Agricultural Marketing Service
Agricultural Research Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Foreign Agricultural Service
Forest Service
Economic Analysis Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Prisons Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
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.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Interim final rule; request for comments.
This rule establishes the Dairy Donation Program as required by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. Under the program, eligible dairy organizations that account to a Federal milk marketing order and incur a qualified expense related to certain dairy product donations may apply for and receive reimbursements for those donations. The program is intended to facilitate donation of eligible dairy products and prevent and minimize food waste.
Comments can be submitted online at
Erin Taylor, Director, Order Formulation and Enforcement, AMS Dairy Program, USDA; 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 2973-S, Washington, DC 20250; telephone: (202) 720-4392; email:
Section 762 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (CAA) (Pub. L. 116-260) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) to establish a program to reimburse dairy organizations for donated dairy products to non-profit organizations for distribution to recipient individuals and families. The Secretary delegated authority to establish and administer this program to the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). This rule outlines the provisions of the new Dairy Donation Program (DDP) codified at 7 CFR part 1147. Program provisions are intended to encourage the donation of dairy products and to prevent and minimize food waste. The DDP is an additional dairy donation program that overlays on existing USDA dairy milk donation activities such as the Milk Donation Reimbursement Program (MDRP). The MDRP was established as part of the 2018 Farm Bill to facilitate the donation of fluid milk products and avoid food waste. The program was funded for $9 million in fiscal year 2019, and $5 million per fiscal year thereafter. DDP and MDRP are separate from USDA purchase programs. The donation program provides for reimbursement of certain costs for donations made between two private entities. USDA's TEFAP and Section 32 are done through a bid process where USDA purchases the product and arranges for delivery to the distribution point.
This rule also amends provisions of the MDRP (codified at 7 CFR part 1146), where appropriate, to gain administrative efficiencies and lessen the burden for entities participating in the two programs. DDP and MDRP are separate and distinct from the USDA safety net program (Dairy Margin Coverage), indemnity and disaster assistance programs, risk management tools through the public-private partnership of the Federal Crop Insurance Program, or USDA purchases of commodities, which may include dairy products depending on the market conditions and demand from school lunch or nutrition programs.
In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted dairy supply chains and displaced significant volumes of milk normally used in food service channels. This led to milk being dumped or fed to animals across the United States; AMS estimates that the volume of milk dumped due to pandemic-related supply chain issues was almost triple what is typically observed during normal market conditions.
While the DDP is intended to assist in balancing the supply chain during the pandemic recovery, it also will provide the benefit of creating an incentive to donate dairy products during the normal spring flush of milk production. During normal marketing years (pre-pandemic), daily milk production in the spring averaged 6 to 7 percent more than in the lower production months of the fall.
As detailed later in this rule, the normal rulemaking process would be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest in light of the importance of distributing donated dairy products as quickly as possible to individuals and families. Therefore, AMS finds that there is good cause to forgo the notice and comment requirements in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for this rulemaking.
The following paragraphs give a general overview of how the DDP will operate. Detailed explanations of program provisions can be found later in the
Program eligibility is open to eligible dairy organizations (EDOs), defined as dairy farmers (either individually or as part of a cooperative) or dairy processors that meet the following conditions: (1) Account to a Federal milk marketing order (FMMO) marketwide pool; and (2) incur a qualified expense. Although the definition of EDO includes individual dairy farmers, many such farmers might not meet the other specified conditions to qualify as EDOs. For example, many such farmers would not incur qualified expenses because they do not donate eligible dairy products, since they do not have the infrastructure to process raw milk into such products. Those individual farmers who do meet the required conditions, however, would qualify as EDOs under statutes and this rule for both the DDP and MDRP.
As explained below, the DDP and MDRP refer to the same statutory EDO definition; therefore, this rule amends the MDRP to reflect the statutory interpretation explained below.
The DDP authorizing statute
The COVID-19 pandemic and its impacts affected the entire United States. Supply chain disruptions described earlier were not limited to only those participating in a FMMO. Consequently, Congress authorized the DPP through a broad relief package. In reviewing Congress's intent to encourage dairy product donation across the country, AMS has determined the interpretation of “account to” requiring regulation by a FMMO is too narrow; instead, an EDO could “account to” a FMMO marketwide pool by filing a report with a FMMO office. Consequently, this rule revises the definition of “eligible dairy organization” for MDRP by removing the requirement that the EDO be regulated under a FMMO. It also adopts the same definition for the DDP.
The report the EDO files to “account to” a FMMO marketwide pool will list the fresh fluid products and/or bulk dairy commodity products purchased and how they were utilized to produce donated eligible dairy products. EDOs can contact their local FMMO office or access the DDP website to determine the applicable FMMO office where the report should be filed. Since EDOs may not know they will be donating product during the production month, reports may be filed retroactively. Filing of this report for the purpose of participating in the DDP will not cause the EDO to become regulated by the FMMO.
The statute further specifies that an EDO must incur a qualified expense. Since only Class I fluid products are donated through the MDRP and most Class I processors are regulated by a FMMO, incurring a qualified expense in the MDRP is currently interpreted as paying minimum classified values into a FMMO pool because that is the requirement for processors regulated by a FMMO. As explained above, an EDO no longer needs to be regulated under a FMMO. This rule adds a definition of “qualified expense” to MDRP regulations to specify that a qualified expense is not tied to the FMMO regulatory requirement of paying minimum classified values. The same definition also applies to the DDP.
EDOs incur a qualified expense by either purchasing fresh fluid milk product (raw milk, skim milk, cream, or concentrated fluid milk products) for processing into an eligible dairy product or purchasing bulk dairy commodity product for further processing into an eligible dairy product.
Dairy processors are often associated with buying fresh fluid milk products for processing into dairy products. The structure of the dairy industry is such that processors are also purchasing bulk dairy commodity products for further processing into retail packaging. For example, a processor buys 40-pound cheese blocks to further process and package into 8-ounce blocks or bags of shredded cheese typically preferred by consumers and eligible distributors alike. The DDP is intended to facilitate these types of product donations. Therefore, in addition to processors who buy fresh fluid milk for processing, the DDP will allow processors who purchase and further process bulk commodities for donation to qualify as an EDO. To be considered an EDO, a secondary processor will also need to account to a FMMO marketwide pool as described earlier.
Once these two above conditions—accounting to a FMMO and incurring a qualified expense—are met, EDOs participate in the program by forming partnerships with eligible distributors and then submitting a Dairy Donation and Distribution Plan (Plan) to AMS for approval. If an EDO or eligible distributor is looking for a partner, they may contact DDP Office for assistance.
Because regulations now include a definition of “qualified expense”, the definition of “eligible dairy organization” is further revised to cite that definition when referring to the requirement that an EDO must incur a qualified expense.
Upon Plan approval, EDOs can submit a Reimbursement Claim Form (Claim Form) to receive reimbursement for donations made. DDP will reimburse EDOs for the all or part of the following: (1) Input costs—fresh fluid milk or bulk dairy commodity product milk equivalent used in the eligible dairy product; (2) manufacturing costs; and (3) transportation costs.
In the FMMO system, milk is priced based on its end use. FMMO classifications are generally: Class I—traditionally the highest class price—for beverage fluid milk products such as whole, skim, nonfat, and flavored milks; Class II for soft products such as yogurt, ice cream, and packaged fluid cream; Class III for spreadable and hard cheeses; and Class IV for butter and milk products in dried form. Announced monthly, FMMO-minimum classified prices reflect surveyed end-
For processors purchasing and processing fresh fluid milk products (raw milk, skim milk, cream, or concentrated fluid products), the DDP will reimburse for the FMMO-minimum classified value applicable on the date of production for fresh fluid milk products used to make the donated eligible dairy product. FMMO prices are a good approximation of what the processor paid for the fresh fluid milk products because they represent observed market values paid for product at the time of purchase. The DDP will not reimburse for powders and other dry dairy products used as an ingredient in eligible dairy products (for example, powder used to fortify cheeses or ice cream).
Reimbursement is not extended to these ingredients because the DDP is designed to encourage the use of excess fresh fluid milk for donation, rather than being dumped. Dry milk powders in retail packaging, such as 10-ounce containers of nonfat dry milk, which are made directly from fresh fluid milk, are considered eligible dairy products under this program as it is likely surplus fresh fluid milk was manufactured into dry milk powder as opposed to being dumped.
Since FMMO-minimum classified prices are on a hundredweight basis, the EDO will report its donation in the quantity and size of the donated product, which will be converted to hundredweights with a yield factor (how much product can be made from 100 pounds of milk). Applicable announced minimum class skim and butterfat prices will be used in determining the input cost of the donated dairy product. The EDO will have the ability to provide its actual product yield factor or the EDO can use a standard yield factor. Standard yield factors will be posted on the Dairy Donation Program website.
Processors buying bulk dairy commodity products for further processing and donation, as described earlier, will be reimbursed at the classified use value applicable for the month the eligible dairy product was processed in the consumer-type package. The reimbursed value will represent the milk-equivalent market price of the bulk dairy product at the time of conversion into an eligible dairy product.
Processors incur expenses beyond input costs to make dairy products. To encourage dairy product donations, the DDP will reimburse for some of the costs to convert fresh fluid milk product into an eligible dairy product.
Manufacturing costs will be reimbursed at the make (manufacturing) allowance levels in the FMMO system, which are generally accepted by the industry as representative costs of manufacturing dairy products from raw milk. For Class I and II, the Class IV make allowance contained in the Class IV price formula will be applied. AMS lacks data on manufacturing costs for Class I and II products and therefore selects the lower of the two FMMO make allowances to ensure processors are not reimbursed for more than their actual manufacturing costs. As Class I and II products require different processing, the actual manufacturing costs could be higher than the Class IV manufacturing allowance. This rule seeks public comment and supporting data related to actual manufacturing costs for Class I and II products. For Class III and IV products, the manufacturing allowances in the respective class price formulas will be applied.
Currently, the Class III and Class IV FMMO makes allowances are $3.17 and $2.16 per hundredweight, respectively, for milk containing 3.5 percent butterfat. If the FMMO make allowances are updated in the future, the DDP will be automatically adjusted to reflect these changes.
Transportation costs from the processor to distribution outlet are often cost prohibitive. Absent reimbursement, processors may not be willing to incur additional transportation costs and feeding organizations may lack the funding to cover these costs to facilitate the donation. DDP aims to facilitate timely donations and reduce food waste. Therefore, this program will cover part of the transportation costs from the EDO to the eligible distributor. This may be especially beneficial to rural communities whose donation sites are often far from plants serving them and who may not receive assistance from other government feeding programs with distribution points closer to urban centers.
As the reimbursement value will be paid to the EDO, the DDP will only reimburse for transportation if the EDO incurred the expense. If donated eligible dairy products are picked up from the plant by the eligible distributor, no transportation reimbursement will be paid. The transportation cost reimbursement rate is defined later in this rule.
Section 762(d)(2)(A) of the CAA specifies the total reimbursement—the sum of input, manufacturing, and transportation costs—must be set neither too high (such that it would “interfere with the commercial marketing of milk or dairy products”) nor too low (such that it would fail to “be sufficient to avoid food waste”). The statute further requires total reimbursement to be between the highest and lowest of the classified milk values. To ensure costs can be sufficiently covered for most donations, total reimbursement payment, on a per hundredweight basis, will be capped at the Class I value for the highest FMMO differential zone (Dade County, Florida). Capping at the higher FMMO zone will allow for Class I handlers to obtain some reimbursement for manufacturing and transportation costs.
Section 762(d)(2)(B)(iv) of the CAA further allows the Secretary to maintain traditional price relationships—Class I being the highest, followed in sequence by II, III and IV—in setting the reimbursement rate. In 2020, dairy markets experienced pronounced class price inversions, where the Class III price was significantly higher than the Class I price in many areas of the country. However, the Class III price has been above the Class I price in Dade County, Florida only three times since the current pricing system was adopted on January 1, 2000.
Entities must submit Plan and Eligible Distributor Certification Forms (Certification Forms) to AMS for approval before they can submit Claim Forms for reimbursement. AMS will approve or disapprove Certification
Although program funds for the DDP and MDRP are statutorily prohibited from being consolidated, the two programs will operate as one from a stakeholder standpoint. EDOs making Class I fluid milk product donations—which are covered by both programs—will be reimbursed through MDRP funds at the difference between the Class I and lowest classified price and receive a supplemental reimbursement of the lowest classified price plus the manufacturing and transportation cost reimbursement through DDP funds. Total combined reimbursement will be capped at the Class I price in Dade County, Florida.
EDOs already enrolled in MDRP will automatically be enrolled in the DDP and qualify to receive supplementary payments for fluid milk products donated under their currently approved MDRP Plans. To lessen the burden on applicants and gain administrative efficiencies, new Plan and Claim Forms will be used for both the DDP and MDRP. AMS will ensure program funds are paid according to the provisions of both programs. Finally, this interim final rule simultaneously amends the MDRP regulations, where applicable, reflecting the new Plan, Certification Form, Report of Receipts and Utilization, and Claim Forms that will be used to administer the program.
Section 762(h) of the CAA requires supplementary payments be made to EDOs participating in the MDRP for donations made on or after January 1, 2020. Since the statute allows for retroactive reimbursement to those participating in DDP, a retroactive date of January 1, 2020, also applies to the DDP to better streamline administration of the two programs. To ensure adequate availability of funds for donations made before enactment of the CAA, total program expenditures for eligible dairy product donations made from January 1, 2020 to December 27, 2020, will be limited to no more than $50 million.
The following details the DDP provisions and amendments to the MDRP, where applicable.
The statute includes definitions for terms used. Section 1147.1 provides definitions of those terms as they are used in the new program. Key terms are “eligible dairy organization,” “eligible dairy product,” “eligible distributor,” “eligible partnership,” and “qualified expense.”
AMS recognizes some EDOs may have processing plants in multiple locations that may report to different FMMOs. Similarly, eligible distributors may have multiple distribution sites; for example, several food pantries are operated by one umbrella organization. Thus, under § 1147.102(a), the eligible partnership can submit one Plan to cover multiple plants and/or distribution points as long as only one EDO and one eligible distributor are represented. Individual EDOs and eligible distributors can also form other partnerships, but they are required to submit separate Plans for each partnership.
Because defining “qualified expense” is fundamental to determining program eligibility and the MDRP and DDP reference the same “eligible dairy organization” statutory definition, the “qualified expense” definition is also added to the MDRP regulation.
Additional terms necessary for administration of the program are defined in § 1147.1. “Program” is defined as the Dairy Donation Program and “Secretary” is defined as the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture or a representative authorized to act in the Secretary's stead.
The DDP is intended to reimburse eligible dairy organizations for timely donations of eligible dairy products and minimize food waste. It is therefore reasonable for AMS to ensure that eligible dairy products donated under the DDP meet minimum food safety and quality standards and in package sizes desired by eligible distributors, consistent with the intent of the program to minimize food waste that might otherwise result. Section 1147.3 defines the commodity specifications that must be met. Eligible dairy organizations must comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, executive orders, and rules and regulations related to its performance under this program. In addition, to qualify under the program eligible dairy products must:
1. Be made primarily from cow's (bovine) milk produced in the United States;
2. Be packaged in consumer-sized packaging;
3. Meet the applicable provisions for dairy products in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), as amended. Grade `A' dairy products shall meet the applicable provisions of the current edition of the Pasteurized Milk ordinance; and
4. Have a sell-by, best-by, or use-by date no sooner than 12 days from the date the eligible dairy product is delivered to the eligible distributor.
Program provisions specify donated dairy products mut be in consumer-sized packaging. This provision should be interpreted by the eligible partnership as to whatever consumer-sized package format is agreeable to both entities. Examples of consumer-sized packaging include, but are not limited to, gallons of milk, 8-ounce blocks of cheese, single serve containers of yogurt, 1-pound packages of butter, or large bags of milk if the eligible distributor has the ability to dispense (
Section 1147.100 provides that an eligible dairy organization must be a member of a partnership whose Plan has been approved by AMS to be eligible for reimbursements under the DDP.
Section 1147.102 outlines requirements for Plan submission in order to be considered for the program. Plans submitted to AMS for program approval must include a signed affirmation regarding the type of product to be donated and the EDO's ability to process and transport eligible dairy products consistent with the requirements in the commodity specifications under § 1147.3. Along with the Plan submission, eligible distributors are required to submit a signed Certification Form, which includes a description of the eligible distributor's distribution process, contact information, and a tax identification number to ensure compliance with program provisions. As specified in § 1147.208, AMS will only collect information deemed necessary to determine whether an eligible partnership's Plan should be approved. All proprietary business information submitted will be used only for the purposes of the program and will be kept confidential by AMS.
Section 1147.104 specifies the process AMS will use to review program applications and determine whether to approve Plans submitted by eligible partnerships. Within 15 business days of application submission, AMS will review the Plan and Certification Form, determine whether to approve or disapprove, and notify the eligible partnership of the determination. Under § 1147.104(a)(1), AMS will review the information submitted by the partnership, including the signed confirmation that the partnership can meet the requirements related to proper processing, transport, storage, and distribution of eligible dairy products until they are distributed. Under § 1147.104(a)(2), AMS will consider the extent to which the Plan would advance the statutory purposes of the DDP, namely, whether the Plan would facilitate the timely donation of eligible dairy products and prevent and minimize food waste.
Finally, section 762(c)(2)(B)(i) of the CAA specifies that priority review will be given to submitted Plans where an emergency or disaster was a substantial factor, including a declared or renewed public health emergency under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247(d)) or a disaster designated by the Secretary. In reviewing a Plan, AMS will determine if an emergency or disaster was a substantial factor in the Plan's submission. In this case, “substantial factor” means that a supply and/or demand disruption caused by the emergency or disaster event is a main reason for the partnership submitting the Plan. For example, the COVID-19 public health emergency—which caused a significant decrease in school and restaurant dairy demand, leading to large volumes of displaced milk and many people in need of food assistance—could be considered a justification for priority review. If an emergency or disaster is deemed a substantial factor, AMS will prioritize review of that Plan to facilitate donations and meet an immediate need. Section 1147.104(a)(3) incorporates those factors for Plan prioritization.
Once approved, Plans do not need to be resubmitted in subsequent fiscal years, unless changes are made. Eligible partnerships that received reimbursement from the MDRP will be automatically enrolled in the DDP to receive the supplemental reimbursement as defined in § 1147.109.
Section 762(d) of the statute requires the Secretary to reimburse EDOs with approved Plans. Section 1147.106(a) provides the process and describes the necessary information and documentation AMS will require to verify the EDO's donation and calculate its reimbursement. To receive reimbursement, the EDO must complete and submit a Reimbursement Claim Form (Claim Form) that includes: The type, volume, and manufactured date of the eligible dairy products donated; the entity type (processor or eligible distributor); the location(s) of the plant(s) that processed the eligible dairy product(s) and where donated dairy products were distributed; the universal product code(s) (UPCs) for donated product(s); the sell-by, best-by, or use-by date(s) for donated product(s) and the dates the donated dairy products were processed and shipped to the eligible distributor.
There is no requirement dictating the frequency of Claim Form submissions; therefore, any time after its Plan is approved, the EDO can submit Claim
Section 762(d)(4) of the CAA allows the Secretary to make retroactive reimbursements to EDOs that donated eligible dairy products before their Plans are approved. Eligible dairy products donated through the MDRP are eligible for supplemental reimbursement through DDP for donations made on or after January 1, 2020. The statute also provides for retroactive reimbursement for donations made through DDP prior to Plan approval, though a specific retroactive date is not provided. To gain administrative efficiencies and streamline the two programs, donations of eligible dairy products through DDP beginning on the same date also will be eligible for reimbursement. Partnerships will need to submit Plan and Certification Forms for approval prior to submitting a Reimbursement Form for donations made prior to Plan approval. Accordingly, § 1147.106(a)(3) provides for donations of eligible dairy products beginning on January 1, 2020, to be eligible for reimbursement under this program. As described above, total reimbursement for donations made from January 1, 2020 through December 27, 2020, is capped at $50 million.
As authorized by section 762(d)(3)(B) of the CAA, AMS may verify the accuracy of supporting documentation with spot checks and audits under § 1147.206.
Under section 762(d)(2)(A) of the CAA, the Secretary shall set a reimbursement price that reflects the cost of the milk required to make the donated eligible dairy product, is between the FMMO Class I and Class IV minimum prices for the month of production, is sufficient to avoid food waste, and does not interfere with the commercial marketing of milk or dairy products. Section 1147.108 provides for reimbursement of three separate cost factors: (1) Input cost—fresh fluid milk or bulk dairy commodity product milk-equivalent cost; (2) manufacturing cost of converting fluid milk into a product; and (3) transportation cost from the processing plant to the eligible distributor. Section 1147.108(a) provides that reimbursements will be the sum of the three cost factors.
For the first of these factors, input cost, processors purchasing and processing fresh fluid milk products (raw milk, skim milk, cream, or concentrated fluid products), will be reimbursed at the applicable FMMO minimum classified skim and butterfat values. Processors purchasing bulk dairy commodity products for further processing into eligible dairy products will be reimbursed at the applicable FMMO minimum classified skim and butterfat values for the fluid milk equivalent contained in the bulk product.
That value will be determined by the milk's end use (Class I for fluid milk products, Class II for soft products such as yogurt, Class III for cheese products, and Class IV for butter and powder products) pursuant to 7 CFR 1000.40 and the applicable classified price in effect for the month of production pursuant to 7 CFR 1000.50.
The manufacturing cost for processing fluid milk is represented by the applicable FMMO make allowances contained in 7 CFR 1000.50. The DDP will use the FMMO make allowances in the Class III and IV price formulas to reflect manufacturing costs for Class III and IV products, as they are based on surveyed cost data of wholesale Class III and IV products and are generally accepted by industry stakeholders as appropriate cost estimates. For Class I and II products, however, the Department lacks data on manufacturing costs. As such, the lowest make allowance, Class IV, will be the representative manufacturing cost for Class I and II products. It is reasonable to expect that Class I and II products have different manufacturing costs than Class IV products due to different processing requirements. USDA is seeking comments on manufacturing costs for these classes of products. If submitted data demonstrates that actual Class I and II manufacturing costs differ significantly from the Class IV make allowance, then the Class I and II manufacturing costs could be amended in the final rule. If the public comment period results in updated make allowances for Class I and Class II products, the amended make allowances will not be retroactive to the effective date of this rule.
As explained in the
The transportation cost reimbursement will be based on the U.S. monthly average diesel fuel price
Section 762(h) of the CAA requires the Secretary to make supplemental reimbursements to EDOs receiving reimbursements under the MDRP from January 1, 2020, to the date when DDP program funds are no longer available. AMS recognizes an EDO under MDRP will also be eligible under DDP. Further, eligible dairy products under MDRP also qualify as eligible dairy products under DDP (notably, fluid milk products). Since DDP reimburses at a higher rate than MDRP, a supplemental reimbursement is needed to properly use funds for and fulfill the purposes of both programs. Section 1147.109 provides the process AMS will follow to make a supplemental reimbursement to EDOs receiving reimbursement under MDRP. An EDO with an already approved Plan under MDRP does not need to apply to DDP. AMS will automatically reimburse the eligible
Section 762(g) of the CAA requires AMS to publish donation activity for the program. Accordingly, § 1147.200 provides that AMS will periodically report on its publicly accessible website the aggregated donation activity under this program. Such information will include types and volume of product donated, as well as remaining available funds. AMS also will post on its publicly accessible website the Plan and Claim Form templates to be submitted for program participation.
Section 762(e) of the CAA prohibits the sale of eligible dairy products donated under the DDP back into commercial markets and specifies that eligible distributors who violate that prohibition will not be eligible for future participation in the DDP. Section 1147.204 implements the statutory prohibition and penalty for violation. In addition, the program prohibits reimbursement for donated eligible dairy products made in conjunction with marketing or promotional events.
Section 762(f) of the CAA directs the Secretary to conduct appropriate reviews or audits to ensure the integrity of the DDP. Under section 762(d)(3)(B) of the CAA, the Secretary is further authorized to verify the accuracy of submitted documentation through spot checks and audits. Section 1147.206 provides that AMS will verify the proper delivery of and payment for donated eligible dairy products. Specifically, AMS will ensure the donated eligible dairy products were delivered to the eligible distributor and the accuracy of the reimbursed value paid to the EDO. The section further provides for the review, audit, and spot checks of information submitted.
As mentioned in the above discussions, § 1147.208 requires AMS to maintain confidentiality regarding information collected to administer the program and to use the information only for program purposes.
A books and records provision is included in § 1147.209 to ensure the EDO maintains necessary records to be made available to AMS upon request in conjunction with an audit.
Section 1147.210 specifies that dairy products sold or donated under any other USDA commodity purchase or donation program, other than the MDRP, are not eligible for reimbursement under the DDP. From time to time, USDA may purchase dairy products for use in nutrition assistance programs or other uses, but vendors are compensated for those purchases through funding under those program provisions. One of the main purposes of the DDP is to reduce food waste by encouraging the donation of additional dairy products through eligible distributors. Thus, eligible dairy organizations who have received compensation for dairy product purchases under other USDA programs may not receive reimbursements for the same dairy products under the DDP.
Rules “relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts” are not subject to the rulemaking requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act at 5 U.S.C. 553.
In determining whether a program is a “benefits” program, courts consider whether “benefits” are clearly and directly involved in the agency action.
Furthermore, the APA provides that an agency is not required to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking when the agency, for good cause, finds that notice and comment is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). As part of the government's pandemic response, USDA began the Farmers to Families Food Box Program as an emergency relief effort to respond to severe market disruptions and increased food insecurity caused by the pandemic. The program lasted from May 15, 2020, through May 31, 2021, during which time it distributed dairy products equivalent to more than 2.5 billion pounds of milk to those in need. The end of the Food Box program means there is an unmet demand for dairy products in feeding organizations previously met by government purchases through the Food Box Program. The DDP is designed to encourage the donation of dairy products to meet that demand through private partnerships between EDOs and Eligible Distributors. Due to the recent end of the Food Box program, there is an immediate need to implement the DDP so that donations can begin and meet that demand.
In addition, Section 762 of the statute provides for emergencies or disaster declarations to be considered as a substantial factor in donation Plan submissions. As the 2021 hurricane and wildfire season has already begun, the DDP could facilitate donations in the possible event of upcoming emergencies or natural disasters that could create an immediate need to provide food assistance to impacted individuals and families.
Additionally, Congress mandated that the Secretary establish and administer the DDP no later than 60 days after enactment of the CAA. In light of this mandated time frame and the importance of distributing donated dairy products as quickly as possible to individuals and families, the normal rulemaking process would be impracticable unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. Therefore, AMS finds there is good cause to forgo the
As a rule relating to a benefit, the APA requirement that regulations be published at least 30 days before the effective date does not apply. Additionally, this requirement also does not apply when an agency finds good cause not to delay the effective date.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), AMS has requested approval of new information collection and recordkeeping requirements for the DDP and comments are invited on this new information collection. All comments received on this information collection will be summarized and included in the final request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval.
AMS estimates 150 respondents will form a total of 300 partnerships. Each participating partnership will be required to submit a Dairy Donation and Reimbursement Plan and Eligible Distributor Certification Form once, there will not be an annual renewal requirement. AMS estimates 1 hour to complete a Dairy Donation and Distribution Plan. Accompanying the Plan, the eligible distributor will be required to submit and sign an Eligible Distributor Certification Form, which AMS anticipates will take 15 minutes.
AMS estimates ten percent of the 150 EDO participants do not already account to a FMMO by filing a report. Therefore, approximately 15 respondents will need to account to a FMMO by filing a Report of Receipts and Utilization Form. All other EDOs will have already accounted to a Federal Order through their normal report filing through its existing association with a Federal milk marketing order. AMS estimates 1 hour to complete the form. Filing of this form will not cause an EDO to become regulated by a Federal milk marketing order.
Reimbursement Claim Forms can be submitted any time after Plan approval and will be processed on a quarterly basis. AMS estimated that to capture efficiencies respondents will submit Reimbursement Claim Forms no more than once per quarter and it will take 2 hours to complete the form per quarter. Assuming the reporting burden will be completed by an administrative assistant employee, at an hourly salary rate of $21, AMS estimates the following annual reporting costs per participating partnership: For the first year of participation, the annualized cost is $196.10 (the Plan, Certification Form, and four Claim Forms); for the subsequent years of participation, the annualized cost is $169.60 (four Claim Forms). Entities needing to account to a Federal Order by filing a Report of Receipts and Utilization Form will experience an additional annual burden of $127.20 (6 responses per year). EDOs also are required to maintain books and records, for a period of 3 years, to be made available to AMS upon request in conjunction with an audit to verify the donations for which the EDO received reimbursement were in fact made. These records are part of normal business records and do not require additional records to be created. Such records include production records to verify yield computations and product code dates for donated manufactured products, or delivery documentation to verify EDO incurred a transportation expense.
USDA is committed to complying with the E-Government Act (44 U.S.C. 3601,
Section 762 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 mandates that AMS establish and administer a Dairy Donation Program (7 CFR part 1147). The program is intended to facilitate the timely donation of eligible dairy products and prevent and minimize food waste.
USDA is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximizes net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. AMS has determined this action, mandated by Congress, meets the requirements set forth in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 to facilitate donation of eligible dairy products and prevent and minimize food waste.
AMS is seeking comments on the economic impacts of this action on the industry, including availability of information or data that may demonstrate if and how DDP reimbursements affect the market.
AMS considered alternative methods for allocating available funds under the program, including whether to allocate reimbursements equally across all the geographic areas of the United States or to target specific regions in need of milk donations. Ultimately, AMS determined that because the program's primary purpose is to reduce waste associated with the disposition of surplus milk, the industry would be best served by allowing those with the capacity to process surplus milk and who are in a position to make donations to apply for the program without consideration of geographic location.
This rule is not expected to have any quantified cost or benefits, rather the rule is expected to result in transfers consistent with the following table:
As the program is voluntary, eligible partnerships are expected to only participate if they deem it beneficial depending on their individual circumstances. The transfers will be reimbursements in the form of Federal payments to program participants to help offset costs associated with eligible dairy product donations.
In the normal course of transporting, delivering, and processing milk, a small volume of milk is “lost” each month. In the FMMO system, “normal losses” are estimated to be 0.25 percent of the total participating milk annually. Under certain conditions, an additional volume of milk cannot make it to market due to extraordinary circumstances, such as extreme weather, plant capacity issues, and market disruptions. This volume above “normal losses” is identified as “excess losses” in this analysis. According to FMMO statistics, “excess losses” averaged 0.12 percent of the annual volume of milk participating in the FMMO program from 2016 through 2020. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in higher levels of milk that could not make it to market, amounting to 0.32 percent of the milk that participated in the FMMO program. In conducting an economic analysis, AMS assumed that milk classified as “excess losses” could be made into eligible dairy products and donated under the DDP.
To estimate the volume of excess milk that may be donated under the program, the 5-year average rate of 0.12 percent was applied to the projected 2021 U.S. milk production volume. Thus, it is assumed that approximately 273.2 million pounds of milk would be available for dairy processors to make into eligible dairy products for donation to eligible distributors. No data exits from which AMS could estimate how much bulk commodity product could be available for secondary processors to purchase and further process into eligible dairy products for donation to eligible distributors, so that scenario was not considered in the economic analysis. AMS is seeking public comment on data from which to estimate how much bulk commodity product could be available for secondary processors to purchase and further process for donation.
AMS estimated the amounts of butterfat and skim solids in the forecasted product volumes available for donation. The product mix included fluid milk, soft products, cheese, butter, and nonfat dry milk powder volumes, based on the volume of available dairy farmer milk. The set of products utilizes approximately all the butterfat and skim solids present in the milk available for donation. In the case of butter and nonfat dry milk powder, both products can be made from a given amount of milk. Butter requires a large amount of butterfat, while powder utilizes very little butterfat but a large amount of the nonfat solids.
The DDP will reimburse EDOs for eligible dairy product donations for the input cost paid for the fluid milk or bulk dairy commodity product, manufacturing cost, and transportation cost. Total reimbursement must be between the highest FMMO Class I value (Dade county, Florida) and the
Furthermore, eligible dairy product donations made under the MDRP are eligible to receive a supplemental reimbursement for donations made starting on January 1, 2020, onward. Supplemental reimbursement is calculated at the difference between the DDP and MDRP reimbursement values. The net value of these retroactive reimbursements is estimated at $0.5 million, assuming the highest FMMO minimum Class I value at the time the milk for the donation was purchased.
Total 2021 U.S. milk production was estimated to be 227.3 billion pounds (WASDE, March 2021). As described above, AMS estimates that 273.2 million pounds (0.12 percent) of excess milk (additional supply) would be available to be processed and donated through the DDP. Consequently, AMS does not anticipate this small additional processing volume will impact milk prices. It is likely there will be instances where dairy processors already donating dairy products to non-profit feeding organizations become eligible for reimbursement through DDP. However, those donations are not new production volume to be priced. That is, they would represent dairy products already processed and priced accordingly somewhere in the dairy supply chain. Furthermore, the DDP does not intend to reimburse for the full cost of processing and delivering donated dairy products but rather encourages excess milk to be used and not wasted.
This program is expected to have a negligible impact on retail dairy product sales. Typically, populations that receive dairy products from non-profit feeding organizations do so when they cannot buy dairy products at retail outlets. Additionally, the DDP reimbursement rate does not cover all processing and transportation costs; therefore, it would not be a financially prudent decision to divert milk from retail outlets to donations. The following table provides examples of costs included and excluded from reimbursement under the DDP. This is not an all-inclusive listing but is intended to demonstrate how dairy product donations through this program are not expected to be a substitute for retail dairy product sales.
In addition, DDP is a voluntary program and reimbursements occur after donations are made. Donations made through this program will be done privately without donation volumes being announced in advance. Therefore, AMS has determined the impact on dairy markets will not be as significant on the markets when compared to making advanced announcements on expected donation volume.
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of the action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Small dairy farms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.601) as those businesses having annual gross receipts of less than $750,000. The SBA's definition of small agricultural service firms, which includes dairy processors, varies based on the type of dairy product manufactured. Small dairy processors are defined as having between 750 and 1,250 or fewer employees, depending on the product made.
According to the 2017 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Census Report, there were 39,303 farms with milk sales. AMS estimates that 36,158 farms, or 92 percent, would be considered small businesses. Dairy farmers of all sizes may benefit from the program as it will encourage donations of dairy products, which contain milk purchased from them. DDP is designed to reduce food waste by providing alternative outlets for milk to be utilized in donated products instead of being dumped due to oversupply. Often, milk is dumped from smaller dairy farms that are more costly to service because their pickups may be less than a full tanker load and/or they may be located farther from major trucking routes. By providing cost reimbursement for donated products, the DDP incentivizes processors to pick up and process the milk into products for donation rather than having it dumped.
AMS estimates that approximately 3,000 plants manufacture dairy products in the United States, owned by approximately 1,500 entities. According to AMS calculations, about 10 percent are operated by dairy farmer cooperatives, while the remaining are independently owned. AMS believes 1,500 to be the universe of EDOs that could participate in the DDP. Of this universe of potential EDOs, 90 percent would be considered small businesses, based on total employee numbers.
