Southeast Alaska were 6.0 in spring, 5.0 in summer, and 3.9 in fall. Pod sizes of transient whales are generally smaller than those of resident social groups. Resident killer whales occur in larger pods, ranging from 7 to 70 whales that are seen in association with one another more than 50 percent of the time (Dahlheim
Surveys between 1991 and 2007 encountered resident killer whales during all seasons throughout southeast Alaska. Both residents and transients were common in a variety of habitats and all major waterways, including protected bays and inlets. The authors found strong seasonal variation in abundance or distribution of killer whales was not present, but there was substantial variability between years (Dahlheim
Pacific white-sided dolphins are a pelagic species inhabiting temperate waters of the North Pacific Ocean and along the coasts of California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska (Muto
In southeast Alaska, Pacific white-sided dolphin occur in groups of 2 to 153 individuals, but are most commonly seen in groups of 23-26 individuals (Dahlheim
Dall's porpoise is found in temperate to subarctic waters of the North Pacific and adjacent seas. They are widely distributed across the North Pacific over the continental shelf and slope waters, and over deep (greater than 2,500 m) oceanic waters (Friday
The harbor porpoise is common in coastal waters. Individuals frequently occur in coastal waters of southeast Alaska and are observed most frequently in waters less than 107 m deep (Dahlheim
The western distinct population segment (DPS) of Steller sea lion breeds on rookeries located west of 144 degrees W in Alaska and Russia, and the eastern DPS breeds on rookeries in southeast Alaska through California. Movement occurs between the western and eastern DPSs of Steller sea lions, and increasing numbers of individuals from the western DPS have been seen in southeast Alaska in recent years (Muto
Harbor seals are common in the coastal and inside waters of the project areas. Harbor seals in Alaska are typically non-migratory with local movements attributed to factors such as prey availability, weather, and reproduction (Scheffer and Slipp, 1944; Bigg, 1969; Hastings
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2024) for a review of available information.
This section provides a discussion of the ways in which components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the content of this section, the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and whether those impacts are reasonably expected to, or reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The marine soundscape is comprised of both ambient and anthropogenic sounds. Ambient sound is defined as the all-encompassing sound in a given place and is usually a composite of sound from many sources both near and far (ANSI 1995). The sound level of an area is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated by known and unknown sources. These sources may include physical (
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at any given location and time—which comprise “ambient” or “background” sound—depends not only on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 decibels (dB) from day to day (Richardson
In-water construction activities associated with the proposed project would include impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving and removal, tension anchoring, and rock socketing. The sounds produced by these activities fall into one of two general sound types: impulsive and non-impulsive. Impulsive sounds (
Impact hammers operate by repeatedly dropping a heavy piston onto a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. Sound generated by impact hammers is characterized by rapid rise times and high peak levels, a potentially injurious combination (Hastings and Popper, 2005). Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them and allowing the weight of the hammer to push them into the sediment. Vibratory hammers produce significantly less sound than impact hammers. Peak sound pressure levels (SPLs) may be 180 dB or greater, but are generally 10 to 20 dB lower than SPLs generated during impact pile driving of the same-sized pile (Oestman
Rock socket or tension anchoring would be conducted using a DTH hammer. A DTH hammer is essentially a drill bit that drills through the bedrock using a rotating function like a normal drill, in concert with a hammering mechanism operated by a pneumatic (or sometimes hydraulic) component integrated into the DTH hammer to increase speed of progress through the substrate (
The likely or possible impacts of the ADOT&PFs proposed activity on marine mammals could involve both non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. Potential non-acoustic stressors could result from the physical presence of the equipment and personnel; however, any impacts to marine mammals are expected to primarily be acoustic in nature.
The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic environment from pile driving is the primary means by which marine mammals may be harassed from the proposed activity. In general, animals exposed to natural or anthropogenic sound may experience physical and psychological effects, ranging in magnitude from none to severe (Southall
NMFS defines a noise-induced TS as a change, usually an increase, in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2018, 2024). The amount of TS is customarily expressed in dB. A TS can be permanent or temporary. As described in NMFS (2018, 2024), there are numerous factors to consider when examining the consequence of TS, including, but not limited to, the signal temporal pattern (
Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (
Many studies have examined noise-induced hearing loss in marine mammals (see Finneran (2015) and Southall
The amount and onset of TTS depends on the exposure frequency. Sounds at low frequencies, well below the region of best sensitivity for a species or hearing group, are less hazardous than those at higher frequencies, near the region of best sensitivity (Finneran and Schlundt, 2013). At low frequencies, onset-TTS exposure levels are higher compared to those in the region of best sensitivity (
Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals, but such relationships are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. PTS typically occurs at exposure levels at least several dBs above that inducing mild TTS (
Pile installation at the Angoon Ferry Terminal Modifications Project would require a combination DTH, impact, and vibratory pile driving and removal. Construction at the project site would only include one method of pile installation or removal at a time. Proposed construction activities are not expected to be constant and pauses in the activities producing sound are likely to occur each day. Given these pauses and that many marine mammals are likely moving through the project areas and not remaining for extended periods of time, the potential for TS declines.
Disturbance may result in changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); or avoidance of areas where sound sources are located. Pinnipeds may increase their haulout time, possibly to avoid in-water disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 2006). Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors (
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events (Wartzok
As noted above, behavioral state may affect the type of response. For example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral change in response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are highly motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson
Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the signal (
Changes in dive behavior can vary widely and may consist of increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive (
Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary indicators (
A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in the intensity of the response (
Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in more subtle ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to diversion of focus and attention (
Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that are affected by stress—including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior—are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune competence, and behavioral disturbance (
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and “distress” is the cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves sufficient to restore normal function.
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well studied through controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals (
Airborne noise would primarily be an issue for pinnipeds that are swimming or hauled out near the project site within the range of noise levels elevated above the airborne acoustic harassment criteria. We recognize that pinnipeds in the water could be exposed to airborne sound that may result in behavioral harassment when swimming with their heads above water. Most likely, airborne sound would cause behavioral responses similar to those discussed above in relation to underwater sound. For instance, anthropogenic sound could cause hauled-out pinnipeds to exhibit changes in their normal behavior, such as reduction in vocalizations, or cause them to temporarily abandon the area and move further from the source. However, these animals would previously have been `taken' because of exposure to underwater sound above the behavioral harassment thresholds, which are in all cases larger than those associated with airborne sound. Thus, the behavioral harassment of these animals is already accounted for in these estimates of potential take. Therefore, we do not believe that authorization of incidental take resulting from airborne sound for pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne sound is not discussed further.
ADOT&PF's proposed construction activities could have localized, temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat, including prey, by increasing in-water SPLs and slightly decreasing water quality. Increased noise levels may affect acoustic habitat (see
Effects from turbidity and sedimentation are expected to be short-term, minor, and localized. Suspended solids in the water column should dissipate and quickly return to background levels in all construction scenarios. Turbidity within the water column has the potential to reduce the level of oxygen in the water and irritate the gills of prey fish species in the proposed project area. However, suspended sediment associated with the project would be temporary and localized, and fish in the proposed project area would be able to move away from and avoid the areas where plumes may occur. Therefore, it is expected that the impacts on prey fish species from turbidity, and therefore on marine mammals, would be minimal and temporary. In general, the area likely impacted by the proposed construction activities is relatively small compared to the total available marine mammal habitat. Therefore, we expect the impact from increased turbidity levels to be discountable to marine mammals and do not discuss it further.
It is possible that avoidance by potential prey (
Fish utilize the soundscape and components of sound in their environment to perform important functions such as foraging, predator avoidance, mating, and spawning (Zelick
Fish react to sounds which are especially strong and/or intermittent low-frequency sounds, and behavioral responses such as flight or avoidance are the most likely effects. Short duration, sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local distribution. The reaction of fish to noise depends on the physiological state of the fish, past exposures, motivation (
SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury to fish and fish mortality (summarized in Popper
The most likely impact to fishes from pile driving and DTH activities in the project area would be temporary behavioral avoidance of the area. The duration of fish avoidance of the area after pile driving stops is unknown but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution, and behavior is anticipated. There are times of known seasonal marine mammal foraging when fish are aggregating but the impacted areas are small portions of the total foraging habitats available in the regions. In general, impacts to marine mammal prey species are expected to be minor and temporary. Further, it is anticipated that preparation activities for pile driving and DTH activities
Construction activities, in the form of increased turbidity, also have the potential to adversely affect forage fish in the project area. Pacific herring (
In summary, given the short daily duration of sound associated with pile driving and DTH activities, and the relatively small areas being affected, pile driving and DTH activities associated with the proposed action are not likely to have a permanent adverse effect on any fish habitat, or populations of fish species. Thus, we conclude that impacts of the specified activity are not likely to have more than short-term adverse effects on any prey habitat or populations of prey species. Further, any impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to result in significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals, or to contribute to adverse impacts on their populations.
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization through the IHA, which will inform NMFS' consideration of “small numbers,” the negligible impact determinations, and impacts on subsistence uses.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of 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
Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as use of the acoustic sources (
As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the proposed take numbers are estimated.
For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) acoustic criteria above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will likely be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of auditory injury; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) the number of days of activities. We note that while these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of potential takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available (
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic criteria that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur auditory injury of some degree (equated to Level A harassment). We note that the criteria for auditory injury, as well as the names of two hearing groups, have been recently updated (NMFS 2024) as reflected below in the Level A harassment section.
ADOT&PF's proposed activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile driving/removal and DTH) and impulsive (impact pile driving and DTH) sources, and therefore the RMS SPL thresholds of 120 and 160 dB re 1 μPa are applicable.
The 2024 Updated Technical Guidance criteria include both updated thresholds and updated weighting functions for each hearing group. The thresholds are provided in table 4. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the criteria are described in NMFS' 2024 Updated Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that are used in estimating the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds, including source levels and transmission loss coefficient.
The sound field in the proposed project areas is the existing background noise plus additional construction noise from the proposed project. Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the primary components of the project activities (
The Angoon Ferry Terminal Modifications Project includes vibratory pile installation and removal, impact pile driving, tension anchoring, and rock socketing. Source levels for these activities are based on reviews of measurements of the same or similar types and dimensions of piles available in the literature. Source levels for each piles size and activity for the Angoon Ferry Terminal Modifications Project are presented in table 5. Source levels for vibratory installation and removal of piles of the same diameter are assumed to be the same.
Transmission Loss (
Absent site-specific acoustical monitoring with differing measured
The ensonified area associated with Level A harassment is more technically challenging to predict due to the need to account for a duration component. Therefore, NMFS developed an optional User Spreadsheet tool to accompany the 2024 Updated Technical Guidance that can be used to relatively simply predict an isopleth distance for use in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict potential takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods underlying this optional tool, we anticipate that the resulting isopleth estimates are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which may result in an overestimate of potential take by Level A harassment. However, this optional tool offers the best way to estimate isopleth distances when more sophisticated modeling methods are not available or practical. For stationary sources pile driving, the optional User Spreadsheet tool predicts the distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance for the duration of the activity, it would be expected to incur auditory injury. Inputs used in the optional User Spreadsheet tool, and the resulting estimated isopleths, are reported below in tables 6 and 7.
In this section we provide information about the occurrence of marine mammals, including density or other relevant information which will inform the take calculations. We describe how the information provided is synthesized to produce a quantitative estimate of the take that is reasonably likely to occur and proposed for authorization.
Available information regarding marine mammal occurrence in the vicinity of the project area includes site-specific and nearby survey information and historic data sets. Prior data sets included: (1) Cetacean Surveys conducted from vessels in Southeast Alaska between 1991-2007 (Dahlheim 2009), (2) surveys for humpback whales from vessels in the Prince William Sound, Lynn Canal, and the Sitka Sound from August through March in 2007 through 2009 (Staley
ADOT&PF used species-specific density occurrence information described above to estimate take of each species using one of three formulas provided here:
(1) Incidental take estimate = group size × number of groups per day × days of pile driving activity (143 days)
(2) Incidental take estimate = group size × number of groups per month (considered 30 days) × months of pile driving activity (143 days/30 days per month)
(3) Incidental take estimate = marine mammal density (animals/km2) × ensonified area (km2) for each pile driving activity × days of each pile driving activity, summed across all activities
For all project activities, ADOT&PF proposes to implement shutdown zones for low-frequency cetaceans that exceed the Level A harassment isopleths. Therefore, Level A harassment of minke whale from these activities is unlikely. However, given the large shutdown zone for rock socketing (2,350 m), NMFS anticipates that PSOs may not always be able to implement a shutdown at the farther extent of the zone. Therefore, NMFS anticipates that a minke whale could enter and remain within the Level A harassment zone long enough to incur auditory injury, and as requested by ADOT&PF, NMFS is proposing to authorize 1 take of minke whale by Level A harassment.
For all project activities, ADOT&PF proposes to implement shutdown zones for low-frequency cetaceans that exceed the Level A harassment isopleths. Therefore, Level A harassment of humpback whale from these activities is unlikely. However, given the large shutdown zone for rock socketing (2,350 m), NMFS anticipates that PSOs may not always be able to implement a shutdown at the farther extent of the zone. Therefore, NMFS anticipates that a humpback whale could enter and remain within the Level A harassment zone long enough to incur auditory injury on each project day where the shutdown zone extends to that distance (2,350 m; 9 days). Therefore, ADOT&PF requested, and NMFS is proposing to authorize, 9 take of humpback whale by Level A harassment. Of the nine takes by Level A harassment, NMFS anticipates that eight would be of individuals from the Hawaii DPS (Hawaii stock) and one of an individual from the Mexico DPS (Mexico-North Pacific stock).
The largest Level A harassment zone for killer whales is 299.6 m during rock socketing. For all activities, ADOT&PF would implement shutdown zones that exceed the Level A harassment zone for HF cetaceans. Therefore, considering the small size of all Level A harassment zones and the proposed shutdown zone requirements, no take by Level A harassment of killer whales is anticipated or proposed for authorization.
The largest Level A harassment zone for Pacific white-sided dolphins is 299.6 m during rock socketing. For all activities, ADOT&PF would implement shutdown zones that exceed the Level A harassment zone for HF cetaceans. Therefore, considering the small size of all Level A harassment zones and the proposed shutdown zone requirements, no take by Level A harassment of Pacific white-sided dolphins is anticipated or proposed for authorization.
For all project activities except rock socketing, ADOT&PF proposes to implement shutdown zones for very high-frequency cetaceans that exceed the Level A harassment isopleths. Therefore, Level A harassment of Dall's porpoise from these activities is unlikely. For rock socketing, the Level A harassment zone exceeds the shutdown zone, and NMFS anticipates that one group of 3 Dall's porpoise could enter and remain within the Level A harassment zone long enough to incur auditory injury on each of the 9 days of that activity. Therefore, NMFS is proposing to authorize 27 takes of Dall's porpoise by Level A harassment.