Participating in the DDP will not unduly or disproportionately burden small dairy processing entities. All entities, regardless of size, can apply for
The definition of an eligible distributor is a public or private non-profit feeding organization that distributes or coordinates distribution of donated eligible dairy products to recipient individuals and families. Eligible distributors, regardless of size, can voluntarily participate in the DDP if they form a partnership with an eligible dairy organization. The information collection burden for eligible distributors is minimal as they must only compete the Plan form with the partnering EDO. The voluntary nature of the program allows any eligible distributor to stop participating if they find the program causes an undue or disproportionate burden.
AMS has determined establishment of this program will not have a significant economic impact on small entities. Program provisions will be applied uniformly to both large and small businesses and are not expected to burden small entities unduly or disproportionately.
This interim final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on: (1) Policies that have tribal implication, including regulation, legislative comments, or proposed legislation; and (2) other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Tribal governments operating non-profit organizations feeding recipient individuals and families could qualify as eligible distributors and thus benefit from participation in the DDP. The regulatory burden from participating would be minimal, estimated at 15 minutes for completing an Eligible Distributor Certification Form.
AMS has assessed the impact of this proposed rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule would not have tribal implications that require consultation under Executive Order 13175. AMS hosts a quarterly teleconference with tribal leaders where matters of mutual interest regarding the marketing of agricultural products are discussed. Information about the DDP will be shared during an upcoming quarterly call, and tribal leaders will be informed about the interim final rule and the opportunity to submit comments. AMS will work with the USDA Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided as needed with regards to the DDP.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform. This final rule may have retroactive effect. Dairy donations made starting January 1, 2020, prior to the effective date of the rule may be eligible for reimbursement if the eligible partnership's Donation and Distribution Plan is approved and if the partnership meets all other program requirements. Dairy donations made prior to 2020 are not eligible for reimbursement under the program. There are no administrative procedures that must be exhausted prior to judicial challenges to the provisions of this rule. The DDP will not preempt any state or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
AMS has considered the potential civil rights implications of this rule on minorities, women, and persons with disabilities to ensure that no person or group shall be discriminated against on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, marital or family status, political beliefs, parental status, or protected genetic information. This review included persons that are employees of the entities who are subject to these regulations. This interim final rule does not require affected entities to relocate or alter their operations in ways that could adversely affect such persons or groups. Further, this rule does not deny any persons or groups the benefits of the program or subject any persons or groups to discrimination.
AMS found no evidence this voluntary program and the associated interim final rule will cause adverse or disproportionate impacts on minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. AMS's analysis found no evidence that a potential impact will affect dairy farmers or processors in any protected groups, or that these impacts will be different than any participating general population of dairy farmers and processors.
AMS has examined the effects of provisions in this interim final rule on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, as required by Executive Order 13132 on “Federalism.” The DDP will reimburse EDOs for eligible dairy products donated to eligible distributors. The DDP will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies pertaining to the sale, manufacturing or distribution of milk or dairy products within States.
Milk, Donations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dairy, Donations, Food waste, Emergency, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, AMS is amending 7 CFR Chapter X as follows:
Sec. 1431, Pub. L. 113-79, 128 Stat. 695, as amended.
(1) Accounts to a Federal Milk Marketing Order; and
(2) Incurs a qualified expense described in § 1146.1.
Eligible partnerships must submit a completed Dairy Donation and
(b) The entity type and contact information for the eligible dairy organization;
(c) Banking information and tax identification number for the eligible dairy organization;
(d) An affirmation signed by the eligible dairy organization regarding the type(s) of products to be donated and its ability to process and transport eligible dairy products consistent with the commodity specifications under § 1146.3; and
(e) An Eligible Distributor Certification Form signed by the eligible distributor regarding its ability to store and distribute donated eligible dairy products to recipient individuals and families.
(a) In order for the eligible dairy organization to receive reimbursement pursuant to § 1146.108, the eligible partnership must submit a Reimbursement Claim Form and appropriate supporting documentation to AMS.
(1)
(i) The type and amount of eligible dairy products donated to the eligible distributor;
(ii) The physical location(s) of the plant(s) that processed the donated dairy products;
(iii) The date the eligible dairy products were processed;
(iv) The date the eligible dairy products were shipped to the eligible distributor;
(v) The respective sell-by, best-by, or use-by date(s) for the donated dairy products; and
(vi) Other information as needed on the Reimbursement Claim Form to calculate reimbursement.
(2)
(3)
(b) Incomplete reimbursement requests will be returned to the submitter for revision or completion and resubmission as necessary.
Sec. 762, Pub. L. 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182.
(1) Accounts to a Federal Milk Marketing Order; and
(2) Incurs a qualified expense described in § 1147.1.
Eligible dairy organizations must comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, executive orders, and rules and regulations related to its performance under this program. To qualify under the program eligible dairy products must meet the following requirements:
(a) Made primarily from cow's (bovine) milk produced in the United States;
(b) Packaged in consumer-sized packaging;
(c) Meet the applicable provisions for dairy products in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301
(d) Have a sell-by, best-by, or use-by date no sooner than 12 days from the date the eligible dairy product is delivered to the eligible distributor.
An eligible dairy organization must be a member of an approved eligible partnership pursuant to § 1147.1 to be eligible to receive reimbursement related to eligible dairy product donations, subject to the requirements and limitations specified in §§ 1147.102 and 1147.104.
Eligible partnerships must submit a completed Dairy Donation and Distribution Plan to AMS in the form and manner established by AMS to be eligible for program consideration. The completed Dairy Donation and Distribution Plan must include: (a) The physical location(s) of the eligible dairy organization's processing plant(s) and the eligible distributor's distribution site(s);
(b) The entity type and contact information for the eligible dairy organization;
(c) Banking information and tax identification number for the eligible dairy organization;
(d) An affirmation signed by the eligible dairy organization regarding the type(s) of product to be donated and its ability to process and transport eligible dairy products consistent with the commodity specifications under § 1147.3; and
(e) An Eligible Distributor Certification Form signed by the eligible distributor regarding its ability to store and distribute donated eligible dairy products to recipient individuals and families.
(a)
(1) The review will include the following considerations:
(i) The process the eligible partnership will use for donation, processing, transportation, temporary storage, and distribution of eligible dairy products;
(ii) The extent to which the Dairy Donation and Distribution Plan promotes the donation of eligible dairy products and prevents and minimizes food waste.
(2) AMS will prioritize approval or disapproval of a Plan for which AMS determines a public health emergency or disaster to be a substantial factor in its submission.
(b)
(a) In order for the eligible dairy organization to receive reimbursement pursuant to § 1147.108, the eligible partnership must submit a Reimbursement Claim Form and appropriate supporting documentation to AMS.
(1)
(i) The type and amount of eligible dairy products donated to the eligible distributor;
(ii) The physical location(s) of the plant(s) that processed the donated dairy products;
(iii) The date the eligible dairy products were processed;
(iv) The date the eligible dairy products were shipped to the eligible distributor;
(v) The respective sell-by, best-by, or use-by date(s) for the donated dairy products; and
(vi) Other information as needed on the Reimbursement Claim Form to calculate reimbursement.
(2)
(3)
(b) Incomplete reimbursement requests will be returned to the submitter for revision or completion and resubmission as necessary.
(a) For each eligible dairy product donated by an eligible dairy organization with an approved Dairy Donation and Distribution Plan, the amount of reimbursement under § 1147.106 for the donated eligible dairy product shall be the sum of the values of the input cost, the manufacturing cost, and the transportation cost.
(1) The input cost shall be the monthly Federal Milk Marketing Order minimum classified value pursuant to 7 CFR 1000.50 of the fresh fluid milk product (raw milk, skim milk, cream, or concentrate fluid product) or fluid milk equivalent of the bulk dairy commodity product used to make the donated eligible dairy product pursuant to 7 CFR 1000.40 for the month of processing.
(2) The manufacturing cost shall be the manufacturing allowance, on a hundredweight basis, pursuant to 7 CFR 1000.50 for the milk used to produce the donated eligible dairy product pursuant to 7 CFR 1000.40 —
(i) If a Class I product, the Class IV manufacturing allowance applies;
(ii) If a Class II product, the Class IV manufacturing allowance applies;
(iii) If a Class III product, the Class III manufacturing allowances applies; or
(iv) If a Class IV product, the Class IV manufacturing allowances applies.
(3) The transportation cost shall be determined by the following:
(i) The published average U.S. Energy Information Administration average U.S. diesel fuel price for the month the donation was made;
(ii) The shortest hard-surface distance, in miles, from the plant processing the donated eligible dairy product to the eligible distributor; and
(iii) The fuel economy rate of 5.5 miles per gallon.
(b) Reimbursement, on a per hundredweight basis, made pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section may not exceed the Class I price pursuant to 7 CFR 1000.50, 1000.52, and 1006.51 for Dade County, Florida.
(a) The Secretary shall make a supplemental reimbursement to an eligible dairy organization reimbursed under the Milk Donation Reimbursement Program (7 CFR 1146.108) during the period beginning on January 1, 2020, and ending on the date on which funds under § 1147.202 are no longer available.
(b) A supplemental reimbursement described in paragraph (a) shall be the difference between:
(1) The reimbursement for eligible dairy products calculated under § 1147.108, and
(2) The reimbursement for eligible milk under the Milk Donation Reimbursement Program (7 CFR 1146.108).
(a) AMS will announce the opportunity to participate in the Dairy Donation Program on the AMS website. The announcement will specify the manner and form in which program applications should be submitted. AMS will periodically announce on its website a report describing the donation activity under this program.
(b) There is no deadline for eligible parties to submit a Dairy Donation and Distribution Plan. AMS will accept and consider Plans on a continuing basis.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Where applicable, AMS will verify an eligible dairy organization's payment of the input cost. AMS will also conduct spot checks, reviews, and audits of the reports and documentation submitted pursuant to § 1147.106(a) to verify accuracy and to ensure the integrity of the Dairy Donation Program.
AMS will only collect information deemed necessary to administer the Dairy Donation Program and will use the information only for that purpose. AMS will keep all proprietary business information collected under the program confidential.
Each eligible dairy organization shall maintain and retain records of its operations and make such records and its facilities available to AMS as necessary to ensure the integrity of the Dairy Donation Program.
(a)
(b)
Eligible dairy products sold or donated under other commodity or food assistance programs administered by the United States Department of Agriculture, except as pursuant to 7 CFR 1146, is not eligible for reimbursement under the Dairy Donation Program in this part.
This part expires September 1, 2023, unless extended by notification in the
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Final rule.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau or CFPB) makes limited revisions to its regulations that establish the procedures used by the public to obtain records from the Bureau under the Privacy Act of 1974 (Privacy Act). The revisions will change the definition of “Chief Privacy Officer” in order to align the Chief Privacy Officer's authorities and responsibilities identified in the regulation to those of the Bureau's designated Senior Agency Official for Privacy. The revisions will also facilitate electronic or remote identity proofing and authentication by creating an additional method for a requester to verify their identity when submitting a Privacy Act request to the Bureau.
This rule is effective September 1, 2021.
David Snyder, Senior Counsel, Legal Division, 202-435-7758. If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please contact
The Bureau first published its Privacy Act implementation rules, located in subpart E of part 1070, in an interim final rule in July 2011.
The Bureau makes two revisions to subpart E of part 1070, which establishes the Bureau's rule implementing the Privacy Act. First, the Bureau revises the definition of “Chief Privacy Officer” to align the authorities and responsibilities in the regulation to those of its designated Senior Agency Official for Privacy. Second, to facilitate electronic or remote identity proofing and authentication, the Bureau adds an additional method for a requester to verify their identity when submitting a Privacy Act request to the Bureau.
The Bureau is issuing this rule pursuant to its authority under title X of the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. 5481
Subparagraph 1070.50(b)(1) defines the term “Chief Privacy Officer,” whose authorities and responsibilities are established in subpart E. The Bureau revises the definition to mean “the Senior Agency Official for Privacy of the CFPB or any CFPB employee to whom the Senior Agency Official for Privacy has delegated authority to act under this part.”
The Bureau originally defined the term to mean “the Chief Information Officer of the CFPB” or their delegee in order to reflect the agency's earlier organizational structure, in which the Bureau's Chief Information Officer oversaw its Privacy Program. The
The Bureau revises the definition to reflect its reorganization and align the privacy-related authorities and responsibilities assigned to the Chief Privacy Officer in subpart E with the authorities and responsibilities of its Senior Agency Official for Privacy. The Bureau defines the term to mean “Senior Agency Official for Privacy” instead of “Chief Data Officer” (currently the same Bureau official) to ensure that subpart E remains aligned with the Bureau Privacy Program's structure in the event of any future reorganizations or re-designations of the Senior Agency Official for Privacy.
Section 1070.53(c) requires that members of the public provide proof of their identity in order to obtain access to Bureau records pursuant to the Privacy Act. Paragraph 1070.53(c)(1), in turn, provides three methods that will be considered adequate proof of a requester's identity. The Bureau adds an additional method of identity verification, permitting verification via successful completion of a third-party's identity verification process, designated by the Bureau, where that process meets the requirements of Identity Assurance Level 2 (IAL2) as described by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
The Bureau makes this revision in order to facilitate electronic or remote identity proofing and authentication in accordance with the CASES Act of 2019, Public Law 116-50, 133 Stat. 1073 (2019), and the Office of Management and Budget's implementing guidance, M-21-04, “Modernizing Access to and Consent for Disclosure of Records Subject to the Privacy Act” (Nov. 12, 2020). The Bureau intends to use a third-party identify verification process, available via
No notice of proposed rulemaking is required under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because this rule relates solely to agency procedure and practice. 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis. 5 U.S.C. 603, 604.
Finally, the Bureau has determined that this rule does not impose any new recordkeeping, reporting, or third-party disclosure requirements on members of the public that would be collections of information requiring approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Acting Director of the Bureau, David Uejio, having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this document to Laura Galban, a Bureau Federal Register Liaison, for purposes of publication in the
Confidential business information; Consumer protection; Freedom of information; Privacy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Bureau amends 12 CFR part 1070 to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 5481
(b) * * *
(1) The term
(c)
(1) In general, the following will be considered adequate proof of a requester's identity:
(i) A photocopy of two forms of identification, including one form of identification that bears the requester's photograph, and one form of identification that bears the requester's signature;
(ii) A photocopy of a single form of identification that bears both the requester's photograph and signature;
(iii) A statement swearing or affirming the requester's identity and to the fact that the requester understands the penalties provided in 5 U.S.C. 552a(i)(3); or
(iv) Successful completion of a third-party's identity verification process, designated by the Bureau, where that process meets the requirements of Identity Assurance Level 2 (IAL2) as described by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(1) of this section, a designated official may require additional proof of the requester's identity before action will be taken on any request, if such official determines that it is necessary to protect against unauthorized disclosure of information in a particular case. In addition, if a requester seeks records pertaining to an individual in the requester's capacity as that individual's guardian, the requester shall be required to provide adequate proof of the requester's legal relationship before action will be taken on any request.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350D, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters. This AD was prompted by a report of reduced yaw control, during an approach for landing, that resulted from rupture of the tail rotor gearbox (TGB) actuating rod and uncoupling of the steel sleeve from inside the external aluminum tube. This AD requires dye penetrant inspecting certain TGB actuating rods for a crack, and depending on the inspection results, replacing the TGB actuating rod, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective October 6, 2021.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 6, 2021.
For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Kathleen Arrigotti, Program Manager, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax (206) 231-3218; email
The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0060, dated March 20, 2019 (EASA AD 2019-0060) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Helicopters Model AS350 B, AS350 BA, AS350 BB, AS350 B1, AS350 B2, AS350 B3, AS350 D, AS355 E, AS355 F, AS355 F1, AS355 F2, AS355 N and AS355 NP helicopters. Model AS350 BB helicopters are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those helicopters in the applicability. Although EASA AD 2019-0060 applies to all helicopters identified in EASA AD 2019-0060, this AD applies to helicopters with an affected part installed instead.
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350D, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters. The NPRM published in the
The FAA is issuing this AD to address failure of a TGB actuating rod, which could result in loss of yaw control of the helicopter. See the MCAI for additional background information.
The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to the comment.
A commenter requested that the proposed AD not reference a European AD or service bulletin as approved data. The commenter stated the proposed AD should contain all the data required to perform the inspection in its entirety so that an inspector does not have to research data from other sources.
The FAA does not agree with the commenter because the approved data is available to inspectors. EASA AD 2019-0060 is incorporated by reference. Incorporation by reference (IBR) allows Federal agencies to comply with the requirement to publish rules in the
After an FAA final rule is published, the required service information is then posted to
The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
EASA AD 2019-0060 describes procedures for dye penetrant inspecting certain TGB actuating rods for a crack, and depending on the inspection results, replacing the TGB actuating rod. EASA AD 2019-0060 also describes procedures for marking each TGB actuating rod, reporting information, and for certain helicopters, ensuring the correct interface between certain TGB actuating rods and bearings.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
EASA AD 2019-0060 specifies “AS350 SB [service bulletin] No. 67.10 Revision 1” and “AS355 SB No. 67.09 Revision 2” as Airbus Helicopters (AH) service bulletins; however this AD identifies those service bulletins as Aerospatiale service bulletins.
EASA AD 2019-0060 specifies the date for “AS355 SB No. 67.09 Revision 2,” as “March 28, 1989;” however, this AD identifies the date as “October 1989.”
Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2019-0060 specifies “mark each affected part (all rods, regardless of the status with respect to the dye penetrant inspection),” this AD requires marking TGB actuating rods identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (9) of this AD regardless of their manufacturing date. The manufacturing dates in Table 1 of EASA AD 2019-0060 are used only to indicate the parts on which the dye penetrant inspection specified in paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2019-0060 is done; the manufacturing dates do not impact the parts on which the marking specified in paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2019-006 must be done.
The FAA considers this AD interim action. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking then.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 950 helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The FAA estimates that it would take about 1 hour per product to comply with the reporting requirement in this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of reporting the inspection results on U.S. operators to be $80,750, or $85 per product.
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of helicopters that might need these on-condition actions:
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective October 6, 2021.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350D, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters, certificated in any category, with a tail rotor gearbox (TGB) actuating rod identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (9) of this AD installed.
(1) Part number (P/N) 350A27191000;
(2) P/N 350A27191001;
(3) P/N 350A27191002;
(4) P/N 350A27191003;
(5) P/N 350A27191004;
(6) P/N 350A2719100401;
(7) P/N 350A2719100402;
(8) P/N 350A27192000; or
(9) A TGB actuating rod with an unknown part number and serial number.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code: 6720, Tail Rotor Control System.
This AD was prompted by a report of reduced yaw control, during an approach for landing, that resulted from rupture of the TGB actuating rod and uncoupling of the steel sleeve from inside the external aluminum tube. The FAA is issuing this AD to address failure of a TGB actuating rod, which could result in loss of yaw control of the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0060, dated March 20, 2019 (EASA AD 2019-0060).
(1) Where EASA AD 2019-0060 refers to January 3, 2019 (the effective date of EASA AD 2018-0287, dated December 20, 2018), or its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where EASA AD 2019-0060 refers to flight hours (FH), this AD requires using hours time-in-service.
(3) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2019-0060 specifies to mark TGB actuating rods, replace the language in paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2019-0060 that states “the instructions of section 3 of the applicable ASB [alert service bulletin],” with the applicable language specified in paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and (ii) of this AD.
(i) For P/N 350A2719100402 and parts not included in table 1 of EASA AD 2019-0060: “the instructions for `If only paragraph 3.B.2.a. was complied with' of paragraph 3.C. of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable ASB.”
(ii) For parts included in table 1 of EASA AD 2019-0060: “the instructions for `If paragraph 3.B.2.b. or paragraph 3.B.5. was complied with' of paragraph 3.C. of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable ASB.”
(4) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2019-0060 specifies “mark each affected part (all rods, regardless of the status with respect to the dye penetrant inspection), and each TGB rod having P/N 350A2719100402,” for this AD, mark the parts identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (9) of this AD.
(5) Where EASA AD 2019-0060 specifies “AH [Airbus Helicopters] AS350 SB [service bulletin] No. 67.10 Revision 1” and “AH AS355 SB No. 67.09 Revision 2,” replace the text “AH” with “Aerospatiale.”
(6) Where the “Ref. Publications” section of EASA AD 2019-0060 specifies the date for “AS355 SB No. 67.09 Revision 2,” replace the text “28 March 1989” with “October 1989.”
(7) Although service information referenced in EASA AD 2019-0060 specifies to keep parts, this AD does not include that requirement.
(8) Paragraph (7) of EASA AD 2019-0060 specifies to report inspection results to Airbus Helicopters within a certain compliance time. For this AD, report inspection results at the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(8)(i) or (ii) of this AD.
(i) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
(ii) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
(9) For the purposes of this AD, “CW,” which is stated in Table 1 of EASA AD 2019-0060, is defined as calendar week.
(10) The “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2019-0060 does not apply to this AD.
(1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to: Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Kathleen Arrigotti, Program Manager, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax (206) 231-3218; email
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0060, dated March 20, 2019.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA AD 2019-0060, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 817-222-5110. This material may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action revokes the Class E surface airspace at St. Clair County International Airport, Port Huron, MI. This action is the result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Remote Communications Outlet (RCO) frequency at St. Clair County International Airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, October 7, 2021. 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 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5857.
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 revokes the Class E surface airspace St. Clair County International Airport to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 revokes the Class E surface airspace at St. Clair County International Airport, Port Huron, MI, as it is no longer needed.
This action is the result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the RCO, which provides navigation information for the instrument procedures this airport.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, 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 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant 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), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain navigable waters of Camden Harbor in Camden, Maine. The temporary safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from hazards associated with a fireworks display. When enforced, this rule will prohibit persons and vessels from entering into the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Northern New England or a Designated Representative.
This rule is effective from 8 p.m. through 10 p.m. on September 4, 2021.
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 LT Shaun Doyle, Sector Northern New England Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 207-347-5015, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The event sponsor was late in submitting the marine event application. This late submission did not give the Coast Guard enough time to publish an NPRM, take public comments, consider those comments, and issue a final rule by September 4, 2021. Further, the expeditious implementation of this rule is in the public interest because it will help ensure the safety of those involved in displaying the fireworks, the spectators, and users of the waterway during the fireworks event.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Northern New England (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks display occurring in Camden Harbor on September 4, 2021, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 200-yard radius of the fireworks launch site. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the fireworks display.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 8 p.m. through 10 p.m. on September 4, 2021. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of Camden Harbor within a 200-yard radius of the fireworks launch site. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a Designated Representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around the safety zone which would impact a small designated area of Camden Harbor. Further, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM Marine Channel 16 about the zone and persons or vessels desiring to enter the safety zone may do so with permission from the COTP or a Designated Representative.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of 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.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting only 2 hours that will prohibit entry within a 200-yard radius of the fireworks launch site. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination will be available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's Designated Representative via VHF-FM Marine Channel 16 or by contacting the Coast Guard Sector Northern New England Command Center at (207) 741-5465. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's Designated Representative.
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving multiple state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These revisions were submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to establish and require reasonably available control technology (RACT) for nine major sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and/or nitrogen oxides (NO
This final rule is effective on October 1, 2021.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0597. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Ms. Emily Bertram, Permits Branch (3AD10), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-5273. Ms. Bertram can also be reached via electronic mail at
On February 11, 2021, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). 86 FR 9031. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of case-by-case RACT determinations or alternative NO
Under certain circumstances, states are required to submit SIP revisions to address RACT requirements for major sources of NO
On May 16, 2016, PADEP submitted a SIP revision addressing RACT for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Pennsylvania. PADEP's May 16, 2016 SIP revision intended to address certain outstanding VOC CTG RACT and major source VOC and NO
On May 9, 2019, EPA conditionally approved the RACT II rule based on the commitments PADEP made in its September 22, 2017 supplemental SIP revision.
To satisfy a requirement from EPA's May 9, 2019 conditional approval, PADEP submitted to EPA SIP revisions addressing alternative NO
In PADEP's case-by-case RACT determinations, an evaluation was completed to determine if previously SIP-approved, case-by-case RACT emission limits or operational controls (herein referred to as RACT I and contained in RACT I permits) were more stringent than the new RACT II presumptive or case-by-case requirements. If more stringent, the RACT I requirements will continue to apply to the applicable source. If the new case-by-case RACT II requirements are more stringent than the RACT I requirements, then the RACT II requirements will supersede the prior RACT I requirements.
In PADEP's RACT determinations involving NO
Here, EPA is taking action on SIP revisions pertaining to case-by-case RACT requirements and alternative NO
The case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by PADEP consist of an evaluation of all reasonably available controls at the time of evaluation for each affected emissions unit, resulting in a PADEP determination of what specific emission limit or control measures satisfy RACT for that particular unit. The adoption of new, additional, or revised emission limits or control measures to existing SIP-approved RACT I requirements were specified as requirements in new or revised Federally enforceable permits (hereafter RACT II permits) issued by PADEP to the source. Similarly, PADEP's determinations of alternative NO
PADEP's SIP revisions incorporate its determinations of source-specific RACT II controls for individual emission units at major sources of NO
PADEP, in its RACT II determinations, considered the prior source-specific RACT I requirements and, where more stringent, retained those RACT I requirements as part of its new RACT determinations. In the NPRM, EPA proposed to find that all the proposed revisions to previously SIP-approved RACT I requirements would result in equivalent or additional reductions of NO
Other specific requirements of Pennsylvania's 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS case-by-case RACT determinations and alternative NO
EPA received comments from four commenters on the February 11, 2021 NPRM. 86 FR 9031. A summary of the comments and EPA's response are discussed in this section. A copy of the comments can be found in the docket for this rule action.
Through its RACT II CbC determinations, PADEP has established NO
CAA section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving a SIP revision if the revision would “interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress . . . or any other applicable requirement of this chapter.” 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). While EPA interprets section 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are in effect, including those for which a relevant SIP submission may not have been made, the level of rigor needed for any CAA section 110(l) demonstration will vary depending on the nature and circumstances of the revision. For example, an in-depth section 110(l) analysis is more appropriate where there is a reasonable expectation that an existing SIP standard is being weakened or that there will be a net emissions increase because of approval of the SIP revision under consideration. However, here, the Pennsylvania CbC RACT II SIP revisions are either retaining an existing standard or establishing a more stringent one. EPA, for these reasons, did not include a detailed section 110(l) analysis at the proposal stage. Since the commenter raised the issue, EPA is responding in this final action by explaining why its approval is consistent with section 110(l).
In circumstances where an existing SIP standard is being weakened or a net emissions increase is expected, there are two generally recognized paths for satisfying CAA section 110(l). First, a state may demonstrate through an air quality modeling analysis that the revision will not interfere with the attainment of the NAAQS, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement. This is the approach the commenter claims is required for the Pennsylvania CbC SIP revisions. Second, a state may substitute equivalent or greater emissions reductions to compensate for any change to a plan to ensure actual emissions to the air are not increased and thus preserve status quo air quality. A showing that the substitute measures preserve status quo air quality is generally sufficient to demonstrate noninterference through this alternative approach. Courts have upheld EPA's approval of a SIP revision based on a state's use of substitute measures.
Both the
In a more analogous case to the situation presented here, EPA's interpretation of section 110(l) was upheld in
The
With this rulemaking action, EPA is only approving revisions that add specific NO
The facilities addressed in this final rule breakdown into the categories listed below.
As described above, EPA determined that Pennsylvania had adequately justified its RACT II CbC NO
This modeling analysis from Colorado does not trigger a need for EPA or Pennsylvania to conduct modeling on the impact of NO
The requirement for stack testing every five years is consistent with Pennsylvania's RACT II compliance demonstration requirements in 25 Pa. Code 129.100, which is a part of Pennsylvania's SIP-approved RACT regulations. Under those regulations, a
EPA is approving case-by-case RACT determinations and/or alternative NO
In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of source-specific RACT determinations and alternative NO
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 1, 2021. 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 approving Pennsylvania's NO
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(d) Approval of source-specific RACT requirements for 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards for the facilities listed below are incorporated as specified below. (Rulemaking Docket No. EPA-OAR-2020-0597).
(1) Volvo Construction Equipment North America, LLC.—Incorporating by reference Permit No. 28-05012, effective June 1, 2019, as redacted by Pennsylvania.
(2) National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation Roystone Compressor Station—Incorporating by reference Permit No. 62-141H, effective January 16, 2018, as redacted by Pennsylvania. All permit conditions in the prior RACT Permit No. OP-62-141F, effective April 1, 2003, remain as RACT requirements except for the Penneco boiler (1.5 MMBtu/hr) and Struthers boiler (2.5 MMBtu/hr), which are no longer in operation. See also § 52.2063(c)(213)(i)(B)(1) for prior RACT approval.
(3) E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company—Incorporating by reference Permit No. 08-00002, effective September 28, 2018, as redacted by Pennsylvania.
(4) Carmeuse Lime, Inc—Incorporating by reference Permit No. 38-05003, effective March 6, 2019, as redacted by Pennsylvania.
(5) Kovatch Mobile Equipment Corporation—Incorporating by reference Permit No. 13-00008, effective October 27, 2017, as redacted by Pennsylvania.
(6) Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corporation—Incorporating by reference Permit No. 46-00005, issued January 5, 2017, as redacted by Pennsylvania, which supersedes the prior RACT Permit No. OP-46-0005, issued January 13, 1997 and revised June 23, 2000, except for the following conditions, which remain as a RACT requirements applicable to the following sources:
(7) Letterkenny Army Depot—Incorporating by reference Permit No. 28-05002, effective June 1, 2018, as redacted by Pennsylvania, which supersedes the prior RACT Permit No. 28-02002, effective February 3, 2000 except for conditions 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14 which also remain as RACT requirements. See also § 52.2063(d)(1)(g) for prior RACT approval.
(8) Fairless Energy, LLC—Incorporating by reference Permit No. 09-00124, effective December 6, 2016 as redacted by Pennsylvania.
Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Final rule.
The General Services Administration (GSA) is issuing a final rule amending the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to update an outdated reference to a legacy website.
Effective October 1, 2021.
Mr. Tyler Piper or Mr. Stephen Carroll at 817-253-7858 or
GSA's Integrated Award Environment integrated the legacy
Title 40 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 121 authorizes GSA to issue regulations, including the GSAR, to control the relationship between GSA and contractors.
The System for Award Management (SAM) has officially gone live, and as such the URL to reach it has changed from
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been reviewed and determined by OMB not to be a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
The statute that applies to the publication of the GSAR is the Office of Federal Procurement Policy statute (codified at title 41 of the United States Code). Specifically, 41 U.S.C. 1707(a)(1) requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure, or form, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. This rule is not required to be published for public comment, because it does not have a significant effect or impose any new requirements on contractors or offerors. The rule simply replaces website references.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, GSA amends 48 CFR part 570 as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 121(c).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary specifications.
NMFS is extending the effective date of temporary specifications that implement three short-notice decisions of the Commission on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Commission or WCPFC). NMFS issued temporary specifications on June 11, 2021, to implement short-notice WCPFC decisions regarding purse seine observer coverage, purse seine transshipments at sea, and transshipment observer coverage. NMFS is extending the effective date of those temporary specifications until January 13, 2022. NMFS is undertaking this action under the authority of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (WCPFC Implementation Act) to satisfy the obligations of the United States as a Contracting Party to the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Convention).
The temporary specifications are in effect from September 1, 2021 until January 13, 2022.
Rini Ghosh, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office, 808-725-5033.
Under authority of the WCPFC Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 6901
On April 8, 2020, in response to the international concerns over the health of observers and vessel crews due to COVID-19, the Commission made an intersessional decision to suspend the requirements for observer coverage on purse seine vessels on fishing trips in the Convention Area through May 31, 2020. The Commission subsequently extended that decision several times, and the current extension is effective until December 15, 2021.
On April 20, 2020, in response to the international concerns over the health of vessel crews and port officials due to COVID-19, the Commission made an intersessional decision to modify the prohibition on at-sea transshipment for purse seine vessels as follows—purse seine vessels can conduct at-sea transshipment in an area under the jurisdiction of a port State, if transshipment in port cannot be conducted, in accordance with the domestic laws and regulations of the port State. The Commission subsequently extended that decision and the current extension is effective until December 15, 2021.
On May 13, 2020, in response to the international concerns over the health of observers and vessel crews due to COVID-19, the Commission made an intersessional decision to suspend the requirements for observer coverage for at-sea transshipments. The Commission subsequently extended that decision and the current extension is effective until December 15, 2021.
NMFS is using the framework as set forth at 50 CFR 300.228 to extend the effective date of the temporary specifications implementing the three recent WCPFC intersessional decisions (WCPFC decisions dated April 8, 2020, April 20, 2020, and May 13, 2020), described above, that are in effect until December 15, 2021. The regulations to implement short-notice WCPFC decisions at 50 CFR 300.228 provide that temporary specifications to implement such short-notice decisions will remain in effect no longer than 30 days after the expiration of the underlying Commission decision.
Accordingly, the requirements of the following regulations are waived. Such waiver shall remain in effect until January 13, 2022, unless NMFS earlier rescinds or extends this waiver by publication in the
• 50 CFR 300.223(e)(1). During the term of this waiver, U.S. purse seine vessels are not required to carry WCPFC observers
• 50 CFR 300.216(b)(1). During the term of this waiver, U.S. purse seine fishing vessels are not prohibited from at-sea transshipment conducted within the national waters of the coastal state, in accordance with applicable national laws. Transshipment on the high seas remains prohibited; and
• 50 CFR 300.216(b)(2) and 50 CFR 300.215(d). During the term of this waiver, owners and operators of U.S. commercial fishing vessels fishing for highly migratory species in the Convention Area are not prohibited from at-sea transshipment without a WCPFC observer on board the offloading or receiving vessel.
NMFS issues this action pursuant to the WCPFC Implementation Act and the regulations at 50 CFR 300.228. This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment on the interim final rule and temporary measures included in this action, because prior notice and the opportunity for public comment is unnecessary and would be contrary to the public interest. Opportunity for public comment is unnecessary because the regulations establishing the framework and providing notice of the Commission's decisions described above have already been subject to notice and public comment, and all that
For the reasons articulated above, there is also good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effective dates for the temporary measures.
16 U.S.C. 6901
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; modification of a closure; request for comments.
NMFS is opening directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) length overall (LOA) using hook-and-line or pot gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI). This action is necessary to fully use the 2021 total allowable catch of Pacific cod allocated to catcher vessels less than 60 feet LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), September 1, 2021, through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2021. Comments must be received at the following address no later than 4:30 p.m., A.l.t., September 16, 2021.
Submit your comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2020-0141, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Krista Milani, 907-581-2062.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.
NMFS closed directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) on January 26, 2021 (86 FR 7818, February 2, 2021).
NMFS has determined that as of August 23, 2021, approximately 797 metric tons of Pacific cod remain in the 2021 Pacific cod apportionment for catcher vessels less than 60 feet LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C), and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully use the 2021 total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific cod in the BSAI, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is opening directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI. The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) considered the following factors in reaching this decision: (1) The current catch of Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI and, (2) the harvest capacity and stated intent on future harvesting patterns of vessels in participating in this fishery.
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was 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 would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the opening of directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of August 26, 2021.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice.
Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow the fishery for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI to be harvested in an expedient manner and in accordance with the regulatory schedule. Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address until September 16, 2021.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
In 2020, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) finalized two rules (together, the Debt Collection Final Rules) revising Regulation F, which implements the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). As finalized, the Debt Collection Final Rules had an effective date of November 30, 2021. On April 7, 2021, the Bureau issued a proposal to delay that effective date by sixty days, until January 29, 2022. The Bureau is withdrawing that proposal for the reasons provided in this document. The Debt Collection Final Rules will take effect on November 30, 2021.
The proposed rule, published at 86 FR 20334, April 19, 2021, is withdrawn as of September 1, 2021.
Briana McLeod, Honors Attorney, or Seth Caffrey, Courtney Jean, or Kristin McPartland, Senior Counsels, Office of Regulations, at 202-435-7700. If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please contact
In October and December 2020, the Bureau issued the Debt Collection Final Rules to revise Regulation F, 12 CFR part 1006, which implements the FDCPA.
Because of the ongoing societal disruption caused by the global COVID-19 pandemic, and to afford stakeholders additional time to review and implement the Debt Collection Final Rules, the Bureau proposed in April 2021 to extend the November 30 effective date by 60 days, to January 29, 2022.
Most industry commenters stated that, despite the pandemic, they will be prepared to comply with the Debt Collection Final Rules by November 30, 2021. Many industry commenters also stated that an extension would reduce regulatory certainty and thus increase burden on small entities. Consumer advocate commenters generally supported extending the effective date. However, these commenters generally did not focus on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic or on whether stakeholders need additional time to review and implement the Rules. Instead, they urged the Bureau to use the extension to reconsider the Debt Collection Final Rules. However, extending the effective date to reconsider the rules is beyond the scope of the Bureau's proposal. For these reasons, the Bureau has decided to withdraw the proposal. The Debt Collection Final Rules will take effect on November 30, 2021.
The April 2021 proposal explained that the Bureau previously considered the costs, benefits, and impacts of the Debt Collection Final Rules' major provisions. It further explained that, compared to the baseline established by the rules, the proposed extension of the rules' effective date would generally benefit covered persons by facilitating initial compliance with the rules' requirements and delaying the start of ongoing compliance costs but that it could also delay consumers' realization of benefits arising from the protections provided by the rules. As discussed above, industry commenters generally did not agree that delaying the effective date would facilitate compliance. In addition, the Bureau indicated that it did not expect the proposed rule to have a differential impact on depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion or less in total assets as described in section 1026 of the Dodd-Frank Act or on consumers in rural areas. The Bureau also stated that it did not believe that the proposed effective date extension would reduce consumer access to consumer financial products and services, as the evidence discussed in the Debt Collection Final Rules indicates that the rules themselves will have limited negative impact on access to credit. Because this document withdraws the proposal to change the effective date, any costs and benefits associated with an extension will not be realized. Further, there are no additional costs, benefits, or impacts associated with this document beyond those previously considered with respect to the Debt Collection Final Rules' major provisions. The Bureau has determined that this document will not have any new or revised information collection requirements (recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements) on covered entities or members of the public that would constitute collections of information requiring OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The Acting Director of the Bureau, David Uejio, having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this document to Laura Galban, a Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus SAS Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that during re-engineering of galley G5, a 9G forward full scale qualification test was performed, and the door of the waste compartment opened before the required load was reached. This proposed AD would require modifying the waste compartment door of each affected galley, as specified in a European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation by reference. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 18, 2021.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For material that will be incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3223; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3223; email
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0255, dated November 27, 2018 (EASA AD 2018-0255) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -215, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. Model A320-215 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability.
This proposed AD was prompted by a report that during re-engineering of galley G5, a 9G forward full scale qualification test was performed, and the door of the waste compartment opened before the required load was reached. Investigation revealed that the opening was caused by a galley global deflection on which the latch bolts of the door were pushed inwards by the striker. The FAA is proposing this AD to address failure of the galley door and release of trolleys during a rejected take-off or an emergency landing, which could result in injury to occupants. See
EASA AD 2018-0255 describes procedures for modifying the waste compartment door of each affected galley. The modification includes installing a door catch bracket and a new striker.
Safran has issued Zodiac Galleys Europe Service Bulletin 213510-25-001, Revision B, dated January 28, 2018; Zodiac Galleys Europe Service Bulletin 213510-25-001, Revision C, dated May 24, 2018; and Safran Service Bulletin 213510-25-001, Revision D, dated August 15, 2019. This service information describes procedures for modifying the waste compartment door of each affected galley by installing a door catch bracket and striker. These documents are distinct because they contain revised instructions and figures.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2018-0255 described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2018-0255 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2018-0255 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2018-0255 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2018-0255. Service information required by EASA AD 2018-0255 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 141 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected operators. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs in the cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by October 18, 2021.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2018-0255, dated November 27, 2018 (EASA AD 2018-0255).
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/Furnishings.
This AD was prompted by a report that during re-engineering of galley G5, a 9G forward full scale qualification test was performed, and the door of the waste compartment opened before the required load was reached. The FAA is issuing this AD to address failure of the galley door and release of trolleys during a rejected take-off or an emergency landing, which could result in injury to occupants and damage to airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, EASA AD 2018-0255.
(1) Where EASA AD 2018-0255 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) The “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2018-0255 does not apply to this AD.
Where Paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2018-0255 requires using, among other service information, “Zodiac Galleys Europe SB 213510-25-001 rev. B,” this AD requires using “Zodiac Galleys Europe Service Bulletin 213510-25-001, Revision B, dated January 28, 2018; or Zodiac Galleys Europe Service Bulletin 213510-25-001, Revision C, dated May 24, 2018; or Safran Service Bulletin 213510-25-001, Revision D, dated August 15, 2019.”
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) For information about EASA AD 2018-0255, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3223; email
(3) For Zodiac Galleys Europe and Safran service information in this AD, contact Safran Cabin CZ s.r.o., Univerzitni 1119/34, 301 00 Plzen, Czech Republic; telephone: +420 377 664 111; internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Frankfort Dow Memorial Field, Frankfort, MI. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of airspace reviews caused by the decommissioning of the Manistee very high frequency (VHF) omnidirectional range (VOR) as part of the VOR Minimal Operational Network (MON) Program. The name and geographic coordinates of the airport would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Comments must be received on or before October 18, 2021.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2021-0703/Airspace Docket No. 21-AGL-28 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Frankfort Dow Memorial Field, Frankfort, MI, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2021-0703/Airspace Docket No. 21-AGL-28.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the “
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 7.2-mile (increased from a 6.4-mile) radius of Frankfort Dow Memorial Field, Frankfort, MI; removing the Manistee VOR/DME and associated extension from the airspace legal description; and updating the name (previously Frankfort Dow Memorial Field Airport) and the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
This action is due to an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Manistee VOR, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures this airport, as part of the VOR MON Program.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 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 7.2-mile radius of the Frankfort Dow Memorial Field.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes changing the operating schedule that governs the State Route 22 (SR 22) drawbridge across the Tchefuncta River mile 2.5, Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. This action is necessary to relieve vehicular traffic congestion and enhance safety along SR 22 in Madisonville, LA.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before November 1, 2021.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0963 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Doug Blakemore, Eighth Coast Guard District Bridge Administrator; telephone (504) 671-2128, email
The Town of Madisonville, Louisiana has requested to change the operating schedule of the State Route 22 Bridge (Madisonville SR 22 drawbridge bridge) across the Tchefuncta River, mile 2.5, at Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. This bridge is regulated under 33 CFR 117.500 and has a vertical clearance of 6.2 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position and unlimited clearance in the open-to-navigation position. The draw of this bridge opens on signal from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. From 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. the draw need only open on the hour and half hour, except that: From 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. Monday through Friday except federal holidays the draw need only open on the hour; and from 4 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday except federal holidays the draw need not open. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of recreational traffic.
On November 4, 2016, at the request of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LA-DOTD), the Coast Guard issued a temporary deviation titled “Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Tchefuncta River, Madisonville, LA” (81 FR 76866). There, we stated that the 180-day deviation would test a temporary change to the operating schedule of the Madisonville (SR22) drawbridge bridge to determine whether a permanent change is necessary. From November 21, 2016 through May 18, 2017, this deviation extended the time between openings from 30 minutes to an hour between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. daily, and allowed the bridge to remain closed at 8 a.m., 5 p.m., and 6 p.m.. Monday through Friday except federal holidays. During the comment period that closed on January 18, 2017, the Coast Guard received no comments.
On November 4, 2016, concurrent with the test deviation and on the basis of a recent traffic study conducted by LA-DOTD, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Tchefuncta River, Madisonville, LA” (81 FR 76889). There, we stated that the traffic study indicated that the intersection of SR 22 and SR 21/SR1077 is overcapacity at peak hours and causes unacceptable levels of delay to roadway traffic, which is compounded by the opening of the Madisonville SR 22 drawbridge bridge during peak hours. The traffic study also indicated that a combination of modifications of the traffic controls at this intersection and the operating schedule of the Madisonville SR 22 drawbridge bridge would enhance the flow of vehicular traffic over SR 22. The NPRM proposed a change to the schedule of the Madisonville SR 22 drawbridge bridge that extended the time between openings from 30 minutes to an hour between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. daily, and allowed the bridge to remain closed at 8 a.m., 5 p.m., and 6 p.m., Monday through Friday except federal holidays. During the comment period that closed on January 18, 2017, the Coast Guard received no comments.
On July 16, 2018 at the request of LADOTD the Coast Guard published a Supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) in 83 FR 27730 to change the operating schedule to provide daily bridge openings from half-hour intervals to hourly intervals 7 days a week, close the bridge to vessels at 8 a.m., 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. on weekdays. LADOTD had requested that the Coast Guard permanently change the regulation based on information provided in the traffic study and also provided supplemental data and information on the population growth in St. Tammany Parish, including information on vehicle traffic counts on SR 22 from 2015, the locations of schools in the vicinity of SR 22 that contribute to vehicle congestion, St. Tammany Parish projected population growth rates, and residential construction permit growth. During the comment period that closed on July 16 2018, the Coast Guard received 300
On April 23, 2021 the Town of Madisonville requested that the operating schedule on the SR 23 drawbridge be changed to relieve vehicle congestion during peak, afternoon weekday traffic and to alleviate safety concerns. In the April 23, 2021 letter the Town of Madisonville cited information and documentation from parish and local law enforcement and fire protection agencies identifying safety and fire protection concerns with the traffic congestion and bridge openings every 30 minutes during the day. They requested that the drawbridge regulation be changed to close the bridge to vessel traffic from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Monday-Friday and open the bridge on signal on the hour from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. 7 days a week. This requested change would effectively close the bridge to vessels for a 4 hour period in afternoons Monday-Friday: 3 p.m. to 7 p.m.
There appears to be sufficient information to change the regulations to open the bridge 7 days a week on the hour with the exception of morning and afternoon vehicle rush hours on Monday through Friday. On Monday through Friday there is sufficient information to close the bridge to vessels for 2 hour windows in the morning and afternoon.
Additionally the bridge is required to open for emergencies according to 33 CFR 117.31.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM 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 advanced notice. Additionally those vessels with a vertical clearance requirement of less than 6.2 feet above mean high water may transit the bridge at any time, and the bridge will open in case of emergency at any time.
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 certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the 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
This proposed rule would call 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 proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
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 proposed rule promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further
Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum for the Record are required for this rule. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in this docket and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The draw of the S22 Bridge, mile 2.5, at Madisonville, LA shall open on signal from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. The draw will open on signal on the hour from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. except that on Monday through Friday the bridge will not open to vessels at 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. The bridge shall open anytime at the direction of the District Commander.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The Coast Guard is proposing to revise the training requirements for national Merchant Mariner Credential endorsements as master of towing vessels (limited) or mate (pilot) of towing vessels on inland waters or Western Rivers routes. The proposal would provide mariners seeking these endorsements the option to take a modified basic firefighting course that eliminates training on equipment that is not required to be carried on towing vessels operating on inland waters or Western Rivers. Applicants who take the modified basic firefighting course would reduce their costs due to the courses being shorter and less expensive than the longer basic firefighting courses.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before November 1, 2021.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2020-0492 using the Federal Decision Making Portal at
For information about this document call or email Mr. James Cavo, Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1205, email
The Coast Guard views public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
The legal basis of this proposed rule is title 46 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) section 7101, which authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish the experience and professional qualifications required for the issuance of merchant mariner credentials with officer endorsements. The DHS Secretary has delegated the rulemaking authority under 46 U.S.C. 7101 to the Coast Guard through DHS Delegation No. 0170.1(92)(e). Additionally, 14 U.S.C. 102(3) grants the Coast Guard broad authority to promulgate and enforce regulations for the promotion of safety of life and property on waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which includes establishing the experience and professional qualifications required for the issuance of credentials.
The purpose of this proposed rule is to revise title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), § 11.201(h)(3) to provide mariners seeking a national officer endorsement as master of towing vessels (limited)
Coast Guard regulations in 46 CFR part 11, subpart B, contain the general merchant mariner credentialing requirements for national and International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as Amended (STCW Convention) officer endorsements. Currently, 46 CFR 11.201(h)(3)(ii) requires mariners seeking national officer endorsements as master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels on routes other than oceans
Following the implementation of the 2013 final rule, the Coast Guard received requests from industry to review the appropriateness of the basic firefighting training requirement for towing vessel endorsements. As a result, the Coast Guard tasked two Federal Advisory Committees, the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC)
In their recommendations to the Coast Guard, both MERPAC and TSAC commented that the basic firefighting requirements in § 11.201(h)(3)(ii) are based on equipment found on deep-sea vessels and not on vessels operating on inland waters or Western Rivers. TSAC identified equipment covered in the basic firefighting training requirements, contained in Table A-VI/1-2 of the STCW Code that is not required to be carried on towing vessels operating on inland waters or Western Rivers.
In 2017, the Coast Guard sought comments on regulations, guidance documents, and interpretative documents that the public believed should be repealed, replaced, or modified.
As noted in the letter from the trade association, current towing vessel regulations in §§ 27.209 and 142.245 require company provided firefighting instruction and drills that are adequate to address fires onboard towing vessels. However, input provided by mariners in response to the Coast Guard's request for public input on MERPAC Task Statement 95, as previously discussed, provides information on their experience with company provided onboard training and drills. These mariners expressed that training and drills were not conducted in a way that adequately prepares mariners to handle evolving emergency situations on board the vessels. They also stated that annual inspections were not adequate to ensure training and drills were being conducted, as they only verify the paper records and do not verify the conduct of practical exercises in handling emergency situations.
After receiving recommendations from MERPAC and TSAC and reviewing the public comments, the Coast Guard determined that the basic firefighting training for national officer endorsement as master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels on inland waters and Western Rivers should be retained. Basic firefighting training ensures that mariners have basic firefighting skills and leads to increased maritime safety by ensuring mariners will be able to contain a small fire before it spreads throughout the vessel and becomes a threat to life, or a hazard to the environment and public safety. However, we have determined these mariners should not have to train using equipment that is not required to be carried aboard the towing vessels on which they will serve.
With this proposed rule, applicants seeking national officer endorsements as master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels on inland waters or Western Rivers would have the option to take a modified basic firefighting course that excludes training on equipment that is not required to be carried on their vessels.
This proposed change would apply to applicants for national MMC
This proposed rule would result in a one-time cost to course providers for developing and submitting requests for approval of a modified basic firefighting course, and a one-time cost to the Coast Guard for reviewing and approving these courses. Under existing § 10.402(d) and (f), there would be ongoing costs to both the course providers and the Coast Guard every 5 years for requests for renewal of the course approval.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend § 11.201(h), which requires mariners seeking national officer endorsements to present a certificate of completion from a Coast Guard-approved firefighting course of instruction.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend paragraph (h)(1) by adding language stating that the firefighting certificate of completion must be “relevant to the endorsement being sought.” The Coast Guard proposes this change to ensure that mariners would be required to provide evidence of completing the appropriate firefighting training for the endorsement they are applying for.
We also propose to make several changes to paragraph (h)(3), which contains a list of national officer endorsements that require completion of basic firefighting training in accordance with Regulation VI/1 of the STCW Convention and Table A-VI/1-2 of the STCW Code. Currently, paragraph (h)(3)(ii) requires that “all officer endorsements for master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels, except apprentice mate (steersman) of towing vessels, in all services except oceans” must meet this requirement. We propose to revise paragraph (h)(3)(ii) to specify the requirements for officer endorsements for master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels, except apprentice mate (steersman) of towing vessels, for service on near-coastal waters. We are also proposing to add paragraphs (h)(3)(iii) and (h)(3)(iv) to list the specific waters covered by the phrase, “in all services except oceans.” Proposed paragraph (h)(3)(iii) would specify the requirements for officer endorsements for master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels, except apprentice mate (steersman) of towing vessels, for service on the Great Lakes. Proposed paragraph (h)(3)(iv) would specify the requirements for officer endorsements for master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels, except apprentice mate (steersman) of towing vessels, for service on inland waters or Western Rivers.
Mariners seeking a national officer endorsement as master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels authorized for service on near-coastal waters or on the Great Lakes would still need to complete the basic firefighting training referenced in paragraph (h)(3). A modified basic firefighting course is not appropriate for mariners operating on towing vessels on near-coastal waters or on the Great Lakes for two reasons: (1) Near-coastal waters and Great Lakes towing vessels may carry the equipment omitted from a modified towing vessel firefighting course, and (2) near-coastal waters and Great Lakes towing vessels operate farther from the shore, where firefighting assistance is not readily available as it is on inland waters or Western Rivers.
Proposed paragraph (h)(3)(iv)(A) would provide a mariner the option of completing a modified basic firefighting course for a national officer endorsement as master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels on inland waters or Western Rivers. The course would be a Coast Guard-approved modified basic firefighting course that would not include training on equipment that is not required to be carried aboard towing vessels for service on inland waters or Western Rivers. When approving modified courses, the Coast Guard intends to consider the requirements of 46 CFR subchapter M, parts 140 and 142, in determining the training to achieve proficiency in firefighting consistent with the equipment available onboard towing vessels on inland waters or Western Rivers. The Coast Guard anticipates this modified basic firefighting course would have a total of about 12 hours of classroom and practical training instead of a total of 16 hours for the basic firefighting course. The Coast Guard is interested in public input regarding whether 12 hours of classroom and practical training is adequate for the course and what subject matters could be omitted from the basic firefighting course.
Currently, national officer endorsements for towing vessels serving on the Great Lakes and inland waters are issued as one route. In proposed paragraph (h)(3)(iv)(A), language would be added to allow separation of these routes so that a mariner who completes a modified basic firefighting course could be issued an endorsement restricted to inland waters or Western Rivers.
The Coast Guard proposes paragraph (h)(3)(iv)(B) to specify that a mariner who qualifies for an endorsement by completing a modified basic firefighting course would be required to complete the basic firefighting course required in paragraph (h)(3) for an increase in scope
The proposed rule would revise the authority citation in 46 CFR part 11 by deleting a reference to “46 U.S.C. 503” and inserting a reference to “46 U.S.C. 102(3),” which grants the Coast Guard broad authority to promulgate and enforce regulations for the promotion of safety of life and property on waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including establishing the experience and professional qualifications required for the issuance of credentials.
Lastly, we would revise § 11.201(l) to allow the Coast Guard to modify training in addition to the service or examination requirements for an endorsement. The proposed change is needed in order to allow for the option of the modified basic firefighting course for a national officer endorsement as master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels on inland waters or Western Rivers routes.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. A summary of our analyses based on these statutes or Executive orders follows.
Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this proposed rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. A summary of the proposed rule's impacts are presented below and a more detailed discussion on the estimated cost savings of this rule follows.
As discussed earlier in the preamble, this proposed rule would provide applicants for an MMC endorsement as master of towing vessels (limited) or mate (pilot) of towing vessels on inland waters or Western Rivers routes the option to take a modified basic firefighting course instead of the basic firefighting course. Specifically, this firefighting course would eliminate training on firefighting equipment that is not required to be carried on towing vessels operating on inland waters or Western Rivers routes. Because the modified firefighting course is expected to be shorter in duration and lower in cost than a basic firefighting course, we anticipate eligible mariners will take the modified course. The Coast Guard requests comments on this assumption.
We estimate that this proposed rule would result in a 10-year net cost savings of $835,225, or $118,917 annualized, in 2020 dollars, discounted at 7 percent. The annual cost savings for mariners is approximately $123,598 (in undiscounted 2020 dollars) from the second year onward. The savings would stem from reduced hours spent in training and reduced tuition for firefighting training necessary for an endorsement as master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels on inland waters or Western Rivers routes.
We estimate that this proposed rule would result in a one-time cost to course providers to develop a modified basic firefighting course and submit the course to the Coast Guard for approval. There would also be a one-time cost to the Government resulting from Coast Guard employees reviewing and approving these new courses. Under existing 46 CFR 10.402(d) and (f), there will be ongoing costs to both the course providers and the government every 5 years to renew the modified basic firefighting course. We anticipate course providers that offer the modified basic firefighting course to also continue to provide a basic firefighting course because these courses would serve additional markets. We request comment on whether course providers that plan to offer a modified basic firefighting course would continue to offer a basic firefighting course.
In the first year, we estimate the costs (in 2020 dollars) to industry would be $8,444 and the cost to the Government would be $15,988. These costs would not recur after the first year, but there would be ongoing costs for renewal of course approvals every 5 years resulting in costs to industry of $1,044 and costs to the Government of $14,029. The 10-year net cost savings would be $835,225, or $118,917 annualized, in 2020 dollars, discounted at 7 percent. We do not estimate that there would be any reduction in safety or benefits between the current basic firefighting training and a modified firefighting training, as the modified training would be better suited for the equipment common to the relevant towing vessels. Table 1 summarizes these results. In the following subsections, we describe the changes, the affected population, the potential costs, the potential cost savings, and the qualitative benefits in further detail.
This proposed rule would result in two changes that would have potential costs and potential cost savings. First, course providers would have the opportunity to develop a modified firefighting course and submit the course to the Coast Guard for approval. Consequently, this proposed rule would initially result in costs to course providers for developing the course, and to the government for reviewing and approving the modified basic firefighting courses. Second, applicants would likely experience cost savings by taking shorter and less costly modified basic firefighting courses rather than the longer basic firefighting courses. The Coast Guard requests comments on all aspects of this analysis and in particular
Table 2 lists and describes the changes we propose to 46 CFR 11.201. The proposed changes contain costs and cost savings, as described above. Text that has been added is underlined, and text that has been deleted is stricken through.
This proposed rule would have two affected populations: (1) Course providers who would offer a modified basic firefighting course; and (2) applicants for MMC endorsements as a master of towing vessels (limited) or mate (pilot) of towing vessels on inland waters or Western Rivers routes. We first estimated the number of course providers who may submit a modified basic firefighting course to the Coast Guard for approval, and then estimated the number of applicants who may apply for an endorsement as master of towing vessels (limited) or mate (pilot) of towing vessels operating on inland waters or Western Rivers.
The Coast Guard does not know how many course providers would request approval for a modified basic firefighting course. However, since this course would be a modified form of the basic firefighting course, we assume that only course providers who already teach a firefighting course would take advantage of the opportunity provided by this proposal. Currently, there are 91 course providers approved to offer a basic firefighting course.
A subject matter expert (SME) from the Coast Guard's Office of Merchant Mariner Credentialing with extensive experience involving regular contact with maritime course providers and towing vessel operating companies reviewed publicly available materials from these 91 providers and rated each on how likely they would be to request approval of a modified basic firefighting course. Our SME considered the types of courses offered by each provider, their facilities, geographic location(s), and the segment of the industry their clientele work in. The SME rated each course provider as either 0 percent, 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent, or 100 percent likely to request approval of a modified basic firefighting course. Across the 91 course providers with an approved basic firefighting course, we rated 56 of them as having no likelihood of requesting approval to offer a modified firefighting course because our SME's review indicated that they are unlikely to serve the inland towing population. Our SME estimates that 35 providers would request course approval of a modified firefighting course. Among these 35 providers, our SME estimates that the average likelihood to request approval to offer a modified basic firefighting course would be 65 percent. Multiplying 35 by 65 percent yields 23, rounded, or our estimate for the number of training providers likely to offer a modified firefighting course.
The Coast Guard requests comments on our estimate of 23 course providers who may request Coast Guard approval of a modified basic firefighting course or any additional data that we could use to inform and refine our estimate.
Applicants for a national officer endorsement as master of towing vessels (limited) or mate (pilot) of towing vessels on inland water or Western Rivers who take a modified course would realize a cost savings by taking a shorter, less expensive firefighting course. As discussed in section IV of this preamble, the Coast Guard issued a final rule in 2013 requiring mariners seeking national officer endorsements as master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels on routes other than oceans to complete a Coast Guard-approved basic
The 2013 final rule established grandfathering provisions for which the Coast Guard provided guidance in Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 03-16, titled “Guidelines for Credentialing Officers of Towing Vessels.”
Mariners raising the grade of their MMC endorsement from mate (pilot) to master of towing vessels were also grandfathered in under NVIC 03-16, and were not required to take a firefighting course. As a result of the grandfathering provisions, this proposal would be applicable to new applicants for master of towing vessels (limited) or mate (pilot) of towing vessels endorsements who choose to take a modified basic firefighting course.
In order to qualify for an MMC endorsement as master of towing vessels, other than master of towing vessels (limited), an applicant must have prior sea service experience as either a mate (pilot) of towing vessels or a master of vessels greater than 200 gross register tons (GRT). In order to hold the endorsement authorizing service in either of these capacities would have required the applicant to either take a firefighting course or be grandfathered in under NVIC 03-16. As a result, this proposed rule does not impact applicants for an endorsement as master of towing vessels other than master of towing vessels (limited).
Masters of towing vessels (limited) do not require prior sea service as a master or mate of vessels greater than 200 GRT. Therefore, this proposed rule would affect applicants for endorsements of inland master of towing vessels (limited) if they do not have a prior endorsement as a mate (pilot) that required a firefighting course. Two towing vessel endorsement applicant groups are thus affected by this rule: (1) Mate (pilot) of towing vessels, and (2) master of towing vessels (limited) with no prior endorsement as a mate (pilot).
The Coast Guard's National Maritime Center (NMC) issues MMCs to applicants who meet the regulatory requirements for endorsements described in 46 CFR parts 11, 12, and 13. Applicants for endorsements as master and mate (pilot) of towing vessels may be endorsed to operate on oceans, near coastal, Great Lakes and inland waters, or Western Rivers routes. The Merchant Mariner Licensing and Documentation (MMLD) database is used by the NMC to issue MMCs and maintain records of U.S. merchant mariners. Data was obtained from the MMLD, for the period between 2015-2019, on each issuance of an original master or mate (pilot) of towing vessel endorsement, including when the endorsement was issued, and the authorized routes of operation.
We excluded applicants for Great Lakes, near-coastal, or oceans routes, because applicants for those endorsements on those routes are required to complete basic firefighting and would not be affected by the rule. Currently, Great Lakes and inland waters are issued as one route for towing vessel endorsements. With this proposed rule, language would be added to allow the separation of these two routes so that a mariner who completes the modified basic firefighting course could be issued an endorsement valid for inland waters or Western Rivers. Because towing vessel endorsements are currently issued for Great Lakes and inland routes, the Coast Guard cannot directly estimate from the MMLD data the number of masters and mate (pilots) of towing vessels operating exclusively on the inland waters. However, we can estimate the number of towing vessels that operate on these waters based on data from towing vessel inspection records.
As of October 2019, 1,265 towing vessels have been inspected, out of an estimated 5,770 46 CFR subchapter M vessels.
In order to isolate the vessels operating on the Great Lakes, we first reviewed the number of vessels that operate on the Great Lakes, inland waters or Western Rivers, and then examined the number of vessels that list the Great Lakes as at least one of their routes. Specifically, out of the 1,265 total towing vessels inspected under 46 CFR subchapter M, 900 are recorded as one or more of the following routes: Great Lakes, inland waters, or Western Rivers. Five percent, or 45 of the 900 vessels, include the Great Lakes as one of their listed routes and, therefore, would require basic firefighting training, since they may operate on the Great Lakes. The remaining 95 percent, or 855 vessels, do not include the Great Lakes as one of their listed routes and, therefore, we assume mariners serving on these vessels are eligible to take the modified basic firefighting course.
Table 3 shows the number of endorsements issued from 2016-2020 for master of towing vessels (limited) and mate (pilot) of towing vessels, respectively, endorsed to operate on the Great Lakes, inland waters, or Western Rivers routes. While we report the number of endorsements issued in 2020 in the table below, we intentionally exclude 2020 when calculating the average number of master (limited) and mate (pilot) towing vessel endorsements each year because of the exceptional impact the COVID-19 pandemic on all facets of the U.S. economy. We therefore do not believe the number of endorsements issued in 2020 represents a typical year, and that many individuals that might ordinarily have pursued an endorsement did not because of the general slowdown in business associated with the pandemic. On average between 2016 and 2019, the Coast Guard has issued 13 master of towing vessels (limited) and 450 mate (pilot) of towing vessels endorsements per year, for a total of 463 new endorsements per year on Great Lakes, inland waters, and/or Western Rivers routes.
As seen in Table 3, the number of individuals applying for an endorsement as mate (pilot) of towing vessels has been declining. The Coast Guard does not know specifically why fewer individuals have applied for an endorsement as mate (pilot) of towing vessels. It may be associated with grandfathering provisions provided in the 2013 final rule, which established grandfathering provisions for master and mate (pilots) of towing vessels. The 2013 final rule may have caused applicants for master of towing vessels (limited) and mate (pilot) of towing vessels endorsements to seek an MMC earlier than they may have otherwise in order to be grandfathered under the existing regulations. Additionally, the introduction of 46 CFR subchapter M in 2016 may have led to a contraction in the industry. In either case, the Coast Guard believes carrying forward the current decline has been more severe than fundamentals would suggest, so we expect the number of applicants to level off. The Coast Guard therefore utilizes the four-year average of the number of new towing vessel mate applicants, 450, and the four-year average of the number of limited masters, 13, to estimate that 463 mariners that apply to the Coast Guard to be endorsed to operate on the Great Lakes, Western rivers, or inland waters each year. We request comment on this methodology and how many applicants might seek an inland towing mate or limited master endorsement in the coming years.
Applying the percentage of vessels that do not operate on the Great Lakes (95 percent) to the estimated 463 annual new endorsements yields an estimated 440 new endorsements as mate (pilot) of towing vessels or master of towing vessels (limited) operating in inland waters or Western Rivers per year, rounded.
The modified basic firefighting course for towing vessels on inland waters and Western Rivers would be a modified version of the basic firefighting course. Mariners are required to take a firefighting course, and this proposed rule would permit some mariners to take the modified basic firefighting course in lieu of the longer basic firefighting course. As such, this rule presents no additional costs to mariners who will continue to operate on inland waters and Western Rivers.
Before mariners could save hours spent in training and the tuition for a basic firefighting course by taking a modified basic firefighting course, course providers would first need to obtain Coast Guard approval for the modified basic firefighting course. Course providers submit course approval requests to the NMC in accordance with the requirements of 46 CFR part 10, subpart D. The NMC would then evaluate the course to ensure the content demonstrates comprehensive coverage of the firefighting knowledge and competency requirements of the training. If the course submission does not require edits or revisions, and is approved as submitted, the Coast Guard estimates that it would take a training specialist at a course provider 6 hours to develop and submit a request for course approval of a modified basic firefighting course.
If the submission does not require a request for additional information to supplement the course approval request, the Coast Guard estimates that a Federal government employee, at a grade level of a GS-7, would take 1 hour to process the receipt of the course approval submission. One Federal employee, at a grade level of a GS-13, would spend 4 hours evaluating the course approval request; another Federal employee, at a grade level of GS-13, would spend 0.5 hours reviewing the course; and a fourth Federal employee, also at a grade level of GS-13, would spend 0.5 hours conducting a final review of the course. In total, the Coast Guard would spend 1 hour of GS-7 time and 5 hours of GS-13 time per course approval request, if the submission does not require a
The impacted employees work in the Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA area. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) lists the hourly pay for Federal employees in the Washington, DC area according to the Washington, DC General Schedule (GS) pay tables.
To account for the value of benefits to government employees, we first calculate the share of total compensation of Federal employees accounted for by wages. The Congressional Budget Office (2017) reports total compensation to Federal employees as $64.80 per hour and wages as $38.30.
All 23 course providers that may offer a modified basic firefighting course must submit a course approval request to the Coast Guard for evaluation. We estimate the costs of this initial submission to industry and the Coast Guard in table 4.
It is common for course providers to submit insufficient supporting information with a course approval request to the Coast Guard. When this occurs, the Coast Guard will request additional information from the course provider. We reviewed new course approval submissions over 3 years (2018-2020) to determine how likely it is for a course provider to submit a course approval request without the Coast Guard requesting additional information. We report the total number of course approval applications received and the number of course approval applications that require additional information in table 5. We estimate that course providers include insufficient information in their application packet 37 percent of the time.
When course providers submit a course approval request with insufficient information, the Coast Guard would request that the course providers revise their course request and resubmit. The Coast Guard estimates that both the course provider and the Coast Guard would spend an equal number of hours on each resubmittal as they would on the initial submission. In other words, the course provider would spend 6 hours on an initial approval request and 6 hours on the resubmittal, for 12 hours total, and the Coast Guard would spend 1 GS-7 hour and 5 GS-13 hours on the initial request, and 1 GS-7 hour and 5 GS-13 hours on the resubmittal, for 2 GS-7 hours and 10 GS-13 hours total.
Thus, the Coast Guard estimates that 37 percent of the course providers, or 8 course providers,
We estimate the total costs to course providers from initial applications and any resubmissions to be approximately $8,444 ($6,265 + $2,179), and the total costs to government to be approximately $15,988 ($11,862 + $4,126). Together, we estimate the costs of evaluating approval requests, for the modified basic firefighting courses to be $8,444 + $15,988, or $24,432. This cost would occur during the first year of implementation.
As discussed above, course providers would need to seek a renewal every five years if they wish to continue to offer the course. This course renewal would include a submission similar to that initially provided to and approved by the Coast Guard. Since the Coast Guard would have previously reviewed and approved the course submission, the Coast Guard does not estimate that it would take course providers nearly as long to prepare all materials for the Coast Guard. Specifically, we estimate that the same training specialist who spent 6 hours on an initial course approval request would only spend 1 hour on a renewal request, and the renewal request would be submitted without any revisions.
These costs would occur 5 years after each approval, or in year 6. We estimate the course renewal costs in Table 7. The 10-year distribution of undiscounted and discounted costs from both the initial and renewal requests are recorded in Table 8.