For all project activities except rock socketing, ADOT&PF proposes to implement shutdown zones for very high-frequency cetaceans that exceed the Level A harassment isopleths. Therefore, Level A harassment of harbor
For all project activities except rock socketing, ADOT&PF proposes to implement shutdown zones for phocids that exceed the Level A harassment isopleths. Therefore, Level A harassment of harbor seal from these activities is unlikely. For rock socketing, the Level A harassment zone exceeds the shutdown zone, and NMFS anticipates that up to two groups of three harbor seals could enter and remain within the Level A harassment zone long enough to incur auditory injury on each of the 9 days of that activity. Therefore, NMFS is proposing to authorize 54 takes of harbor seal by Level A harassment.
For all project activities except rock socketing, ADOT&PF proposes to implement shutdown zones for otariids that exceed the Level A harassment isopleths. Therefore, Level A harassment of Steller sea lion from these activities is unlikely. For rock socketing, the Level A harassment zone exceeds the shutdown zone, and NMFS anticipates that up to one Steller sea lion could enter and remain within the Level A harassment zone long enough to incur auditory injury on each of the 9 days of that activity. Given the expected occurrence of Western vs Eastern DPS Steller sea lions in the area, none of these takes are anticipated to be of Western DPS animals. Therefore, NMFS is proposing to authorize 9 takes of Eastern DPS Steller sea lion by Level A harassment. A summary of estimated take by Level A and Level B harassment is provided in table 8.
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, NMFS considers two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, and impact on operations.
The mitigation measures described in the following paragraphs would apply to all in-water construction activities for the Angoon Ferry Modifications project.
ADOT&PF must establish shutdown zones for all pile driving activates. The purpose of a shutdown zone is generally to define an area within which shutdown of the activity would occur upon sighting of a marine animal (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area). Shutdown zones vary based on the activity type and duration and marine mammal hearing group, as shown in table 9. A minimum shutdown zone of 10 m would be required for all in-water construction activities to avoid physical interaction with marine mammals. Marine mammal monitoring would be conducted during all pile driving activities to ensure that shutdowns occur, as required. Proposed shutdown zones for each activity type are shown in table 9.
Prior to the start of any pile driving, ADOT&PF would establish shutdown zones for construction activities (table 9). Protected species observers (PSO) would survey the shutdown zones for at least 30 minutes before pile driving activities start. If marine mammals are observed within the shutdown zone, pile driving, tension anchoring, or rock socketing will be delayed until the animal has moved out of the shutdown zone, either verified by a PSO or by waiting until 15 minutes has elapsed without a sighting of small cetaceans, and pinnipeds; or 30 minutes has elapsed without a sighting of a large cetacean. If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone during pile driving, tension anchoring, or rock socketing, the activity would be halted. Pile-driving would not re-commence until all marine mammals are assumed to have cleared these established shutdown zones as described above. If a species for which authorization has not been granted, or a species which has been granted but the authorized takes are met, is observed approaching or within the Level B harassment zone during pile driving, pile removal, or tension anchoring, the activity would be halted. Pile driving may resume after the animal has moved out of and is moving away from the shutdown zone (or Level B harassment zone for a species for which take is not authorized, or a species for take is authorized but the authorized takes are met) or after at least 15 minutes has passed since the last observation of the animal.
All marine mammals would be monitored in the Level B harassment zones and throughout the area as far as visual monitoring can take place. If a marine mammal enters the Level B harassment zone, in-water activities would continue and PSOs would document the animal's presence within the estimated harassment zone.
The monitoring locations for all protected species observers (PSOs) during all pile driving activities (described in the Proposed Monitoring and Reporting Section) would ensure that the entirety of all shutdown zones are visible, except potentially the outer extent of the zone for LF cetaceans during rock socketing. PSOs would monitor the shutdown zones and as much of the Level B harassment zones as possible. Monitoring enables observers to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine mammals in the project areas outside the shutdown zones and thus prepare for a potential cessation of activity should the animal enter the shutdown zone.
Monitoring must take place from 30 minutes prior to initiation of pile driving activities (
Soft-start procedures are used to provide additional protection to marine mammals by providing warning and/or giving marine mammals a chance to
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while conducting the activities. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Marine mammal monitoring must be conducted in accordance with the Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation Plan and section 5 of the IHA. ADOT&PF's draft Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation Plan is Appendix B of the IHA application.
Marine mammal monitoring during pile driving activities would be conducted by PSOs meeting NMFS' standards and in a manner consistent with the following:
• PSOs must be independent of the activity contractor (for example, employed by a subcontractor) and have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods;
• At least one PSO would have prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization;
• Other PSOs may substitute education (degree in biological science or related field) or training for prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization. PSOs may also substitute Alaska native traditional knowledge for experience;
• Where a team of three or more PSOs is required, a lead observer or monitoring coordinator would be designated. The lead observer must have prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization.
• PSOs must be approved by NMFS prior to beginning any activities subject to this IHA.
PSOs should have the following additional qualifications:
• Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols;
• Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
• Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;
• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation of mitigation (or why mitigation was not implemented when required); and marine mammal behavior; and
• Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.
During all pile driving activities, a minimum of two PSOs will monitor shutdown zones during pile driving activities. PSOs will establish monitoring locations as described in the Marine Mammal Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Monitoring locations would be selected by the contractor during pre-construction. PSOs would monitor for marine mammals entering the Level B harassment zones; the position(s) may vary based on construction activity and location of piles or equipment.
Monitoring would be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after pile driving/removal activities. In addition, observers shall record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and shall document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being driven or removed. Pile driving/removal activities include the time to install or remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than 30 minutes.
PSOs would use approved data forms to record the following information:
• Dates and times (beginning and end) of all marine mammal monitoring; and
• PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring.
• Construction activities occurring during each daily observation period, including how many and what type of piles were driven or removed and by what method (
• Weather parameters and water conditions;
• The number of marine mammals observed, by species, relative to the pile location and if pile driving or removal was occurring at time of sighting;
• Distance and bearings of each marine mammal observed to the pile being driven or removed;
• Description of marine mammal behavior patterns, including direction of travel;
• Age and sex class, if possible, of all marine mammals observed; and
• Detailed information about implementation of any mitigation triggered (such as shutdowns and delays), a description of specific actions that ensued, and resulting behavior of the animal if any.
A draft marine mammal monitoring report would be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the completion of pile driving activities, or 60 days prior to a requested date of issuance of any future IHAs for the project, or other projects at the same location, whichever comes first. The marine mammal report would include an overall description of work completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, the report would include:
• Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal monitoring;
• Construction activities occurring during each daily observation period, including the number and type of piles driven or removed and by what method (
• PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring;
• Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change significantly), including Beaufort sea state and any other relevant weather conditions including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon, and estimated observable distance;
• Upon observation of a marine mammal, the following information: (1) name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) and PSO location and activity at time of sighting; (2) time of sighting; (3) identification of the animal(s) (
• Number of marine mammals detected within the harassment zones, by species; and
• Detailed information about any implementation of any mitigation triggered (
If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft reports would constitute the final reports. If comments are received, a final report addressing NMFS' comments would be required to be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments. All PSO datasheets and/or raw sighting data would be submitted with the draft marine mammal report.
In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities discover an injured or dead marine mammal, ADOT&PF shall report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS and to the Alaska regional stranding network as soon as feasible. If the death or injury was clearly caused by the specified activity, ADOT & PF must immediately cease the specified activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the incident and determine what, if any, additional measures are appropriate to ensure compliance with the terms of the IHA. The IHA-holder must not resume their activities until notified by NMFS. The report must include the following information:
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
• Species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the animal is dead);
• Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
• If available, photographs or video footage of the animal(s); and,
• General circumstances under which the animal was discovered.
NMFS has defined negligible impact 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 (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
To avoid repetition, the majority of our analysis applies to all the species listed in table 2, given that many of the anticipated effects of this project on different marine mammal stocks are expected to be relatively similar in nature. Where there are meaningful differences between species or stocks, or groups of species, in anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of expected take on the population due to differences in population status, or impacts on habitat, they are described independently in the analysis below.
Pile driving and removal, tension anchoring, and rock socketing have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically the project activities may result in take, in the form of Level A harassment (minke whale, humpback whale, Dall's porpoise, harbor porpoise, harbor seal, and Steller
The takes by Level B harassment would be due to potential behavioral disturbance and TTS. Takes by Level A harassment would be due to auditory injury. No mortality or serious injury is anticipated given the nature of the activity, even in the absence of the required mitigation. The potential for harassment is minimized through the construction method and the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures (see Proposed Mitigation Measures section).
Take would occur within a limited, confined area (Killisnoo Harbor) of the stocks' ranges. The intensity and duration of take by Level A harassment and Level B harassment would be minimized through use of mitigation measures described herein. Further, the project is not anticipated to impact any known important habitat areas for any marine mammal species with the exception of a known biologically important area for humpback whales, discussed below.
Take by Level A harassment is proposed for authorization to account for the potential that an animal could enter and remain within the area between a Level A harassment zone and the shutdown zone for a duration long enough to be taken by Level A harassment. Any take by Level A harassment is expected to arise from, at most, a small degree of auditory injury because animals would need to be exposed to higher levels and/or longer duration than are expected to occur here in order to incur any more than a small degree of auditory injury. Additionally, and as noted previously, some subset of the individuals that are behaviorally harassed could also simultaneously incur some small degree of TTS for a short duration of time. Because of the small degree anticipated, though, any auditory injury or TTS potentially incurred here would not be expected to adversely impact individual fitness, let alone annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Behavioral responses of marine mammals to pile driving at the project site, if any, are expected to be mild and temporary. Marine mammals within the Level B harassment zone may not show any visual cues they are disturbed by activities or could become alert, avoid the area, leave the area, or display other mild responses that are not observable such as changes in vocalization patterns. Given the limited number of piles to be installed or extracted per day and that pile driving and removal would occur across a maximum of 143 days within the 12-month authorization period, any harassment would be temporary.
Any impacts on marine mammal prey that would occur during ADOT&PF's proposed activity would have, at most, short-term effects on foraging of individual marine mammals, and likely no effect on the populations of marine mammals as a whole. Indirect effects on marine mammal prey during the construction are expected to be minor, and these effects are unlikely to cause substantial effects on marine mammals at the individual level, with no expected effect on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
In addition, it is unlikely that elevated noise in a small, localized area of habitat would have any effect on the stocks' annual rates of recruitment or survival. In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activities will have only minor, short-term effects on individuals. The specified activities are not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival, and would therefore not result in population-level impacts.
The waters of the Chatham Strait are part of the Alaska humpback whale feeding BIA (Wild
The closest harbor seal haul out to the proposed project is approximately 12 km away in Hood Bay, and the closest Steller sea lion haul out is 20 km away at Point Lull. Each of these haulouts are located outside of the ensonified area for this project, and the project is not expected to have adverse effects on these haulout sites. No areas of specific biological importance (
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect any of the species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized;
• For killer whale, Pacific white-sided dolphin, and the Western stock of Steller sea lions, no Level A harassment is anticipated or proposed for authorization;
• The intensity of anticipated takes by Level B harassment is relatively low for all stocks and would not be of a duration or intensity expected to result in impacts on reproduction or survival;
• The lack of anticipated significant or long-term negative effects to marine mammal habitat;
• With the exception of the humpback whale BIA described above, no areas of specific biological importance (
• ADOT&PF would implement mitigation measures, such as soft-starts for impact pile driving and shutdowns to minimize the numbers of marine mammals exposed to injurious levels of sound, and to ensure that take by Level A harassment, is at most, a small degree of auditory injury.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted previously, only take of small numbers of marine mammals may be authorized under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small
The amount of take NMFS is proposing to authorize is below one-third of the estimated stock abundance of all species and stocks. For all stocks other than the West Coast Transient and Eastern North Pacific Northern Resident stocks of killer whale, the number of takes proposed for authorization would be considered small relative to the relevant stocks' abundances, even in the unlikely scenario that each estimated taking occurred to a new individual.
The West Coast Transient stock of killer whale occurs from California through Southeast Alaska, and the Eastern North Pacific Northern Resident stock of killer whale occurs from Washington State through part of Southeast Alaska. Movements of killer whales, for both transient and resident stocks, between widely separated geographical areas have been documented. However, given the relatively sheltered location of the project site in inland waters of southeast Alaska, it is unlikely that numerous discrete groups of individuals sufficient to exceed one-third of the stock abundance would occur within the immediate vicinity of the project. It is more likely that individual groups that occur in the area would remain for periods of time and potentially be resighted on multiple days. As such, and given that the proposed takes would be allocated among three distinct killer whale stocks, the numbers of individuals taken would likely comprise less than one-third of the best available population abundance estimate of both the West Coast Transient and the Eastern North Pacific Northern Resident stocks of killer whale.
There are no valid abundance estimates available for humpback whale (Mexico-North Pacific stock), minke whale (Alaska stock), or Dall's porpoise (Alaska stock). There is no recent stock abundance estimate for the Mexico-North Pacific stock of humpback whale and the minimum population is considered unknown (Young
The most recent stock abundance estimate of the Alaska stock of Dall's porpoise was 83,400 animals and, although the estimate is more than 8 years old, it is unlikely this stock has drastically declined since that time. Therefore, the 200 takes proposed for authorization (173 by Level B harassment, 27 by Level A harassment), represent small numbers of this stock.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals would be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must find that the specified activity will not have an “unmitigable adverse impact” on the subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal species or stocks by Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined “unmitigable adverse impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing subsistence users; or (iii) Placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) That cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
The Kootznoowoo Tlingit tribe of Admiralty Island traditionally traded fur and harvested marine mammals. Today, much of the population engages in a commercial fishing and/or subsistence lifestyle with 98 percent of households reporting use of some type of subsistence resource in 2012, the last year for which data is available (ADF&G 2024f). About 10 percent of Angoon households attempted harvest of marine mammals, and 41 percent of households report using marine mammals, mostly harbor seals. No sea lion harvest was reported in the community in 2012.
This project would occur in Killisnoo Harbor, and subsistence hunting of marine mammals does not occur in the project area; therefore, there are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals adversely impacted by this action. The proposed project is not likely to adversely impact the availability of any marine mammal species or stocks that are commonly used for subsistence purposes or to impact subsistence harvest of marine mammals in the region.
Based on the description of the specified activity and the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from ADOT&PF's proposed activities.
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS is proposing to authorize take of humpback whale (Mexico DPS) and Steller sea lion (Western DPS), which are listed under the ESA. OPR has requested initiation of section 7 consultation with AKRO for the issuance of this IHA. NMFS will conclude the ESA consultation prior to reaching a determination regarding the proposed issuance of the authorization.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to ADOT&PF for conducting the Angoon Ferry Terminal Modification Project in Angoon, Alaska from May 1, 2026 through April 30, 2027, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA can be found at:
We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHA for the proposed construction project. We also request comment on the potential renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform decisions on the request for this IHA or a subsequent renewal IHA.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, 1-year renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or nearly identical activities as described in the Description of Proposed Activity section of this notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Description of Proposed Activity section of this notice would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the
• A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond 1 year from expiration of the initial IHA).