The primary benefits of the rule come from the cost savings to mariners in terms of reduced time spent in training and reduced tuition. The modified course content would eliminate the requirement for training using certain firefighting equipment that is not required to be carried on towing vessels operating on inland waters or Western Rivers. Acquiring and maintaining this equipment contributes to the cost of the basic firefighting course. Therefore, the modified basic firefighting course would be shorter, and likely less expensive, than the basic firefighting course. Thus, a mariner would likely prefer to take a modified basic firefighting course instead of a basic firefighting course. Some mariners may prefer to take the basic firefighting course if they are considering the possibility of working on the Great Lakes, near coastal waters, or ocean routes in the future. However, we do not have data to forecast how many of these mariners might opt, in the future, to take the longer basic firefighting course when they apply for the endorsement as master (limited) of towing vessels or mate (pilot) of towing vessels for inland waters or Western Rivers. Because the modified basic firefighting course will be shorter, less expensive, and located in the same area as the basic firefighting course, and because only a small portion of mariners operate in the Great Lakes (5 percent) and we already account for them, we assume all mariners eligible to take a modified basic firefighting course will do so. We request comment on our assessment that mariners would prefer a modified firefighting course is correct and if any mariners would prefer to take the longer basic firefighting course.
The basic firefighting training costs $553.38, on average, and lasts 16 hours.
In the affected population section, we estimate that 440 individuals would apply for an MMC endorsement as a mate (pilot) of towing vessels or master of towing vessels (limited) on inland waters or Western Rivers each year, and would be eligible to take the modified basic firefighting course in lieu of the basic firefighting course. Therefore, these applicants would save 4 hours of their time and the difference in costs between the basic firefighting tuition and the modified basic firefighting course tuition.
The Coast Guard estimates that these 440 applicants would be mariners who hold an MMC endorsement as apprentice mate (steersman), which is a position between ordinary seaman and mate. The BLS does not have a labor category for apprentice mate (steersman); however, the BLS
Applicants for MMC endorsements as mate (pilot) of towing vessels and master of towing vessel (limited) would also save the difference between the tuition for the less expensive, modified basic firefighting course and the basic firefighting course. If we use the tuition for the basic firefighting course, $553.38, as the cost of 16 hours of firefighting instruction, then 12 hours of instruction would be $415.04,
Because courses must be Coast Guard-approved before they can be offered to mariners, and developing a new course and obtaining approval from the Coast Guard can be a lengthy process, we assume that a modified firefighting course would not be available within the first year. We show the 10-year distribution of cost savings in table 9.
We have no data to quantify any change in benefits, other than cost savings, that might result from providing an option to mariners to take a firefighting course more closely tailored to the type of equipment they would find on the vessels they serve on.
In addition to our preferred alternative, discussed throughout the remainder of this regulatory analysis, we considered three additional alternatives:
(1) No action, or maintaining the requirement that masters and mate (pilots) of towing vessels be required to take a basic firefighting course. With this alternative, industry would not benefit from a shorter, modified basic firefighting course. Therefore, there would be no cost savings. We rejected the no-action alternative because it would not create cost savings for mariners seeking an endorsement for master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels on inland waters or Western Rivers.
(2) We also considered an alternative from a comment submitted during our request for feedback, discussed earlier in this NPRM. This commenter recommended that the Coast Guard eliminate the approved training requirement and rely instead on drills required by existing regulations to ensure mariner competence in firefighting. Proponents of this alternative are likely to argue that the absence of a training requirement could lead to cost savings from no longer traveling to, paying for or spending time in the training. However, the Coast Guard believes this alternative contains a number of serious drawbacks. First, as noted earlier in this NPRM, firefighting training ensures that mariners have basic firefighting skills that allow for the quick extinguishment of small fires that could otherwise spread and lead to property damage and personnel injury or death. Without the training, the Coast Guard cannot be sure that mariners would have the necessary skills to combat fires should they occur on vessels. Second, instructors in courses that are approved by the Coast Guard are required to have experience or training in effectively delivering course material. Third, the content of company managed training and drills would likely be much less intensive and exhaustive than what course providers will offer. Firefighting courses will include live fire exercises and practical experience identifying potential fire hazards and extinguishing live fires. As part of approved training, these types of activities take place in a controlled environment, allowing students to meet learning objectives while keeping them safe from the associated hazards. These practical exercises cannot be carried out on an operational vessel. While individuals no longer being required to take a firefighting course may view this as a benefit via cost savings, the Coast Guard views this as unacceptably decreasing the quality of firefighting skills and decreasing the safety of the inland waters and Western Rivers towing vessel fleet.
Taken together, these three features would lower the safety and preparedness of the inland waters and Western Rivers towing vessel fleet substantially. Therefore, the Coast Guard rejected this alternative.
(3) The third alternative we considered was permitting firefighting training specific to inland waters and Western Rivers towing vessels, but requiring the new training to have the same 16 hours of coursework and cover additional topics and situations common to inland waters and Western Rivers towing vessels not previously required by regulation. While the addition of topics for training could be beneficial, the Coast Guard has no data or feedback to support its impact on safety. Additionally, the Coast Guard believes course providers would have little incentive to undergo the expense of developing a firefighting course that would not provide cost savings to mariners.
Both courses would occur over 2 days. In the 16-hour course suggested by this alternative, the mariner would likely experience a cost savings from reduced tuition because there would be fewer equipment needs used for the training; however, we do not have a way to estimate the size of this reduction in fees. This reduction in fees would almost certainly be less than the reduction in fees for a 12-hour course instead of a 16-hour course, because the instructors would spend less time in class. Additionally, a 16-hour course would not result in the cost savings from the 4-hour reduced training duration, estimated at $92,381 annually. As a result, the Coast Guard rejected this alternative because it did not lead to the highest cost savings.
As documented above, there would be costs to course providers and the Coast Guard, and cost savings to mariners who would have the option to complete a modified basic firefighting course. Table 10 presents the net cost savings to industry and the Government over a 10-year period of analysis, in 2019 dollars. Net cost savings are expressed as negative numbers in the first year due to the absence of cost savings.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 people.
As described in section VI. A. of this preamble, Regulatory Planning and Review, there would be two affected populations: (1) Course providers who develop and submit a course to the Coast Guard for approval, and (2) applicants for mate (pilot) of towing vessels or master of towing vessels (limited) operating on inland waters or Western Rivers. Applicants are individuals and not entities; as such, the second affected population does not contain any small entities.
Of the 91 course providers approved to offer a basic firefighting course, the Coast Guard identified 35 course providers who might submit requests for course approval to teach a modified firefighting course.
• 13 are public agencies, none of which are classified as small entities;
• 4 are non-profit organizations, and all 4 are classified as small entities;
• 18 are private companies. Of these, 4 are not classified as small businesses, 8 are classified as small businesses, and 6 could not be classified because information could not be found on those 6 businesses. We classify those 6 businesses, where information could not be found, as small entities.
In total, we classified 18 of 35 entities as small entities. Table 11 lists the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and size standards used to determine whether or not entities are small and the numbers of small entities.
As shown in the Costs section of this Regulatory Analysis, we estimate that it takes either 6 hours to prepare and submit a course approval request for a modified basic firefighting course or 12 hours if the course approval request requires additional information and resubmission. A training and development specialist's time is valued at a burdened rate of $45.40, for a total cost of either $272.40, or $544.80.
Therefore, based on this analysis, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the docket at the address listed in the
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This proposed rule would call for a change to the existing information collection (OMB Control Number 1625-0028) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), “collection of information” comprises reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other similar actions. The title and description of the information collections, a description of those who must collect the information, and an estimate of the total annual burden
As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we will submit a copy of this proposed rule to OMB for its review of the collection of information. We ask for public comment on the proposed revised collection of information to help us determine, among other things—
• How useful the information is;
• Whether the information can help us perform our functions better;
• How we can improve the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information;
• Whether the information is readily available elsewhere;
• How accurate our estimate is of the burden of collection;
• How valid our methods are for determining the burden of collection; and
• How we can minimize the burden of collection.
If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit them to both to OMB and to the docket where indicated under
You need not respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the Coast Guard could enforce the collection of information requirements in this NPRM, OMB would need to approve the Coast Guard's request to collect this information.
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows.
It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 7101 (personnel qualifications of officers serving on board merchant vessels), and any other category in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's obligations, are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the States.
While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that State and local governments may have in making regulatory determinations. Additionally, for rules with federalism implications and preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs agencies to consult with State and local governments during the rulemaking
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 million (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Although this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights).
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, (Civil Justice Reform), to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks). This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev. 1,
This proposed rule would revise the existing merchant mariner credentialing training requirements for national endorsements as master and mate (pilot) for towing vessels. The proposed changes would apply to mariners working on towing vessels inspected under 46 CFR subchapter M when operating on inland waters or Western Rivers routes. Under the proposed rule, these mariners would only be required to receive training that is relevant to the firefighting equipment that is available on their vessels. This proposed change would promote marine safety by focusing attention on the resources actually available to affected mariners. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Seamen.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 46 CFR part 11 as follows:
14 U.S.C. 102(3); 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, and 2110; 46 U.S.C. chapter 71; 46 U.S.C. 7502, 7505, 7701, 8906, and 70105; Executive Order 10173; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Section 11.107 is also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(h) * * *
(1) Applicants for an original officer endorsement in the following categories must present a certificate of completion from a firefighting course of instruction relevant to the endorsement being sought that has been approved by the Coast Guard. The firefighting course must have been completed within the past 5 years, or if it was completed more than 5 years before the date of application, the applicant must provide evidence of maintaining the standard of competence in accordance with the firefighting requirements for the credential sought.
(2) * * *
(i) All national officer endorsements as master or mate on seagoing vessels of 200 GRT or more.
(3) * * *
(i) All officer endorsements as master on vessels of less than 500 GT in ocean service.
(ii) All officer endorsements for master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels for service on near-coastal waters, except apprentice mate (steersman) of towing vessels.
(iii) All officer endorsements for master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels for service on Great Lakes, except apprentice mate (steersman) of towing vessels.
(iv) All officer endorsements as master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels for service on inland waters or Western Rivers, except apprentice mate (steersman) of towing vessels.
(A) The Coast Guard will accept a Coast Guard approved modified basic firefighting course, which is the basic firefighting training described in paragraph (h)(3) of this section modified to only cover the equipment, fire prevention procedures, and firefighting operations required on towing vessels on inland waters or Western Rivers routes required in 46 CFR parts 140 and 142. A mariner who completes this modified basic firefighting course will be issued an endorsement that is restricted to inland waters or Western Rivers.
(B) To increase in scope to Great Lakes, near-coastal or oceans, the applicant will be required to complete the firefighting course appropriate to the route sought.
(l)
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Commission proposes to update its political programming and recordkeeping rules for broadcast licensees, cable television system operators, Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) service providers, and Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS) licensees. The Commission proposes to update its political programming rules by adding the use of social media and the creation of a campaign website to the existing list of activities that may be considered in determining whether an individual running as a write-in candidate has made a “substantial showing” of his or her bona fide candidacy. The Commission also proposes to update its political recordkeeping rules by incorporating provisions which were adopted in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
Comments are due on or before October 1, 2021; reply comments are due on or before October 18, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 21-293, by any of the following methods:
•
•
• Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
• Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19.
• During the time the Commission's building is closed to the general public and until further notice, if more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of a proceeding, paper filers need not submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number; an original and one copy are sufficient.
For additional information on this proceeding, contact Gary Schonman, Special Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, Media Bureau, Policy Division, Political Programming Staff, at
This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 21-91, adopted on August 3, 2021, and released on August 4, 2021. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying via ECFS at
In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we propose to update our political programming and recordkeeping rules for broadcast licensees, cable television system operators, Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) service providers, and Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS) licensees. While the agency has strived to update its guidance to reflect changes in law and campaign practices, it has not undertaken a formal review to
We propose two revisions to our political programming and recordkeeping rules.
In addition to the First Amendment protections afforded to material aired by Commission licensees and regulatees, political programming receives additional, special protections. Congress has recognized the great importance of political programming in the United States by passing laws to ensure that those who run for elective office have access to broadcast and other platforms so that they may inform citizens of their positions on critical issues of the day.
The Communications Act does not define the term “legally qualified candidate,” and therefore the Commission has adopted a definition, as reflected in § 73.1940.
In 2002, Congress enacted the BCRA, which amended section 315 of the Act.
A licensee shall maintain, and make available for public inspection, a complete record of a request to purchase broadcast time that—
(A) is made by or on behalf of a legally qualified candidate for public office; or
(B) communicates a message relating to any political matter of national importance, including—(i) a legally qualified candidate;
The BCRA, at section 315(e)(2) of the Act,
In order to update our rules to make them consistent with present-day campaign practices, we propose to amend §§ 73.1940(f) and 76.5(q) of the Commission's rules to add the use of social media and creation of a campaign website to the list of activities that a broadcast licensee or cable operator may consider in determining whether an individual who is running as a write-in candidate has made a “substantial showing” of his or her candidacy.
Only those individuals who have achieved the status of “legally qualified candidate” are entitled to avail themselves of the benefits and privileges bestowed by the political programming rules, including the reasonable access,
Questions as to whether an individual who is running as a write-in candidate has made a “substantial showing” ordinarily arise when such individual approaches a broadcast station or cable system and makes a request to purchase time in furtherance of his or her candidacy or seeks to avail himself or herself of equal opportunities.
At the time our current rules were drafted, social media and campaign websites did not exist. Media coverage of recent campaigns on the national, state, and local levels indicates that the use of social media has become an activity that bona fide candidates routinely use to solicit support, financial contributions, and votes.
In order that our rules reflect ordinary campaign practices, we propose to add the use of social media for the purpose of promoting or furthering a campaign for public office to the list of recognized campaign activities in §§ 73.1940(f) and 76.5(q). We seek comment on this proposal and the types of campaign-related activities for which social media could be used in demonstrating a substantial showing of a bona fide candidacy. For instance, a candidate might use social media to raise funds, solicit votes, share policy positions, and engage in digital dialogues with voters. We note that we are not proposing that social media presence alone would be sufficient to support a status of “legally qualified candidate” but that it would be an additional indicator of activities commonly associated with political campaigning needed to make substantial showing of a bona fide candidacy.
We also propose to add creation of a campaign website to the list of recognized campaign activities in §§ 73.1940(f) and 76.5(q). Recent articles indicate that campaign websites, like social media platforms, are used by candidates to connect to a wide audience of potential voters instantaneously and facilitate direct communication and fundraising.
Finally, we seek comment on whether other activities consistent with modern campaign practices, such as the use of digital marketing and advertising, should be added to the list of recognized campaign activities in §§ 73.1940(f) and 76.5(q). If additional activities are included, should the substantial showing analysis involve any limiting factors, such as requiring that the marketing and advertising be directed toward persons in areas where votes are being solicited?
We propose to revise the political file rules for broadcast licensees, cable operators, DBS providers, and SDARS licensees to bring them into conformity with the BCRA and section 315(e) of the Act.
Finally, we seek comment on the benefits and costs associated with adopting the proposed changes. In addition to any benefits to the public at large, are there also benefits to industry through clarification of the obligations on licensees and regulatees? We also seek comment on any potential costs that would be imposed on licensees and regulatees if we adopt the proposals contained in this NPRM. In this regard, we note that the proposed changes would largely conform our rules to the requirements of the statute. Comments should be accompanied by specific data and analysis supporting claimed costs and benefits.
With respect to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) under the RFA is contained in Appendix B. Written public comments are requested on the IFRA and must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, with a distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. In addition, a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the IRFA will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA and will be published in the
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
While the agency has strived to update its guidance to reflect changes in law and campaign practices, it has not undertaken a formal review to update the political programming and recordkeeping rules since 1991.
Sections 312(a)(7) and 315 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), set forth the political programming obligations of broadcast licensees and other Commission regulatees.
Section 73.1940 of the Commission's rules defines who is a “legally qualified candidate for public office.”
The political recordkeeping requirements serve to reinforce the statutory protections for political programming. The Commission first adopted rules requiring broadcast stations to maintain public inspection files documenting requests for political advertising time more than 80 years ago.
In 2002, Congress enacted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), which amended section 315 of the Act.
The BCRA also specified the records that must be maintained in political files. Specifically, section 315(e)(2) requires licensees to place in their political files information that includes whether the request to purchase broadcast time has been accepted or rejected, information about the advertisement(s), and information about the advertiser.
Section 315(e)(3) of the Act provides that “[t]he information required by [section 315(e)] shall be placed in a political file as soon as possible and shall be retained by the licensee for a period of not less than 2 years.”
The NPRM proposes to revise the definition of “legally qualified candidate for public office” to add the use of social media and creation of a campaign website to the existing list of activities that may be considered in determining whether an individual running as a write-in candidate has made a “substantial showing” of his or her bona fide candidacy.
The proposed action is authorized under sections 151, 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), 307, 312, 315,335, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), 307, 312, 315, 335, and 403.
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 rule revisions, if adopted.
Additionally, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,374.
The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial AM radio stations to be 4,546 and the number of commercial FM radio stations to be 6,682 for a total of 11,228 commercial stations.
We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as “small” under the above definition, business (control) affiliations
The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for 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 small entities.
The proposed revisions to the political file rules to implement the BCRA would largely codify existing Commission policy and guidance. Thus, we expect that these revisions, if adopted, would not impose significant new recordkeeping burdens on small entities. We also seek comment on possible modifications to the proposed revisions to the political file rules to lessen any burdens on small entities.
In addition, we anticipate that the proposal to add the use of social media to the list of activities that may be considered in determining whether an individual who is running as a write-in candidate has made a “substantial showing” of his or her candidacy would only benefit small entities by providing additional guidance on how to make such determinations.
None.
Accordingly,
Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.
Cable television, Education, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications
Cable television, internet, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 25, 73, and 76 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319, 332, 605, and 721, unless otherwise noted.
(d)
(i) Is made by or on behalf of a legally qualified candidate for public office; or
(ii) Communicates a message relating to any political matter of national importance, including:
(A) A legally qualified candidate;
(B) Any election to Federal office; or
(C) A national legislative issue of public importance.
(2)
(i) Whether the request to purchase broadcast time is accepted or rejected by the licensee;
(ii) The rate charged for the broadcast time;
(iii) The date and time on which the communication is aired;
(iv) The class of time that is purchased;
(v) The name of the candidate to which the communication refers and the office to which the candidate is seeking election, the election to which the communication refers, or the issue to which the communication refers (as applicable);
(vi) In the case of a request made by, or on behalf of, a candidate, the name of the candidate, the authorized committee of the candidate, and the treasurer of such committee; and
(vii) In the case of any other request, the name of the person purchasing the time, the name, address, and phone number of a contact person for such person, and a list of the chief executive officers or members of the executive committee or of the board of directors of such person.
(3) When free time is provided for use by or on behalf of candidates, a record of the free time provided shall be placed in the political file.
(4) All records required by this paragraph shall be placed in the online political file as soon as possible and shall be retained for a period of two years. As soon as possible means immediately absent unusual circumstances.
(b)
(i) Is made by or on behalf of a legally qualified candidate for public office; or
(ii) Communicates a message relating to any political matter of national importance, including:
(A) A legally qualified candidate;
(B) Any election to Federal office; or
(C) A national legislative issue of public importance.
(2)
(i) Whether the request to purchase broadcast time is accepted or rejected by the licensee;
(ii) The rate charged for the broadcast time;
(iii) The date and time on which the communication is aired;
(iv) The class of time that is purchased;
(v) The name of the candidate to which the communication refers and the office to which the candidate is seeking election, the election to which the communication refers, or the issue to which the communication refers (as applicable);
(vi) In the case of a request made by, or on behalf of, a candidate, the name of the candidate, the authorized committee of the candidate, and the treasurer of such committee; and
(vii) In the case of any other request, the name of the person purchasing the time, the name, address, and phone number of a contact person for such person, and a list of the chief executive officers or members of the executive committee or of the board of directors of such person.
(3) When free time is provided for use by or on behalf of candidates, a record of the free time provided shall be placed in the political file.
(4) All records required by this paragraph shall be placed in the online political file as soon as possible and shall be retained for a period of two years. As soon as possible means immediately absent unusual circumstances.
47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339.
(f) The term “substantial showing” of a bona fide candidacy as used in paragraphs (b), (d) and (e) of this section means evidence that the person claiming to be a candidate has:
(1) Satisfied the requirements under applicable law to run as a write-in (such as registering, collecting signatures, paying fees, etc.); and
(2) Has engaged to a substantial degree in activities commonly associated with political campaigning. Such activities normally would include making campaign speeches, distributing
(a) A licensee shall maintain, and make available for public inspection, a complete record of a request to purchase broadcast time that:
(1) Is made by or on behalf of a legally qualified candidate for public office; or
(2) Communicates a message relating to any political matter of national importance, including:
(i) A legally qualified candidate;
(ii) Any election to Federal office; or
(iii) A national legislative issue of public importance.
(b)
(1) Whether the request to purchase broadcast time is accepted or rejected by the licensee;
(2) The rate charged for the broadcast time;
(3) The date and time on which the communication is aired;
(4) The class of time that is purchased;
(5) The name of the candidate to which the communication refers and the office to which the candidate is seeking election, the election to which the communication refers, or the issue to which the communication refers (as applicable);
(6) In the case of a request made by, or on behalf of, a candidate, the name of the candidate, the authorized committee of the candidate, and the treasurer of such committee; and
(7) In the case of any other request, the name of the person purchasing the time, the name, address, and phone number of a contact person for such person, and a list of the chief executive officers or members of the executive committee or of the board of directors of such person.
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 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, 571, 572, 573.
(q) * * *
(5) The term “substantial showing” of a bona fide candidacy as used in paragraph (q) (2), (3), and (4) of this section means evidence that the person claiming to be a candidate has:
(i) Satisfied the requirements under applicable law to run as a write-in (such as registering, collecting signatures, paying fees, etc.); and
(ii) Has engaged to a substantial degree in activities commonly associated with political campaigning. Such activities normally would include making campaign speeches, distributing campaign literature, issuing press releases, maintaining a campaign committee, establishing campaign headquarters (even though the headquarters in some instances might be the residence of the candidate or his or her campaign manager), creating a campaign website, and using social media for the purpose of promoting or furthering a campaign for public office. Not all of the listed activities are necessarily required in each case to demonstrate a substantial showing, and there may be activities not listed herein which would contribute to such a showing.
(a) Every cable television system operator engaged in origination programming shall maintain, and make available for public inspection, a complete record of a request to purchase broadcast time that:
(1) Is made by or on behalf of a legally qualified candidate for public office; or
(2) Communicates a message relating to any political matter of national importance, including:
(i) A legally qualified candidate;
(ii) Any election to Federal office; or
(iii) A national legislative issue of public importance.
(b)
(1) Whether the request to purchase broadcast time is accepted or rejected by the licensee;
(2) The rate charged for the broadcast time;
(3) The date and time on which the communication is aired;
(4) The class of time that is purchased;
(5) The name of the candidate to which the communication refers and the office to which the candidate is seeking election, the election to which the communication refers, or the issue to which the communication refers (as applicable);
(6) In the case of a request made by, or on behalf of, a candidate, the name of the candidate, the authorized committee of the candidate, and the treasurer of such committee; and
(7) In the case of any other request, the name of the person purchasing the time, the name, address, and phone number of a contact person for such person, and a list of the chief executive officers or members of the executive committee or of the board of directors of such person.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission is extending the time to file comments and reply comments in this proceeding in order to afford interested parties sufficient time to prepare them.
Comments are due on or before September 27, 2021. Reply Comments are due on or before October 27, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 12-375, by any of the following methods:
•
•
• Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
• Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020).
Simon Solemani, Pricing Policy Division of the Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-2270 or via email at
This is a summary of the Commission's Order, DA 21-978, adopted and released on August 10, 2021. The full text of this document is available at:
1. By this Order, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission grants an extension of time for filing comments and reply comments on the
2. On May 24, 2021, the Commission released the
3. On August 3, 2021, Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. (TDI), supported by the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, HEARD, the Human Rights Defense Center, the National Association of the Deaf (NAD), Public Knowledge, the United Church of Christ, OC Inc., Voqal, and Worth Rises (collectively, Movants) filed a Motion for Extension of Time seeking 30-day extensions of the comment and reply deadlines. Movants explain that “the Commission's important and numerous inquiries in the
4. As set forth in 47 CFR 1.46, it is the policy of the Commission that extensions of time shall not be routinely granted. Nevertheless, the Bureau finds that Movants have shown good cause for an extension of the comment and reply comment deadlines and that the public interest will be served by extending the comment deadline to September 27, 2021 and, extending the reply comment deadline to October 27, 2021.
5. Under these circumstances, and in the interest of allowing all parties an opportunity to fully and meaningfully respond to the comments and expert reports filed in response to the
6. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority 47 CFR 0.291.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to remove the snail darter (
We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before November 1, 2021. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Daniel Elbert, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office, 446 Neal Street, Cookeville, TN 38506; telephone (931) 528-6481. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11, we may delist a species if the best available scientific and commercial data indicate that: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the species does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species when considering the five factors listed above; or (3) the listed entity does not meet the statutory definition of a species. Here, we have determined that the snail darter no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species under the Act and, therefore, it may be delisted due to recovery.
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Reasons we should or should not remove the snail darter from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
(2) Relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to the snail darter, particularly any data on the possible effects of climate change as it relates to habitat, as well as the extent of State protection and management that would be provided to this fish as a delisted species;
(3) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of the snail darter that may negatively impact or benefit the species; and
(4) Information about the type and extent of monitoring that should be implemented if the species were delisted.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or opposition to, the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
If you submit information via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
Because we will consider all substantive comments and information received during the comment period, our final determinations may differ from this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any comments on that new information), we may conclude that the species should remained listed as threatened, or we may conclude that the species should be reclassified from threatened to endangered.
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified in
On October 9, 1975, we published a final rule in the
For additional details on previous Federal actions, including recovery actions, see discussion under Recovery, below.
Below, we present a thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, and overall status of this fish, referencing data from the 2013 5-year review (Service 2013, entire) where appropriate.
The snail darter is a small fish in the perch family, Percidae, and darter subfamily, Etheostomatinae. The species was first discovered in 1973 (Starnes 1977, p. 1). At that time, and when listed in 1975, the snail darter was recognized as a new, undescribed species in the genus
No studies have been completed to determine the level of gene flow between populations or the amount of potential inbreeding within populations. Because snail darters are often found in the lower portions of tributaries, it is likely that tributary populations are part of larger mainstem metapopulations (Service 2013, p. 13). It is not clear to what level the mainstem populations are isolated by the large Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) dams and reservoirs.
The following description is modified from Etnier (1976, pp. 480-485) and Etnier and Starnes (1993, pp. 587-590). The snail darter is a small benthic (bottom-dwelling) fish that grows to 3.55 inches (in) (90 millimeters (mm)). The base color is brown or brownish grey with some green. The back has four clear black or dark brown saddle markings. These markings extend down the sides toward the series of blotches along the lateral line. A dark suborbital bar or “teardrop” marking is present below the eye. Fin rays are usually speckled, but pelvic and anal fins are sometimes clear. Males gain a blue-green sheen on the sides and belly during the breeding season when golden flecks become more pronounced on the cheeks and pectoral fins. Females also develop some gold coloring but are less bright than the males. Breeding tubercles (small bony protrusions) form on the rays of the elongated anal fin of males as well as the lower surfaces of rays of the pelvic fins, caudal (tail) fin, and branchiostegal (soft gill cover under head) rays.
The snail darter may occur with two other
The snail darter occurs in flowing sections of medium to large rivers. In these streams, snail darters are predominantly found over clean gravel without significant silt or plant coverage (Ashton and Layzer 2010, p. 615). Initially thought to require shallow, unimpounded portions of river to survive (Starnes 1977, pp. 21-23), snail darters were later found in the impounded but flowing upper sections of mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Hickman and Fitz 1978, p. 80). Snail darters were found in shoals at a depth of 1 to 3 feet (ft) (0.3 to 1 meters (m)) (Starnes 1977, pp. 21-33; Ashton and Layzer 2010, entire). Snail darters have also been found on gravel and cobble patches in up to 25 ft (7.6 m) of water with regular captures at 10 to 15 ft (3 to 5 m) deep (Ripley 1976, entire; Hickman and Fitz 1978, pp. 80-83; Matthews 2017, pers. comm.; Matthews 2019, pers. comm.). In addition to large river habitats, snail darters also occupy the lower reaches of larger creeks, and during the breeding season, large numbers of darters congregate on the gravel shoals in these creeks to spawn (Starnes 1977, p. 64). Detailed descriptions of snail darter habitat can be found in Ashton and Layzer (2010, entire) and Starnes (1977, pp. 21-33).
The life history data presented here are modified from Etnier and Starnes (1993, p. 588), with additions from
When we listed the snail darter (40 FR 47505; October 9, 1975), the species was only known from about 13 miles (21 kilometers (km)) of the lower Little Tennessee River in Loudoun County, Tennessee. Shortly thereafter, the species was found in the Watts Bar Reservoir portion of the Tennessee River below the mouth of the Little Tennessee River, and efforts were made to conserve the species by translocating individuals into other suitable streams (Hickman and Fitz 1977, pp. 80-83). Snail darters were collected from the Little Tennessee River and stocked into the Hiwassee, Holston, Nolichucky, and Elk Rivers beginning in 1975 to achieve this objective. The introductions into the Nolichucky and Elk Rivers were halted when sharphead darters (
After the completion of Tellico Dam on the Little Tennessee River, snail darters were located in five additional tributaries and three reservoirs: Little River (1983), Big Sewee Creek (1981), Chickamauga Reservoir (1976), Nickajack Reservoir (1981), South Chickamauga Creek (Tennessee and Georgia portions) (1980), Guntersville Reservoir (Tennessee portion) (1981), Sequatchie River (1981), and Paint Rock River (Alabama portion) (1981) (Service 1983, pp. 12-19; Service 2013, p. 7). A survey in 2005 located the species in seven of the nine tributaries surveyed: French Broad River, Hiwassee River, Holston River, Little River, Sequatchie River, Big Sewee Creek, and South Chickamauga Creek (Ashton and Layzer 2008, p. 54). This survey appears to be the last known record of snail darters in Big Sewee Creek (Simmons 2019, unpublished data). In this survey, snail darters were not located in the Paint Rock River or Ocoee River, though they were discovered at both locations in later years (Kuhajda 2018, unpublished data). In 2007, a single snail darter was collected in Citico Creek, suggesting that snail darters may have persisted in the Little Tennessee River watershed after the dam was constructed; however, they were not found in follow-up surveys (Service 2013, p. 7).
More recent survey efforts have continued to document new snail darter locations, though with limited information on persistence. In 2012, two snail darters were collected in the Flint River in Alabama (Simmons 2019, p. 1), but they have not been found there since. In 2015, snail darters were collected in the Elk River in Alabama and in Bear Creek in Alabama and Mississippi, over 100 river miles (160 km) from the Flint River location. To verify these collections, TVA began an effort to survey the mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs for snail darters (Simmons 2019, p. 2), collecting snail darters from six reservoirs in Tennessee and Alabama: Chickamauga, Nickajack, Guntersville, Wheeler, Pickwick, and the French Broad River arm of Fort Loudoun Reservoir (Simmons 2019, p. 7; TVA unpublished data). Later surveys of the reservoirs located juvenile snail darters in Watts Bar Reservoir (Matthews 2020, pers. comm.), but trawling efforts did not locate individuals in Tellico, Wilson, and Kentucky Reservoirs (Simmons 2019, p. 6).
In 2017 and 2018, an environmental DNA survey was conducted for snail darters in the Alabama portion of the Tennessee River Basin (Shollenberger 2019, p. 6). Environmental DNA (eDNA) is a surveillance tool used to monitor for the genetic presence of an aquatic species. These surveys returned positive eDNA detections in the following streams and reservoirs where TVA surveys had physically collected snail darters during previous survey efforts: Guntersville Reservoir, Wheeler Reservoir, Paint Rock River, Elk River, Pickwick Reservoir, and Bear Creek. The eDNA surveys returned negative results at locations where snail darters had not been collected recently, such as Wilson Reservoir and the Flint River, although an eDNA detection was found and then validated in 2020 in Shoal Creek, a tributary to Wilson Reservoir (Johnson 2020, p. 2).
In summary, the snail darter's known range has greatly expanded since it was first discovered (see Fig. 1). At the time of listing in 1975, the species was only known from a small reach of the Little Tennessee River. By the early 1980s, new populations had been found or established in 10 widely dispersed locations, and in 1984, we reclassified the snail darter from an endangered to a threatened species (49 FR 27510; July 5, 1984), due largely to an increased number of populations and a considerable range expansion. Since 2010, populations in an additional two reservoirs and three tributaries have been discovered (Simmons 2019, pp. 1-2). As a result, snail darters are now considered extant in seven mainstem reservoirs of the Tennessee River (Fort Loudoun, Watts Bar, Chickamauga, Nickajack, Guntersville, Wheeler, and Pickwick) and 12 tributaries in the Tennessee River watershed (Holston River, French Broad River, Little River, Hiwassee River, Ocoee River, South Chickamauga Creek, Sequatchie River, Paint Rock River, Flint River (two individuals), Elk River, Shoal Creek (one individual), and Bear Creek). We consider the snail darter extirpated from the Little Tennessee River mainstem, Citico Creek, and Sewee Creek, and never established in the Nolichucky River.
There is not currently enough information available to determine population size for the snail darter. Few targeted surveys have been conducted for snail darters since the species was downlisted to threatened in 1984. Stream community monitoring is conducted by TVA throughout the Tennessee River basin using an index of biotic integrity (IBI) approach. The IBI uses fish community metrics, such as percent insectivore, to develop a score of stream health. These surveys are targeting a representative sample of the overall fish assemblage rather than individual species, so are not designed to provide population size information on rare species, but are useful for determining species persistence at a site. Occasional encounters by IBI monitoring crews provide information in the intervening years, but many of these surveys took place in wadeable portions of streams, missing the deeper water habitats often used by the species. Where snail darters are common near IBI sites, surveyors intentionally avoid their habitat to reduce the probability of injury, which can result in artificially reduced numbers of the species in samples. The wide variety of methods used during previous survey efforts also makes comparing populations difficult. Records from snorkel surveys targeted at other species only note incidental sightings of snail darters, not density, and the TVA trawls have mostly been carried out to determine the species' presence and range (Simmons 2019, p. 1). However, it is likely that reproducing populations of the species exist in at least 16 locations (6 reservoirs and 10 tributaries) based on repeated collections that have been made at those locations, evidence of multiple age classes at those locations (
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not promote the conservation of the species. Recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include “objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination, in accordance with the provisions [of section 4 of the Act], that the species be removed from the list.”
Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species, or to delist a species is ultimately based on an analysis of the best scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and recovery may be achieved without all of the criteria in a recovery plan being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently and that the species is robust enough that it no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. In other cases, we may discover new recovery opportunities after having finalized the recovery plan. Parties seeking to conserve the species may use these opportunities instead of methods identified in the recovery plan. Likewise, we may learn new information about the species after we finalize the recovery plan. The new information may change the extent to which existing criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of the species. The recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring adaptive management that may, or may not, follow all of the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
The snail darter recovery plan (Service 1983, entire) included recovery criteria to indicate when threats to the species have been adequately addressed and prescribed actions that were thought to be necessary for achieving those criteria. Below, we discuss our analysis of available data and our determination as to whether recovery criteria for the snail darter have been achieved.