• The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor (
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.
• Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of cancellation; SEDAR 101 Pre-Data Workshop Webinar for Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Sandbar Sharks.
The SEDAR 101 assessment process of HMS sandbar sharks will consist of a Data Workshop, an Assessment Workshop and a Center for Independent Experts (CIE) Desk Review. See
The SEDAR 101 Pre-Data Workshop webinar was scheduled for April 7, 2025, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. Eastern Time.
Emily Ott, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 302-8434; email:
The meeting notice published on March 18, 2025 (90 FR 12525). This announces that the meeting is cancelled and will be rescheduled at a later date.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice.
DoD is publishing the updated annual list of product categories for which the Federal Prison Industries' share of the DoD market is greater than five percent.
April 9, 2025.
Angela Lynch, 339-223-7387.
On November 19, 2009, a final rule was published in the
The Principal Director, Defense Pricing, Contracting, and Acquisition Policy (DPCAP), issued a memorandum dated March 10, 2025, that provided the current list of product categories for which FPI's share of the DoD market is greater than five percent based on fiscal year 2024 data from the Federal Procurement Data System. The product categories to be competed effective April 9, 2025, are the following:
The DPCAP memorandum with the current list of product categories for
The statute, as implemented, also requires DoD to—
(1) Include FPI in the solicitation process for these items. A timely offer from FPI must be considered and award procedures must be followed in accordance with existing policy at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 8.602(a)(4)(ii) through (v);
(2) Continue to conduct acquisitions, in accordance with FAR subpart 8.6, for items from product categories for which FPI does not have a significant market share. FAR 8.602 requires agencies to conduct market research and make a written comparability determination, at the discretion of the contracting officer. Competitive (or fair opportunity) procedures are appropriate if the FPI product is not comparable in terms of price, quality, or time of delivery; and
(3) Modify the published list if DoD subsequently determines that new data requires adding or omitting a product category from the list.
Federal Maritime Commission.
Notice and request for comment.
The Federal Maritime Commission (Commission) is giving public notice that the agency has submitted the continuing information collection listed below in this notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. The public is invited to comment on the proposed information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before April 23, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
For additional information, please email Lucille Marvin, 202-523-5800,
The Commission invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on any aspect of the continuing information collection listed in this notice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be included or summarized in our request for OMB approval of the relevant information collection. All comments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Please do not include any confidential or inappropriate material in your comments.
On August 23, 2024, the Commission published a notice and request for comment in the
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than April 23, 2025.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to Section 25A of the Federal Reserve Act (Edge Corporation) (12 U.S.C. 611
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than April 8, 2025.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than April 8, 2025.
1.
In addition,
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting and request for comment.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). This meeting is open to the public. Time will be available for public comment.
The meeting will be held on April 15, 2025, from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., EDT, April 16, 2025, from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., EDT (times subject to change; see the ACIP website for updates:
Written comments must be received between March 31-April 11, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2025-0017, by either of the methods listed below. CDC does not accept comments by email.
•
•
The meeting will be webcast live via the World Wide Web. The webcast link can be found on the ACIP website at
Stephanie Thomas, Committee Management Specialist, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop H24-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027. Telephone: (404) 639-8836; Email:
Interested persons or organizations are invited to participate by submitting written views, recommendations, and data. Please note that comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and are subject to public disclosure. Comments will be posted on
If the number of persons requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled time, CDC will conduct a random draw to determine the speakers for the scheduled public comment session. CDC staff will notify individuals regarding their request to speak by email by April 14, 2025. To accommodate the significant interest in participation in the oral public comment session of ACIP meetings, each speaker will be limited to three minutes, and each speaker may speak only once per meeting.
The Director, Office of Strategic Business Initiatives, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Children's Bureau, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for public comments.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is requesting a three-year extension of the Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS) information collection (Office of Management and Budget (OMB) #0970-0463, expiration 6/30/2025). The CCWIS information collection includes the Automated Function List and the Data Quality Plan. There are no required instruments associated with the data collection and no changes to the data collection.
You can obtain copies of the proposed collection of information and submit comments by emailing
• The Automated Function List update required pursuant to § 1355.52(i)(2);
• The Data Quality Plan update required pursuant to § 1355.52(d)(5).
The CCWIS regulations require updates of this information to confirm that the project meets CCWIS requirements and that project costs are appropriately allocated to benefiting programs.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Regents of the National Library of Medicine.
The meeting will be held as a virtual meeting and will be open to the public as indicated below. Individuals who plan to view the virtual meeting and need special assistance or other reasonable accommodations to view the meeting, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting can be accessed from the NIH Videocast website at the following link:
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any member of the public may submit written comments no later than 15 days in advance of the meeting. Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended, for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the NST-2 Study Section, April 3, 2025, 09:30 a.m. to April 4, 2025, 06:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 which was published in the
This notice is being amended to change the dates of this two-day meeting to April 21, 2025, and April 22, 2025. The meeting time remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Allergy and Infectious Diseases Council.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Advisory Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material,
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute Environmental Health Sciences.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting can be accessed from the NIH Videocast at the following link:
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual grant applications conducted by the National Institute Of Environmental Health Sciences, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Closed: May 04, 2025, 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has procedures at
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on applications to conduct certain activities with foreign species that are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is issued that allows such activities. The ESA also requires that we invite public comment before issuing permits for any activity otherwise prohibited by the ESA with respect to any endangered species.
We must receive comments by April 23, 2025.
•
•
For more information, see Public Comment Procedures under
Brenda Tapia, by phone at 703-358-2185 or via email at
We invite the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies to comment on these applications. Before issuing any of the requested permits, we will take into consideration any information that we receive during the public comment period.
You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods in
When submitting comments, please specify the name of the applicant and the permit number at the beginning of your comment. Provide sufficient information to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include. The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations.
You may view and comment on others' public comments at
If you submit a comment at
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
We invite comments on the following applications.
The applicant requests to renew a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
On November 8, 2024, we published a
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for ring-tailed lemur (
The following applicants request permits to import sport-hunted trophies of male bontebok (
After the comment period closes, we will make decisions regarding permit issuance. If we issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
We issue this notice under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-757 and 731-TA-1737-1738 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of polypropylene corrugated boxes (“PC boxes”) from China and Vietnam, provided for in subheading 3923.10.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and imports of PC boxes alleged to be subsidized by the Government of China. Unless the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach preliminary determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by May 2, 2025. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by May 9, 2025.
March 18, 2025.
Calvin Chang (202-205-3602), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings during this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS,
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management, Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until May 23, 2025.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Deana Willis, Assistant Director, Office of Attorney Recruitment and
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
In compliance with the Executive Order issued January 20, 2025, (
OARM, in coordination with hiring offices, periodically reviews questions relating to qualifications and experience to ensure their focus and criteria remains relevant (
• Hiring officials requested the addition of two “yes/no” questions relating to written or oral communication skills for SLIP applicants. This change is limited to the questions presented to eligible applicants to the Summer Law Intern Program, who often have limited objective law school accomplishments at the time they apply. There is de minimis impact on the public burden and no impact on cost.
• In addition, hiring officials requested modification to an existing “check the box” question presented to all applicants clarifying the type of public service experience responsive to the question. There is no impact on the public burden or cost to this change.
• A new “check the box” question relating to relevant experience was added. There is de minimis impact on the public burden and no cost to this change.
The estimate of annualized cost to the federal government decreased from $54,000 to $39,885.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
If additional information is required contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218, Washington, DC.
Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) of the Department of Labor (DOL) is issuing this notice to announce the annual updates to allowable monetary charges employers of H-2A workers, in occupations other than herding or production of livestock on the range, may charge workers when the employer provides three meals per day. This notice also announces the minimum and maximum amount of travel-related subsistence reimbursements required under the H-2A and H-2B programs. Finally, this notice includes a reminder regarding employers' obligations with respect to overnight lodging costs as part of required subsistence and reasonable travel costs to and from the worksite.
These allowable charges become effective March 24, 2025.
Brian Pasternak, Administrator, Office of Foreign Labor Certification, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room N-5311, Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 693-8200 (this is not a toll-free number). For persons with a hearing or speech disability who need assistance to use the telephone system, please dial 711 to access telecommunications relay services.
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Security will not approve an employer's petition for the admission of H-2A or H-2B nonimmigrant temporary workers in the U.S. unless the petitioner has received an H-2A or H-2B labor certification from DOL. The labor certification provides that: (1) there are not sufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, and qualified and who will be available at the time and place needed to perform the labor or services involved in the petition; and (2) the employment of the foreign worker(s) in such labor or services will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the U.S. similarly employed.
H-2A agricultural employers who are employing workers in occupations other than herding or production of livestock on the range must offer and provide workers three meals per day or free and convenient cooking facilities.
By regulation, DOL has established the methodology for determining the maximum amount that H-2A agricultural employers may charge workers for providing them with three meals per day.
The percentage change in the CPI-U for Food between December 2023 and December 2024 was 2.5% percent.
H-2B and H-2A employers must pay reasonable travel and subsistence costs, including the costs of meals and lodging, incurred by workers during travel to the place of employment from the place from which the worker has come to work for the employer and from the place of employment to the place from which the worker departed to work for the employer, as well as any such costs incurred by the worker incident to obtaining a visa authorizing entry to the United States for the purpose of H-2A or H-2B employment.
Specifically, an H-2A employer is responsible for providing, paying in advance, or reimbursing a worker for the reasonable costs incurred by the worker for transportation and daily travel-related subsistence from the place from which the worker has come to work for the employer, if the worker completes 50 percent of the work contract period. 20 CFR 655.122(h)(1). In general, the employer must provide (or pay at the time of departure) the worker's transportation and daily travel-related subsistence from the place of employment to the place from which the worker departed to work for the employer upon the worker completing the contract or being terminated without cause. 20 CFR 655.122(h)(2).
Similarly, an H-2B employer is responsible for providing, paying in advance, or reimbursing a worker for transportation and daily travel-related subsistence from the place from which the worker has come to work for the employer, if the worker completes 50 percent of the job order period. 20 CFR 655.20(j)(1)(i). Upon the worker completing the job order period or being dismissed early (for any reason), the employer is generally responsible for providing (or paying at the time of departure) the worker's cost of return
The amount of the daily subsistence must be at least the amount permitted in 20 CFR 655.173(a) (or the higher amount approved under 20 CFR 655.173(b), if any). The maximum daily amount an employer is required to reimburse workers for travel-related subsistence, as evidenced with receipts, is equal to the standard Continental United States (CONUS) per diem rate, as established by the General Services Administration (GSA) at 41 CFR part 301, formerly published in Appendix A and now found at
In addition, the employer is responsible for those costs necessary for the worker to travel to the place of employment if the worker completes 50 percent of the work contract period. The employer also is responsible for the costs of return transportation. The amount an employer must pay for transportation to and from the place of employment must be no less than (and is not required to be more than) the most economical and reasonable costs. These requirements apply equally to instances where the worker is traveling within the U.S. or internationally to the employer's worksite.
For further information on when the employer is responsible for lodging costs, please see the DOL's Meal Charges and Travel Subsistence, on OFLC's website at
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before April 23, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Nicole Bouchet by telephone at 202-693-0213, or by email at
The Office of Disability Employment Policy within the U.S. Department of Labor requests clearance for data collection activities to support identifying the obstacles and facilitators to the employment of autistic young adults. Specifically, this request covers collection of data through a large-scale survey of autistic young adults ages 16 to 28, as well as qualitative telephone or web interviews with autistic young adults to augment the survey. This study (referred to as Research Support Services for Employment of Young Adults on the Autism Spectrum) will provide insightful data on the employment experiences of young adults on the autism spectrum, which policymakers and the autism community can use to inform program and policy changes that support the well-being of autistic people. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Labor.
Request for public comments.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance request for comment to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This request helps to ensure that: requested data can be provided in the desired format; reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized; collection instruments are clearly understood; and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the OWCP is soliciting comments on the information collection for the Carrier's Report of Issuance of Policy, LS-570.
All comments must be received on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comment as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered.
•
• If your comment includes confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission.
•
• OWCP/LHWC will post your comment as well as any attachments, except for information submitted and marked as confidential, in the docket at
Anjanette Suggs, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs at (202) 354-9660 (phone) or
The Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation (LHWC) administers the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. The Act provides benefits to workers injured in maritime employment on the navigable waters of the United States or in an adjoining area customarily used by an employer in loading, unloading, repairing, or building a vessel. In addition, several acts extend the Longshore Act's coverage to certain other employees.
Authorized insurance carriers are required to report the issuance of policies and endorsements under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act and its extensions, the Defense Base Act, Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and Non-Appropriated Fund Instrumentalities Act, to the Department of Labor's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP). 20 CFR 703.116. Carriers use the form LS-570 for this purpose. Filing the form LS-570 with OWCP's Division of Federal Employees', Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation binds the carrier to full liability for the named employer's obligations under the Act or its extensions. Legal authority for this information collection is found at 33 U.S.C. 932(a) and 33 U.S.C. 939.
Regulatory authority is found at 20 CFR 703.116 and 20 CFR 703.118.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB under the PRA approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OWCP/DLHWC is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to the Request for Employment Information. OWCP/DLHWC is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of OWCP/C's estimate of the burden related to the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used in the estimate;
• Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the information collection 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,
Documents related to this information collection request are available at
This information collection request concerns the Carrier's Report of Issuance of Policy (LS-570). OWCP has updated the data with respect to the number of respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden costs supporting this information collection request from the previous information collection request.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the proposed information collection request; they will become a matter of public record and will be available at
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued an exemption to Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, permitting Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PB) Units 2 and 3 to use the Holtec HI-STORM Flood/Wind (FW) Multi-Purpose Canister (MPC) Storage System, including the use of the HI-TRAC VW transfer cask during loading and transport operations, at the PB independent spent fuel storage installation, for seven 89 multi-purpose canisters, in a near-term loading campaign beginning in June 2025, where the terms, conditions, and specifications in Certificate of Compliance No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision No. 1, are not met.
The exemption was issued on March 6, 2025.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-0033 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Yen-Ju Chen, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; telephone: 301-415-1018; email:
The text of the exemption is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Constellation Energy Generation, LLC (CEG) is the holder of renewed facility operating license Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56, which authorize operation of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PB) Units 2 and 3 in Delta, Pennsylvania, under Title 10 of the
Consistent with 10 CFR part 72, subpart K, “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites,” a general license is issued for the storage of spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) at power reactor sites to persons authorized to possess or operate nuclear power reactors under 10 CFR part 50. CEG is authorized to operate nuclear power reactors under 10 CFR part 50 and holds a 10 CFR part 72 general license for storage of spent fuel at the PB ISFSI. Under the terms of the general license, CEG stores spent fuel at its PB ISFSI using the HI-STORM Flood/Wind (FW) Multi-Purpose Canister (MPC) Storage System in accordance with Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision No. 1.