The objective of the recovery plan is to protect and recover the snail darter to the point where it can be removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The recovery plan states that the species “shall be considered recovered when one of the alternatives (A, B, or C) listed below is met and no present or foreseeable threats exist that could cause the species to become in danger of extinction” (Service 1983, p. 27).
•
•
•
Alternative A of the recovery criteria requires that snail darters be present in suitable habitats within reservoirs from Wheeler Reservoir upstream to Watts Bar Reservoir and evidence of reproduction within reservoirs independent of tributaries in at least one reservoir. We conclude that Alternative A has been met based on collection of seven permanent mainstem populations (Pickwick, Wheeler, Guntersville, Nickajack, Chickamauga, Watts Bar, and Fort Loudoun reservoirs) and evidence of reproduction independent of tributaries in Chickamauga, Nickajack, and Wheeler reservoirs (see Tables 1 and 2 in Summary of Biological Status, below, and Figure 1 in Background, above). These populations represent
Our assessment of the tributary populations of snail darters supports the determination that Alternative B has also been met. Alternative B of the recovery criteria requires the discovery or establishment of at least two new tributary populations similar to the Big Sewee Creek, South Chickamauga Creek, or Sequatchie River populations or one comparable to the Hiwassee River population. In our analysis, we determined that 10 tributary populations are extant that have a moderate or high resilience (see Table 1, below). Four of these (French Broad River, Ocoee River, Elk River, and Bear Creek) have been found or established since the recovery plan was finalized. The largest new population occurs in the lower French Broad River. The founders of this population were likely migrants or juveniles from the stocked population in the Holston (Service 2013, p. 14). Snail darters have been collected across at least 21.8 miles (35.1 km) of the French Broad River and across 19 miles (30.5 km) of the Hiwassee River (Ashton and Layzer 2008, pp. 54-55; Kuhajda 2018, supplementary data; TVA, unpublished data). Therefore, the requirement to discover or establish a population comparable to the Hiwassee River population has been met.
Additionally, Alternative B gives the option of two tributary populations comparable to Big Sewee Creek, South Chickamauga Creek, and Sequatchie River. The current populations in the Ocoee River and Bear Creek are comparable to the Big Sewee Creek, South Chickamauga Creek, and Sequatchie River populations at the time the recovery plan was finalized based on captures and occupied stream length.
Since 2011, snail darters have been found consistently in the Ocoee River by TVA IBI crews, appearing in every biannual sample since 2015. Snail darters have been collected across 5.9 miles (9.5 km) of the Ocoee River, and collections of snail darters in the Hiwassee River near the mouth of the Ocoee suggests that they may occupy more of the river.
Snail darters have only been collected as individuals or pairs, but the lower portion of Bear Creek is in the Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic region, so preferred habitat is more limited than in other streams. Individuals have been collected across 5.8 miles (9.3 km) of Bear Creek, but trawling collections near the mouth of Bear Creek and eDNA detections in the lower parts of the Bear Creek system and at its mouth suggest that snail darters may occur in an additional 25 miles (40 km) of the creek (Simmons 2019, supplementary data; Shollenberger 2019, pp. 14-16).
Since 2015, snail darters have been collected in 1.4 miles (2.3 km) of the Elk River in Tennessee. Snail darters may also occur in the Alabama portion of the Elk River over more than 20 river miles of free-flowing stream down to the portion of the river inundated by Wheeler Reservoir (Simmons 2019, supplementary data; Shollenberger 2019, pp. 14-16).
In summary, our assessment of the tributary populations of the snail darter supports the determination that Alternative B has been met based on the establishment of the French Broad River population that is comparable to the Hiwassee population. Additionally, the Ocoee River, Bear Creek, and Elk River populations are comparable to the Big Sewee Creek historical population, which was found across 4.2 miles of stream, exceeding the prescription in Alternative B for at least one additional large population or two additional small populations.
Alternative C has been partially met. This alternative of the recovery criteria calls for the maintenance of viable populations in five separate streams. The definition for viable populations in the 1983 recovery plan requires biannual monitoring over a 10-year period with enough data to demonstrate a stable or increasing population size and evidence of reproduction indicated by the presence of at least two year classes present in each year sampled. We do not have sufficient specific monitoring data to meet this definition since most of our collections come from TVA IBI surveys that are not species-specific. However, our analysis of the tributary populations found 10 populations that were considered at least moderately resilient (see Table 1 in Summary of Biological Status, below). Of these, nine met the requirement of Alternative C that at least two year classes be present. The discovery of populations in Bear Creek, Elk River, Wheeler Reservoir, and Pickwick Reservoir since 2009 shows evidence of either species expansion, or growth of existing populations to the level of detection (see Table 2 in Summary of Biological Status, below). The presence of resilient populations in 10 tributaries and 7 mainstem reservoirs across four physiographic regions provides evidence of high redundancy and representation for the species (see further explanation of these terms in Analytical Framework, below).
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species. The Act defines an endangered species as a species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,” and a threatened species as a species that is “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The Act requires that we determine whether any species is an “endangered species” or a “threatened species” because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term “threat” to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively affect individuals of a species. The term “threat” includes actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term “threat” may encompass—either together or separately—the source of the action or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species.” In determining whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all identified threats by considering the species' expected response and the
The Act does not define the term “foreseeable future,” which appears in the statutory definition of “threatened species.” Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term foreseeable future extends only so far into the future as the Services can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions. “Reliable” does not mean “certain”; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the species' biological response include species-specific factors such as lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and other demographic factors.
To assess species viability, we use the three conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310).
Briefly, resiliency supports the ability of the species to withstand environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold years), redundancy supports the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events), and representation supports the ability of the species to adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example, climate change). In general, the more resilient and redundant a species is and the more representation it has, the more likely it is to sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental conditions. Using these principles, we identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels and described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
As explained above in
We used IBI scores to address stream community health where possible for tributary populations. Measuring the overall fish community is a way to investigate habitat quality, water quality, and ecosystem stability by proxy of the fish that live in the stream. The IBI incorporates 12 metrics to measure fish community health based on the number of species or proportion of individuals in different guilds (group of species with similar life history) compared to what is expected in a reference condition stream. These metrics are adjusted based on stream size and physiographic region in order to be relevant to the differences in natural conditions across the Tennessee River Basin. Each metric is assigned a value matching a ranking of good (5), fair (3), or poor (1). The 12 metrics are then summed for each, yielding an overall rating of the stream community health. An IBI score of 12 to 22 equates to a very poor rating, 28 to 34 to a poor rating, 40 to 44 to a fair rating, 48 to 52 to a good rating, and 58 to 60 to an excellent rating. Scores between these ranges received intermediate ratings (TVA 2005, entire). To determine potential IBI trends, we compared overall IBI scores for sites within the range of snail darters in each tributary from 2009 to 2019. Roughly half of the tributaries (French Broad River, Little
We combined the population metrics to give a population score (low, medium, or high), and the habitat metrics combined to form a composite habitat score (low, medium, or high). These scores are compiled in Table 1, below. The population and habitat scores were averaged to provide the overall resilience score. Tributaries with multiple collections (of several fish each collection) and multiple age classes over the 12-year period were ranked high; conversely, those with only one collection and no evidence of reproduction were considered not established. Age classes were assigned by body length, based on life-history studies (Starnes 1977, pp. 47-63; Hickman and Fitz 1978, pp. 10-19). Sites with multiple collections but only one age class were ranked low. Tributaries with good or better IBI scores that were stable or improving were then ranked high, and tributaries with fair IBI scores with stable or improving conditions were ranked moderate. Overall resilience was calculated by averaging the column scores. Where snail darters had been extirpated or not established, IBI scores were not incorporated. While the habitat in Little River is very good, we found that the low numbers (three or fewer individuals in any single observation) of snail darters captured and the lack of multiple age classes did not warrant categorizing the Little River population as moderate or high. Our results of the tributary resiliency analysis are summarized in Table 1.
For the purpose of evaluating the snail darter's status, we considered those tributaries that ranked moderate or high as contributing to resiliency. Because of the limited amount of reservoir sampling that has been completed, we considered those reservoir populations that had evidence of reproduction present as permanent, independent populations (Simmons 2019, p. 2) that contribute to resiliency. We, therefore, considered 7 reservoir populations (Fort Loudoun, Watts Bar, Chickamauga, Nickajack, Guntersville, Wheeler, and Pickwick) and 10 tributary populations (Holston, French Broad, Little, Hiwassee, Ocoee, Sequatchie, Paint Rock, and Elk Rivers, and South Chickamauga and Bear Creeks) as contributing to species resiliency. We did not count Wilson Reservoir or Kentucky Reservoir toward resiliency because snail darters had never been collected there despite trawling efforts. While Watts Bar is only represented by three juveniles, their collection far from any large tributaries is evidence of reproduction within the reservoir. We did not consider Citico Creek, Big Sewee Creek, Flint River, or Shoal Creek as contributing toward resiliency either, because the species had not been collected there within the analysis period, despite multiple efforts (Big Sewee Creek, Citico Creek) or because a single snail darter had been found on only one occasion (Shoal Creek, Flint River) and we considered the populations to be not established in those locations (see Table 1, above).
With discoveries of new tributary and reservoir populations, the known redundancy and representation of the snail darter has expanded during the analysis period. When we listed the species (40 FR 47505; October 9, 1975), it had very low redundancy and representation because only one population was known from several miles of the Little Tennessee River, in the Ridge and Valley physiographic region. Currently, the species is known across more than 400 miles (640 km) of the Tennessee River Valley, with moderately to highly resilient populations in 9 tributaries and 7 reservoirs, providing a level of redundancy that helps shield the species from localized stochastic events.
While we do not have population genetic data for the snail darter, we can look at the species' ability to adapt to changes in the environment (representation) by looking at its distribution across a range of habitats and physiographic regions. Resilient populations are currently known from streams ranging in size from mid-sized creeks to the large Tennessee River itself, with collections in depths ranging from less than 3 ft (1 m) to 25 ft (7.6 m). These populations occur in reservoirs and tributaries with these conditions in four different physiographic regions (Ridge and Valley, Cumberland Plateau, Highland Rim, and Gulf Coastal Plain). This wide range of habitat use and geographic distribution helps to demonstrate the snail darter's adaptability to changing environmental pressures (representation).
A recovered species is one that no longer meets the Act's definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. Determining whether the status of a species has improved to the point that it can be delisted or downlisted requires consideration of the same five factors identified above for listing a species. When we initially listed the snail darter as endangered in 1975, the only identified threat influencing its status was the modification and loss of habitat and curtailment of range (Factor A) caused by the completion of Tellico Dam and the flooding of the entire known range of the species. When we reclassified the species as threatened in 1984, we evaluated a more complete list of factors based on improved knowledge of the snail darter's range and life history. These factors included threats to habitat such as shipping activities in the mainstem Tennessee River, impacts from development in some of the tributaries such as South Chickamauga Creek, threats from agricultural runoff and channelization in streams like the Elk River, impacts from coal mining in the Sequatchie River watershed, and chemical spills in the Hiwassee and Ocoee watersheds (Factor A); excessive collection associated with the notoriety of the species (Factor B); and protections afforded the species by State and Federal laws (Factor D). The following analysis evaluates these previously identified threats, any other threats currently facing the species that we have identified, as well as any other threats that are reasonably likely to affect the species in the foreseeable future.
To establish the foreseeable future for the purpose of evaluating trends in the threats and the species' responses, we analyzed trends from historical data on distribution and abundance, ongoing conservation efforts, factors currently affecting the species, and predictions of future climate change. When combined with our knowledge of factors affecting the species (see discussion below), available data allow us to reasonably predict future conditions, albeit with diminishing precision over time. Given our understanding of the best available data, for the purposes of this proposed rule, we consider the foreseeable future for the snail darter to be approximately 30 years. We determined that we can reasonably predict the threats to the species and the species' response during this timeframe based on climate vulnerability assessments through 2050, the planning horizon of the reservoir release improvement program (RRIP), and enough time for the species to respond based on biology and lifespan.
As noted above, when the species was downlisted (49 FR 27510; July 5, 1984), the reclassification rule identified additional threats to habitat in the additional populations established or discovered since listing (40 FR 47505; October 9, 1975). These included threats from shipping activities in the mainstem Tennessee River, impacts from development in some of the tributaries such as South Chickamauga Creek, threats from agricultural runoff and channelization in streams like the Elk River, impacts from coal mining in the Sequatchie River watershed, and
One of the biggest factors still affecting the snail darter is the impoundment of large portions of the Tennessee River Valley. The TVA operates 9 dams on the mainstem Tennessee River and 38 dams on tributaries to the Tennessee River. These impoundments create large areas of deep, still water that do not meet the habitat needs of the snail darter. Snail darters are limited in the depth they can occupy by the presence of food resources. Snails, the darter's preferred prey, live only in water shallow enough for light to penetrate and allow algae to grow on the substrate, about 15-20 ft (5-7 m) in much of the Tennessee mainstem. Impoundment also reduces stream flow and allows fine sediments to settle out, which can cover the clean gravel habitats needed by snail darters. Additionally, these dams were initially operated with a hydropeaking strategy, only releasing water when needed to generate electricity or maintain reservoir level or flood storage capacity. In addition, many of these releases came from the water levels within the reservoir that held cold, oxygen-deficient water. Collectively, these factors created conditions in the tailwaters that negatively affected water quality, food availability, and fish diversity.
Given the long operational lifespan of dams (>100 years), it is nearly certain that the TVA reservoirs will be in place for the foreseeable future. However, beginning in 1981, TVA began studies to improve conditions in the tailwaters of their dams. The cold, oxygen-deficient water released from the bottom of many of the dams created conditions that eliminated many fish and mussel species from these areas. Through the RRIP, TVA began implementing strategies to increase minimum flow, dissolved oxygen, and, in some cases, temperature, in the tailwaters of their dams beginning in 1991 (Bednarek and Hart 2005, p. 997). In 2002, TVA conducted a reservoir operation study to consider how to implement these changes across the basin to improve the health of the river (TVA 2004, p. ES-3). The result was to manage the river based on minimum flows instead of reservoir level and improve tailwater conditions. These changes have resulted in significant improvements in biological and abiotic variables and increases in fish and invertebrate diversity in many TVA dam tailwaters (Layzer and Scott 2006, entire; Bednarek and Hart 2005, entire; Scott et al. 1996, entire). These improvements have likely resulted in improved conditions for the snail darter and may have contributed to improvements to the species' status within tailwaters since the 1990s, across more than 400 miles (640 km) of the mainstem of the Tennessee River. Since the RRIP is based on ecologically meaningful parameters in the tailwaters, such as dissolved oxygen and temperature, this program may be able to provide some resiliency to a warming climate and precipitation variability in the future, especially if TVA adjusts the program to maintain the needed conditions in the tailwaters. The reservoir operation study is planned along an approximately 25-year timeline, extending to 2030 (TVA 2004, p. ES-4). However, given the presence of at least 10 other listed aquatic species in the tailwaters of the mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs and the complexities of changing the operations plan, it is very likely that TVA will continue RRIP as part of their compliance with the Act for these other species beyond the timeline of the environmental impact statement (EIS) and biological opinion that were prepared under Section 7 of the Act before alterations were made to dam release management. For these same reasons, TVA will likely incorporate RRIP to protect federally listed mussels present when it revisits its EIS around 2030, and because the current EIS's term is 25 years, it is reasonable to assume TVA will issue another 25-year EIS. Therefore, we estimate these conditions benefiting the snail darter will continue through at least midcentury (Baxter 2020, pers. comm.). Overall, the persistence and expansion of snail darter populations in the mainstem since the 1970s indicate greater resiliency in these habitats than was considered at the time of listing, particularly now with the implementation of TVA's RRIP.
Anthropogenic changes to the land can also negatively impact the snail darter and its habitats. Sedimentation is one of the biggest threats to water quality in the Tennessee River Valley, including in streams occupied by snail darters. Big Sewee Creek has been impacted by sedimentation from persistent farming in the watershed, reducing the amount and quality of gravel habitat in the stream. The predominant agricultural activities contributing to sedimentation in Big Sewee Creek (livestock pasture and row crops) are exempt from many State and Federal regulations designed to reduce sediment runoff, and these activities are likely to continue into the future. Therefore, we do not expect this population to reestablish unless habitat conditions improve in the future. Sedimentation from agriculture and development is also considered a concern in the lower Little Tennessee River, Sequatchie River, South Chickamauga Creek, and Paint Rock River watersheds. There have been watershed-level efforts to address sedimentation issues in some of the tributaries where snail darters have been found. The South Chickamauga Creek Land Treatment Watershed Project, an effort of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), began in 2001, to reduce the runoff of sediment and nutrients in the watershed by installing animal waste management systems (see 65 FR 44519; July 18, 2000). Additionally, the Limestone Valley Resource Conservation and Development Council is working with a wide variety of partners to implement the South Chickamauga Creek Headwaters Management Plan, developed in 2012, to address water quality issues (Smith and Huser 2012, pp. i-3). In the Paint Rock River, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has designated a “landscape conservation area” and worked to address sedimentation issues from agriculture throughout the watershed, resulting in improved conditions for aquatic fauna (Throneberry 2019, unpublished data). Many of these efforts include restoring natural stream channel characteristics where streams have been channelized. These efforts have been undertaken outside of species-specific recovery efforts for the snail darter, and they are likely to continue regardless of the delisting of the species. Other small-scale efforts have been undertaken to reduce sedimentation in many of the other tributaries inhabited by snail darters. It is likely that sedimentation has resulted in the extirpation of snail darters from Big Sewee Creek, but there is some potential for recolonization by individuals from Chickamauga Reservoir if habitat conditions improve.
Urban and suburban development may impact the snail darter as well. Increases in the amount of impervious surfaces associated with development increase runoff to streams, destabilize hydrology, and increase water temperature. Additionally, residential and commercial development are associated with increased runoff of lawn and automotive chemicals into the streams (Matthaei and Lang 2016, p. 180; Walsh et al. 2005, p. 707). The snail darter tributaries currently most impacted by development and the chemical and sediment runoff associated with it are South
Additionally, the Thrive Regional Partnership is a group working to promote responsible growth in a 16-county region in the Greater Chattanooga area. The partnership's goal is to improve communities while maintaining healthy ecosystems. Thrive has identified portions of streams and surrounding land that are key to preserving and enhancing water quality in the region of interest, with the goals of conserving 50 percent of unprotected forest and improving water quality in at least 50 percent of polluted streams by 2055. The area covered by this initiative includes portions of the Big Sewee Creek, South Chickamauga Creek, Sequatchie River, and Paint Rock River watersheds (Thrive Regional Partnership 2019, entire).
The threat of chemical and industrial spills was raised as a potential threat in the downlisting rule (49 FR 27510; July 5, 1984). The range of the snail darter is crossed by several major highways and railroad lines, making the possibility of a spill during transport an ongoing risk. Such spills have occurred as recently as 1991 in the Hiwassee River, but while spills may have severe impacts locally, they are unlikely to affect the species as a whole given its wide range in the mainstem of the Tennessee River and several tributaries (Service 2013, p. 18). Furthermore, the Ocoee River has suffered from industrial and mine runoff from the historical copper extraction in the watershed. Within the Ocoee River watershed, concerted efforts have been made to clean up industrial and mine-related pollution, resulting in much improved water quality and a healthier ecosystem, which may have contributed to the increased numbers of snail darters seen in that river since the Service's 2013 5-year review (Service 2013, p. 12; Simmons 2019, unpublished data).
The threat to snail darters from coal mining in the Sequatchie Valley has been greatly reduced since the recovery plan was completed. Mining for coal in the Sequatchie Valley ceased in the 1990s, and since that time, there have been efforts to remediate acid mine drainage in the area. Currently, there are no active coal mining permits in the Sequatchie Valley (OSMRE 2016, p. 34; ITRC 2010, entire).
The Tennessee River is a major inland shipping corridor, and in the downlisting rule (49 FR 27510; July 5, 1984), activities associated with barge traffic were considered to potentially threaten snail darters through habitat alterations in the mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. Barge and large boat wakes can result in significant bank erosion along the river. Within the mainstem reservoirs, bank stabilization efforts have occurred in some significantly impacted areas and have reduced sedimentation at those locations, but there is no concerted plan to address this source of sediment across the Tennessee River basin. However, there is some evidence that areas of consistent traffic, such as barge mooring cells, may provide areas of silt-free habitat swept clean by tug engines (Matthews 2017, pers. comm.; Walker and Alford 2016, p. 1101).
In summary, while effects to snail darter habitat (Factor A) associated with continued urbanization and agriculture are certain to persist into the foreseeable future, efforts are being made to reduce the impact to many of the tributaries inhabited by snail darters. Additionally, snail darters appear to be resilient to urbanization and agriculture, including practices such as channelization, in certain tributaries such as South Chickamauga Creek and Sequatchie River. In the Sequatchie River, the threat from coal mining is reduced with the cessation of mining in the valley and ongoing reclamation efforts. The mainstem populations are less susceptible to sedimentation and runoff associated with agriculture and urbanization due to the buffering capacity of the larger river, but they still may be affected by bank erosion and industrial transport along the Tennessee River. However, population persistence and the apparent expansion in the mainstem since the 1970s demonstrate the resiliency of the snail darter within these habitats, especially with the implementation of TVA's RRIP.
At the time of the downlisting rule (49 FR 27510; July 5, 1984), the Service projected that the notoriety of the snail darter could result in an increase in illegal collection (Factor B); however, no such activities have been observed or documented since that rule was published. Snail darters receive some protection against collection from the States. The species is listed as threatened in Tennessee, endangered in Georgia, and protected as a non-game species in Alabama and Mississippi. These protections require State permits for the collection of the species.
The snail darter's habitat is also protected by State water quality laws that require the use of best management practices, such as leaving a riparian buffer, when clearing or building near a stream (Factor D). In Tennessee, any waterway with a State-listed species is designated an “Exceptional Tennessee Waterway,” and projects impacting these streams are required to undergo additional review before receiving the necessary State permits. While agriculture is typically exempt from many of the provisions in State laws, various efforts described above, such as those in the Paint Rock River and South Chickamauga Creek, are working to reduce the impact of sedimentation from agriculture on the snail darter. Additionally, the snail darter's range overlaps with the ranges of more than 10 federally endangered mussels. This provides some protection, as entities implementing projects with a Federal nexus, such as infrastructure repair and construction and dam operation, are required to consult with the Service to reduce the impacts to listed species and designated critical habitat. These consultations may result in changes to the project to reduce sedimentation or limit the time of year when construction can take place to reduce disruption to the life history of a species. The protection, restoration, conservation, and management of ecological resources within the snail darter's range have been broadly enhanced through Executive Orders and Federal regulations since the species was listed. These include provisions emphasizing the protection and restoration of ecosystem function and quality in compliance with existing Federal environmental statutes and regulations (
Protections associated with the CWA and State wildlife laws will continue to provide some protection to the snail darter. The fear that the species' notoriety would result in increased collection or other forms of take has not been realized since we reclassified the species to threatened, and collection is unlikely to have a major impact on species resilience in the foreseeable future. Additionally, even if range States were to cease protecting the snail darter, its wide range and current redundancy should minimize its risk of extinction for the foreseeable future.
In addition to the threats mentioned in the downlisting rule (49 FR 27510; July 5, 1984) that are addressed above, we now consider other threats or stressors that reasonably could affect the snail darter in the foreseeable future. One such potential threat is climate change. In the southeastern United States, clear trends in climate predictions are limited. However, annual temperatures are projected to increase, cold days will become less frequent, the freeze-free season will lengthen by up to a month, temperatures exceeding 95 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (35 degrees Celsius (°C)) will increase, heat waves will become longer, and the number of category 5 hurricanes will increase (Ingram et al. 2013, p. 32). Variability in weather is predicted to increase, resulting in more frequent and more extreme dry years and wet years over the next century, but a directional shift in overall precipitation is not anticipated in the Tennessee River Valley (Mulholland et al. 1997, pp. 951-955; Ingram et al. 2013, pp. 15, 35).
There is some evidence that the increased variability may already be taking effect. 2018 and 2019 were the two wettest years on record for the Tennessee River Valley (Simmons 2020, unpublished data). During the late summer and early fall of 2019, the second wettest year overall, parts of the Valley temporarily experienced abnormally dry or drought conditions (USDA Drought Monitor for Tennessee River Valley, October 1, 2019).
Increased rainfall will result in increased runoff, higher river levels, and longer periods of spilling from the top of dams by TVA. During periods of spilling at dams, there is the chance for more oxygenation of tailwaters and temperature mixing that could benefit the snail darter. However, increased rainfall, especially extreme events, would increase runoff of sediment and pollutants into tributaries and eventually into the mainstem. These inputs could potentially degrade spawning and foraging habitat for the snail darter. Increased flows during the spawning season could also increase the distance that the pelagic larvae of snail darters drift before becoming benthic. If the larvae found suitable habitat, increased flow could expand the range of the species and contribute to genetic mixing; however, there is also the chance that larvae could be pushed into unsuitable habitat, which would result in reduced survival. Drought would most likely impact the shallower habitats inhabited by snail darters in tributaries. The area of shoal habitat available during periods of low flow could be reduced during a drought. The flows could be further reduced by water extraction for irrigation. These reductions of spawning habitat could result in lower spawning success. If discharge is reduced enough, the clean-swept gravel habitats that the snail darter relies on in the mainstem could begin to retain silt, reducing habitat quality.
There is evidence that the habitat and life history of the snail darter will protect it from predicted changes in climate over the next 30 years. In a 2017 climate change vulnerability assessment of 700 species, the Appalachian Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC) ranked the snail darter as “presumed stable” through 2050 under predicted climate conditions (Appalachian LCC 2017, supplemental data). Being adapted to large river habitats, the snail darter is less susceptible to impacts from high-flow events. As much of its habitat in the mainstem is already impounded, the effects of high water are less meaningful, and TVA flood control efforts may offset some of the strong flow peaks associated with extreme rain events. The species' preference for deeper water habitats and late winter spawning period protects it from drought. Deep water habitats are not impacted by droughts as drastically as shallow habitats. The RRIP in TVA tailwaters ensures availability of suitable water for the mainstem populations throughout the year despite the occurrence of drought. Drought is also unlikely to impact spawning events on shoals in tributaries because late winter and early spring are typically the wettest times of the year within the Tennessee River Valley. The snail darter is likely also protected from the projected temperature increases by adaptation to larger streams and the thermal buffering of the large reservoirs on the mainstem.
If we examine current projections beyond our 30-year foreseeable future, under plausible future greenhouse gas concentrations termed representative concentration pathways (RCP), warming temperatures and precipitation projections continue to suggest mixed effects to the species. Relative to 1981-2010, over 2050-2074, the 50th percentile (median) for the Tennessee Region, maximum air temperature warms by 4.4 °F (2.4 ºC) in RCP 4.5, whereas the region warms by 6.4 °F (3.6 ºC) in RCP 8.5 (Alder and Hostetler 2013, entire). Changes in precipitation are not as apparent. Relative to 1981-2010, over 2050-2074, the 50th percentile (median) for the Tennessee Region, precipitation increases by only 0.2 in (5.1 mm) per month in both RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 (Alder and Hostetler 2013, entire). We are not extending the foreseeable future timeline beyond 2050 because the snail darter's response to changing climatic conditions is less certain after 2050. We have greater certainty about the species' response to changing climactic conditions between now and 2050 because we have both the projections and scientific sources that predict the species' response, such as the LCC report. Further, the climate projections are more reliable between now and 2050 as compared to beyond 2050 because the models diverge after 2050. As a result, we do not consider the snail darter to be vulnerable to the effects of climate change in the foreseeable future.
The increases documented in the abundance and distribution of the snail darter since it was listed in 1975 have led to a better understanding of the current and future condition of the species' resiliency, redundancy, and representation across the range. The observed variations in population size, density, or distribution of the snail darter are typical of metapopulation dynamics. Surveys have shown that individual populations may decline based on localized stressors (
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations (50
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we have found that snail darter representation and redundancy has increased, with extant populations in 7 mainstem reservoirs of the Tennessee River and 10 tributaries in the Tennessee River watershed. Of the mainstem reservoirs, six populations showed multiple age classes, and for these six, we have observed direct evidence of reproduction in three populations, indicating moderate or high resilience. Collection efforts in two mainstem reservoirs, Wilson and Kentucky reservoirs, failed to find snail darters during our analysis period. Of the tributaries, nine populations demonstrated moderate to high resilience; one population is considered to have low resilience with no evidence of reproduction; three tributary populations (Citico Creek, Flint River, and Shoal Creek) lack sufficient collections during our analysis period to consider them established. Additionally, the species is now known to be present in four physiographic regions, indicating increased representation, and the multiple, resilient populations indicate an increase in redundancy since the species was reclassified to threatened in 1984. Because the snail darter has increased in representation and redundancy generally, and in particular with respect to numbers of resilient, self-sustaining populations, we expect this species to be able to sustain populations into the foreseeable future.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information regarding the threats faced by the snail darter in developing this proposed rule. Threats reported at the time of listing (1975) and when we downlisted the species to threatened status (1984) related to habitat loss and curtailment of range (Factor A) have been reduced in many locations, and available data indicate the species possesses greater resilience to the negative effects of dams than was determined at the time of listing. Further, beneficial dam operations (
At the time of the downlisting rule (49 FR 27510; July 5, 1984), it was thought that the notoriety of the snail darter would result in an increase in illegal collection (Factor B); however, no such activities have been seen, and we do not consider this a threat to the current or future viability of the species. State water quality and wildlife laws provide some protections to the snail darter and its habitat, and its range overlaps with other federally protected aquatic animals (Factor D). In addition, we have evaluated potential effects of climate change (Factor E) and determined that it is not a primary threat to the species. Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude that the snail darter is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Having determined that the snail darter is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range, we now consider whether it may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in a significant portion of its range—that is, whether there is any portion of the species' range for which it is true that both (1) the portion is significant; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in that portion. Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for us to address the “significance” question or the “status” question first. We can choose to address either question first. Regardless of which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the first question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' range.
In undertaking this analysis for the snail darter, we choose to address the status question first—we consider information pertaining to the geographic distribution of both the species and the threats that the species faces to identify any portions of the range where the species may be endangered or threatened. For the snail darter, we considered whether the threats are geographically concentrated in any portion of the species' range at a biologically meaningful scale. We examined the following threats: Habitat modification, curtailment of range, climate change, and illegal collection, including cumulative effects.
Threats related to habitat modification or curtailment of range affect snail darters throughout their range. With the implementation of TVA's RRIP, conditions around the large dams on the mainstem of the Tennessee River have improved. Our analysis of the species' resiliency (see above, Analytical Framework), which integrated information on demographics and threats, determined that six out of nine reservoir populations showed multiple age classes, and for these six, we have observed direct evidence of reproduction in three of these reservoirs. These reservoirs with resilient populations are distributed across the snail darter's range and multiple geographic provinces. Of the 10 resilient tributary populations, 9 populations demonstrated moderate to high resiliency. In tributary watersheds such as the Ocoee and Sequatchie where water quality was impacted by localized mining threats, conditions have improved due in part to the cessation of mining and efforts to clean up the mine sites. In watersheds with higher levels of agriculture and urbanization such as the South Chickamauga Creek and Paint Rock River watersheds, conservation programs are in place to reduce the impact of these activities on the instream habitat used by the snail darter. Based on the distribution of resilient populations and the conservation efforts put in place, we have determined that threats related to habitat modification or curtailment of range are not concentrated in any portion of the species' range.
We have reviewed other potential threats, including climate change, illegal collection, and cumulative effects, and we concluded that none of them is concentrated in any portion of the species' range at a biologically meaningful scale. Therefore, no portion of the species' range can provide a basis for determining that the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in a significant portion of its range, and we find the species is not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its range. This is consistent
Our review of the best scientific and commercial data available indicates that the snail darter does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we propose to remove the snail darter from the List.
This proposal, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) by removing the snail darter from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, would no longer apply to the snail darter. Federal agencies would no longer be required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act in the event that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect the snail darter. There is no critical habitat designated for this species, so there would be no effect to 50 CFR 17.95.
This rule would not affect the snail darter's status as an endangered or threatened species under State laws or suspend any other legal protections provided by those laws. States may have more restrictive laws protecting wildlife, and these would not be affected by this Federal action. However, this proposed rule may prompt Tennessee or Georgia to remove protection for the snail darter under their endangered species laws, although we are not aware of any such intention at this time.
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for all species that have been delisted due to recovery. Post-delisting monitoring (PDM) refers to activities undertaken to verify that a species delisted due to recovery remains secure from the risk of extinction after the protections of the Act no longer apply. The primary goal of PDM is to monitor the species to ensure that its status does not deteriorate, and if a decline is detected, to take measures to halt the decline so that proposing it as endangered or threatened is not again needed. If at any time during the monitoring period data indicate that protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing.
Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly requires that we cooperate with the States in development and implementation of PDM programs. However, we remain ultimately responsible for compliance with section 4(g) and, therefore, must remain actively engaged in all phases of PDM. We also seek active participation of other entities that are expected to assume responsibilities for the species' conservation after delisting.
We will coordinate with other Federal agencies, State resource agencies, interested scientific organizations, and others as appropriate to develop and implement an effective PDM plan for the snail darter. The PDM plan will build upon current research and effective management practices that have improved the status of the species since listing. Ensuring continued implementation of proven management strategies that have been developed to sustain the species will be a fundamental goal for the PDM plan. The PDM plan will identify measurable management thresholds and responses for detecting and reacting to significant changes in snail darter numbers, distribution, and persistence. If declines are detected equaling or exceeding these thresholds, the Service, in combination with other PDM participants, will investigate causes of these declines. The investigation will be to determine if the snail darter warrants expanded monitoring, additional research, additional habitat protection, or resumption of Federal protection under the Act. We will draft the PDM plan and will notify the public on our website,
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to Tribes. As we move forward with this rulemaking process, we will continue to consult with Tribes on a government-to-government basis as necessary.
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the internet at
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notification of availability of proposed fishery management plan amendment; request for comments.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has submitted Amendment 7 to the Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management Plan to NMFS for review and approval. Amendment 7 proposes to implement a rebuilding plan for the overfished bluefish stock, as well as revisions to fishery management plan goals and objectives, administrative measures during the specifications process, and the allocation percentages of quota between the commercial and recreational sectors and commercial quota among the states. The purpose of this amendment is to implement a rebuilding plan, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and to update the Bluefish Fishery Management Plan; responding to recent changes in stock health and distribution using the best information available, while recognizing economic need and reliance throughout the management area. This notice is intended to alert the public to this action and provide an opportunity for comment.