By a letter dated January 24, 2025 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Number No. ML25024A148), as supplemented on February 4, 2025 (ML25036A335), CEG requested an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(3), 72.212(b)(5)(i), 72.212(b)(11), and 72.214 that require PB to comply with the terms, conditions, and specifications of CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision No. 1 (ML15152A358). If approved, CEG's exemption request would accordingly allow PB to load seven MPC-89 at the PB ISFSI site in a near-term loading campaign beginning in June 2025, in the HI-STORM FW MPC system, including the use of the HI-TRAC VW transfer cask (HI-TRAC) during loading and transport operations, where the terms, conditions, and specifications in CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision No. 1 are not met.
Before using a CoC, general licensees are required to perform a site-specific evaluation to establish that, once loaded with spent fuel, the cask will conform to the terms, conditions, and specifications of the CoC, including following the NRC-approved final safety analysis report (FSAR) methodology. CEG currently uses the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System under CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision No. 1, for dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in MPC-89 at the PB ISFSI. The HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System CoC provides the requirements, conditions, and operating limits necessary for use of the system to store spent fuel. One of the operating limits established in the CoC involves potential tornado-generated missile impacts. The HI-STORM FW FSAR table 2.2.5 evaluates a generic set of tornado-generated missile impacts (ML24327A229). CEG discovered that PB's site-specific analysis performed to demonstrate
Therefore, CEG requests this exemption to allow it to conduct the planned loading and transport operations of the seven MPC-89 in the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System at PB ISFSI beginning in June 2025, even though, because of the different tornado-generated missile analysis of the HI-TRAC in PB's site specific review, the terms, conditions, and specifications of the CoC will not be met.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, “Specific exemptions,” the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant such exemptions from the requirements of the regulations of 10 CFR part 72 as it determines are authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and are otherwise in the public interest.
This exemption would allow CEG to use the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System, including the use of the HI-TRAC during loading and transport operations, for seven MPC-89 at its PB ISFSI, beginning in June 2025, where the terms, conditions, and specifications in CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision No. 1, are not met. CEG is requesting an exemption from the provisions in 10 CFR part 72 that require the licensee to comply with the terms, conditions, and specifications of the CoC for the approved cask model it uses. Section 72.7 allows the NRC to grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 72. This authority to grant exemptions is consistent with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and is not otherwise inconsistent with the NRC's regulations or other applicable laws. Additionally, no other law prohibits the activities that would be authorized by the exemption. Therefore, the NRC concludes that there is no statutory prohibition on the issuance of the requested exemption, and the NRC is authorized to grant the exemption by law.
CEG is requesting an exemption to use the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System, including the use of the HI-TRAC during loading and transport operations for seven MPC-89 at the PB ISFSI, beginning in June 2025, where the terms, conditions, and specifications in CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision No. 1, are not met. In support of its exemption request, CEG asserts that issuance of the exemption would not endanger life or property because the evaluation of PB's postulated tornado-generated missiles demonstrates that all FSAR acceptance criteria are met. According to CEG, the site-specific analysis follows the same mathematical approach as the generic approach in the FSAR but takes credit for the additional resistance provided by the HI-TRAC water jacket shell. Additionally, CEG notes that the water jacket shell is an Important-to-Safety (ITS) component and meets all the criteria as analyzed. Therefore, CEG contends the site-specific analysis, although different from the FSAR methodology, demonstrates that the loading and transport operations of the system using the HI-TRAC provides adequate protection against PB's design basis tornado-generated missiles. As such, according to CEG, the proposed exemption does not endanger life or property or the common defense and security.
The NRC staff reviewed the requested exemption and determined that the request does not change the fundamental design, components, or safety features of the storage system. The NRC staff evaluated the applicable potential safety impacts of granting the exemption to assess the potential for any danger to life or property or the common defense and security. Specifically, the NRC staff reviewed the applicant's structural, confinement, thermal, criticality, shielding, and radiation protection evaluations for the proposed exemption.
(i) The postulated tornado generated missiles do not compromise the integrity of the MPC confinement boundary while the MPC is contained within the HI-TRAC.
(ii) No geometry changes occur under the postulated tornado-generated missiles impact during handling conditions that may preclude ready retrievability of the contained MPC.
(iii) The radiation shielding remains properly positioned under all applicable handling service conditions for the HI-TRAC.
In general, the above performance objectives are deemed to be satisfied for the MPC and the HI-TRAC if (1) the missile does not penetrate the inner shell of the HI-TRAC, MPC or MPC lid, and does not breach the confinement boundary, (2) the stresses (stress intensities or strains, as applicable) calculated by the appropriate structural analyses are less than the allowable defined in FSAR subsection 3.1.2.3, and (3) the geometry change in the HI-TRAC, if any, after any event of structural consequence to the transfer cask, does not preclude ready retrievability of the contained MPC.
The HI-TRAC body consists of two main layers: a water jacket layer and a lead shield layer. Each layer is contained within different steel shells: the water jacket shell (outermost shell of HI-TRAC), the outer shell of the lead shield layer (between the water jacket layer and a lead shield layer), and the inner shell (innermost shell of the lead shield layer and the HI-TRAC). The proprietary Holtec Report HI-2135869, “Site-Specific Tornado Missile Analysis for HI-STORM FW System,” Revision No. 9, generically addresses the HI-TRAC structural responses due to bounding site-specific small and intermediate tornado-generated missile strikes, except for the governing tornado-generated missile for PB, which is a 4-inch × 12-inch × 12-foot-long wooden plank with an impact velocity of 300 miles per hour (mph). In support of this exemption request, Holtec's “HI-STORM FW Calculation Package to Support Exemptions” (PB site-specific analysis, ML25021A244) further
The staff reviewed the sizes, mass, and velocities of the site-specific tornado-generated missiles analyzed in the PB site-specific analysis and verified that the analyzed tornado-generated missiles bound the design basis tornado-generated missile spectrum specified in section C.2.4 of the PB updated final safety analysis report, Appendix C (ML23173A057). The staff's independent analysis of the missile penetration by the wooden plank concluded that a greater margin of safety is available for the inner shell penetration than the one calculated in the PB site-specific analysis. Furthermore, based on the review of the PB site-specific analysis, the staff finds that the missile penetration depth by the wooden plank in the MPC lid remains less than the minimum thickness of the MPC closure lid. Additionally, the calculated global stress intensities for the HI-TRAC shell due to the missile strike satisfy American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1, Subsection NF, Level D limits, as specified in the HI-STORM FW FSAR section 3.1.2.3. Therefore, in the event of a tornado-generated missile impact from the wooden plank analyzed, damage to the cask or canister that compromise confinement boundary, global plastic deformation in the cask shell, or ovaling of the cask inner cavity, is not anticipated, and will not affect the overall shielding effectiveness of the cask and the retrievability of the MPC. The staff also noted that the analysis results are conservative since they assume that the wooden plank is rigid, and no kinetic energy dissipation is being credited due to deformation of the wooden plank when it strikes the HI-TRAC at high velocity.
Based on the staff's review of the analysis provided for the exemption request, the staff finds the proposed methodology used for the PB site-specific missile penetration analysis acceptable and concludes that the site-specific analysis demonstrates that the MPC and HI-TRAC can withstand the governing site-specific tornado-generated missile impact without compromising their ability to perform their intended safety functions at PB.
The proposed exemption would allow CEG to use the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System, including the use of the HI-TRAC solely during loading and transport operations for seven MPC-89 at PB ISFSI, beginning in June 2025, even though PB's tornado-generated missile analysis of HI-TRAC, which takes credit for the water jacket shell, is not part of the NRC-approved CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision No. 1. According to CEG, the exemption is in the public interest because being unable to load fuel into dry storage in the future loading campaign would impact CEG's ability to offload fuel from the PB reactor, consequently impacting continued safe reactor operation.
CEG states that not being able to use the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System, including the use of the HI-TRAC during loading and transport operations for seven MPC-89 at the PB ISFSI in the June 2025 loading campaign, would impact its ability to effectively manage the margin to full core discharge capacity (FCDC) in the PB Units 2 and 3 spent fuel pools (SFP). The low FCDC margin makes it difficult to stage a complete reload batch of fuel in the SFPs in preparation for outages and presents a potential reactivity management risk to fuel handling operations during pre- and post-outage activities. In addition, according to CEG, a crowded spent fuel pool would challenge the decay heat removal demand of the pool and increase the likelihood of a loss of fuel pool cooling event and a fuel handling accident. Furthermore, CEG contends that PB planned the cask loading campaign years in advance based on availability of the specialized work force and equipment that is shared throughout the CEG fleet. These specialty resources support competing activities and priorities, including fuel pool cleanouts and refueling outages. Therefore, CEG asserts that the available windows to complete the cask loading campaigns are limited, and any delays would have a cascading impact on other scheduled specialized activities.
For the reasons described by CEG in the exemption request, the NRC staff agree that it is in the public interest to grant the exemption. If the exemption is not granted, in order to comply with the CoC, CEG would have to keep spent fuel in the spent fuel pool if it is not permitted to use the HI-TRAC during loading and transport operations for seven MPC-89 at the PB ISFSI for the loading campaign beginning in June 2025, thus impacting PB's ability to effectively manage the FCDC margin. Moreover, should spent fuel pool capacity be reached, the ability to refuel the operating reactor unit is challenged, thus potentially impacting continued reactor operations.
Therefore, the staff concludes that approving the exemption is in the public interest.
The NRC staff also considered whether there would be any significant environmental impacts associated with the exemption. For this proposed action, the NRC staff performed an environmental assessment pursuant to 10 CFR 51.30. The environmental assessment concluded that the proposed action would not significantly impact the quality of the human environment. The NRC staff concluded that the proposed action would not result in any changes in the types or amounts of any radiological or non-radiological effluents that may be released offsite, and there would be no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure because of the proposed action. The environmental assessment and the finding of no significant impact was published on March 6, 2025 (90 FR 11440).
Based on these considerations, the NRC has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, the exemption is authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest. Therefore, the NRC grants CEG an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(3), 72.212(b)(5)(i), 72.212(b)(11), and 72.214 solely with respect to the planned loading and transport operations for seven MPC-89 at PB ISFSI for the loading campaign beginning in June 2025.
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
Dated: March 6, 2025.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
None.
This Notice will be published in the
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from Sections 18(a)(2), 18(c), 18(i), and 61(a) of the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain registered closed-end investment companies that have elected to be regulated as business development companies to issue multiple classes of shares with varying sales loads and asset-based distribution and/or service fees.
Barings LLC and Barings Private Credit Corporation.
The application was filed on February 4, 2025, and amended on March 14, 2025.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on April 14, 2025, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by emailing the Commission's Secretary at
The Commission:
Jean Minarick, Senior Counsel, or Kyle R. Ahlgren, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' First Amended and Restated Application, dated March 14, 2025, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at,
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission staff will hold a public roundtable on Thursday, March 27, 2025, at 9 a.m.
The roundtable will be held in the Auditorium at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC.
The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and will be open to the public. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Doors will open at 8 a.m. Visitors will be subject to security checks. The
The Commission staff will host a roundtable on artificial intelligence in the financial industry. The roundtable is open to the public and the public is invited to submit written or electronic feedback. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a majority of the Commission may attend the roundtable.
The roundtable will provide an opportunity for SEC staff to hear the views of market participants, academics, and industry professionals on the risks, benefits, and governance of artificial intelligence in the financial industry.
For further information, please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
2:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 27, 2025.
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 his designee, has certified that, in his 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 and/or participation in civil litigation; 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.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, May 6, 2025, via videoconference.
The meeting will be conducted by remote means (videoconference) and at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549. Members of the public may watch the webcast of the meeting on the Commission's website at
The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public via webcast on the Commission's website at
The agenda for the meeting includes matters relating to rules and regulations affecting small and emerging businesses and their investors under the federal securities laws.
For further information, please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from Sections 18(a)(2), 18(c), 18(i), and 61(a) of the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain registered closed-end investment companies that have elected to be regulated as business development companies to issue multiple classes of shares with varying sales loads and asset-based distribution and/or service fees.
Goldman Sachs Private Credit Corp. and Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P.
The application was filed on March 13, 2025 and amended on March 18, 2025.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on April 14, 2025, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by emailing the
The Commission:
Laura J. Riegel, Senior Counsel, or Thomas Ahmadifar, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' First Amended and Restated Application, dated March 18, 2025, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at,
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of North Dakota (FEMA-4852-DR), dated December 24, 2024.
Issued on December 24, 2024.
Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on December 24, 2024, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 209935 and for economic injury is 209940.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
The FAA is considering a proposal to change approximately 62.365 acres of airport land from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use and to authorize the sale of airport property located at Bolton Field Airport, Columbus, Ohio. The aforementioned land is not needed for aeronautical use.
The property is located north of the airfield and currently consists of vacant land. The land is located along the north side of Alkire Road, east of Lone Eagle Street and west of the Runway Protection Zone for Runway 22. The anticipated future industrial development.
Comments must be received on or before April 23, 2025.
All requisite and supporting documentation will be made available for review by appointment at the FAA Detroit Airports District Office, Jordan Bowen, Program Manager, 11677 South Wayne Road, Suite 107, Romulus, MI, 48174, Telephone: (734) 229-2905/Fax: (734) 229-2950 and the Columbus Regional Airport Authority, Mark Kelby, Airport Planner, 4600 International Gateway, Columbus, OH 43219, (614) 239-5014.
Written comments on the Sponsor's request may be submitted using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Jordan Bowen, Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Detroit Airports District Office, 11677 South Wayne Road, Suite 107, Romulus, MI 48174. Telephone Number: (734) 229-2905/Fax: (734) 229-2950.
In accordance with section 47107(h) of Title 49, United States Code, this notice is required to be published in the
This request to change the land use of federally obligated airport property pertains to parcel 9 identified on the Exhibit “A” Property Map for Bolton Field Airport. Excerpt from Property Map Data Table, these parcels were
The disposition of proceeds from the sale of the airport property will be in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, published in the
This notice announces that the FAA is considering the release of the subject airport property at the Bolton Field Airport, Columbus, Ohio from federal land covenants, subject to a reservation for continuing right of flight as well as restrictions on the released property as required in FAA Order 5190.6B section 22.16. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the disposal of the subject airport property nor a determination of eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA.
DESCRIPTION OF 62.365 ACRES SITUATED IN THE STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF FRANKLIN, CITY OF COLUMBUS, VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NUMBER 1462, BEING PART OF AN ORIGINAL 110.86 ACRE TRACT OF LAND (TRACT 26) DESCRIBED IN DEED TO COLUMBUS REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF RECORD IN INSTRUMENT NUMBER 200712310221193, ALL REFERENCES TO RECORDS BEING ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO, SAID 62.365 ACRE TRACT BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN;
BEGINNING AT A MAG NAIL SET AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID 110.86 ACRE TRACT, BEING ON THE NORTH LINE OF A 48.672 ACRE TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO COLUMBUS REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF RECORD IN INSTRUMENT NUMBER 202204080055361, BEING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTHWEST AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK SECTION 5 OF RECORD IN PLAT BOOK 50, PAGE 9, AND BEING ON THE CENTERLINE OF ALKIRE ROAD (COUNTY ROAD 11);
THENCE NORTH 01°09′23″ EAST, PASSING OVER A
THENCE SOUTH 87°10′58″ EAST, PASSING OVER A
THENCE NORTH 01°06′31″ EAST, A DISTANCE OF 735.83 FEET, WITH A WEST LINE OF SAID 110.86 ACRE TRACT, WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1, AND WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID 9.664 ACRE TRACT, TO A
THENCE SOUTH 88°49′46″ EAST, A DISTANCE OF 775.34 FEET, WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID 13.6672 ACRE TRACT, TO A
THENCE NORTH 01°11′25″ EAST, A DISTANCE OF 385.48 FEET, WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID 13.6672 ACRE TRACT, TO A
THENCE WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID 70.362 ACRE TRACT, THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES:
1. SOUTH 66°07′29″ EAST, A DISTANCE OF 447.58 FEET, TO A
2. SOUTH 39°43′56″ EAST, A DISTANCE OF 102.52 FEET, TO AN IRON PIN SET ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID 110.86 ACRE TRACT, AND BEING ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID 70.362 ACRE TRACT;
THENCE SOUTH 00°24′17″ WEST, A DISTANCE OF 687.44 FEET, WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID 110.86 ACRE TRACT, AND WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID 70.362 ACRE TRACT, TO A
THENCE THROUGH SAID 110.86 ACRE TRACT THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES:
1. NORTH 57°52′49″ WEST, A DISTANCE OF 547.47 FEET, TO AN IRON PIN SET;
2. SOUTH 23°51′45″ WEST, PASSING OVER AN IRON PIN SET AT 1684.67 FEET, FOR A TOTAL DISTANCE OF 1716.81 FEET, TO A MAG NAIL SET ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID 110.86 ACRE TRACT, BEING ON THE NORTH LINE OF (TRACTS 22, 23, 24, 25 & 30) DESCRIBED IN DEED TO COLUMBUS REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF RECORD IN INSTRUMENT NUMBER 200712310221193, AND BEING ON THE CENTERLINE OF SAID ALKIRE ROAD;
THENCE NORTH 87°09′02″ WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1426.03 FEET, WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID 110.86 ACRE TRACT, THE NORTH LINE OF
ALL IRON PINS SET ARE
THE BEARINGS SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY ARE BASED ON THE BEARING OF NORTH 87°09′02″ WEST AS DETERMINED FOR THE CENTERLINE OF ALKIRE ROAD BASED ON FIELD OBSERVATIONS PERFORMED IN MAY, 2022 AND BASED ON THE OHIO STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, SOUTH ZONE, NAD83 (NSRS 2011 ADJUSTMENT). SAID BEARING WAS ESTABLISHED BY STATIC AND RTK GPS OBSERVATIONS.
Maritime Administration, DOT
Notice.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) invites public comments on our intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to renew an information collection in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed collection OMB 2133-0545 (Maritime Administration (MARAD) Jones Act Vessel Availability Determinations) is used to collect information about the availability of qualified Jones Act vessels. Since the last renewal, there was a reduction in the public burden for this collection. 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
Lance Murray, 202-617-7792, Office of Cargo and Commercial Sealift, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, Email:
A 60-day
By Order of the Executive Director in lieu of the Maritime Administrator.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Receipt of petition.
Mack Trucks, Inc., (Mack) has determined that certain model year (MY) 2017-2026 Mack Pinnacle (PI/PN) and MY 2017-2019 Mack CHU trucks do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121,
Send comments on or before April 23, 2025.
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
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
Ahmad Barnes, General Engineer, NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (202) 366-7236.
Mack filed a noncompliance report dated December 20, 2024, and amended the report on January 15, 2025, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
This notice of receipt of Mack'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.
Mack quotes NHTSA as stating that “an important issue to consider in determining inconsequentiality is the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against which the recall would otherwise protect.” (Daimler Trucks North America, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 87 FR 14325, March 14, 2022.)
Mack cites the original rule published in 1971, in which NHTSA stated that the purpose of FMVSS No. 121 was to specify the requirements for the safe performance of air brake systems under normal and emergency conditions. (36 FR 3817, Feb. 27, 1971.) Mack also refers to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that preceded the FMVSS No. 121 final rule which explained that the proposed requirement for separate supply and service reservoirs to have a capacity that is 16 times the combined volume of all brake chambers was intended to protect the brake system against the consequence of malfunction. In the final rule, the reservoir capacity requirement was reduced to 12 times the combined brake chamber capacity due to comments that were received and reevaluation by the Administrator. (36 FR 3818, Feb. 27, 1971). Mack believes that the FMVSS No. 121 air reserve requirements are “intended to assure that the trucks have an adequate air reserve to enable them to stop safely, even in the event of a malfunction.” Mack lists three reasons why the subject vehicles meet the intended purpose of the safety standard:
1. Mack states that the subject vehicles have a greater air reserve, and therefore more energy to stop the truck, than required by FMVSS No. 121. Mack asserts that the amount of energy from the air pressure reservoir that is necessary to stop a vehicle is based more on air pressure than the volume of the reservoir itself. Therefore, Mack contends that the subject vehicles successfully compensate for any possible shortfall in stopping distance by having a slightly smaller reservoir with a higher air pressure. Mack uses a data table of test results comparing the actuation timing of the air brakes of the noncompliant trucks with a reservoir pressure of 100 psi with a compliant truck with the same reservoir pressure. According to their data, there is a “nearly identical” difference between
2. Mack states that “(t)he subject trucks compensate for the risk of malfunctions related to reservoir capacity at least as well as compliant trucks.” Mack names three potential causes of malfunction that they believe were meant to be addressed by the required reservoir capacity requirements and gives reasons why the noncompliant trucks do not have a higher risk of those malfunctions.
The first is the risk of air governor cut-in pressure malfunction. Mack states that any increase in stopping distance caused by risk of failure of the air governors on the noncompliant subject trucks will be more than negated by the above-mentioned higher air pressure in the reservoirs.
The second is the risk of reduction of available air volume caused by water accumulating in the vehicle's pneumatic system. Mack recognizes that twelve to one reservoir-to-service-brake volume ratio required by FMVSS No. 121 lowers the risk of water accumulation. However, they claim to have reduced the risk of water accumulation in noncompliant trucks by instead installing air dryers as standard equipment in the entire subject vehicle population. This leads to an even greater reduction of water and humidity accumulation in the subject noncompliant vehicle population than compliant vehicles without air dryers. Mack additionally mentions that the greater air reserve will compensate for the reduction of available air volume caused by water accumulation even without the air dryers.
The third risk is the potential for air leakage to reduce the amount of energy needed for braking. As established, the subject vehicles have a greater air reserve than required in FMVSS No. 121 and as a result, would better tolerate an air leak. The subject noncompliant vehicles have a compressor fill rate (compliant with FMVSS 121, S5.1.1) that Mack says would “compensate for non-readily detectable air leaks.”
3. Mack states that it has not received, nor found any complaints or field reports related to this noncompliance. While Mack acknowledges that a lack of complaints is not usually considered relevant to NHTSA's decision on inconsequential noncompliance, it notes that the absence of complaints of increased vehicle stopping distance supports their assertion that the noncompliant vehicles do not pose any increased risk to public safety.
Mack reiterates that for the above reasons, the subject noncompliant trucks do not have any increase in stopping distance, even in the event of a malfunction or emergency, and therefore meet the purpose of the safety standard although not technically conforming to it.
Mack 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 Mack 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 Mack notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the Idaho regional haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted on August 5, 2022, and supplemented on May 8, 2024. Idaho submitted the SIP revision to address the requirement to make reasonable progress toward the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility in certain national parks and wilderness areas.
Written comments must be received on or before April 23, 2025.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2024-0545 at
John Chi, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101, at (206) 553-1185 or
Throughout this document, the use of “we” and “our” means “the EPA.”
In the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress created a program
In 1990, Congress added section 169B to the Clean Air Act to further address visibility impairment, specifically, impairment from regional haze. The EPA subsequently promulgated the Regional Haze Rule on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35714), codified at 40 CFR 51.308.
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude of anthropogenic sources and activities which are located across a broad geographic area and that emit pollutants that impair visibility. Visibility impairing pollutants include fine and coarse particulate matter (PM) (
To address regional haze visibility impairment, the 1999 Regional Haze Rule established an iterative planning process that requires both States in which Class I areas are located and States “the emissions from which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or
Much of the focus in the first implementation period of the regional haze program, which ran from 2007 through 2018, was on satisfying States' BART obligations. First implementation period SIPs were additionally required to contain long-term strategies for making reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal, of which BART is one component. The core required elements for the first implementation period SIPs (other than BART) are laid out in 40 CFR 51.308(d).
On January 10, 2017, the EPA promulgated revisions to the Regional Haze Rule that apply for the second and subsequent implementation periods (82 FR 3078). The 2017 rulemaking made several changes to the requirements for regional haze SIPs to clarify States' obligations and streamline certain regional haze requirements. The revisions to the regional haze program for the second and subsequent implementation periods focused on the requirement that SIPs contain long-term strategies for making reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal. The reasonable progress requirements as revised in the 2017 rulemaking (referred to here as the 2017 Regional Haze Rule Revisions) are codified at 40 CFR 51.308(f). Among other changes, the 2017 Regional Haze Rule Revisions adjusted the deadline for States to submit their second implementation period SIPs from July 31, 2018, to July 31, 2021, clarified the order of analysis and the relationship between RPGs and the long-term strategy, and focused on making visibility improvements on the days with the most
Because the air pollutants and pollution affecting visibility in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, successful implementation of the regional haze program requires long-term, regional coordination among multiple jurisdictions and agencies that have responsibility for Class I areas and the emissions that impact visibility in those areas. In order to address regional haze, States need to develop strategies in coordination with one another, considering the effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in another. Five regional planning organizations (RPOs),
The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP)
Based on emissions and monitoring data supplied by its membership, the WRAP produced technical tools to support regional modeling of visibility impacts at Class I areas across the west.
Under the Clean Air Act and the EPA's regulations, all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the United States (U.S.) Virgin Islands are required to submit regional haze SIPs satisfying the applicable requirements for the second implementation period of the regional haze program by July 31, 2021. Each State's SIP must contain a long-term strategy for making reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of remedying any existing and preventing any future anthropogenic
Broadly speaking, a State first must identify the Class I areas within the State and determine the Class I areas outside the State in which visibility may be affected by emissions from the State. These are the Class I areas that must be addressed in the State's long-term strategy.
Additionally, as further explained below, the Regional Haze Rule at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) separately provides five “additional factors”
In addition to satisfying the requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(f) related to reasonable progress, the regional haze SIP revisions for the second implementation period must address the requirements in section 51.308(g)(1) through (5) pertaining to periodic reports describing progress towards the RPGs, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5), as well as requirements for Federal Land Manager consultation that apply to all visibility protection SIPs and SIP revisions.
A State must submit its regional haze SIP and subsequent SIP revisions to the EPA according to the requirements applicable to all SIP revisions under the Clean Air Act and the EPA's regulations.
The first step in developing a regional haze SIP is for a State to determine which Class I areas, in addition to those within its borders, “may be affected” by emissions from within the State. In the 1999 Regional Haze Rule, the EPA determined that all States contribute to visibility impairment in at least one Class I area and explained that the statute and regulations lay out an “extremely low triggering threshold” for determining “whether States should be required to engage in air quality planning and analysis as a prerequisite to determining the need for control of emissions from sources within their State.”
A State must determine which Class I areas must be addressed by its SIP by evaluating the total emissions of visibility impairing pollutants from all sources within the State. The determination of which Class I areas may be affected by a State's emissions is subject to the requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) to “document the technical basis, including modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information, on which the State is relying to determine the emission reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress in each mandatory Class I Federal area it affects.”
As part of assessing whether a SIP revision for the second implementation period is providing for reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal, the Regional Haze Rule contains requirements in section 51.308(f)(1) related to tracking visibility improvement over time. The requirements of this section apply only to States having Class I areas within their borders; the required calculations must be made for each such Class I area. The EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance
The Regional Haze Rule requires tracking of visibility conditions on two sets of days: the clearest and the most impaired days. Visibility conditions for both sets of days are expressed as the average deciview index for the relevant five-year period (the period representing baseline or current visibility conditions). The Regional Haze Rule provides that the relevant sets of days for visibility tracking purposes are the 20% clearest (the 20% of monitored days in a calendar year with the lowest values of the deciview index) and 20% most impaired days (the 20% of monitored days in a calendar year with the highest amounts of anthropogenic visibility impairment).
Using the data for the set of most impaired days only, States must plot a line between visibility conditions in the baseline period and natural visibility conditions for each Class I area to determine the uniform rate of progress—the amount of visibility improvement, measured in deciviews, that would need to be achieved during each implementation period in order to achieve natural visibility conditions by the end of 2064. The uniform rate of progress is used in later steps of the reasonable progress analysis for informational purposes and to provide a non-enforceable benchmark against which to assess a Class I area's rate of visibility improvement. Additionally, in the 2017 Regional Haze Rule Revisions, the EPA provided States the option of proposing to adjust the endpoint of the uniform rate of progress to account for impacts of anthropogenic sources outside the U.S. and/or impacts of certain types of wildland prescribed fires. These adjustments, which must be approved by the EPA, are intended to avoid any perception that States should compensate for impacts from international anthropogenic sources and to give States the flexibility to determine that limiting the use of wildland-prescribed fire is not necessary for reasonable progress.
The EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance can be used to help satisfy the 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) requirements, including in developing information on baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions, and in making optional adjustments to the uniform rate of progress. In addition, the 2020 Data Completeness Memo provides recommendations on the data completeness language referenced in section 51.308(f)(1)(i) and provides updated natural conditions estimates for each Class I area.
The core component of a regional haze SIP revision is a long-term strategy that addresses regional haze in each Class I area within a State's borders and each Class I area that may be affected by emissions from the State. The long-term strategy “must include the enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress, as determined pursuant to (f)(2)(i) through (iv).”
Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides the requirements for the four-factor analysis. The first step of this analysis entails selecting the sources to be evaluated for emission reduction measures; to this end, States should consider “major and minor stationary sources or groups of sources, mobile sources, and area sources” of visibility impairing pollutants for potential four-factor control analysis.
While States have discretion to choose any source selection methodology that is reasonable, whatever choices they make should be reasonably explained. To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that a State's SIP revision include “a description of the criteria it used to determine which sources or groups of sources it evaluated.” The technical basis for source selection, which may include methods for quantifying potential visibility impacts such as emissions divided by distance metrics, trajectory analyses, residence time analyses, and/or photochemical modeling, must also be appropriately documented, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
Once a State has selected the set of sources, the next step is to determine the emissions reduction measures for those sources that are necessary to make reasonable progress for the second implementation period.
After identifying a reasonable set of potential control options for the sources it has selected, a State then collects information on the four factors with regard to each option identified. The EPA has also explained that, in addition to the four statutory factors, States have flexibility under the Clean Air Act and Regional Haze Rule to reasonably consider visibility benefits as an additional factor alongside the four statutory factors.
As explained above, section 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires States to determine the emission reduction measures for sources that are necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four factors. Pursuant to section 51.308(f)(2), measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal must be included in a State's long-term strategy and in its SIP.
As with source selection, the characterization of information on each of the factors is also subject to the documentation requirement in section 51.308(f)(2)(iii). The reasonable progress analysis, including source selection, information gathering, characterization of the four statutory factors (and potentially visibility), balancing of the four factors, and selection of the emission reduction measures that represent reasonable progress, is a technically complex exercise, but also a flexible one that provides States with bounded discretion to design and implement approaches appropriate to their circumstances. Given this flexibility, section 51.308(f)(2)(iii) plays an important function in requiring a State to document the technical basis for its decision making so that the public and the EPA can comprehend and evaluate the information and analysis the State relied upon to determine what emission reduction measures must be in place to make reasonable progress. The technical documentation must include the modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information on which the State relied to determine the measures necessary to make reasonable progress. This documentation requirement can be met through the provision of and reliance on technical analyses developed through a regional planning process, so long as that process and its output has been approved by all State participants. In addition to the explicit regulatory requirement to document the technical basis of their reasonable progress determinations, States are also subject to the general principle that those determinations must be reasonably moored to the statute.
The four statutory factors (and potentially visibility) are used to determine what emission reduction measures for selected sources must be included in a State's long-term strategy for making reasonable progress. Additionally, the Regional Haze Rule at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) separately provides five “additional factors”
Because the air pollution that causes regional haze crosses State boundaries, section 51.308(f)(2)(ii) requires a State to consult with other States that also have emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a given Class I area. Consultation allows for each State that impacts visibility in an area to share whatever technical information, analyses, and control determinations may be necessary to develop coordinated emission management strategies. This coordination may be managed through inter- and intra-regional planning organization consultation and the development of regional emissions strategies; additional consultations between States outside of
Reasonable progress goals (RPGs) “measure the progress that is projected to be achieved by the control measures States have determined are necessary to make reasonable progress based on a four-factor analysis.”
For the second implementation period, the RPGs are set for 2028. RPGs are not enforceable targets, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii). While States are not legally obligated to achieve the visibility conditions described in their RPGs, section 51.308(f)(3)(i) requires that “[t]he long-term strategy and the reasonable progress goals must provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days since the baseline period and ensure no degradation in visibility for the clearest days since the baseline period.” Thus, States are required to have emission reduction measures in their long-term strategies that are projected to achieve visibility conditions on the most impaired days that are better than the baseline period and shows no degradation on the clearest days compared to the clearest days from the baseline period. The baseline period for the purpose of this comparison is the baseline visibility condition—the annual average visibility condition for the period 2000-2004.
So that RPGs may also serve as a metric for assessing the amount of progress a State is making towards the national visibility goal, the Regional Haze Rule requires States with Class I areas to compare the 2028 RPG for the most impaired days to the corresponding point on the uniform rate of progress line (representing visibility conditions in 2028 if visibility were to improve at a linear rate from conditions in the baseline period of 2000-2004 to natural visibility conditions in 2064). If the most impaired days RPG in 2028 is above the uniform rate of progress (
Section 51.308(f)(6) requires States to have certain strategies and elements in place for assessing and reporting on visibility. Individual requirements under this subsection apply either to States with Class I areas within their borders, States with no Class I areas but that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area, or both. A State with Class I areas within its borders must submit with its SIP revision a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all Class I areas within the State. SIP revisions for such States must also provide for the establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to assess visibility conditions in Class I areas, as well as reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the EPA at least annually. Compliance with the monitoring strategy requirement may be met through a State's participation in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring network, which is used to measure visibility impairment caused by air pollution at the 156 Class I areas covered by the visibility program.
All States' SIPs must provide for procedures by which monitoring data and other information are used to determine the contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze visibility impairment in affected Class I areas.
All States' SIPs must also provide for any other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and other measures, that are necessary for States to assess and report on visibility.
Separate from the requirements related to monitoring for regional haze purposes under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), the Regional Haze Rule also contains a requirement at section 51.308(f)(4) related to any additional monitoring that may be needed to address visibility impairment in Class I areas from a single source or a small group of sources. This is called “reasonably attributable visibility impairment.”
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires a State's regional haze SIP revision to address the requirements of paragraphs 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through (5) so that the plan revision due in 2021 will serve also as a progress report addressing the period since submission of the progress report for the first implementation period. The regional haze progress report requirement is designed to inform the public and the EPA about a State's implementation of its existing long-term strategy and whether such implementation is in fact resulting in the expected visibility improvement.
A core component of the progress report requirements is an assessment of changes in visibility conditions on the clearest and most impaired days. For second implementation period progress reports, section 51.308(g)(3) requires States with Class I areas within their borders to first determine current visibility conditions for each area on the most impaired and clearest days, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(i)(B), and then to calculate the difference between those current conditions and baseline (2000-2004) visibility conditions in order to assess progress made to date.
Similarly, States must provide analyses tracking the change in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and activities within the State over the period since they submitted their first implementation period progress reports.
Clean Air Act section 169A(d) requires that before a State holds a public hearing on a proposed regional haze SIP revision, it must consult with the appropriate Federal Land Manager or Federal Land Managers; pursuant to that consultation, the State must include a summary of the Federal Land Managers' conclusions and recommendations in the notice to the public. Consistent with this statutory requirement, the Regional Haze Rule also requires that States “provide the [Federal Land Manager] with an opportunity for consultation, in person and at a point early enough in the State's policy analyses of its long-term strategy emission reduction obligation so that information and recommendations provided by the [Federal Land Manager] can meaningfully inform the State's decisions on the long-term strategy.”
In order for the EPA to evaluate whether Federal Land Manager consultation meeting the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule has occurred, the SIP revision should include documentation of the timing and content of such consultation. The SIP revision submitted to the EPA must also describe how the State addressed any comments provided by the Federal Land Managers.
Idaho submitted its regional haze plan for the first implementation period on October 25, 2010.
On August 5, 2022, Idaho submitted a regional haze plan for the second implementation period.
The following sections of this preamble describe the Idaho 2022 plan submission and the Idaho 2024 supplemental submission (herein referred to as “the Idaho submissions” or “the submissions”) and detail the EPA's evaluation of the submission against the requirements of the Clean Air Act and Regional Haze Rule. The Idaho submission and the EPA's supporting documentation may be found in the docket for this action.
Section 169A(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act requires each State in which any Class I area is located or “the emissions from which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility” in a Class I area to have a plan for making reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal. The Regional Haze Rule implements this statutory requirement at 40 CFR 51.308(f), which provides that each State's plan “must address regional haze in each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State and in each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the State that may be affected by emissions from within the State,” and (f)(2), which requires each State's plan to include a long-term strategy that addresses regional haze in such Class I areas.
There are five mandatory Class I areas, or portions of such areas, within Idaho.
The Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve is made up of 43,243 acres on the Snake River Plain in south-central Idaho.
The Hells Canyon Wilderness Area, managed by the U.S. Forest Service, is located on the border between Oregon and Idaho. The Snake River divides the wilderness, with 131,133 acres in Oregon, and 83,811 acres in Idaho.
The Sawtooth Wilderness Area is comprised of 216,383 acres in central Idaho managed by the U.S. Forest Service.
The Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area is located in north Idaho and crosses the Idaho-Montana border.
Yellowstone National Park, managed by the National Park Service, covers 2.2 million acres, primarily in Wyoming.
Haze species are measured and analyzed via the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network.
In the
Section 51.308(f)(1) requires States to determine the following for “each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State”: baseline visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days, natural visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days, progress to date for the most impaired and clearest days, the differences between current visibility conditions and natural visibility conditions, and the uniform rate of progress. This section also provides the option for States to propose adjustments to the uniform rate of progress line for a Class I area to account for visibility impacts from anthropogenic sources outside the U.S. and/or the impacts from wildland prescribed fires that were conducted for certain, specified objectives.
The Idaho submissions addressed baseline, current and natural visibility conditions and the uniform rate of progress for Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve, Sawtooth Wilderness Area, and Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area, as required by the 2017 Regional Haze Rule and the EPA's technical guidance on tracking visibility progress.
The data in Tables 2 and 3 of this preamble indicate that current visibility has improved since the baseline period for both the clearest and most impaired days for each Class I area. In addition, Idaho included both the URP and an adjusted URP.
Idaho relied upon the WRAP regional scale modeling using CAMx 2028OTBa2 H-L SA to adjust the URP.
Each State having a Class I area within its borders or emissions that may affect visibility in a Class I area must develop a long-term strategy for making reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal.
States may rely on technical information developed by the regional planning organizations of which they are members to select sources for four-factor analysis and to conduct that analysis, as well as to satisfy the documentation requirements under section 51.308(f). Where a regional planning organization has performed source selection and/or four-factor analyses (or considered the five additional factors in section 51.308(f)(2)(iv)) for its member States, those States may rely on the regional planning organization's analyses for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of section 51.308(f)(2)(i) so long as the States have a reasonable basis to do so and all State participants in the regional planning organization process have approved the technical analyses.
The following paragraphs describe how the Idaho submissions addressed the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) and summarizes the EPA's evaluation of Idaho's submissions.
Idaho evaluated the haze composition at each of the IMPROVE monitors representing visibility at the Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve (CRMO1), Sawtooth Wilderness Area (SAWT1), and Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area (SULA1). In the submissions, Idaho illustrated that ammonium nitrate contributed the most to total light extinction at the CRMO1 monitor, followed by ammonium sulfate for each year from 2001 through 2018.
The Idaho submissions documented that organic carbon contributed the most to total light extinction at the SAWT1 monitor followed by ammonium sulfate for each year from 2001 through 2018.
With respect to the SULA1 monitor, Idaho stated in the submissions that average aerosol light extinction on the most impaired days was largely from organic carbon and ammonium sulfate (47% and 25%, respectively), however lower levels of coarse mass, elemental carbon, ammonium nitrate, and fine soil were also present.
A review of IMPROVE data confirms the State's analysis of average haze composition at Idaho IMPROVE monitors and supports the State's decision to evaluate NO
According to the State's submissions, Idaho used the source selection methodology developed by the WRAP for western States.
1. Identify those facilities with total facility-wide emissions of visibility impairing pollutants (NO
2. Calculate the distance from each facility identified in Step 1 to the
3. Identify those facilities with a Q/d greater than the State-defined threshold. Idaho used a Q/d threshold of 2.0 because the State estimated that the threshold captured 70% to 80% of emissions from Idaho facilities.
4. Refine the Q/d analysis using more recent 2017 NEI data to screen out sources that have a Q/d less than the State-defined threshold for 2017 emissions.
Idaho's initial source screening used 2014 emissions inventory data to identify 14 facilities in Idaho with Q/d greater than 2.0.
Idaho also used the WRAP weighted emissions potential (WEP) to confirm the selected sources.
Idaho also identified 27 Class I areas in five neighboring states (Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Wyoming) that could potentially be affected by emissions from sources within Idaho. However, applying the same source screening analysis yielded no additional Idaho facilities beyond the nine already selected for four-factor analysis.
After selecting the nine sources, Idaho used the following steps to identify specific emissions units at each source: (1) Exclude processes or emissions units that emitted less than 20 tons per year of NO
Based on a review of the information provided in the submission, we propose to determine that the Idaho source, unit, and pollutant selection methodology used for the regional haze second implementation period satisfies the requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that the State include in its SIP a description of the criteria it used to determine which sources it evaluated.
In developing its regional haze second implementation period plan submission, Idaho established a cost threshold of $6,100 per ton pollutant removed by adjusting the $5,000 per ton BART cost-effectiveness threshold (used during the first implementation period) for inflation.
Table 6 of this preamble lists the control technologies, fuel specifications, and emission limits that Idaho determined are necessary for reasonable progress in the second implementation period, and the associated permit conditions that make the controls enforceable as a practical matter, including compliance schedules, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
The
Clearwater Paper is a large kraft pulp mill located in Lewiston, Idaho. The mill converts chipped wood and sawdust into bleached pulp through a series of digestion, washing, screening, delignification, and bleaching operations. In the two recovery furnaces, the bleached pulp is formed, dried, treated, and sized to produce paperboard or consumer products.
Power for the facility is produced by three boilers that combust natural gas and fuel oil, in addition to a fourth high-pressure, high-temperature boiler that combusts cellulosic biomass (hog fuel, bark, lumber, chips sawdust, sander dust, wood pallets, clean wood), dewatered pulp and paper sludge, natural gas, and fuel oil.
Idaho conducted a review of NO
For NO
Furthermore, Idaho stated that the No. 5 recovery furnace is already subject to major source pre-construction permitting limits for NO
For PM
Idaho noted that the No. 4 power boiler was retrofitted with an overfire air system in 2016 and is currently subject to the NO
Thus, the State concluded that the existing overfire air system and current permitted NO
For SO
We note that as part of the September 27, 2024, supplement, Idaho obtained and submitted additional information from the facility assessing fuel usage and limits for the No. 4 power boiler.
The State also considered the time necessary for installing the retrofit controls, energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of the controls, and remaining useful life of control technologies.
Idaho submitted the permit conditions that implement the existing NO
For PM
For NO
Therefore, we agree with Idaho's determination that the existing NO
We have determined that Idaho adequately considered the four statutory factors when determining the NO
After reviewing additional information submitted on fuel usage and associated limits for SO
The EPA concurs with Idaho's finding that the existing NO
ITAFOS Conda LLC produces fertilizer in Soda Springs, Idaho. The East Sulfuric Acid Plant is a sulfur burning, dual-contact, dual-absorption plant that produces sulfuric acid and steam for use in other facility processes.
Idaho evaluated retrofit SO
In its 2022 submission, Idaho determined that WFGD, hydrogen peroxide scrubbers, and DSI were technically feasible options for SO
Idaho updated its evaluations of the three retrofit controls in its September 27, 2024, supplemental submission.