Comments must be received on or before November 1, 2021.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2021-0071, by the following method:
1. Go to
2. Click the “Comment” icon, complete the required fields; and
3. Enter or attach your comments.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for this action that describes the proposed measures and other considered alternatives. The EA also provides a thorough analysis of the biological, economic, and social impacts of the proposed measures and other considered alternatives. Copies of Amendment 7, including the EA, the Regulatory Impact Review, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis prepared in support of this action, are available upon request from: Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 N State Street, Dover, DE 19901. These documents are also accessible via the internet at
Cynthia Ferrio, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9180.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) cooperatively manage bluefish from Maine to Florida under the Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The Council and Commission initiated Amendment 7 as a joint action in December 2017 to address a comprehensive range of management issues in the bluefish fishery from goals and objectives of the FMP to the allocation and transfer of quota between the commercial and recreational sectors. Following the overfished stock determination from the 2019 operational stock assessment, a rebuilding plan for bluefish was also added to the amendment, and final alternatives were approved at the joint meeting of the Council and Commission's Bluefish Management Board in February 2021. Public hearings on these alternatives were held throughout the spring of 2021, and the Council and Board approved Amendment 7 on June 8, 2021, with the intent that the changes would be effective for the 2022 fishing year that begins on January 1, 2022.
The purpose of this amendment is to implement a rebuilding plan for bluefish, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and to update the FMP; responding to recent changes in stock health and distribution using the best information available, while recognizing economic need and reliance throughout the management area. This action proposes to:
• Update the Bluefish FMP goals and objectives from those that were initially established for the fishery in 1991 to better reflect today's fishery;
• Re-allocate bluefish quota between the commercial and recreational fishery sectors to more accurately reflect recent catch and landings data in the fishery, allocating 14 percent to the commercial
• Re-allocate bluefish commercial quota to the states from Maine to Florida based on the most recent 10 years of landings data (2009-2018) rather than outdated historical information (1981-1989), including a 0.1-percent minimum default allocation so no states in the management unit lose quota entirely;
• Implement a 7-year rebuilding plan using a constant fishing mortality model where fishing mortality (F) = 0.154;
• Revise measures to allow the sector quota transfer to be bi-directional (from commercial to recreational or vice versa), with a revised maximum transfer cap of 10-percent of the Acceptable Biological Catch; and
• Revise administrative measures in the specifications process to allow for the accounting of sector-specific management uncertainty.
Additional information on these proposed changes can be found in the EA for this amendment and forthcoming proposed rule.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act allows NMFS as the implementing agency to approve, partially approve, or disapprove measures recommended by the Council in a regulatory amendment based on whether the measures are consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards, and other applicable law. As such, NMFS is soliciting public comments on whether the measures in Amendment 7 to the Atlantic Bluefish FMP and its supporting documents are consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. Public comments on this amendment may be submitted through the end of the comment period specified in the
A proposed rule that would implement this amendment, including draft regulatory text, will also be published in the
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule.
NMFS proposes to implement allowable catch levels, an overfishing limit, an allowable biological catch, and an annual catch limit for Pacific mackerel in the U.S. exclusive economic zone off the West Coast (California, Oregon and Washington) for the fishing seasons 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. This proposed rule is pursuant to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan. The proposed harvest guideline and annual catch target for the 2021-2022 fishing season are 8,323 metric tons (mt) and 7,323 mt, respectively. The proposed harvest guideline and annual catch target for the 2022-2023 fishing season are 5,822 mt and 4,822 mt, respectively. If the fishery attains the annual catch target in either fishing season, the directed fishery will close, reserving the 1,000-mt difference between the harvest guideline and annual catch target as a set-aside for incidental landings in other Coastal Pelagic Species fisheries and other sources of mortality. This document is intended to conserve and manage the Pacific mackerel stock off the U.S. West Coast.
Comments must be received by October 1, 2021.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2021-0066, by any of the following methods:
•
Taylor Debevec, West Coast Region, NMFS, (562) 619-2052,
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801
During public meetings each year, the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) presents biomass estimates for Pacific mackerel to the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) CPS Management Team (CPSMT), the Council's CPS Advisory Subpanel (CPSAS) and the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee
The control rules in the CPS FMP include the HG control rule, which, in conjunction with the OFL and ABC rules, are used to manage Pacific mackerel. According to the FMP, the quota for the principal commercial fishery, the HG, is determined using the FMP-specified HG formula. The HG is based, in large part, on the estimate of stock biomass for the fishing year. The biomass estimate is an explicit part of the various harvest control rules for Pacific mackerel, and as the estimated biomass decreases or increases from one year to the next, the resulting allowable catch levels similarly trend. The harvest control rule in the CPS FMP is HG = [(Biomass-Cutoff) * Fraction * Distribution] with the parameters described as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The Council has recommended, and NMFS is proposing, Pacific mackerel harvest specifications for both the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 fishing seasons. For the 2021-2022 Pacific mackerel fishing season these include an OFL of 12,145 mt, an ABC and ACL of 9,446 mt, a HG of 8,323 mt, and an annual ACT of 7,323 mt. For the 2022-2023 Pacific mackerel fishing season these include an OFL of 9,644 mt, and ABC and ACL of 7,501 mt, a HG of 5,822 mt, and an ACT of 4,822 mt. These catch specifications are based on the control rules established in the CPS FMP and biomass estimates of 57,832 mt (2021-2022) and 45,925 mt (2022-2023). The biomass estimates are the result of a catch-only stock assessment the NMFS SWFSC completed in June 2021. The Council's SSC and the Council approved this stock assessment and resulting biomass estimates as the best scientific information available for management at the June 2021 Council meeting.
Under this proposed action, in the unlikely event that catch reaches the ACT in either fishing season, directed fishing would close, reserving the difference between the HG and ACT (1,000 mt) as a set-aside for incidental landings in other fisheries and other sources of mortality.
The NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator will publish a notice in the
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the CPS FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, for the following reasons:
For Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. The small entities that would be affected by the proposed action are those vessels that harvest Pacific mackerel as part of the West Coast Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) purse seine fleet and are all considered small businesses under the above size standards.
The CPS Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its implementing regulations requires the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to set an overfishing limit (OFL), acceptable biological catch (ABC), annual catch limit (ACL), harvest guidelines (HG) and annual catch target (ACT) for the Pacific mackerel fishery based on the harvest control rules in the FMP. These specific harvest control rules are applied to the current stock biomass estimate to derive these catch specifications, which are used to manage the commercial take of Pacific mackerel. A component of these control rules is that as the estimated biomass decreases or increases from one year to the next, so do the applicable quotas.
Pacific mackerel harvest is one component of CPS fisheries off the U.S. West Coast, which also includes the fisheries for Pacific sardine, northern anchovy and market squid. Pacific mackerel are principally caught off southern California within the limited entry portion (south of 39 degrees N latitude; Point Arena, California) of the fishery. Currently there are 53 vessels permitted in the Federal CPS limited entry fishery off California. The average annual per vessel revenue in 2020 for
NMFS used the ex-vessel revenue information for a profitability analysis, as the cost data for the harvesting operations of CPS finfish vessels was limited or unavailable. For the 2019-2020 fishing year, the HG was 11,109 mt with an ACT of 10,109 mt and an incidental set-aside of 1,000 mt. Approximately 3,840 mt of Pacific mackerel were harvested in the 2019-2020 fishing year with an estimated ex-vessel value of approximately $1,299,153.
The HG for the 2021-2022 Pacific mackerel fishing season is 8,323 mt, with an ACT of 7,323 mt and an incidental set-aside of 1,000 mt. The HG for the 2022-2023 Pacific mackerel fishing season is 5,822 mt with an ACT of 4,822 mt and an incidental set-aside of 1,000 mt. The proposed ACTs for these fishing years are lower than the prior two fishing years (
Based on the disproportionality and profitability analysis above, the proposed action, if adopted, will not have adverse or disproportional economic impact on these small business entities. As a result, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required, and none has been prepared.
This action does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. There are no relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed action.
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(i) The following harvest specifications apply for Pacific mackerel:
(1) For the Pacific mackerel fishing season July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022, the harvest guideline is 8,323 mt and the ACT is 7,323 mt; and
(2) For the Pacific mackerel fishing season July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023, the harvest guideline is 5,822 mt and the ACT of 4,822 mt.
(j) When an ACT in paragraph (i) of this section has been reached or exceeded, then for the remainder of the Pacific mackerel fishing season, Pacific mackerel may not be targeted and landings of Pacific mackerel may not exceed: 45 percent of landings when Pacific mackerel are landed in CPS fisheries (in other words, no more than 45 percent by weight of the CPS landed per trip may be Pacific mackerel), or up to 3 mt of Pacific mackerel when landed in non-CPS fisheries. The Regional Administer shall announce in the
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice of emergency request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to seek approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a new information collection to administer the Pandemic Response and Safety Program (PRS) under its Grants Division. AMS Grants Division is implementing this new grant program under section 751 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA), which directs the Secretary of Agriculture to provide “grants and loans to small or midsized food processors or distributors, seafood processing facilities and processing vessels, farmers markets, producers, or other organizations to respond to coronavirus, including for measures to protect workers against the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).”
Submit comments on or before November 1, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments concerning this notice by using the electronic process available at
John Miklozek, Director, Grants Division; (202) 720-1403 or email
PRS is authorized pursuant to the authority of section 751 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA) (Pub. L. 116-260) in response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and worker protections in food processing, distribution, farmers markets, and agricultural production. The AMS Grants Division requests to collect information for this new grant program from individuals, small businesses, and nonprofit organizations working in food processing, distribution, farmers markets, and agricultural production.
Because this is a voluntary program, respondents request or apply for this specific competitive grant, and in doing so, they provide information. Information collected is used only by authorized representatives of USDA, AMS, Transportation and Marketing Program's Grants Division to certify that grant participants are complying with applicable program regulations, and the data collected is the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out program requirements.
Information collection requirements in this request are essential to carry out the intent of section 751 of the CAA, to provide respondents the type of service they request, and to administer the program.
Upon OMB approval of the PRS information collection package, AMS will request OMB approval to merge this information collection into the currently approved information collection OMB control number 0581-0240 approved on January 13, 2021.
Obtaining OMB's approval of this new information collection enables AMS Grants Division to publish a Request for Applications (RFA) to establish application requirements, the review and approval process, and grant administration procedures, which will
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In October 2018, the SCA established a Science Planning Task Force charged with documenting Federal science and technology opportunities and priorities for aquaculture by revising and updating the National Strategic Plan for Federal Aquaculture Research (2014-2019). Similarly, in February 2019, the SCA established a Regulatory Efficiency Task Force charged with developing a new plan for interagency science and technology coordination to improve regulatory efficiency, research and technology development, and economic growth. The Task Forces are seeking public comment on Science and Regulatory Efficiency strategic plans to determine if their respective topics are adequately covered. See
In the
The Subcommittee on Aquaculture (SCA) is a statutory subcommittee that operates under the Committee on Environment of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) under the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President [National Aquaculture Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-362. 94 Stat. 1198, 16 U.S.C. 2801,
In addition, in May of 2020, the SCA established an Economic Development Task Force charged with developing a strategic plan for economic development through aquaculture. Separately from SCA, the National Aquaculture Act of 1980 requires select federal agencies to develop a National Aquaculture Development Plan (NADP). Last completed in 1983, the NADP describes aquaculture associated technologies, problems, and opportunities in the United States and its territories. It recommends actions to solve problems and analyzes the social, environmental, and economic impacts of growth in aquaculture. The SCA plans to update the NADP using the Science and Regulatory Efficiency plans described here, with the addition of the Economic Development plan currently in process.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding; whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by October 1, 2021 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback on service delivery by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before November 1, 2021. You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at regulations.gov or in our reading room, which is located in Room 1620 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.
For more information on this information collection, contact Mr. Joseph Moxey, APHIS' Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, MRPBS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 123, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2483; email:
By qualitative feedback, we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback provides insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences, and expectations; provides an early warning of issues with service; or focuses attention on areas where communication, training, or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. This collection will allow for ongoing, generic collaborative and actionable communications between APHIS and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.
The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on APHIS' services will be unavailable.
APHIS will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
• The collection is voluntary;
• The collection is low burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden hours per respondent) and is low cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collection is non-controversial and does not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• The collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered is intended to be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of APHIS (if released, APHIS must indicate the qualitative nature of the information);
• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
• Information gathered will yield qualitative information (
As a general matter, this information collection will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice of a proposed modified system of records.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-108, notice is given that a component agency, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is proposing to modify the system of records, currently titled USDA/FNS-11, “Information on Persons Identified as Responsible for Serious Deficiencies, Proposed for Disqualification, or Disqualified to Participate as Principals or Family Day Care Home Operators in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP),” 69 FR 6933, published February 12, 2004, to include unaffiliated centers and responsible individuals of unaffiliated centers terminated or otherwise disqualified from participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program, and service institutions and responsible individuals that have been terminated or otherwise disqualified from participation in the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP). The system of records will continue to include the records of institutions, day care home providers, and responsible individuals who have been terminated or otherwise disqualified from participation in the Child and Adult Care Food Program.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), this notice is effective upon publication, subject to a 30-day notice and comment period in which to comment on the routine uses described in the routine uses section of this system of records notice. Please submit your comments by October 1, 2021.
You may submit comments, USDA/FNS-11, by one of the following methods:
•
• Ms. Andrea Farmer, Chief, Community Meals Program Monitoring Branch, Child Nutrition Programs, Food and Nutrition Service, Braddock Metro Center II, 1320 Braddock Place, Alexandria, VA 22314.
•
•
For general questions please contact Stephanie Means via telephone at 312-353-7270 or via email at
FNS maintains a list of institutions and individuals who have been disqualified from participating in CACFP and/or SFSP. The State agencies access the list to ensure that no one participating in either Program in their state has been disqualified.
State agencies provide the information about the disqualifications they impose by submitting the information to the NDL. FNS reviews and approves the information. This information is then accessible to all State agencies that participate in this matching program to help determine CACFP and/or SFSP eligibility.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Agriculture's (“Department” or “USDA”) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) proposes to modify the system of records titled, USDA/FNS-11, “Information on Persons Identified as Responsible for Serious Deficiencies, Proposed for Disqualification, or Disqualified to Participate as Principals or Family Day Care Home Operators in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP).” This includes modifying the title to “USDA/FNS-11, National Disqualified List (NDL)—Information on Entities Disqualified from Participation in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) and Summer Food Service Program (SFSP).”
The NDL system of records currently contains a list of institutions, responsible individuals, and family day care home providers that have been disqualified by State agencies from participating in CACFP. The NDL system of records is being modified to include unaffiliated centers and responsible individuals of unaffiliated centers terminated or otherwise disqualified from participating in the CACFP. The NDL system of records is also being revised to include service institutions and responsible individuals of service institutions that have been terminated or otherwise disqualified from participating in the SFSP as required by Section 322 of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA), Public Law 111-296 (requiring the Secretary to maintain a list of service institutions and individuals that have been terminated or disqualified from SFSP and to make this list available to State agencies for use in approving or renewing service institutions' applications for SFSP participation).
Responsible individual means: A principal, whether compensated or uncompensated, who the State agency or FNS determines to be responsible for a serious deficiency; any other individual employed by, or under contract with, a sponsoring organization who the State agency or FNS determines to be responsible a serious deficiency; or an uncompensated individual who the State agency or FNS determines to be responsible for a serious deficiency.
FNS will share information from the system in accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act. A full list of routine uses is included in the routine uses section of the document published with this notice.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), USDA has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.
USDA/FNS-11, “Information on Persons Identified as Responsible for Serious Deficiencies, Proposed for Disqualification, or Disqualified to Participate as Principals or Family Day Care Home Operators in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP),” and also referred to as the National Disqualified List or NDL.
This notice proposes to modify the system name to: “National Disqualified
None.
This system of records is under the control of the Deputy Administrator, Child Nutrition Programs, FNS, USDA, 1320 Braddock Pl., Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
The data on institutions, service institutions, unaffiliated centers, day care home providers, and responsible individuals who have been disqualified from participation in the CACFP and/or SFSP will be maintained within the NDL system of records.
Branch Chief, Community Meals Program Monitoring Branch, Child Nutrition Programs, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, (703)305-2470, 1320 Braddock Pl., Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
Section 243(c) of Public Law 106-224, the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000, which amended section (42 U.S.C. 1766(d)(5)(E)(i) and (ii)) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act
The purpose of modifying the system of records is to continue to promote integrity in the CACFP and SFSP (“Program(s)”) by providing Program-administering States and CACFP sponsoring organizations with the names of institutions, service institutions, responsible individuals, unaffiliated centers, and family day care home providers that have been terminated or otherwise disqualified from participating in either Program. Once disqualified, these institutions, service institutions, responsible individuals, unaffiliated centers, and family day care home providers are prohibited from participating in either Program for seven years from the effective date of the disqualification, and until any debt under either Program is paid.
Institutions, service institutions, responsible individuals, unaffiliated centers, and family day care home providers may be removed from the NDL system of records before seven years if the Program-administering States and FNS concur that any Program violation that caused their placement on the NDL system of records has been corrected. However, no institution, service institution, responsible individual, unaffiliated center, or family day care home provider may be removed from the NDL system of records if they owe a debt under either Program. Program-administering States and CACFP sponsoring organizations must verify that Program applicants are not on the NDL system of records prior to approval or renewal of participation in the Program. Similarly, CACFP sponsoring organizations must check the NDL system of records to verify that any new employee that will be paid for using Program funds or that will be working in either Program is not on the NDL before hiring.
Maintaining the NDL system of records and making it available to Program-administering States and CACFP sponsoring organizations provides them with a tool for promoting Program integrity by preventing several situations from occurring. First, it prevents institutions, service institutions, or unaffiliated centers whose Program agreements were terminated for cause in one State from reapplying for Program participation in another State. Second, it prevents responsible individuals disqualified from either Program from continuing to be involved in Program administration by forming a new corporate entity and entering the Program under a different organizational name. Third, it prevents responsible individuals associated with a disqualified institution, service institution, or unaffiliated center from re-entering the Program as a family day care home provider, or as a responsible individual with another institution, service institution, or sponsored center. Finally, it prevents family day care home providers terminated for cause by one sponsoring organization from re-entering the Program under the auspices of a different sponsoring organization.
Categories of individuals covered by this system include, but not limited to, responsible individuals and principals of centers and day care home providers that have been terminated or otherwise disqualified from participation in the CACFP. The system also contains information on responsible individuals and principals of service institutions that have been terminated or otherwise disqualified from participation in the SFSP. All individuals, even if they are not users of the USDA/FNS-11, who are mentioned or referenced in any documents entered into USDA/FNS-11 by a user are also covered. This group may include, but is not limited to: Vendors, agents and other business personnel.
Categories of records in the system will be modified to include the following information from unaffiliated centers and responsible individuals of unaffiliated centers that have been terminated or otherwise disqualified from participation in the CACFP, and service institutions and responsible individuals of service institutions that have been terminated or otherwise disqualified from participation in the SFSP:
• Full name, previously used names;
• date of birth;
• state and locality in which the disqualification occurred;
• addresses of businesses and individuals;
• disqualification start date;
• reason for disqualification;
• Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN) or Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS);
• disqualifying State agency;
• any debt owed;
• supporting documentation such as notices of proposed termination and disqualification; and,
• for records of institutions, service institutions, unaffiliated centers, or individuals requesting early removal, corrective action plans to correct Program violations that led to placement on the NDL system of records.
Information in this system of records is provided to FNS by Program-administering State agencies. The FNS appropriate regional office will approve the information and can assist the State agency in entering or correcting the information. The FNS national office can also alter information in the system as needed.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records contained in this system may be disclosed outside USDA as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3), to the extent that such uses are compatible with the purposes for which the information was collected. Such permitted routine uses include the following:
(1) To the Department of Justice when: (a) USDA or any component thereof; or (b) any employee of USDA in his or her official capacity, or any
(2) In an appropriate proceeding before a court, grand jury, or administrative or adjudicative body or official, when the USDA or other Agency representing the USDA determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the proceeding; or in an appropriate proceeding before an administrative or adjudicative body when the adjudicator determines the records to be relevant to the proceeding.
(3) To a congressional office in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the written request of the individual about whom the record pertains.
(4) To the National Archives and Records Administration or other Federal government agencies pursuant to records management activities being conducted under 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
(5) To an agency, organization, or individual for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
(6) To other Federal agencies or non-Federal entities under approved computer matching efforts, limited to only those data elements considered relevant to determine eligibility under particular benefit programs administered by those agencies or entities or by USDA or any component thereof, to improve program integrity, and to collect debts and other monies owed under those programs.
(7) To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in: (1) Responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
(8) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (1) USDA suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) USDA has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, USDA (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with USDA's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(9) To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and other performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for the USDA, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records.
(10) When a record on its face, or in conjunction with other records, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, USDA may disclose the record to the appropriate agency, whether Federal, foreign, State, local, or tribal, or other public authority responsible for enforcing, investigating, or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, or rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, if the information disclosed is relevant to any enforcement, regulatory, investigative or prosecutive responsibility of the receiving entity.
(11) USDA/FNS may disclose information from this system of records on individuals who have been disqualified from participation in the CACFP and/or SFSP to every agency that administers the CACFP and/or SFSP directly in the States and to every sponsoring organization participating in CACFP. The information will be available to the State agency directors and staff members, who make decisions about application approval or termination from participation in the program or, in the case of sponsoring organizations, make hiring decisions or submit applications for approval of day care home providers to the State agency.
(12) To the news media and the public, with the approval of the Chief Privacy Officer, the Office of Communications and in consultation with counsel, unless it is determined that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
(13) USDA will disclose information about individuals from this system of records in accordance with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-282; codified at 31 U.S.C. 6101,
(14) Disclosures pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12). Disclosures may be made from this system to “consumer reporting agencies” as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f)) or the Debt Collection Act of 1982 (31 U.S.C. 3711(d)(4)).
State agencies and FNS can view records in the NDL. eAuthentication level 2 clearance is required to enter, change or view records in the system. Records are maintained electronically. The NDL also contains three notices for each disqualification. These paper notices were mailed to the disqualified individuals and uploaded in the NDL as PDFs. Although NDL records are electronic, State agencies and FNS Regional Offices keep paper copies of the uploaded notices.
For FNS and Program-administering States, records may be retrieved by the individual's name and date of birth for responsible individuals and day care home providers, in addition to FEIN or DUNS number for institutions, service institutions, and unaffiliated centers.
CACFP sponsoring organizations identify records for retrieval using name and state.
Currently, records remain in the NDL after the disqualification expires with a changes status of removed. This process will change to delete all records three years after disqualification expires.
NDL system of records Username/Password: NDL user IDs and passwords are used to limit access to the application. Access is controlled through USDA eAuthentication service. NDL requires a Level 1 or Level 2 access. Level 1 users are automatically
The NDL system accomplishes this functionality by requiring that a specific role be assigned to each user. Sponsoring organizations have e-Authentication level 1 clearance allowing them to view individuals' names, other legal names, state, termination date, disqualified status, whether a debt is owed, and pending status. For institutions, they may view institutions' names and previous names, full address, termination date, disqualified status, whether a debt is owed, and pending status.
State agency and FNS users have e-Authentication level 2 clearance, which allows them to view the information listed above, in addition to date of birth and individuals' full addresses. Currently, all States and four territories have access to the NDL with e-Authentication level 2 clearance. Once identified, the system uses the existing functionality within the FNS General Support System platform to selectively control permissions by role. As mentioned, controls for e-Authentication level 1 users include restricting information view privileges by removing dates of birth and individuals' full addresses from view. e-Authentication level 2 can view all the data.
Individuals seeking notification of and access to any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request in writing to the Headquarters or component's FOIA Officer, whose contact information can be found at
The request should include a daytime phone number and email. Provide as much information as possible about the subject matter of the records you are requesting. This will help facilitate the search process.
When seeking records about yourself from this NDL system of records, or any other Departmental system of records, your request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 7 CFR 1.112 (Procedures for requests pertaining to individual records in a record system). You must submit a written request in accordance with the instructions set forth in the system of records.
Provide your full name, date, name of system of records, and either (1) have your signature witnessed by a notary; or (2) include the following statement immediately above the signature on your request letter: “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on [date].” Requests that do not contain the required declaration will be processed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and, if records are found, you may not receive as much information, including information about you. If additional information is required to fulfill a Privacy Act request, you will be notified.
When the request is for one of access, the request should include the full name of the individual making the request, the name of the system of records, and a statement of whether the requester desires to make a personal inspection of the records or to be supplied with copies by mail or email.
In accordance with 7 CFR 1.113, prior to inspection of the records, the requester shall present sufficient identification (
Individuals seeking to contest or amend records maintained in this system of records must direct their request to the address indicated in the “RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES” paragraph, above and must follow the procedures set forth in 7 CFR part 1, subpart G, § 1.116 (Request for correction or amendment to record). All requests must state clearly and concisely what record is being contested, the reasons for contesting it, and the proposed amendment to the record. A determination whether a record may be amended will be made within 10 days of its receipt.
Individuals may be notified if a record in this system of records pertains to them when the individuals request information utilizing the same procedures as those identified in the “RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES” paragraph, above.
None.
Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Notice of product coverage and trigger levels for safeguard measures provided for in the World Trade
This notice lists the updated quantity-based trigger levels for products which may be subject to additional import duties under the safeguard provisions of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. This notice also includes the relevant period applicable for the trigger levels on each of the listed products.
This notice is applicable on September 1, 2021.
Multilateral Affairs Division, Trade Policy and Geographic Affairs, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 1070, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-1070.
Souleymane Diaby, (202) 720-2916,
Article 5 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture provides that additional import duties may be imposed on imports of products subject to tariffication as a result of the Uruguay Round, if certain conditions are met. The agreement permits additional duties to be charged if the price of an individual shipment of imported products falls below the average price for similar goods imported during the years 1986-88 by a specified percentage. It also permits additional duties when the volume of imports of that product exceeds the sum of (1) a base trigger level multiplied by the average of the last three years of available import data and (2) the change in yearly consumption in the most recent year for which data are available (provided that the final trigger level is not less than 105 percent of the three-year import average). The base trigger level is set at 105, 110, or 125 percent of the three-year import average, depending on the percentage of domestic consumption that is represented by imports. These additional duties may not be imposed on quantities for which minimum or current access commitments were made during the Uruguay Round negotiations, and only one type of safeguard, price or quantity, may be applied at any given time to an article.
Section 405 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act requires that the President cause to be published in the
Additional information on the products subject to safeguards and the additional duties which may apply can be found in subchapter IV of Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2021) and in the Secretary of Agriculture's Notice of Uruguay Round Agricultural Safeguard Trigger Levels, published in the
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of meeting.
The Virginia Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will hold a virtual meeting by phone and/or video conference. 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. 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. Additional RAC information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes, can be found at the following website:
The meeting will be held on September 22, 2021 from 2:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For the status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held virtually via Microsoft Teams. Participants may join through the following link:
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Stephanie Chapman, RAC Coordinator by phone at (540) 984-4101 or via email at
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Orient new RAC members; and
2. Vote and nominate on a RAC Chairperson.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by September 15, 2021 to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Stephanie Chapman, RAC Coordinator, George Washington and Jefferson NF Supervisor's Office, 5162 Valleypointe Parkway, Roanoke, Virginia 24019; or by email to
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of meeting.
The Sabine-Angelina Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will hold two virtual meetings by telephone teleconference. 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. 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 Sabine National Forest within Sabine and Shelby Counties, consistent with the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. RAC information and virtual meeting information can be found at the following website:
The meetings will be held on:
• Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 3:00 p.m., Central Daylight Time, and
• Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 3:00 p.m., Central Daylight time.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meetings will be held virtually via telephone teleconference. Participants may join by dialing 1-888-844-9904, Access Code: 3659463#.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Becky Nix, Coordinator, by phone at 409-625-1940 or email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the hearing-impaired (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours per day, every day of the year, including holidays.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Hear from Title II project proponents and discuss project proposals;
2. Make funding reccomendations on Title II projects;
3. Approve meeting minutes; and
4. Schedule the next meeting.
The meetings are open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement at any of the meetings should request in writing by Friday, September 13, 2021, to be scheduled on the agenda for that particular meeting. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Kimpton Cooper, 111 Walnut Ridge Rd., Zavalla, TX 75980 or by email to
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Lynn Canal Icy Strait (LCIS) Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will hold a virtual meeting via Microsoft Teams. 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. 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. The committee also makes recommendations on recreation fee proposals for sites on the Tongass National Forest within boroughs associated with the LCIS RAC, consistent with the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. General RAC information can be found at the following website:
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 22, 2021, 6:00 p.m.-9:00 p.m. Alaska Daylight Time. All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact Robin Hasselquist by phone at 907-789-6212 or email at
The meeting will be held virtually by Microsoft Teams. The call-in number is 1-202-650-0123, Phone Conference ID: 130 481 648#. To have the conference link emailed to you, please contact Robin Hasselquist by phone at 907-789-6212 or email at
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Robin Hasselquist, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 907-789-6212 or email at
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Review/Approve meeting minutes;
2. Review current budget;
3. Hear from Title II project proponents and discuss project proposals;
4. Make funding recommendations on Title II projects; and
5. Schedule the next meeting.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
The current rebuttal comment period pertaining to the amended application for production authority within Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 38 on behalf of Teijin Carbon Fibers, Inc., is being extended to September 10, 2021, based on a request from the applicant. The original closing of the rebuttal period had been set for September 2, 2021 (86 FR 38010, July 19, 2021). Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
For further information, contact Diane Finver at
On July 12, 2021, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Port of Long Beach, grantee of FTZ 50, requesting an expansion of Subzone 50R, on behalf of VF Outdoor, LLC, in Ontario, California.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
United States Section, NAFTA Secretariat, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of NAFTA Panel Decision in the matter of Ammonium Sulphate from the United States of America. (Secretariat File Number: MEX-USA-2015-1904-01).
On July 7, 2021, a NAFTA Binational Panel issued its Decision in the matter of Ammonium Sulphate from the United States of America (Determination on Remand). The Binational Panel remanded the Secretaria de Economia's (Economia) second Determination on Remand and ordered Economia to issue a redetermination within 90 days.
Vidya Desai, Acting United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Room 2061, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.
Article 1904 of Chapter 19 of NAFTA provides a dispute settlement mechanism involving trade remedy determinations issued by the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Mexico. Following a Request for Panel Review, a Binational Panel is composed to provide judicial review of the trade remedy determination being challenged and then issue a binding Panel Decision. The NAFTA Binational Panel Decision is available publicly at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In accordance with the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department of Commerce (Commerce) is automatically initiating the five-year reviews (Sunset Reviews) of the antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) order(s) and suspended investigation(s) listed below. The International Trade Commission (the ITC) is publishing concurrently with this notice its notice of
Applicable September 1, 2021.
Commerce official identified in the
Commerce's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its
In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset Reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty order(s) and suspended investigation(s):
As a courtesy, we are making information related to sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statute and Commerce's regulations, Commerce's schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on Commerce's website at the following address:
In accordance with section 782(b) of the Act, any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information. Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g). Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), Commerce will maintain and make available a public service list for these proceedings. Parties wishing to participate in any of these five-year reviews must file letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d). To facilitate the timely preparation of the public service list, it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding submit an entry of appearance within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation. Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties who want access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (APO) to file an APO application immediately following publication in the
Domestic interested parties, as defined in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the
If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, Commerce's regulations provide that
This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) invites organizations to provide letters of interest describing products and technical expertise to support and demonstrate security platforms for the
Collaborative activities will commence as soon as enough completed and signed letters of interest have been returned to address all the necessary components and capabilities, but no earlier than October 1, 2021.
The NCCoE is located at 9700 Great Seneca Highway, Rockville, MD 20850. Letters of interest must be submitted to
Apostol Vassilev via phone (301) 975-3221 or email
Interested parties can access the template for a letter of interest by visiting the project website at
Completed letters of interest should be submitted to NIST and will be accepted on a first come, first served basis. There may be continuing opportunity to participate even after initial activity commences for participants who were not selected initially or have submitted the letter interest after the selection process. Selected participants will be required to enter into a consortium CRADA with NIST (for reference, see
Each responding organization's letter of interest should identify how its products help address one or more of the following desired characteristics and properties in section 1 of the
In their letters of interest, responding organizations need to acknowledge the importance of and commit to provide:
1. Access for all participants' project teams to component interfaces and the organization's experts necessary to make functional connections among security platform components.
2. Support for development and demonstration of the Automation of the Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) project, which will be based on the most recent versions of FIPS 140, SP 800-140, and Handbook (HB) 150-17 and conducted in a manner consistent with the most recent version of the following standards and guidance: FIPS 200, SP 800-37, SP 800-52, SP 800-53, SP 800-63, and SP 1800-16. Additional details about the
NIST cannot guarantee that all of the products proposed by respondents will be used in the demonstration. Each prospective participant will be expected to work collaboratively with NIST staff and other project participants under the terms of the consortium CRADA in the development of the
Under the terms of the consortium CRADA, NIST will support development of interfaces among participants' products by providing IT infrastructure, laboratory facilities, office facilities, collaboration facilities, and staff support to component composition, security platform documentation, and demonstration activities.
The dates of the demonstration of the
For additional information on the NCCoE governance, business processes, and NCCoE operational structure, visit the NCCoE website
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an IHA to the United States Navy to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment only, marine mammals during pile driving/removal activities associated with the Fuel Pier Inboard Pile Removal Project in San Diego Bay, California.
This Authorization is effective from January 15, 2022 through January 14, 2023.
Kelsey Potlock, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
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
The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below.
On February 3, 2021, NMFS received a request from United States Navy (Navy) for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving/removal activities at Naval Base Point Loma in San Diego Bay, California. The application was deemed adequate and complete on May 17, 2021. The Navy's request is for take of a small number of six species of marine mammals by Level B harassment only. Neither the Navy nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
Naval Base Point Loma provides berthing and support services for Navy submarines and other fleet assets. The existing fuel pier previously served as a fuel depot for loading and unloading fuel. Naval Base Point Loma is the only active Navy fueling facility in southern California. The current project is to remove piles that were part of the old pier that was replaced over the past few years. This IHA includes up to 84 days of in-water pile driving/removal activities.
NMFS has previously issued incidental take authorizations to the Navy for similar activities over the past 8 years at Naval Base Point Loma in San Diego Bay, including IHAs issued effective from September 1, 2013, through August 31, 2014 (78 FR 44539, July 24, 2013; Year 1 Project), October 8, 2014 through October 7, 2015 (79 FR 65378, November 4, 2014; Year 2 Project), October 8, 2015 through October 7, 2016 (80 FR 62032, October 15, 2015; Year 3 Project), October 8, 2016 through October 7, 2017 (81 FR 66628, September 28, 2016; Year 4 Project), October 8, 2017 through October 7, 2018 (82 FR 45811, October 2, 2017; Year 5 Project), September 15, 2020 through September 14, 2021 (85 FR 33129, June 1, 2020; Floating Dry Dock Project), and October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022 (86 FR 7993, February 3, 2021; Pier 6 Replacement Project). The Navy has complied with all the requirements (
The purpose of this project is to remove old piles from the Fuel Pier at Naval Base Point Loma to allow for continued Naval Fleet readiness activities. More specifically, the in-water construction work includes the removal of 409 piles by a variety of techniques (
A detailed description of the planned project is provided in the
Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see Mitigation and the Monitoring and Reporting sections).
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to the Navy was published in the
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. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SARs;
Table 1 lists all marine mammal species with expected potential for occurrence in the vicinity of Naval Base Point Loma during the project timeframe and summarizes key information, 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's SARs;
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's 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's 2019 Pacific SARs (Carretta
For Risso's dolphins (
A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by the project, including brief introductions to the species and relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in the
The effects of underwater noise from the Navy's construction activities have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the project area. The notice of proposed IHA that was published in the
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes authorized through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration of “small numbers” and the negligible impact determination.
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 marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes are for Level B harassment only, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns and TTS for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to the sounds produced from the underwater acoustic sources (
As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals would be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that would be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the number of days of activities. We note that while these
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals will be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources—Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source (
The Navy's pile driving/removal activities includes the use of stationary, non-impulsive, and continuous noise sources (vibratory hammer, diamond wire saw, underwater chainsaw, single use or concurrent use of pile clippers), and therefore the 120 dB re 1 μPa (rms) is applicable. However, as discussed above, the Navy measurements support an ambient noise estimate of 129.6 dB re 1 μPa (rms) in the project area. Accordingly, we have adjusted the standard Level B harassment threshold of 120 dB to 129.6 dB, as it likely provides a more realistic and accurate basis for predicting Level B harassment in the San Diego Bay area.
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources—NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (NMFS, 2018a) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). The Navy's pile driving/removal activities includes the use of non-impulsive (vibratory pile removal and other cutting and removal methods) sources.
These thresholds are provided in Table 2 below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2018a Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds, which include source levels, durations, and transmission loss coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is the existing background noise plus additional construction noise from this project. Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the primary components of the project (
Vibratory hammers produce constant sound when operating, and produce vibrations that liquefy the sediment surrounding the pile, allowing it to penetrate to the required seating depth or be withdrawn more easily. The actual durations of each method vary depending on the type and size of the pile.
In order to calculate the distance to the Level B harassment sound threshold for piles of various sizes being used in this project, the Navy used acoustic monitoring data from other locations and projects to develop source levels for the various pile types, sizes, and methods of removal. Data for the removal methods (
During pile driving/removal activities, there may be times when two pile extraction methods (
When the NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in the new thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which may result in some degree of overestimate of Level A harassment take. However, these tools offer the best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address the output where appropriate. For stationary sources, such as the localized pile removal activities discussed above, the NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance the whole duration of the activity, it will incur PTS.
The Navy provided estimates to NMFS for the duration of sound exposure for each pile removal activity. The durations used in this project for each pile removal method were noted as “conservative estimates that are greater than durations observed in the San Diego Noise Compendium” by the Navy. In discussions with NMFS, the Navy has explained that the average durations found in the IHA application and Compendium were based around data collected in the from the old Fuel Pier demolition projects (NAVFAC SW 2014, 2015a, 2016, 2017a, 2017b, 2018a, and 2018b). These values were adjusted to account for either the maximum amount of time the activity could occur (
All inputs used in the User Spreadsheet are reported below in Table 4.
For this project, we modeled sound propagation using the practical spreading value of 15 for transmission loss for all pile removal methods, except for the removal of the 13-inch polycarbonate piles. For this, 11.7 was used as the transmission loss coefficient as this value was a calculated measure from recorded data that was fit with a logarithmic trendline during the clipping of a 13-inch round concrete pile using small pile clippers in February 2017 at the old Fuel Pier (NAVFAC SW, 2020). The above input scenarios lead to PTS isopleth distances (Level A harassment thresholds) of less than 1 meter for all methods and piles (Table 5).
Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:
The recommended TL coefficient for most nearshore environments is the practical spreading value of 15. This value results in an expected propagation environment that would lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading loss conditions, which is the most appropriate assumption for the Navy's activity in the absence of specific
To determine the most appropriate and conservative Level B harassment isopleths, we compared two methods and selected the isopleth between each method that was largest, thus providing the greatest coverage for the Level B harassment zone. Level B harassment isopleths were considered appropriate based on the distance where the source level reached the 129.6 dB ambient value. The two methods compared the empirical data provided in the Navy's Compendium for work at Naval Base Point Loma (NAVFAC SW, 2020) with the Practical Spreading Loss model using a transmission loss coefficient of 15, as described above. Results of each method are shown in Table 5 and described below.
For the Compendium method, the average and maximum sound levels (in dB re 1 µPa) measured at the source (10 m) and then at various far-field distances typically showed a monotonic decline in average and maximum sound pressure levels distance increased. The Navy chose to use the average values for two main reasons: (1) Consistency with using the average median (L50) ambient values; and (2) average source values were used for the same activities in the Pier 6 project nearby (86 FR 7993, February 3, 2021). However, some level of variability in the recorded sound pressure levels was present where noise levels will drop to ambient levels and then increase to higher levels at greater distances. An example of this will be measurements for the 84-inch caisson removal by a single wire saw. At source (10 m), the average and maximum source levels exceeded the ambient noise levels for both measurements at the source (136.1 and 141.4 dB re 1 µPa; 140.9 and 146.5 dB re 1 µPa, respectively). At far-field distances (>20 m), the averages show variability with a gradual decline and then a subsequent increase,
For the 13-inch polycarbonate piles with pile clippers the Navy believes that at between 300 and 400 m (984 to 1,312 ft), a majority of the background noise measured is directly related to traffic transiting to/from the Everingham Brothers Bait Company (EBBCO) bait barges which are to the southwest of the project area. Boat traffic for that specific route ranges from small boats to large recreational/commercial fishing vessels and traffic is nearly constant throughout the day. Because of that, the Navy believes values between those distances will likely be artificially high relative to the transmission loss associated with the project-related activities. Furthermore, in the turning basin the slope rises up from a max depth of 20.12 m (66 ft) to 11.58 m (38 ft) between 200 to 400 m (656.17 to 1,312.34 ft). As is evidenced by the Navy's acoustical model for south-central San Diego Bay (see the Naval Base Point Loma Pier 6 project at
For the one pile clipper on concrete pile source, the Navy again believes the Compendium data were influenced by boat activity and topography of the channel. In this particular case, Table 39 of the Compendium shows that the average dB level at 215 m was 129.0 dB RMS. However, the two measurements at 309 m were split, one higher and one lower than the value at 215 m. The Navy decided that “Understanding that acoustics is not an “exact science,” we evaluated the data and chose a distance (250 m) that fit the data (average noise levels dropped below 129.6 dB at between 215 and 309 m).” As this 250 m distance exceeded the practical spreading loss model distance of 145 m, we chose the 250 m distance for the Level B harassment isopleth.
For the two pile clipper on concrete pile source the Navy decided that “Because the project footprint is parallel to the shoreline, we created a monitoring zone that used a source level of 150 dB, but at two points at the extreme north and south of the project footprint (see Fig 6-3 in the IHA application) because we felt that this would generate a more conservative” zone that led to an estimate of the Level B harassment isopleth of 250 m. As this 250 m distance exceeded the practical spreading loss model distance of 229 m, we chose the 250 m distance for the Level B harassment isopleth.
For the underwater chainsaw the Navy noted the “transmission loss (27logR) was steep when compared to other equipment, but the source value was in line with the pile clippers. Because of the very steep TL value, we looked at the perceived far-field data points for the clipper activities and chose a distance that was in-between the drop off to ambient for the chainsaw (from 26 to 45 m) and the clippers (250 m).” The Navy estimated the Level B harassment isopleth for this source at 45 m, smaller than the Practical Spreading Loss model prediction of 229 m. Given the uncertainty discussed above, we used the 229 m distance for the Level B harassment isopleth.
For the diamond wire saw the Navy again believes the Compendium data were influenced by boat activity and topography of the channel. The available data are from caissons which consist of 1.5 inch thick hardened steel shells filled with concrete, and with wooden piles in the center of the concrete. For lack of information on wire saws, the Navy evaluated the likely far-field values for the potential zones based on the 84-inch caissons (Table 34 in the Compendium), which had more data at multiple distances. The Navy “felt that this was a valid approach based on the similarity of the average noise data at 40 m (132.5 dB for 66-inch caisson, 134.8 for the 84-inch caisson). Per Table 34, using the average dB values at distance, the data shows a drop below 129.6 dB RMS at 200 m, but a rise again at 283 m. If you plot the regression curve based on the average 84-inch data, we cross the ambient threshold at app[roximately] 350 m . . . Because the data at far-field distances was variable, we chose a monitoring zone (350 m) that was based on the available real-time data. . . . Our assumption is that, if a wire saw were
In this section, we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take calculations. Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
We examined two approaches towards estimating the Level B take for the requested six marine mammal species within the project area at Naval Base Point Loma. The first approach was using our standard approach of using species density multiplied by isopleth size. The second approach utilized daily sightings from monitoring reports produced from past Navy projects at Naval Base Point Loma (NAVFAC SW, 2015a; NACFAC SW, 2017; NAVFAC SW, 2018).
Density estimates for any specific area assumes that the species' in question are evenly distributed across the entire site, which is rarely the case. Using the first approach for this project, we examined the use of densities, using an overall density for San Diego Bay, within a much smaller and definitive area (specifically Naval Base Point Loma). This approach, in combination with the predicted Level B harassment isopleths, yielded take estimates that were determined to not be conservative enough in nature for these activities and activity source levels as compared to the results of the in situ measurements included in the Navy's Compendium (NAVFAC SW, 2020) and as discussed above. Furthermore, the take estimates produced from this method did not appropriately account for group size of all marine mammal species as the density estimate was for a much larger area (consisting of a primarily offshore environment) and assumed a much larger distribution of marine mammals. Therefore, this approach was not utilized and will not be discussed further.
The second approach utilized average daily sightings from the Year 1-5 monitoring reports from IHAs that were previously issued (NAVFAC SW, 2015a; NACFAC SW, 2017; NAVFAC SW, 2018). This information was provided by the Navy in Table 6.
The Year 1 and 2 monitoring reports demonstrated marine mammal estimates during a potential and known El Niño year, respectively. Because of this, these values were likely not representative of the typical conditions around Naval Base Point Loma and were not preferred.
California sea lions, harbor seals, and bottlenose dolphins were recorded during all other years. Within these, Year 4 was considered the most conservative as these activities consisted of the longest duration (152 days) with the highest number of sightings for these species. Therefore, for these species we used the Year 4 average daily values.
Pacific white-sided dolphins were only recorded during Year 2. While these estimates are likely not fully representative of the typical distributions of Pacific white-sided dolphins around San Diego Bay, they will serve as the basis for our conservative take estimates for this species. Common dolphins were observed in Years 1 and 2; however, the length of the project period in Year 2 (100 days) was considered more representative than the Year 1 project (10 days). Therefore, the values from the Year 2 estimates were used for common dolphins. A single Northern elephant seal was only recorded to have hauled out on a beach twice during all Year 1-5 work. Due to this, no average daily estimates were present for analysis; however, some discretionary take is authorized in the event Northern elephant seals are present during this action.
For all species (excluding Northern elephant seals), these daily sightings were extrapolated over the number of days of pile removal activities (84).
This second approach yielded larger and more conservative Level B take estimates, but more realistic for particular species occurrence and group size given the data was previously collected at the location of this project for similar or the same species during past projects. Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
By following this daily occurrence-based approach using past sightings at Naval Base Point Loma, we will expect that 15 California sea lions, 1 harbor seal, 9 common dolphins, 1 Pacific white-sided dolphin, and 1 bottlenose dolphin will be sighted per day. Multiplication of the above daily occurrences times the number of pile removal days planned (84) results in the Level B harassment take of 1,260 California sea lions, 84 harbor seals, 756 common dolphins, 84 Pacific white-sided dolphins, and 84 bottlenose dolphins (see Table 7 for final estimates).
The Navy has noted that northern elephant seals are very rarely seen in this area, with the only true record being of a hauled out and distressed juvenile during the Year 2 IHA (NAVFAC SW, 2015a). As a precaution that a greater number of northern elephant seal may occur around Naval
By using the sighting-based approach, take values are not affected by the chosen isopleth sizes from Table 5.
Given the very small Level A harassment isopleths for all species, no take by Level A harassment is anticipated or authorized.
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, we carefully consider 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 likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned), and;
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
The following mitigation measures are included in the IHA:
• All pile removal activities will occur individually, with the exception for the removal of the 14-inch and 16-inch concrete piles, which may be removed simultaneously by use of the pile clippers;
• A 20 m (66-ft) shutdown zone will be implemented around all pile removal activities (Table 8). If a marine mammal enters the shutdown zones, pile removal activities must be delayed or halted;
• Two Protected Species Observers (PSOs) will be employed and establish monitoring locations. The Holder must establish monitoring locations as described in the Monitoring Plan. For all pile removal activities, a minimum of one PSO must be assigned to each active pile removal location to monitor the shutdown zones. PSO(s) must be able to monitor the entire shutdown zone and the entire Level B harassment zone, or out to at least 400 m of the radial distance of the larger Level B harassment zones towards the Navigation Channel. In the event of concurrent pile removal (
• If pile removal activities have been halted or delayed due to the presence of a species in the shutdown zone, activities may commence only after the animal has been visually sighted to have voluntarily exited the shutdown zone, or after 15 minutes have passed without a re-detection of the animal;
• If the take reaches the authorized limit for an authorized species, or if a marine mammal species that is not authorized for this project enters the Level B harassment zone, pile removal will cease until consultation with NMFS can occur. If in-water pile removal activities are occurring when a non-authorized species enters the Level B harassment zone, activities must shutdown;
• The placement of the PSOs during all pile removal activities will ensure that the entire shutdown zone is visible. Should environmental conditions deteriorate such that marine mammals within the entire shutdown zone will
• PSOs must record all observations of marine mammals as described in the Monitoring Plan, regardless of distance from the pile being driven. PSOs shall document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being driven or removed;
• The marine mammal monitoring reports must contain the informational elements described in the Monitoring Plan;
• A draft marine mammal monitoring report, and PSO datasheets and/or raw sighting data, must be submitted to NMFS within 90 calendar days after the completion of pile driving activities. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 calendar days, the draft report will constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted within 30 calendar days after receipt of comments; and
• In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the IHA-holder must immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR) (
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 in the action area. 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 submitted Monitoring Plan and the Mitigation and the Monitoring and Reporting sections of the IHA. Marine mammal monitoring during pile driving and removal must be conducted by NMFS-approved PSOs in a manner consistent with the following:
• Independent PSOs (
• At least one PSO must 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 experience;
• Where a team of two or more PSOs are required, one PSO will be designated as the “Command”, or lead PSO, and will coordinate all monitoring efforts. The lead PSO must have prior experience performing the duties of an observer;
• In the event of concurrent pile removal activities, two lead PSOs may be designated and will coordinate and communicate all monitoring efforts if a single observer cannot observe the two concurrent activities. Each position will act independently and both will maintain the ability to call for a shutdown. Each lead PSOs will communicate to the other of a potential sighting of a marine protected species traveling from one location to the other within the appropriate shutdown and Level B zones during concurrent pile removal activities.
• The Navy must submit PSO Curriculum Vitae (CV) for approval by NMFS prior to the onset of pile driving.
PSOs must 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
• 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.
Up to two PSOs will be employed. PSO locations will provide an unobstructed view of all water within the shutdown zone, and as much of the Level A and Level B harassment zones as possible. PSO locations have been discussed above. An additional monitoring location is described as follows:
(1) An additional monitoring location on the Fuel Pier trestle or on a captained vessel may be utilized for pre-activity monitoring if the monitoring zone is beyond the visual range of the lead PSO's position. This vessel will start south of the Project area (where potential marine mammal occurrence is lowest) before the pile removal activity has begun and move north.
Monitoring will be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after pile removal activities. In addition, observers shall record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity and distance from the buffered shutdown zone and Level B harassment isopleth, and shall document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being removed.
The Navy has indicated in their application that they may perform hydroacoustic monitoring on any removal method and sound source that was not previously recorded and included in the
A draft marine mammal monitoring and acoustic measurement report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 calendar days after the completion of these activities, or 60 days prior to a requested date or issuance of any future IHAs for projects at the same location, whichever comes first. The report will include an overall description of work completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, the report must include:
• Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal monitoring;
• Construction activities occurring during each daily observation period, including how many and what type of piles were removed and by what method (
• Weather parameters and water conditions during each monitoring period (
• The number of marine mammals observed, by species, relative to the pile location and if pile removal was occurring at time of sighting;
• Age and sex class, if possible, of all marine mammals observed;
• PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring;
• Distances and bearings of each marine mammal observed to the pile being driven or removed for each sighting (if pile removal was occurring at time of sighting);
• Description of any marine mammal behavior patterns during observation, including direction of travel and estimated time spent within the Level A and Level B harassment zones while the source was active;
• Number of individuals of each species (differentiated by month as appropriate) detected within the monitoring zone, and estimates of number of marine mammals taken, by species (a correction factor may be applied to total take numbers, as appropriate);
• Detailed information about any implementation of any mitigation triggered (
• Description of attempts to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidences of take, such as ability to track groups or individuals; and
• Submit all PSO datasheets and/or raw sighting data (in a separate file from the Final Report referenced immediately above).
If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft final report will constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments.
In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities discover an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
• 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;
• Description of marine mammals observation in the 24-hours preceding the incident;
• 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 (
Level A harassment is extremely unlikely given the small size of the Level A harassment isopleths and the required mitigation measures designed to minimize the possibility of injury to marine mammals. No mortality is anticipated given the nature of the activity.
Pile removal activities have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the project activities may result in take, in the form of Level B harassment only from underwater sounds generated from pile cutting and removal activities. Takes could occur if individuals are present in the ensonified zones when these activities are underway. The potential for harassment is minimized through the construction method and the implementation of the planned mitigation measures (see Mitigation and the Monitoring and Reporting sections).
Take would occur within a limited, confined area (mouth of San Diego Bay) of each stock's range. Level B harassment would be reduced to the level of least practicable adverse impact through use of mitigation measures described herein. Further, the amount of take authorized is extremely small, except for bottlenose dolphins, when compared to stock abundance.
Behavioral responses of marine mammals to pile removal 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 (as noted during modification to the Kodiak Ferry Dock (ABR, 2016; see 80 FR 60636, October 7, 2015)) 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 short duration of noise-generating activities per day and that pile removal would occur across six months, any harassment would be temporary. There are no areas or times of known biological importance for any of the affected species.
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 would have only minor, short-term effects on individuals. The specified activities are not expected to impact reproduction or survival of any individual marine mammals, much less affect rates of recruitment or survival and would therefore not result in population-level impacts.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No mortality or Level A harassment is anticipated or authorized;
• No biologically important areas have been identified with the project area;
• The Navy is required to implement mitigation measures to minimize impacts, such as PSO observation and a shutdown zone of 20 m (66 ft);
• For all species, San Diego Bay is a very small and peripheral part of their range; and
• Monitoring reports from similar work in San Diego Bay have documented little to no effect on individuals of the same species impacted by the specified activities.
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 monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the activity would have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take 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 numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of individuals to be taken is fewer than one third of the species or stock abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
The amount of take NMFS proposes to authorize is below one third of the estimated stock abundances for all six species (Table 7). For most requested species, the take of individuals is less than 1 percent of the abundance of the affected stock (with exception for common bottlenose dolphins at 18.54 percent). This is likely a conservative estimate because it assumes all take are of different individual animals, which is likely not the case. Some individuals may return multiple times in a day, but PSOs would count them as separate takes if they cannot be individually identified.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the Navy's activity (including the Mitigation and the Monitoring and Reporting sections) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals would be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is authorized or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal
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 NOAA Administrative Order 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 will preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
NMFS has issued an IHA to the Navy for the potential harassment of small numbers of six marine mammal species incidental to the pile removal activities at Naval Base Point Loma in San Diego Bay, California from January 15, 2022 through January 14, 2023, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of Information Collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to the Office of Management and Budget.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before November 1, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Karen Abrams, Supervisory Fishery Management Specialist, NOAA Fisheries, 1315 East West Highway Silver Spring MD 20910, 301-427-8508, and
This request is for an extension of a currently approved information collection. Under section 318 (d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) [16 U.S.C. 1801
Fishing regulations do not generally affect scientific research activities conducted by a scientific research vessel. Persons planning to conduct such research are encouraged to submit a scientific research plan to ensure that the activities are considered research and not fishing. NMFS reviews each scientific research plan submitted to establish that the sponsoring organization and personnel involved are recognized scientific investigators, that the specific project contemplated appears to be scientific research and not fishing, and that the vessel or vessels to be used are or will be used exclusively for research for the duration of the scientific research cruise. The researchers are also requested to submit reports of their scientific research activity after its completion. NMFS Regions, Fishery Science Centers, and NMFS and Coast Guard enforcement personnel use information obtained from voluntarily submitted research plans and subsequent reports in monitoring such activities to ensure they are bona fide scientific research activities.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) may also grant exemptions from fishery regulations for educational or other activities (
Eligible researchers on board federally permitted fishing vessels that plan to temporarily possess fish in a manner not compliant with applicable fishing regulations for the purpose of collecting scientific data on catch may submit a request for a temporary possession letter of authorization. The researchers are requested to submit reports of their scientific research activity after its completion.
Responses are typically received electronically. However, information may also be submitted on paper or by telephone.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this information collection request. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of issuance of Letter of Authorization.
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, its implementing regulations, and NMFS' MMPA Regulations for Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical Surveys Related to Oil and Gas Activities in the Gulf of Mexico, notification is hereby given that a Letter of Authorization (LOA) has been issued to Fugro USA Marine, Inc. (Fugro) for the take of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activity in the Gulf of Mexico.
The LOA is effective from December 1, 2021, through November 30, 2022.
The LOA, LOA request, and supporting documentation are available online at:
Kim Corcoran, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
On January 19, 2021, we issued a final rule with regulations to govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activities conducted by oil and gas industry operators, and those persons authorized to conduct activities
Our regulations at 50 CFR 217.180
Fugro plans to conduct a 3D Ultra-Ultra High Resolution (3DUUHR) seismic survey in the Mississippi Canyon Block 20 using two sparkers and a multibeam echosounder. The objective of the 3DUUHR survey is to provide targeted subsurface data in the vicinity of the well bay where gas in the shallow section can be seen to attenuate high frequency sub bottom data. Please see Fugro's application for additional detail.
Consistent with the preamble to the final rule, the survey effort proposed by Fugro in its LOA request was used to develop LOA-specific take estimates based on the acoustic exposure modeling results described in the preamble (86 FR 5322, 5398; January 19, 2021). In order to generate the appropriate take number for authorization, the following information was considered: (1) Survey type; (2) location (by modeling zone
Exposure modeling results were generated using the single airgun proxy. Because those results assume use of a 90-in
In this case, use of the exposure modeling produces results that are substantially smaller than average GOM group sizes for multiple species
Based on the results of our analysis, NMFS has determined that the level of taking expected for this survey and authorized through the LOA is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the regulations. See Table 1 in this document and Table 9 of the rule (86 FR 5322; January 19, 2021).
Under the GOM rule, NMFS may not authorize incidental take of marine mammals in an LOA if it will exceed “small numbers.” In short, when an acceptable estimate of the individual marine mammals taken is available, if the estimated number of individual animals taken is up to, but not greater than, one-third of the best available abundance estimate, NMFS will determine that the numbers of marine mammals taken of a species or stock are small. For more information please see NMFS' discussion of the MMPA's small numbers requirement provided in the final rule (86 FR 5322, 5438; January 19, 2021).
The take numbers for authorization, which are determined as described above, are used by NMFS in making the necessary small numbers determinations, through comparison with the best available abundance estimates (see discussion at 86 FR 5322, 5391; January 19, 2021). For this comparison, NMFS' approach is to use the maximum theoretical population, determined through review of current stock abundance reports (SAR;
Based on the analysis contained herein of Fugro's proposed survey activity described in its LOA application and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the affected species or stock sizes (
NMFS has determined that the level of taking for this LOA request is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the incidental take regulations and that the amount of take authorized under the LOA is of no more than small numbers. Accordingly, we have issued an LOA to Taylor authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to its geophysical survey activity, as described above.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Notice of revised board members.
In conformance with the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announces the appointment of persons to serve as members of its Performance Review Board (PRB). This is an update to the recently published
Office of Human Resources, USPTO, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Lari B. Washington, Acting Director, Human Capital Management, USPTO, at 571-272-5187.
The membership of the USPTO PRB is as follows:
David L. Berdan, Chair, Performing the Functions and Duties of the Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the USPTO.
Frederick W. Steckler, Vice Chair, Chief Administrative Officer, USPTO.
Andrew I. Faile, Acting Commissioner for Patents, USPTO.
David S. Gooder, Commissioner for Trademarks, USPTO.
Dennis J. Hoffman, Chief Financial Officer, USPTO.
Henry J. Holcombe, Chief Information Officer, USPTO.
David M. Shewchuk, Acting General Counsel, USPTO.
Mary Critharis, Chief Policy Officer and Director for International Affairs, USPTO.
Gerard F. Rogers, Chief Administrative Trademark Judge, USPTO.
Scott R. Boalick, Chief Administrative Patent Judge, USPTO.
Bismarck Myrick, Director of the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity, USPTO.
Cara Duckworth, Acting Chief Communications Officer, USPTO.
Alternates:
Richard Seidel, Deputy Commissioner for Patents, USPTO.
Greg Dodson, Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Administration, USPTO.
The Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice of Information Collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Corporation for National and Community Service (operating as AmeriCorps) is proposing to renew an information collection.
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:
(1) By mail sent to: AmeriCorps, Attention Courtney Russell, 250 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20525.
(2) By hand delivery or by courier to the AmeriCorps mailroom at the mail address given in paragraph (1) above, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.
(3) Electronically through
Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through
Courtney Russell, 202-380-7825, or by email at
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. All written comments will be available for public inspection on
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
For each award year, the Secretary publishes in the
Vanessa Gomez, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 2C179, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-6708. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
If the Secretary selects an applicant for verification, the applicant's Institutional Student Information Record (ISIR) includes flags that indicate (1) that the applicant has been selected by the Secretary for verification and (2) the Verification Tracking Group in which the applicant has been placed. The Verification Tracking Group indicates which FAFSA information needs to be verified for the applicant and, if appropriate, for the applicant's parent(s) or spouse. The Student Aid Report (SAR) provided to the applicant will indicate that the applicant's FAFSA
To help institutions and applicants deal with the challenges resulting from the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, the Secretary has provided flexibilities to the verification regulations through the end of the first payment period that begins after the date that the COVID-19 national emergency is rescinded.
The following chart lists, for the 2022-2023 award year, the FAFSA information that an institution and an applicant and, if appropriate, the applicant's parent(s) or spouse may be required to verify under 34 CFR 668.56. The chart also lists the acceptable documentation that must, under § 668.57, be provided to an institution for that information to be verified.
Only the following FAFSA/ISIR information must be verified:
For dependent students—
• The parents' AGI if the parents were tax filers;
• The parents' income earned from work if the parents were nontax filers; and
• The student's identity/statement of educational purpose, if selected.
For independent students—
• The student's and spouse's AGI if they were tax filers;
• The student's and spouse's income earned from work if they were nontax filers;
• The student's identity/statement of educational purpose, if selected; and
• The number of household members to determine if the independent student has one or more dependents other than a spouse.
The individual FAFSA items that an applicant must verify are based upon the Verification Tracking Group to which the applicant is assigned as outlined in the following chart.
We provide a more detailed discussion on the verification process in the following resources:
•
•
•
•
• Program Integrity Information—Questions and Answers on Verification at
These publications are on the Information for Financial Aid Professionals website at www.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
U.S. Department of Energy.
Submission for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review; comment request.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted an information collection request to the OMB for extension under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a three-year extension of its Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, OMB Control Number 1910-5160. This collection was developed as part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process for seeking feedback from the public on service delivery. This notice announces DOE's intent to submit this collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval and solicits comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection.
Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before October 1, 2021. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the OMB Desk Officer of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-4718.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Yohanna Freeman, Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, PRA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-1615, by telephone at 301-903-1151, or by email at
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 27, 2021, by Ann Dunkin, Chief Information Officer, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on August 10, 2021, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure,
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214).
In addition to publishing the full text of the filed public version of this document in the
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Take notice that on August 16, 2021, Diversified Midstream, LLC (Diversified), 414 Summers Street Charleston, WV 25301, filed in Docket No. CP21-484-000 an abbreviated application under Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, requesting that the Commission issue a certificate of limited jurisdiction authorizing Diversified to provide jurisdictional transportation service on its Floyd County, Kentucky, gathering system (the Gathering System), pursuant to a firm transportation agreement with Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia). Diversified also seeks a determination by the Commission that the interstate transportation service proposed herein will not change the status of the Gathering System as being exempt from the Commission's jurisdiction under Section 1(b) of the NGA, nor affect the jurisdictional status of any other non-jurisdictional operation or service in which Diversified is currently engaged, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Any questions regarding this filing may be directed to Michelle Matthews, Associate General Counsel, Diversified Gas & Oil Corp., 414 Summers Street, Charleston, WV 25301, by phone at (214) 364-6782, or by email at
Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: You can file comments on the project, and you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding. There is no fee or cost for filing comments or intervening. The deadline for filing a motion to intervene is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 16, 2021.
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. Comments may include statements of support or objections to the project as a whole or specific aspects of the project. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before September 16, 2021.
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number CP21-484-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website at
(2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the
(3) You may file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the address below.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments (options 1 and 2 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. However, the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding. For instructions on how to intervene, see below.
Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses, municipalities, and other entities,
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
There are two ways to submit your motion to intervene. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP21-484-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your motion to intervene by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You may file a paper copy of your motion to intervene, along with three copies, by mailing the documents to the address below.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of motions to intervene (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail at: Gulf States Transmission LLC, 1300 Main Street, Houston, Texas 77002; or or by email at
All timely, unopposed
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Wisconsin Access Project (Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) in Oconto, Oneida, Manitowoc, and Marathon Counties, Wisconsin. The Commission will use this EIS in its decision-making process to determine whether the Project is in the public convenience and necessity. The schedule for preparation of the EIS is discussed in the
As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process, the Commission takes into account concerns the public may have about proposals and the environmental impacts that could result whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. This gathering of public input is referred to as “scoping.” By notice issued on April 23, 2021, in Docket No. CP21-78-000, the Commission opened a scoping period; and staff intends to prepare an EIS that will address the concerns raised during that scoping period as well as comments received in response to this notice. Therefore, the Commission requests comments on potential alternatives and impacts, and any relevant information, studies, or analyses of any kind concerning impacts affecting the quality of the human environment. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 25, 2021. Further details on how to submit comments are provided in the
As mentioned above, the Commission previously opened a scoping period which expired on May 24, 2021. All substantive written and oral comments provided during scoping will be addressed in the EIS. Therefore, if you submitted comments on this Project to the Commission during the previous scoping process, you do not need to file those comments again.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission approves the Project, the Natural Gas Act conveys the right of eminent domain to the company. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach an easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be determined by a judge in accordance with state law. The Commission does not grant, exercise, or oversee the exercise of eminent domain authority. The courts have exclusive authority to handle eminent domain cases; the Commission has no jurisdiction over these matters.
ANR provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” which addresses typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. This fact sheet along with other landowner topics of interest are available for viewing on the FERC website (
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is also on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the Project docket number (CP21-78-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This service provides automatic notification of filings made to subscribed dockets, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
ANR proposes to facilitate an increase in the firm capacity on its natural gas pipeline by approximately 50,707 dekatherms per day into Wisconsin, through software modifications and minor modifications to its existing Coleman, Lena, Meeme, Mosinee, Rhinelander, Suring, and Two Rivers Meter Stations. The modifications
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 4.1 acres of land, 2.4 acres of which are within the existing facility fencelines. Following construction, ANR would convert less than 0.1 acre of the area outside the existing facilities for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses.
Based on an initial review of ANR's proposal, Commission staff have identified a couple of expected impacts that deserve attention in the EIS. These include noise impacts and an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
The EIS issued by the Commission will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed Project under the relevant general resource areas:
• Geology and soils;
• water resources and wetlands;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• threatened and endangered species;
• cultural resources;
• land use;
• socioeconomics and environmental justice;
• air quality and noise; and
• reliability and safety.
Commission staff will also make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your comments will help Commission staff focus its analysis on the issues that may have a significant effect on the human environment.
The EIS will present Commission staff's independent analysis of the issues. Staff will prepare a draft EIS which will be issued for public comment. Commission staff will consider all timely comments received during the comment period on the draft EIS and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. Any draft and final EIS will be available in electronic format in the public record through eLibrary
The EIS will evaluate reasonable alternatives that are technically and economically feasible and meet the purpose and need for the proposed action.
• The no-action alternative, meaning the Project is not implemented.
With this notice, the Commission requests specific comments regarding any additional potential alternatives to the proposed action or segments of the proposed action. Please focus your comments on reasonable alternatives (including alternative facility sites and pipeline routes) that meet the Project objectives, are technically and economically feasible, and avoid or lessen environmental impact.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Commission initiated section 106 consultation for the Project in the notice issued on April 23, 2021, with the applicable State Historic Preservation Officer(s), and other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public to solicit their views and concerns regarding the Project's potential effects on historic properties.
On March 25, 2021, the Commission issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted other agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on the request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's final EIS for the Project. This notice identifies the Commission staff's planned schedule for completion of the final EIS for the Project, which is based on an issuance of the draft EIS in December 2021.
If a schedule change becomes necessary for the final EIS, an additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
The table below lists the anticipated permits and authorizations for the Project required under federal law. This list may not be all-inclusive and does not preclude any permit or authorization if it is not listed here. Agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise may formally cooperate in the preparation of the Commission's EIS and may adopt the EIS to satisfy its NEPA responsibilities related to this Project. Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for the Project which includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; federally recognized Indian tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the Project and includes a mailing address with their comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed Project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of the following steps:
(1) Send an email to
Or
(2) Return the attached “Mailing List Update Form” (appendix 2).
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Skipjack Solar Center, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is September 15, 2021.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Highest Power Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is September 15, 2021.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Big Bend Project (Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC (FGT) in Calhoun, Jefferson, Gadsden, Gilchrist, Santa Rosa, and Taylor Counties, Florida. The Commission will use this EIS in its decision-making process to determine whether FGT's proposed Project is in the public convenience and necessity. The schedule for preparation of the EIS is discussed in the
As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process, the Commission takes into account concerns the public may have about proposals and the environmental impacts that could result whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. This gathering of public input is referred to as “scoping.” By notice issued on March 15, 2021, in Docket No. CP21-45-000, the Commission opened a scoping period; and staff intends to prepare an EIS that will address the concerns raised during that scoping period as well as comments received in response to this notice. Therefore, the Commission requests comments on potential alternatives and impacts, and any relevant information, studies, or analyses of any kind concerning impacts affecting the quality of the human environment. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 27, 2021. Further details on how to submit comments are provided in the
As mentioned above, the Commission previously opened a scoping period which expired on April 14, 2021. All substantive written and oral comments provided during scoping will be addressed in the EIS. Therefore, if you submitted comments on this Project to the Commission during the previous scoping process, you do not need to file those comments again.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission approves the Project, the Natural Gas Act conveys the right of eminent domain to the company. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach an easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be determined by a judge in accordance with state law. The Commission does not grant, exercise, or oversee the exercise of eminent domain authority. The courts have exclusive authority to handle eminent domain cases; the Commission has no jurisdiction over these matters.