The revised cost estimates found that WFGD retrofit technology would cost $6,270 per ton, hydrogen peroxide scrubbers would cost $7,120 per ton, and DSI would cost $6,210 per ton.
As part of the Idaho 2024 supplemental submission, Idaho submitted the permit conditions that implement the existing SO
The EPA reviewed Idaho's evaluation of SO
Regarding technological feasibility, Idaho provided a valid basis to determine CDS and ammonia packed-bed scrubber were not feasible. For DSI and WFGD, the EPA does not agree that the factors Idaho cites render these options technologically infeasible. DSI and WFGD are common retrofit SO
With respect to cost calculations, the EPA recommended in the EPA 2019 Guidance that States follow the EPA's Control Cost Manual recommendations to ensure consistent cost calculations across controls and sources.
In evaluating the cost of WFGD, a hydrogen peroxide scrubber, and DSI, Idaho obtained cost information from equipment vendors.
We propose to approve and incorporate by reference the permit conditions that implement the existing SO
Northwest Pipeline—Soda Springs (NWP) is a natural gas compressor station located near Soda Springs, Idaho. The compressor station operates remotely and is used to compress and transmit natural gas along the transmission pipeline.
Idaho evaluated the RICE engines for NO
Idaho also evaluated the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts, and remaining useful life of an LEC retrofit.
Based on its review of the four factors, Idaho determined that the LEC retrofit was not cost-effective. However, after the initial 2022 submission, Idaho entered into a compliance agreement schedule with the facility to replace the four RICE engines with two gas-fired turbines by July of 2031.
Idaho determined the engine replacements were necessary for reasonable progress and as part of the September 27, 2024, supplemental submission, Idaho included the compliance agreement schedule for incorporation by reference into the Idaho SIP at 40 CFR 52.670(d).
The EPA concurs that Idaho adequately considered the four statutory
We propose to approve and incorporate by reference the submitted compliance agreement schedule specified in Table 6 of this preamble into the Idaho SIP at 40 CFR 52.670(d).
P4 Production LLC (P4) owns and operates an elemental phosphorus manufacturing facility located in Soda Springs, Idaho, where phosphate ore is nodulized in a rotary kiln.
Idaho selected the nodulizing kiln for four-factor analysis for NO
For NO
Idaho concurred that no technically feasible control technologies were available. The nodulizing kiln is not subject to any existing NO
For PM
For SO
Idaho adequately considered the four statutory factors in determining the controls necessary for reasonable progress at P4 and adequately determined that there are no additional NO
The EPA concurs with Idaho's determination that no new SO
For PM
We propose to find that the submitted permit conditions for the existing PM
The J.R. Simplot Company owns and operates a phosphate fertilizer
The No. 300 Sulfuric Acid Plant includes a DynaWave reverse-jet scrubber and an Ammsox scrubber, in series, to reduce SO
Idaho selected the No. 300 and No. 400 Sulfuric Acid Plants for four-factor analysis, specifically, to evaluate PM
The Federal Consent Decree establishes SO
For PM
According to Idaho's 2022 submission, the NO
The facility proposed to retain the current design and operation of the No. 400 Sulfuric Acid Plant, stating that the most recent NO
The EPA concurs with Idaho's determination that the SO
For PM
For NO
We propose to approve and incorporate by reference the permit conditions that implement Idaho's reasonable progress determinations and associated monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements and compliance schedules specified in Table 6 of this preamble into the Idaho SIP at 40 CFR 52.670(d).
The Tamarack Mill, LLC dba Evergreen Forest and Tamarack Energy Partnership manufactures dry kiln lumber in New Meadows, Idaho.
Idaho selected the Riley Cogeneration Boiler for PM
Idaho also considered the time necessary to install the ESP and determined it would take 2.5 years. With respect to energy and non-air quality environmental impacts, Idaho noted that the ESP would increase fire risk and the risk of concentrating hazardous metals. Finally, Idaho determined the remaining useful life of the ESP would be 15 years. However, Idaho used a 30-year equipment life for consistency across sources. Thus, Idaho determined that the ESP retrofit was not necessary for reasonable progress in the second implementation period. Based on its consideration of these factors, Idaho determined that the existing PM
For NO
Idaho also considered the time necessary to install SNCR, its energy and non-air quality environmental impacts, and remaining useful life. Idaho determined it would take 1.5 years to install. Idaho also indicated that installing SNCR would increase energy demand. Finally, Idaho determined the system would last 15 years, but used a 30-year lifetime for the purposes of its cost calculations. Based on its consideration of these factors, Idaho determined that SNCR was not necessary for reasonable progress. Idaho determined that the existing NO
For PM
For NO
After reviewing the Idaho 2024 supplemental submission, we propose to find that the permit conditions submitted for the Riley Cogeneration Boiler are sufficient to make the existing PM
The Amalgamated Sugar Company (TASCO) operates a beet sugar manufacturing plant in Nampa, Idaho that processes sugar beets into refined sugar. TASCO—Nampa includes the Riley Boiler. The Riley Boiler is a wall-fired, pulverized coal and natural gas-fired boiler with a maximum heat input rating of 358 MMBtu/hr, fires low-sulfur bituminous coal or natural gas.
Idaho selected the Riley Boiler for four-factor analysis for PM
For PM
Therefore, Idaho determined that the most effective PM control device (a fabric filter baghouse) was already being employed on the Riley Boiler. Additionally, the facility asserted that none of the retrofit control options would reduce PM
For SO
As part of its original 2022 submission, Idaho did not evaluate mandating that TASCO discontinue firing coal in the Riley Boiler. However, on June 2, 2022, the facility submitted a letter to the Idaho DEQ committing to discontinue the use of coal in the Riley Boiler at the TASCO—Nampa facility. The Idaho DEQ determined that the Riley Boiler fuel switch to combust only natural gas represented the greatest potential reduction in emissions (1,171.5 tons per year of combined NO
We concur with Idaho's determination that mandating the Riley Boiler cease burning coal is necessary for reasonable progress. Idaho evaluated a reasonable set of potential controls and considered the four statutory factors in determining that discontinuing coal is necessary for reasonable progress. We note that switching to exclusively fire natural gas virtually eliminates PM
We propose to incorporate by reference the permit conditions that implement the fuel switch requirement specified in Table 6 of this preamble into the Idaho SIP at 40 CFR 52.670(d).
The TASCO—Twin Falls facility processes sugar beets into refined sugar and also produces animal feed products such as pulp and betaine.
Idaho selected the B&W Boilers (coal and natural gas-fired) for four-factor analysis for NO
For NO
For SO
Idaho required TASCO to cease burning coal in the B&W Boiler as a potential multi-pollutant control.
Based
Idaho selected the Foster Wheeler Boiler for four-factor analysis for NO
For NO
Based on the 2022 submission, the conversion to natural gas reduces NO
For SO
Idaho determined that no additional NO
The EPA concurs with Idaho's determination of the controls necessary for reasonable progress for both boilers. With respect to PM
With respect to NO
The EPA notes that the cost-effectiveness of many of the retrofit NO
Given that Idaho's long-term strategy includes fuel switch requirements for both the B&W Boiler and Foster Wheeler Boiler, the EPA is not evaluating Idaho's determination in the 2022 submission that the fuel switch at the B&W Boiler are the only SO
We propose
The TASCO—Paul facility produces refined sugar and animal feed products from sugar beets. Idaho selected the natural gas-fired Rentech Boiler and the natural gas-fired B&W Boiler for four-factor analysis for NO
The pulp dryers fire both natural gas and coal. The units are equipped with cyclones and spray-impingement scrubbers for PM
For PM
For SO
Idaho also considered requiring both pulp dryers to exclusively fire natural gas as a multi-pollutant control option. Idaho determined that the cost-effectiveness of the requirement based on combined NO
According to Idaho's 2022 submission, the B&W Boiler and Rentech Boiler provide steam to the facility. The B&W Boiler is equipped with LNB with FGR for NO
For the Rentech Boiler, Idaho identified LNB, ultra-low NO
Idaho therefore considered the remaining controls based on the four statutory factors. Idaho determined that ultra-low NO
Based on its consideration of the four factors for North and South Pulp Dryers, B&W Boiler, and Rentech Boilers, in conjunction with the controls required at the nearby TASCO—Twin Falls facility, Idaho determined that additional controls were not necessary for reasonable progress. Accordingly, Idaho determined that the existing controls were necessary for reasonable progress and submitted permit conditions to the EPA as part of its 2024 supplemental submission.
Idaho acknowledged in its 2022 and 2024 submissions that requiring TASCO to fire natural gas exclusively at the North and South Pulp Dryers and ultra-low NO
Idaho submitted a detailed justification in support of the decision that further controls at TASCO—Paul are not necessary for reasonable progress. In its justification, the State compared the emissions reductions that would have resulted if Idaho had required TASCO to implement the cost-effective retrofit controls at TASCO—Twin Falls and TASCO—Paul.
Idaho also
Idaho adequately considered the four statutory factors in determining the controls necessary for reasonable progress at the TASCO—Paul facility. Idaho identified a reasonable range of controls for review. Idaho justified its determinations regarding technological feasibility with unit-specific information. With respect to the cost of compliance, consistent with the EPA 2019 Guidance, Idaho used the EPA Control Cost Manual to generate cost estimates for control technologies.
Based on the documentation provided in Idaho's 2022 and 2024 submissions, and the detailed analysis of the TASCO facilities, the EPA agrees with Idaho's determination that existing controls at the North and Source Pulp Dryers, B&W Boiler, and Rentech Boiler are necessary for reasonable progress and that no additional controls are necessary. The Regional Haze Rule requires States to “evaluate and determine the emission reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four statutory factors.”
Idaho's approach to determining the controls necessary for reasonable progress at TASCO—Paul and TASCO—Twin Falls is consistent with the Regional Haze Rule and the EPA 2019 Guidance. Here, Idaho did not group the TASCO—Paul facility with the other TASCO facilities for the purpose of determining that no additional controls are necessary for reasonable progress at any of these facilities. Idaho did not argue that no new controls were necessary for reasonable progress due to “small” visibility benefits. Rather, Idaho selected controls to achieve emissions reductions at TASCO—Nampa and TASCO—Twin Falls over TASCO—Paul because doing so would achieve greater overall emissions reductions and the former facilities have greater visibility impacts on Class I areas. Thus, Idaho did not run afoul of the EPA's caution in the 2021 Clarifications Memo with respect to improper grouping of sources.
The EPA acknowledges that Idaho's approach to determining the controls necessary for the TASCO—Paul facility deviates from its unit-specific approach for the other sources Idaho selected for review under the four statutory factors. However, Idaho provided a sufficient justification for not imposing additional controls at TASCO—Paul. As an initial matter, the EPA notes that Idaho was not required to consider eliminating burning coal as a possible control at the TASCO—Twin Falls Foster Wheeler Boiler because it required redesigning the boiler.
We propose to approve and incorporate by reference the permit conditions that implement the requirements and associated monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements and compliance schedules specified in Table 6 of this preamble into the Idaho SIP at 40 CFR 52.670(d).
In addition to the individual facilities discussed in the preceding paragraphs, Idaho reviewed 2014 and 2017 emissions data for a number of source sectors, including point sources, nonpoint sources, mobile sources, fire sources, and natural/biogenic sources.
Nonpoint emission source categories include agricultural activities, fugitive dust, residential fuel combustion, commercial and consumer solvent use, and consumer activities. Nonpoint sources are emissions sources that are too small, widespread, or numerous to be inventoried individually. Emissions are estimated using aggregate activity data such as population, employment, and Statewide fuel use (after accounting for the fuel used by point sources). Pollutants in this category have increased from the 2014 NEI most likely due to increase in population growth. An increase in agricultural activities has contributed to increases in NH
Mobile sources, include on-road, nonroad, commercial marine vessels, and rail. Emissions from these sources were calculated using the EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES). The MOVES model incorporates user information supplemented by the states, such as vehicle types and vehicle miles traveled, to estimate mobile source emissions. In the 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI), the Idaho DEQ used MOVES2014a to calculate emissions from on-road and nonroad mobile sources for Idaho, updating the model's default inputs with local data.
On-road mobile sources encompass emissions from passenger cars, motorcycles, minivans, sport-utility vehicles, light-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks, and buses. Idaho used the 2014 NEI emissions data for the on-road sector and no adjustments were made to the representative baseline.
Nonroad mobile sources include vehicles and equipment not intended for roadways, such as aircraft support equipment, marine shipping, rail, construction equipment, recreational vehicles, and lawn and garden equipment. Emissions from aircraft take-offs and landings are categorized as point sources and estimated separately by the EPA. The primary pollutant emitted from mobile sources is nitrogen oxides (NO
The Idaho DEQ manages a Crop Residue Burning (CRB) program for all land outside reservation boundaries. This program tracks the location, acreage, and type of residue being burned throughout the year, allowing the Idaho DEQ to estimate emissions from agricultural fires for the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). For wildfires
In Idaho, wildfire emissions significantly exceed those from agricultural and prescribed fires combined. The emissions from wildfires were notably higher in 2017 compared to 2014.
The EPA proposes to find that Idaho's approach to evaluating other source categories is reasonable because the State demonstrated that the sources with the greatest potential impacts on visibility, as well as other sources that might be expected to impact visibility are subject to Federal controls outside the purview of State regulatory authority or are subject to existing and/or new control measures. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that selecting additional sources for four-factor analysis would not have resulted in further controls necessary for reasonable progress.
Biogenic emissions (decomposition processes, soil, and vegetation), volcanic eruptions, lightning NO
The consultation requirements of section 51.308(f)(2)(ii) provides that States must consult with other States that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area to develop coordinated emission management strategies containing the emission reductions measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) require States to consider the emission reduction measures identified by other States as necessary for reasonable progress and to include agreed upon measures in their SIPs, respectively. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) outlines requirements that apply if States cannot agree on what measures are necessary to make reasonable progress.
In the submissions, Idaho documented that the State had consulted with Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming on potential interstate visibility impacts to shared Class I areas and Class I areas outside of Idaho.
To address 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A), (B), and (C), the Idaho DEQ participated in the WRAP-facilitated consultation process during which no disagreements were raised by other States with respect to Idaho's planning efforts for the regional haze second implementation period. We propose to determine that Idaho has satisfied the consultation requirements of section 51.308(f)(2)(ii).
The documentation requirement of section 51.308(f)(2)(iii) provides that States may meet their obligations to document the technical bases on which they are relying to determine the emission reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress through a regional planning organization, as long as the process has been “approved by all State participants.” As explained in section II, part D; of this preamble, Idaho relied on WRAP technical information, modeling, and analysis to support development of its long-term strategy as described in the submissions and detailed in the WRAP TSD in the docket for this action.
Section 51.308(f)(2)(iii) also requires that the emissions information considered to determine the measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress include information on emissions for the most recent year for which the state has submitted triennial emissions data to the EPA (or a more recent year), with a 12-month exemption period for newly submitted data.
The submissions include an assessment of the 2014 and 2017 NEIs, considered the most representative recent triennial inventories.
In developing its long-term strategy, a State must also consider five additional factors set forth at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv). The factors are: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to address reasonably attributable visibility impairment; (2) Measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3) Source retirement and replacement schedules; (4) Smoke management practices for agricultural and forestry burning; and (5) Anticipated net effect on visibility over the period of the long-term strategy. The following paragraphs address each of the five additional factors.
Idaho's new source review program is the main tool the State uses to address potential future visibility impacts at Idaho's Class I areas from major stationary sources. The program requires new major sources and major modifications at existing major sources to install the best available control technology (BACT) in attainment and unclassifiable areas and meet the lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) in nonattainment areas. The SIP-approved Idaho new source review program is codified at IDAPA 58.01.01.200 through 228.
The submissions also pointed to Federal mobile source regulations that apply nationwide and that are expected to reduce haze-forming pollutants over time as requirements are phased-in and fleets turn over.
The Idaho submissions stated that NO
The State also addressed the SIP-approved and implemented criteria pollutant control programs for nonattainment areas in Idaho. All areas
The Idaho submissions stated that fugitive and windblown dust are the primary categories of particulate matter associated with construction activities. Idaho addresses control of fugitive dust through regulations at IDAPA 58.01.01.651 that require reasonable precautions to be taken to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne.
Source retirements and replacements were considered in the Idaho submissions and corresponding updates were made to the 2014 NEI point source emissions inventory. Recent source retirements include the following.
• Idaho removed J.R. Simplot Caldwell facility emissions data because the facility ceased operation in 2014 and was demolished.
• Idaho updated TASCO-Paul facility emissions data to account for the retired Erie City boiler, replaced by a new natural gas-burning boiler (Rentech boiler) in 2018. Because a full year of actual emissions for the natural gas boiler was not available, the Idaho DEQ used potential emissions estimates in place of actual emissions. The original 2014 emissions estimates for the pulp dryers were used because the dryers retain the ability to combust coal or natural gas.
Idaho addressed smoke management in the submissions by citing to the Idaho SIP-approved open burning regulations at IDAPA 58.01.01.600 through 624. These rules include the State's wildland prescribed burning regulations and the crop residue burning (CRB) program.
In the submissions, Idaho considered the anticipated net effect of projected changes in emissions by discussing the photochemical modeling for the 2018 through 2028 period conducted in collaboration with the WRAP and the EPA.
Because Idaho has reasonably considered each of the five additional factors, the EPA proposes to find that Idaho has satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv). In conclusion, the EPA proposes to approve Idaho's 2022 and 2024 submissions as meeting the requirement that the State submit a long-term strategy that includes the enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress, as determined pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) through (iv).
Section 51.308(f)(3) contains the requirements pertaining to reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for each Class I area. Because Idaho is host to Class I areas, it is subject to both section 51.308(f)(3)(i), and potentially, to (ii). Section 51.308(f)(3)(i) requires a state in which a Class I area is located to establish RPGs—one each for the most impaired and clearest days—reflecting the visibility conditions that will be achieved at the end of the implementation period as a result of the emission limitations, compliance schedules and other measures required under paragraph (f)(2) to be in States' long-term strategies, as well as implementation of other Clean Air Act requirements. The long-term strategies as reflected by the RPGs must provide for an improvement in visibility on the most impaired days relative to the baseline period and ensure no degradation on the clearest days relative to the baseline period.
Section 51.308(f)(3)(ii) applies in circumstances in which a Class I area's RPGs for the most impaired days represents a slower rate of visibility improvement than the uniform rate of progress (URP) calculated under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi). Under section 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A), if the State in which a Class I area is located establishes an RPG for the most impaired days that provides for a slower rate of visibility improvement than the URP, the State must demonstrate that there are no additional emission reduction measures for anthropogenic sources or groups of sources in the State that would be reasonable to include in its long-term strategy.
Section 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) requires that if a State contains sources that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area in
To address 51.308(f)(3)(i), the Idaho submissions stated that visibility on the 20% clearest days at all Class I areas in Idaho is projected to be below the baseline visibility condition satisfying the Regional Haze Rule requirement of no degradation in visibility for the clearest days since the baseline period.
Tables 13 and 14 of this preamble compare the baselines, projected RPGs, and adjusted URPs.
Table 13 of this preamble indicates that visibility at Idaho Class I areas on the clearest days has not degraded since the baseline. Table 14 of this preamble shows that the projected 2028 RPGs on the most impaired days are below the default and the EPA-adjusted URPs at Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve (CRMO1) and Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Areas (SELA1). At Sawtooth Wilderness Area (SAWT1), the 2028 RPG is above the default URP but below the EPA-adjusted URP. Therefore, we propose to approve the Idaho submissions for purposes of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i) and (f)(3)(ii)(A).
Under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B), a State that contains sources that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area in another State for which a demonstration by the other State is required under 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) must demonstrate that there are no additional emission reduction measures that would be reasonable to include in its long-term strategy. Overall, no other neighboring States identified additional emission reductions measures on Idaho sources that were reasonable when Idaho coordinated emission strategy consultation with neighboring States. Idaho did not receive any request for specific SO
As discussed in section III.E. of this preamble, in developing its long-term strategy, Idaho used the WEP and rank point analysis results to identify sources in Idaho impacting Class I areas in other States and whether Idaho needed to impose emission reduction measures on those sources. Ultimately, Idaho determined that the sources it selected for review under the four statutory factors captured the sources potentially contributing to visibility impairment in Class I areas in other States. Importantly, Idaho noted that all the sources it reviewed had greater visibility impacts on Idaho Class I areas. Specifically, the 2028OTBa2 State-level source apportionment results indicated that Idaho facilities had the most significant impact on visibility impairment at Class I areas within the State. Thus, Idaho reasoned, and the neighboring States agreed, that addressing visibility impairment in Idaho's Class I areas would adequately Idaho source's contribution to visibility impairment in Class I areas outside the State.
Therefore, we propose to approve 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) because there were no disagreements from any contacted surrounding States.
As noted in the Regional Haze Rule at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii), the RPGs are not directly enforceable, but will be considered by the Administrator in evaluating the adequacy of the measures in the implementation plan in providing for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility conditions at that area. Because the long-term strategy control requirements drive the RPGs, and because we are proposing to approve the long-term strategy control requirements for Idaho Class I areas, we are also proposing to approve the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3) relating to RPGs for Idaho Class I areas.
Idaho has not been advised by the EPA or any FLM of the need to conduct additional monitoring to assess reasonably attributable visibility impairment and therefore the EPA proposes to determine that 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4) has been met.
Section 51.308(f)(6) specifies that each comprehensive revision of a State's regional haze SIP must contain or provide for certain elements, including monitoring strategies, emissions inventories, and any reporting, recordkeeping and other measures needed to assess and report on visibility. A main requirement of this subsection is for States with Class I areas to submit monitoring strategies for measuring, characterizing, and reporting on visibility impairment. Compliance with this requirement may be met through participation in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network.
The Idaho submissions describe visibility monitoring at Idaho Class I areas and asserts the IMPROVE network in Idaho continues to provide representative data.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(i) requires SIPs to provide for the establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to assess whether RPGs to address regional haze for all Class I areas within the State are being achieved.
As listed in Table 1 of this preamble, visibility data for Idaho's Class I areas are collected at IMPROVE monitors currently operated by the National Park Service at Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve (CRMO1) and Yellowstone National Park (YELL2), and the U.S. Forest Service at Hells Canyon Wilderness Area (HECA1), the Sawtooth Wilderness Area (SAWT1), and Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area (SULA1).
Section 51.308(f)(6)(ii) requires SIPs to provide for procedures by which monitoring data and other information are used in determining the contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze visibility impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the State.
Idaho relied on WRAP emissions inventory and technical tools, and EPA modeling. The tools and analyses included the EPA's three-dimensional grid-based Eulerian air quality model (CMAQ), CAM
We note that section 51.308(f)(6)(iii) does not apply to Idaho because it has Class I areas. Section 51.308(f)(6)(iv) requires the SIP to provide for the reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the State. Idaho's reliance on the IMPROVE network depends on its maintenance by Federal Land Managers and other members of the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), including States, Tribes, and the EPA. Idaho anticipates that operations and maintenance will encompass data collection, analysis, quality assurance, and reporting. Additionally, Idaho expects that the Federal Land Managers will continue to provide access to IMPROVE data for the public through WRAP-supported web platforms. Idaho also complies with the Air Emissions Reporting Rule. Therefore, the EPA proposes to determine that the Idaho 2022 submission and Idaho 2024 supplemental submission satisfy the requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi).
Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) requires SIPs to provide for a Statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment, including emissions for the most recent year for which data are available and estimates of future projected emissions. It also requires a commitment to update the inventory periodically.
The Idaho submissions use two main emission inventories which are found in the WRAP TSS emissions reference (WRAP 2021d). The representative baseline represents the 2014-2018 period and was developed with the 2014 National Emission Inventory with updates to account for the changes and variations in emissions between 2014 and 2018 for key source factors and is known as the representative baseline (RepBase2). The WRAP developed a future forecast 2028 inventory (2028OTBa2) to represent the end of the second implementation period. The 2028 inventory was put together by using methods applied by the EPA in the September 2019 technical support document for updated 2028 regional haze modeling (EPA 2019b) and Idaho updated source sectors to account for implementation by 2028 of all applicable Federal and State requirements for US anthropogenic emissions.
Pollution inventories in the 2014 inventory were broken down by source category and air pollutant, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide
Chapter 4
Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) also requires States to include estimates of future projected emissions and include a commitment to update the inventory periodically. Idaho relied on the WRAP 2028 emissions projections for WRAP states. WRAP developed a projected EI for 2028 following methods applied by the EPA in the September 2019 technical support document for updated 2028 regional haze modeling. States updated source sectors to account for implementation by 2028 of all applicable Federal and State requirements for U.S. anthropogenic emissions. This emissions inventory is referred to as 2028OTBa2 in Idaho's submissions.
In sum, the EPA proposes to find that Idaho has met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6) as described in section IV.G. of this preamble, including through the State's continued
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires that periodic comprehensive revisions of States' regional haze plans also address the progress report requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through (5). The purpose of these requirements is to evaluate progress towards the applicable RPGs for each Class I area within the State and each Class I area outside the State that may be affected by emissions from within that State. Section 51.308(g)(1) and (2) apply to all States and require a description of the status of implementation of all measures included in a State's first implementation period regional haze plan and a summary of the emission reductions achieved through implementation of those measures. Section 51.308(g)(3) applies only to States with Class I areas within their borders and requires such States to assess current visibility conditions, changes in visibility relative to baseline (2000-2004) visibility conditions, and changes in visibility conditions relative to the period addressed in the first implementation period progress report. Section 51.308(g)(4) applies to all States and requires an analysis tracking changes in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and sectors since the period addressed by the first implementation period progress report. This provision further specifies the year or years through which the analysis must extend depending on the type of source and the platform through which its emission information is reported. Finally, section 51.308(g)(5), which also applies to all States, requires an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the State have occurred since the period addressed by the first implementation period progress report, including whether such changes were anticipated and whether they have limited or impeded expected progress towards reducing emissions and improving visibility.
As part of the submissions, Idaho submitted a progress report covering the second half of the first implementation period. The Idaho submissions included five-year averages of the annual values for the most impaired and clearest days and describes the status of measures of the long-term strategy from the first implementation period.
The EPA proposes to find that Idaho has met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2) because the submissions included a progress report that described the measures included in the long-term strategy from the first implementation period, as well as the implementation status and the emission reductions achieved through such implementation. The EPA also proposes to find that Idaho has satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) because the progress report included summaries of the visibility conditions and the trend of the five-year averages through 2018 at the Idaho Class I areas.
Pursuant to section 51.308(g)(4), Idaho provided a summary of emissions data from sources and activities, including point, nonpoint, non-road mobile, on-road mobile sources, wildfires, and volcanic emissions.
Section 169A(d) of the Clean Air Act requires States to consult with Federal Land Managers before holding the public hearing on a proposed regional haze SIP, and to include a summary of the Federal Land Managers' conclusions and recommendations in the notice to the public. Section 51.308(i)(2)'s Federal Land Manager consultation provision requires a State to provide Federal Land Managers with an opportunity for consultation that is early enough in the State's policy analyses of its emission reduction obligation so that information and recommendations provided by the Federal Land Managers' can meaningfully inform the State's decisions on its long-term strategy. If the consultation has taken place at least 120 days before a public hearing or public comment period, the opportunity for consultation will be deemed early enough, Regardless, the opportunity for consultation must be provided at least sixty days before a public hearing or public comment period at the State level. Section 51.308(i)(2) also provides two substantive topics on which Federal Land Managers must be provided an opportunity to discuss with States: assessment of visibility impairment in any Class I area and recommendations on the development and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment. Section 51.308(i)(3) requires States, in developing their implementation plans, to include a description of how they addressed Federal Land Managers' comments.
The submissions made clear that Idaho consulted and coordinated with the Federal Land Managers early and often in the State's planning process.
On June 22, 2022, Idaho published notice of the availability of the initial draft submissions and public hearing on the Idaho website.
The EPA proposes to find that Idaho has satisfied the requirements of Clean Air Act section 169A(d) and 40 CFR 51.308(i) to consult with the Federal Land Managers on the August 5, 2022, Idaho submission and the September 27, 2024, supplemental submission.
On August 5, 2022, and September 27, 2024, Idaho submitted SIPs to address regional haze for the second implementation period (2018 through 2028). Idaho submitted the SIPs to meet visibility protection requirements pursuant to Clean Air Act sections 169A and 169B and the EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.308.
We are proposing to approve the SIP revision as meeting the following requirements:
• Identification of Class I area requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f);
• Calculation of baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions; progress to date; and uniform rate of progress requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1);
• Long-term strategy requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2);
• Reasonable progress goal requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3);
• Reasonably attributable visibility impairment requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4);
• Monitoring strategy and other plan requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6);
• 5-year progress report requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5) and (g); and
• State and Federal Land Manager coordination requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(i).
We are also proposing to approve and incorporate by reference into the Idaho SIP at 40 CFR 52.670(d), the following source-specific control requirements:
In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the regulatory provisions described in section IV. of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• 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
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
In addition, this proposed action is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications 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). Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA contacted four Tribes, specifically the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, the Shoshone Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation, the Nez Perce Tribe, and the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, and offered an opportunity to consult on a government-to-government basis prior to this proposed action in letters dated July 22, 2022. We received no consultation or coordination requests prior to this proposed action. The letters may be found in the docket for this action.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401