FGT provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” which addresses typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. This fact sheet along with other landowner topics of interest are available for viewing on the FERC website (
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is also on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the Project docket number (CP21-45-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This service provides automatic notification of filings made to subscribed dockets, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
FGT proposes to construct and operate the Big Bend Project to provide about 29 million standard cubic feet of natural gas per day to serve the need for additional firm transportation service in Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties, Florida for current and future electricity generation. The project facilities would consist of:
• West Loop: Approximately 1.7 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline loop
• East Loop: Approximately 1.5 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline loop extension in Jefferson County, Florida;
• Relocation of associated pig receiver stations in Calhoun and Jefferson Counties, Florida; and
• Upgrade existing natural gas-fired compressor turbines at four existing compressor stations:
○ Compressor Station 12—upgrade Unit 1207 from 15,000 horsepower (HP) to 16,000 HP in Santa Rosa County, Florida;
○ Compressor Station 14—upgrade Unit 1409 from 20,500 HP to 23,500 HP in Gadsden County, Florida;
○ Compressor Station 15—upgrade Unit 1507 from 15,000 HP to 16,000 HP in Taylor County, Florida; and
○ Compressor Station 24—upgrade Unit 2403 from 20,500 HP to 23,500 HP in Gilchrist County, Florida.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 269.3 acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipeline. Following construction, FGT would maintain about 210.4 acres for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses. All of the proposed pipeline route parallels existing pipeline, utility, or road rights-of-way. The modifications at Compressor Stations 12, 14, 15 and 24 would occur within the existing station boundaries without the need for ground disturbance.
Based on an initial review of FGT's proposal and public comments received during scoping, Commission staff have identified potential impacts that deserve attention in the EIS. The Project may affect wildlife, invasive species, conservation easements, cultural resources, and greenhouse gas emissions.
The EIS issued by the Commission will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed Project under the relevant general resource areas:
• Geology and soils;
• water resources and wetlands;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• threatened and endangered species;
• cultural resources;
• land use;
• environmental justice;
• air quality and noise; and
• reliability and safety.
Commission staff will also make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your comments will help Commission staff focus its analysis on the issues that may have a significant effect on the human environment.
The EIS will present Commission staff's independent analysis of the issues. Staff will prepare a draft EIS which will be issued for public comment. Commission staff will consider all timely comments received during the comment period on the draft EIS and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. Any draft and final EIS will be available in electronic format in the public record through eLibrary
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Commission initiated section 106 consultation for the Project in the notice issued on March 15, 2021, with the applicable State Historic Preservation Officer(s), and other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public to solicit their views and concerns regarding the Project's potential effects on historic properties.
The EIS will evaluate reasonable alternatives that are technically and economically feasible and meet the purpose and need for the proposed action.
• The no-action alternative, meaning the Project is not implemented;
• system alternatives evaluating whether the Project purpose could be met by use of the existing system facilities; and
• route alternatives.
With this notice, the Commission requests specific comments regarding any additional potential alternatives to the proposed action or segments of the proposed action. Please focus your comments on reasonable alternatives (including alternative facility sites and pipeline routes) that meet the Project objectives, are technically and economically feasible, and avoid or lessen environmental impact.
On February 12, 2021, the Commission issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted other agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on the request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's final EIS for the Project. This notice identifies the Commission staff's planned schedule for completion of the final EIS for the Project, which is based on an issuance of the draft EIS in November 2021.
If a schedule change becomes necessary for the final EIS, an additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
The table below lists the anticipated permits and authorizations for the Project required under federal law. This list may not be all-inclusive and does not preclude any permit or authorization if it is not listed here. Agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise may formally cooperate in the preparation of the Commission's EIS and may adopt the EIS to satisfy its NEPA responsibilities related to this Project. Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for the Project which includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; federally recognized Indian tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the Project and includes a mailing address with their comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed Project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would like to
(1) Send an email to
or
(2) Return the attached “Mailing List Update Form” (appendix 2).
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Delta Lateral Project (Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River) in Millard County, Utah. The Commission will use the EIS in its decision-making process to determine whether Kern River's proposed Project is in the public convenience and necessity. The schedule for preparation of the EIS is discussed in the
As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process, the Commission takes into account concerns the public may have about proposals and the environmental impacts that could result whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. This gathering of public input is referred to as “scoping.” By notice issued on January 4, 2021 in Docket No. PF20-4-000, the Commission opened a scoping period during Kern River's planning process for the Project and prior to filing a formal application with the Commission, a process referred to as “pre-filing.” Kern River has now filed an application with the Commission, and staff intends to prepare an EIS that will address the concerns raised during the pre-filing scoping process and comments received in response to this notice. Therefore, the Commission requests comments on potential alternatives and impacts, and any relevant information, studies, or analyses of any kind concerning impacts affecting the quality of the human environment. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 27, 2021. Further details on how to submit comments are provided in the
As mentioned above, during the pre-filing process, the Commission opened a scoping period which expired on February 3, 2021; however, Commission staff continued to accept comments during the entire pre-filing process. All substantive written and oral comments provided during pre-filing will be addressed in the EIS. Therefore, if you submitted comments on this Project to the Commission during the pre-filing process in Docket No. PF20-4-000 you do not need to file those comments again.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission approves the Project, the Natural Gas Act conveys the right of eminent domain to the company. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach an easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be determined by a judge in accordance with state law. The Commission does not grant, exercise, or oversee the exercise of eminent domain authority. The courts have exclusive authority to handle eminent domain cases; the Commission has no jurisdiction over these matters.
Kern River provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” which addresses typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. This fact sheet along with other landowner topics of interest are available for viewing on the FERC website (
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP21-197-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This service provides automatic notification of filings made to subscribed dockets, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Kern River requests authorization to construct, own, operate, and maintain 35.84 miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline, a new delivery meter station, and related appurtenances in Millard County, Utah. The Project will provide natural gas to Intermountain Power Agency's (IPA) Intermountain Power Project (IPP), which is being converted from coal-fired electrical generation to natural gas-fired electrical generation.
The Project would include construction of the following facilities in Millard County, Utah:
• A 35.84-mile, 24-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline;
• two mainline taps with automated lateral inlet valve assemblies;
• one in-line inspection device launcher;
• one in-line inspection device receiver;
• one automated lateral block valve assembly;
• one delivery meter station; and
• ancillary facilities.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Based on environmental information provided by the Company, construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 543.5 acres of land for the pipeline and the aboveground facilities. Following construction, Kern River would maintain about 222.7 acres for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses.
Based on an initial review of Kern River's proposal and public comments received during the pre-filing process, Commission staff have identified several expected impacts that deserve attention in the EIS. These include: Impacts on public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration; procedures for reclamation and restoration of lands disturbed during construction; effects of construction on mule deer and its habitat, protected bird species, and plants; impacts on grazing allotments and recreation, and greenhouse gas emissions.
The EIS issued by the Commission will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed Project under the relevant general resource areas:
• Geology and soils;
• water resources and wetlands;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• threatened and endangered species;
• cultural resources;
• land use;
• greenhouse gas and climate;
• air quality and noise; and
• reliability and safety.
Commission staff will also make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your comments will help Commission staff focus its analysis on the issues that may have a significant effect on the human environment.
The EIS will present Commission staff's independent analysis of the issues. The Bureau of Land Management is a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS.
The EIS will evaluate reasonable alternatives that are technically and economically feasible and meet the purpose and need for the proposed action.
• The no-action alternative, meaning the Project is not implemented; and
• a system alternative evaluating whether the Project purpose could be met by use of an existing pipeline system.
With this notice, the Commission requests specific comments regarding any additional potential alternatives to the proposed action or segments of the proposed action. Please focus your comments on reasonable alternatives (including alternative facility sites and pipeline routes) that meet the Project objectives, are technically and economically feasible, and avoid or lessen environmental impact.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Commission initiated section 106 consultation for the Project in the notice issued on January 4, 2021, with the Utah State Historic Preservation Office, and other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public to solicit their views and concerns regarding the project's potential effects on historic properties.
On May 5, 2021, the Commission issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted other agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to
If a schedule change becomes necessary for the final EIS, an additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
The table below lists the anticipated permits and authorizations for the Project required under federal law. This list may not be all-inclusive and does not preclude any permit or authorization if it is not listed here. Agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise may formally cooperate in the preparation of the Commission's EIS and may adopt the EIS to satisfy its NEPA responsibilities related to this Project. Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for the Project which includes the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration, federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the Project and includes a mailing address with their comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed Project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
(1) Send an email to
(2)
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that on August 19, 2021, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation (NSPM), filed a petition for declaratory order requesting the Commission issue an order stating that NSPM's acquisition of certain natural gas supply assets currently owned by Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) will not change NSPM's jurisdictional status as a natural gas local distribution company (LDC), exempt from the Commission's jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Trade Secrets Claims for Community Right-To-Know and Emergency Planning (EPCRA section 322)” (EPA ICR No. 1428.12, OMB Control No. 2050-0078) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described in
Comments must be submitted on or before November 1, 2021.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0361, to: (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Wendy Hoffman, Office of Emergency Management, Mail Code 5104A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-8794; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Trade secret protection is provided for specific chemical identities contained in reports submitted under each of the
The burden estimates, numbers and types of respondents, wage rates and unit and total costs for this ICR renewal will be revised and updated if needed during the 60-day comment period while the ICR Supporting Statement is undergoing review at OMB.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office requests public nominations of scientific experts to form a panel to review the EPA White Paper: A Standardized Approach to Biosolids Chemical Risk Assessment and a Biosolids Screening Tool with an accompanying User Guide. The White Paper, which includes a prioritization method, deterministic screening model, and a probabilistic risk assessment modeling framework will be used to modernize, standardize, and streamline the risk assessment process to efficiently and thoroughly assess risk to chemical pollutants found in biosolids.
Nominations should be submitted by September 22, 2021 per the instructions below.
Any member of the public wishing further information regarding this Notice and Request for Nominations may contact Dr. Shaunta Hill-Hammond, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office by telephone/voice mail (202) 564-3343, or email at
The Biosolids Panel will conduct the review of the EPA White Paper: A Standardized Approach to Biosolids Chemical Risk Assessment and a Biosolids Screening Tool (BST) with an accompanying User Guide prepared by the EPA's Office of Water. The White Paper, BST and User Guide present the EPA's proposed screening process to identify pollutants, pathways and receptors of greatest interest and inform decisions regarding the need for refined risk assessment of land-applied biosolids.
The following information should be provided on the nomination form: Contact information for the person making the nomination; contact information for the nominee; and the disciplinary and specific areas of expertise of the nominee. Nominees will be contacted by the SAB Staff Office and will be asked to provide a recent curriculum vitae and a narrative biographical summary that includes current position; educational background; research activities; sources of research funding for the last two years; and recent service on other national advisory committees or national professional organizations. Persons having questions about the nomination procedures, or who are unable to submit nominations through the SAB website, should contact the DFO at the contact information noted above. The names and biosketches of qualified nominees identified by
For the EPA SAB Staff Office a balanced review panel includes candidates who possess the necessary domains of knowledge, the relevant scientific perspectives (which, among other factors, can be influenced by work history and affiliation), and the collective breadth of experience to adequately address the charge. In forming the expert panel, the SAB Staff Office will consider public comments on the Lists of Candidates, information provided by the candidates themselves, and background information independently gathered by the SAB Staff Office. Selection criteria to be used for panel membership include: (a) Scientific and/or technical expertise, knowledge, and experience (primary factors); (b) availability and willingness to serve; (c) absence of financial conflicts of interest; (d) absence of an appearance of a loss of impartiality; (e) skills working in committees, subcommittees and advisory panels; and (f) for the panel as a whole, diversity of expertise and scientific points of view.
The SAB Staff Office's evaluation of an absence of financial conflicts of interest will include a review of the “Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Environmental Protection Agency Special Government Employees” (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential form is required and allows government officials to determine whether there is a statutory conflict between a person's public responsibilities (which include membership on an EPA federal advisory committee) and private interests and activities, or the appearance of a loss of impartiality, as defined by federal regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded through the “Ethics Requirements for Advisors” link on the SAB website at
The approved policy under which the EPA SAB Office selects members for subcommittees and review panels is described in the following document:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces the availability of and solicits public comment on an Information Collection Request (ICR) that EPA is planning to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR, entitled: “Submission of Protocols and Study Reports for Environmental Research Involving Human Subjects” and identified by EPA ICR No. 2195.06 and OMB Control No. 2070-0169, represents the renewal of an existing ICR that is scheduled to expire on April 30, 2022. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval under the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection that is summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the docket for public review and comment.
Comments must be received on or before November 1, 2021.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0315, using
Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit
Carolyn Siu, Mission Support Division (7101M), Office of Program Support, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 34-0159; email address:
Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
The estimated respondent burden remains 10,242 hours, which is the same as that approved by OMB for the existing ICR. The anticipated number of responses per year is based on the submissions to the Agency in the recent past and recognition that some of the studies underway will be submitted prior to the start of the renewal period. The annual burden per activity is estimated to be 1,446 hours per response for research involving intentional exposure of human subjects, and 12 hours per response for all other research with human subjects.
In addition, OMB has requested that EPA move towards using the 18-question format for ICR Supporting Statements used by other federal agencies and departments and that is based on the submission instructions established by OMB in 1995, replacing the alternate format developed by EPA and OMB prior to 1995. The Agency does not expect this change in format to result in substantive changes to the information collection activities or related estimated burden and costs.
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of requests by registrants to voluntarily cancel certain pesticide registrations. EPA intends to grant these requests at the close of the comment period for this announcement unless the Agency receives substantive comments within the comment period that would merit its further review of the requests, or unless the registrants withdraw their requests. If these requests are granted, any sale, distribution, or use of products listed in this notice will be permitted after the registrations have been cancelled only if such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms as described in the final order.
Comments must be received on or before February 28, 2022.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0015, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Submit written withdrawal request by mail to: Registration Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. ATTN: Christopher Green.
Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with limited
Christopher Green, Registration Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 347-0367; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides.
1.
2.
This notice announces receipt by the Agency of requests from registrants to cancel certain pesticide products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a) or 24(c) (7 U.S.C. 136v(c)). These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number (or company number and 24(c) number) in Table 1 of this unit.
Unless the Agency determines that there are substantive comments that warrant further review of the requests or the registrants withdraw their requests, EPA intends to issue an order in the
Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in this unit.
Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the
Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(B)) requires that before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation, EPA must provide a 30-day public comment period on the request for voluntary cancellation or use termination. In addition, FIFRA section 6(f)(1)(C) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(C)) requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment period on a request for voluntary cancellation or termination of any minor agricultural use before granting the request, unless:
1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or
2. The EPA Administrator determines that continued use of the pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.
The registrants in Table 2 of Unit II have not requested that EPA waive the 180-day comment period. Accordingly, EPA will provide a 180-day comment period on the proposed requests.
Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation should submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under
Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products that are currently in the United States and that were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. Because the Agency has identified no significant potential risk concerns associated with these pesticide products, upon cancellation of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II, EPA anticipates allowing registrants to sell and distribute existing stocks of these products for 1 year after publication of the Cancellation Order in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of public meeting.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Research and Development (ORD), gives notice of a series of virtual meetings of the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Executive Committee (EC) to review the draft reports of the Homeland Security (HS) and Safe and Sustainable Water Resources (SSWR) subcommittees and discuss Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).
1. The meetings will be held over five days via videoconference:
a. Tuesday, September 14, 2021 from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. (EDT). This meeting will cover the HS and SSWR draft reports;
b. Wednesday, September 29, 2021 from 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. (EDT); and
c. Thursday, September 30, 2021 from 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. (EDT). These meetings will cover PFAS.
Attendees must register by September 13, 2021.
2. A BOSC deliberation on PFAS will be held on October 8, 2021, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. (EDT). Attendees must register by October 7, 2021.
3. A final deliberation on PFAS will be held on October 20, 2021, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. (EDT). Attendees must register by October 19, 2021.
Meeting times are subject to change. This series of meetings are open to the public. Comments must be received by September 13 to be considered by the Executive Committee. Requests for the draft agenda or making a presentation at the meeting will be accepted until September 13.
Instructions on how to connect to the videoconference will be provided upon registration at
Submit your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0765 by one of the following methods:
•
•
Copyrighted materials in the docket are only available via hard copy. The telephone number for the ORD Docket Center is (202) 566-1752.
The Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Tom Tracy, via phone/voicemail at: (202) 564-6518; or via email at:
Any member of the public interested in receiving a draft agenda, attending the meeting, or making a presentation at the meeting should contact Tom Tracy no later than September 13, 2021.
The Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) is a federal advisory committee that provides advice and recommendations to EPA's Office of Research and Development on technical and management issues of its research programs. Meeting agendas and materials will be posted to
Proposed agenda items for the meeting include, but are not limited to, the following: Review the HS and SSWR draft reports and PFAS.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces the availability of and solicits public comment on an Information Collection Request (ICR) that EPA is planning to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR, entitled: “Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools and Asbestos Model Accreditation Plans” and identified by EPA ICR No. 1365.12 and OMB Control No. 2070-0091, represents the renewal of an existing ICR that is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2022. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval under the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection that is summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the docket for public review and comment.
Comments must be received on or before November 1, 2021.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0319, through
Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status information on EPA/DC and docket access, visit
Jeffrey Putt, Existing Chemicals Risk Management Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-3703; email address:
Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Section 203 of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA, 15 U.S.C. 2641-2656), authorizes the EPA Administrator to promulgate regulations “for determining whether asbestos-containing material is present in a school building under the authority of a local education agency (LEA).” Accordingly, the Agency developed regulations in 40 CFR part 763, subpart E to require LEAs to conduct inspections, develop management plans, and design or conduct response actions. Records must be maintained by all LEAs on inspections and response action activity, and current management plans must be provided upon request to EPA and state reviewers for examination.
Section 206 of AHERA, as amended, authorized the EPA Administrator, in consultation with affected organizations, to develop a model accreditation plan for states. The MAP provides accreditation criteria for persons who inspect for asbestos, develop management plans, and design or conduct response actions. States are required to adopt an accreditation plan at least as stringent as the EPA model plan. The accreditation requirements apply to persons who work in public and commercial buildings as well as schools. Accreditation of laboratories that analyze asbestos bulk samples and asbestos air samples is also required by AHERA.
This ICR estimates the paperwork burden for LEAs to inspect for asbestos and update management plans to protect all school building occupants from exposure to asbestos. This collection also estimates the paperwork burden for the accreditation of persons who inspect for asbestos, develop management plans, and design or conduct response actions and the paperwork burden associated with state accreditation programs.
The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
There is an increase in total annual costs compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This is an increase of 45,766 hours (from 2,554,913 hours to 2,600,679 hours). The increase in the respondent burden and agency costs were caused by an increase in the hourly wages and a change in the methodology to calculate loaded wages (wages plus fringe benefits and overhead). This change is an adjustment.
In addition, OMB has requested that EPA move towards using the 18-question format for ICR Supporting Statements used by other federal agencies and departments and is based on the submission instructions established by OMB in 1995, replacing the alternate format developed by EPA and OMB prior to 1995. The Agency does not expect this change in format to result in substantive changes to the information collection activities or related estimated burden and costs.
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Farm Credit Administration Board, Farm Credit Administration.
Notice, regular meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act, of the forthcoming regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board.
The regular meeting of the Board will be held September 9, 2021, from 9:00 a.m. until such time as the Board may conclude its business.
To observe the open portion of the virtual meeting, go to
Dale Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board (703) 883-4009. TTY is (703) 883-4056.
Instructions for attending the virtual meeting: This meeting of the Board will be open to the public, and parts will be closed. If you wish to observe, at least 24 hours before the meeting, go to
The matters to be considered at the meeting are as follows:
86 FR 47498.
Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. and its continuation at the conclusion of the open meeting on September 2, 2021.
This meeting will also discuss:
Matters relating to internal personnel decisions, or internal rules and practices.
Matters which involve the consideration of a proceeding of a formal nature by the Commission against a specific person or the formal censure of any person.
Information of which disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
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
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 October 1, 2021.
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
1.
2.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the recordkeeping and disclosure requirements associated with the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), implemented by Regulation Z (FR Z; OMB No. 7100-0199). The revisions are applicable immediately.
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Desk Officer for the Federal Reserve Board, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. The OMB inventory, as well as copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements, and approved collection of information instrument(s) are available at
The Board's ability to reduce regulatory burden for small entities under Regulation Z is limited because the Dodd-Frank Act transferred rule writing authority for Board-supervised institutions under Regulation Z to the Bureau. Nonetheless, the Board has taken steps to minimize burden on small entities through tailored supervision, including through a risk-focused consumer compliance supervision program and an examination frequency policy that provides for lengthened time between examinations for institutions with a lower risk profile.
The Board allocates to itself all estimated burden to state member banks with assets of $10 billion or less that are not affiliated with an insured depository institution with assets over $10 billion.
The disclosures, records, policies and procedures required by Regulation Z are not required to be submitted to the Board. To the extent such information is obtained by the Board through the examination process, they may be kept confidential under exemption 8 of the Freedom of Information Act, which protects information contained in or related to an examination of a financial institution.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 26, 2021.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice, request for comment.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) invites comment on a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the Registration of a Securities Holding Company (FR 2082; OMB No. 7100-0347).
Comments must be submitted on or before November 1, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by FR 2082, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's website at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Desk Officer for the Federal Reserve Board, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829.
On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. In exercising this delegated authority, the Board is directed to take every reasonable step to solicit comment. In determining whether to approve a collection of information, the Board will consider all comments received from the public and other agencies.
During the comment period for this proposal, a copy of the proposed PRA OMB submission, including the draft reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation, will be made available on the Board's public website at
The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Board's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Board's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Board should modify the proposal.
The FR 2082 requests the following from the registering SHC: An organization chart (including all subsidiaries); information regarding certain of the SHC's subsidiaries; shareholder reports and financial statements; information regarding the SHC's shareholders, senior officers and directors; information regarding the methods used by the SHC to monitor and control its operations; information regarding the SHC's foreign subsidiaries that are subject to comprehensive consolidated supervision and the regulatory system in which these foreign subsidiaries operate; and information regarding any other regulatory capital framework to which the SHC is subject. The information collected by the FR 2082 registration form is used by the Federal Reserve System to determine whether the registrant meets the requirements to become a supervised SHC and to complete the registration.
The information provided on the FR 2082 form and in connection with an SHC's registration is generally considered public. Firms may request certain information provided in connection with the FR 2082 be kept confidential under exemptions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in accordance with the Board's Rules Regarding Availability of Information.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the Census of Finance Companies and Other Lenders and the Survey of Finance Companies (FR 3033p and FR 3033s; OMB No. 7100-0277). The revisions are effective immediately.
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Desk Officer for the Federal Reserve Board, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. The OMB inventory, as well as copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements, and approved collection of information instrument(s) are available at
The FR 3033p and FR 3033s are voluntary. The information collected pursuant to the FR 3033p and FR 3033s may be treated as confidential pursuant to exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act,
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 26, 2021.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice; request for comment.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) invites
Comments must be submitted on or before November 1, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by FR W, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's website at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Desk Officer for the Federal Reserve Board, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829.
On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. In exercising this delegated authority, the Board is directed to take every reasonable step to solicit comment. In determining whether to approve a collection of information, the Board will consider all comments received from the public and other agencies.
During the comment period for this proposal, a copy of the proposed PRA OMB submission, including the draft reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation, will be made available on the Board's public website at
The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Board's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Board's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Board should modify the proposal.
Certain transactions with affiliates are exempt from the quantitative limits, collateral requirements, and low-quality asset prohibition of Regulation W. Section 12 CFR 223.42(f) exempts from those provisions certain purchases by a
Information provided on the Loan Participation Renewal notice (Section 223.15(b)(4)) may be considered confidential under exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) as confidential commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private. Information provided on the Acquisition notice (Section 223.31(d)(4)), the Internal Corporate Reorganization Transaction notice (Section 223.41(d)(2)), and the Section 23A Additional Information request (Section 223.43(b)) generally is not considered confidential, but respondents may request confidential treatment under exemption 4 of the FOIA if the information is confidential commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private. Information collected under the FR W may also be considered confidential under FOIA exemption 8 if it is obtained as part of an examination or supervision of a financial institution.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice, request for comment.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) invites comment on a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the Recordkeeping Provisions Associated with the Guidance on Sound Incentive Compensation Policies (FR 4027; OMB No. 7100-0327).
Comments must be submitted on or before November 1, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by FR 4027, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's website at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Desk Officer for the Federal Reserve Board, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829.
On June 15, 1984, OMB delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collections of information conducted or sponsored by the Board. In exercising this delegated authority, the Board is directed to take every reasonable step to solicit comment. In determining whether to approve a collection of information, the Board will consider all comments received from the public and other agencies.
During the comment period for this proposal, a copy of the proposed PRA OMB submission, including the draft reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation, will be made available on the Board's public website at
The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Board's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Board's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance,
At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Board should modify the proposal.
The Guidance is based on three key principles. These principles provide that incentive compensation arrangements at a banking organization should:
1. Provide employees incentives that appropriately balance risk and reward;
2. Be compatible with effective controls and risk-management; and
3. Be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization's board of directors.
The recordkeeping provisions of the Guidance are contained within principles 2 and 3.
Pursuant to Principle 2 of the Guidance, a banking organization's risk-management processes and internal controls should reinforce and support the development and maintenance of balanced incentive compensation arrangements. Principle 2 states that banking organizations should create and maintain sufficient documentation to permit an audit of the organization's processes for establishing, modifying, and monitoring incentive compensation arrangements.
Additionally, global systemically important bank holding companies and banking organizations subject to Category II-IV enhanced prudential standards under Regulation YY and foreign banking organizations required to form an intermediate holding company under Regulation YY should maintain policies and procedures that (1) identify and describe the role(s) of the personnel, business units, and control units authorized to be involved in the design, implementation, and monitoring of incentive compensation arrangements, (2) identify the source of significant risk-related inputs into these processes and establish appropriate controls governing the development and approval of these inputs to help ensure their integrity, and (3) identify the individual(s) and control unit(s) whose approval is necessary for the establishment of new incentive compensation arrangements or modification of existing arrangements.
Pursuant to Principle 3 of the Guidance, banking organizations should have strong and effective corporate governance to help ensure sound compensation practices. Principle 3 states that a banking organization's board of directors should approve and document any material exceptions or adjustments to the organization's incentive compensation arrangements established for senior executives.
Because the recordkeeping provisions are contained within guidance, which is nonbinding, they are voluntary. There are no reporting forms associated with this information collection.
Because the incentive compensation records would be maintained at each banking organization, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) would only be implicated if the Board obtained such records as part of the examination or supervision of a banking organization. In the event the records are obtained by the Board as part of an examination or supervision of a banking organization, this information may be considered confidential pursuant to exemption 8 of the FOIA, which protects information contained in “examination, operating, or condition reports” obtained in the bank supervisory process. In addition, the information may also constitute nonpublic commercial or financial information, which is both customarily and actually treated as private by the respondent, and thus may be kept confidential by the Board pursuant to exemption 4 of the FOIA.
Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, HHS.
Request for public comment.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is proposing to collect data on different approaches that Head Start programs use for the recruitment, selection, enrollment, and retention (RSER) of families facing adversities and the community organizations with
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
We will collect information from six sites; each site will include (1) a Head Start program that has demonstrated success in the RSER of families experiencing adversities and (2) up to four of its community partner organizations that serve families experiencing adversities.
We will collect information on how programs determine which adversities to focus on for their RSER efforts; RSER approaches programs use, focusing specifically on families experiencing adversities; RSER-related training and support that Head Start staff receive; partnerships that programs form with organizations in the community to support these activities; and supporting factors and barriers to participation of enrolled and non-enrolled families who face adversities.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.
The meeting will be held on November 4, 2021, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern Time.
Please note that due to the impact of this COVID-19 pandemic, all meeting participants will be joining this advisory committee meeting via an online teleconferencing platform. Answers to commonly asked questions about FDA advisory committee meetings
FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2021-N-0860. The docket will close on November 3, 2021. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting by November 3, 2021. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before November 3, 2021. The
Comments received on or before October 21, 2021, will be provided to the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by FDA. In the event that the meeting is cancelled, FDA will continue to evaluate any relevant applications or information, and consider any comments submitted to the docket, as appropriate.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” FDA will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Joyce Frimpong, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-7973, Fax: 301-847-8533, email:
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available on FDA's website at the time of the advisory committee meeting. Background material and the link to the online teleconference meeting room will be available at
For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Joyce Frimpong (see
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before October 1, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Sherrette Funn,
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
OMB No. 0990-NEW—Office of Population Affairs—OASH—OS.
Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is hereby giving notice that the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) will hold a virtual meeting. The meeting will be open to the public and public comment will be heard during the meeting.
The meeting will be held September 14-15, 2021. The confirmed meeting times and agenda will be posted on the NVAC website at
Instructions regarding attending this meeting will be posted online at:
Ann Aikin, Acting Designated Federal Officer, at the Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Mary E. Switzer Building, Room L618, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20024. Email:
Pursuant to Section 2101 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-1), the Secretary of HHS was mandated to establish the National Vaccine Program to achieve optimal prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization and to achieve optimal prevention against adverse reactions to vaccines. The NVAC was established to provide advice and make recommendations to the Director of the National Vaccine Program on matters related to the Program's responsibilities. The Assistant Secretary for Health serves as Director of the National Vaccine Program.
During this NVAC meeting, NVAC will hear presentations on vaccine safety, vaccine development, and communication activities. Please note that agenda items are subject to change, as priorities dictate. Information on the final meeting agenda will be posted prior to the meeting on the NVAC website:
Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comment at the NVAC meeting during the public comment period designated on the agenda. Public comments made during the meeting will be limited to three minutes per person to ensure time is allotted for all those wishing to speak. Individuals are also welcome to submit written comments in advance. Written comments should not exceed three pages in length. Individuals submitting comments should email their written comments or their request to provide a comment during the meeting to
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before October 1, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Sagal Musa,
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Agencies are currently using a variety of forms to account for both federally owned and grantee owned equipment and property. During the public consultation process mandated by Public Law 106-107, grant recipients requested a standard form to help them submit appropriate property information when required. The Public Law 106-107 Post Awards Subgroup developed a new standard form, the Tangible Personal Property Report, for submission of the required data. The form consists of the cover sheet (SF-428), three attachments to be used as required: Annual Report, SF-428-A; Final Report, SF-428-B; Disposition Request/Report, SF-428-C and a Supplemental Sheet, SF-428S to provide detailed individual item information when required. The IC expired on 6/30/2020. We are seeking
Pursuant to section 10(d) 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 10(d) 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 10(d) 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 10(d) 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.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice; correction.
The Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health published a Notice in the
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Dr. Cesar E. Perez-Gonzalez, Training Director, Office of the Scientific Director, National Eye Institute, NIH, Building 31, Room 6A22, MSC 0250, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 or call non-toll-free number (301) 451- 6763 or Email your request, including your address to:
In the
Pursuant to section 10(d) 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.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer at (240) 276-0361.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) is requesting an extension to collect the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data collection (OMB No. 0930-0335), which expires on April 30, 2022. TEDS is a compilation of client-level substance use treatment admission and discharge data submitted by states on clients treated in facilities that receive state funds. SAMHSA is also requesting an extension to collect the client-level mental health admission and update/discharge data (MH-TEDS/MH-CLD) submitted by states on clients treated in facilities that receive state funds (also OMB No. 0930-0335).
TEDS/MH-TEDS/MH-CLD data are collected to obtain information on the number of admissions and updates/discharges at publicly funded substance use treatment and mental health services facilities and on the characteristics of clients receiving services at those facilities.
TEDS/MH-TEDS/MH-CLD also monitor trends in the demographic, substance use, and mental health characteristics of admissions. In addition, several of the data elements used to calculate performance measures for the Substance Abuse Block Grant (SABG) and Mental Health Block Grant (MHBG) applications are collected through the TEDS/MH-TEDS/MH-CLD.
Most states collect the TEDS/MH-TEDS/MH-CLD data elements from their treatment providers for their own administrative purposes and are able to submit a cross-walked extract of their data to TEDS/MH-TEDS/MH-CLD. No changes are expected in the TEDS/MH-TEDS/MH-CLD data elements that are collected.
Send comments to Carlos Graham, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 15E57A, Rockville, MD 20857
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-0361.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration's (SAMHSA) will monitor program performance of its Training and Technical Assistance (TTA) Programs. The TTAs disseminate current behavioral health services research from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institute of Justice, and other sources, as well as other SAMHSA programs. To accomplish this, the TTAs develop and update state-of-the-art, research-based curricula and professional development training.
The TTAs hold a variety of events: Technical assistance events, meetings, trainings, presentations and learning collaboratives. A TTA technical assistance event is defined as a jointly planned consultation generally involving a series of contacts between the TTA and an outside organization/institution during which the TTA program provides expertise and gives direction toward resolving a problem or improving conditions. Technical assistance events can be categorized into universal, targeted, and intensive. Other TTA events such as meetings, training, strategic planning and learning collaboratives are utilized to support technical assistance. These events are TTA-sponsored or co-sponsored events in which a group of people representing one or more agencies other than the TTA program work cooperatively on a project, problem, and/or policy.
SAMHSA intends to use three (3) instruments for program monitoring of TTA events as well as ongoing quality improvement, which are described below.
1.
2.
3.
The information collected on the TTA program forms will assist SAMHSA in documenting the numbers and types of participants in TTA events, describing the extent to which participants report improvement in their professional development, and which method is most effective in disseminating knowledge to various audiences. This type of information is crucial to support SAMHSA in complying with GPRA reporting requirements and will inform future development of knowledge dissemination activities.
The chart below summarizes the annualized burden for this project.
Send comments to Carlos Graham, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 15E57A, Rockville, MD 20857
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 1, 2021.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0144 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2008-0014. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, telephone number (240) 721-3000 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
USCIS is requesting public comments on this revision of the H-1B Registration Tool. The information collection instrument posted with this 60-day
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Office of Community Planning and Development, Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Anna Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-5535 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Gloria Coates, Senior Community Planning and Development Specialist, Entitlement Communities Division, Office of Block Grant Assistance, 451 7th Street SW, Room 7282, Washington, DC 20410; email Gloria Coates at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval form OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
New York Towns may qualify as metropolitan cities if they are able to secure the participation of all of the villages located within their boundaries. Any New York Town that is located in an urban county may choose to leave that urban county when that county is requalifying. That New York Town will be required to notify the urban county in advance of its decision to decline participation in the urban county's CDBG program and complete the metropolitan city qualification process.
This total number of combined burden hours can be expected to increase annually by 1,200 hours, given the average of two new urban counties becoming eligible entitlement grantees each year.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, James Arthur Jemison II, having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this document to submitter, Aaron Santa Anna, who is the Federal Register Liaison for HUD, for purposes of publication in the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for review and public comment.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability of the Draft Recovery Plan for Umtanum Desert buckwheat (
To ensure consideration, comments on the draft recovery plan must be received on or before November 1, 2021. However, we will accept information about any species at any time.
•
•
Brad Thompson, State Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 101, Lacey, WA 98502; telephone 360-753-9440. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf, call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of the Draft Recovery Plan for Umtanum Desert Buckwheat (
The Umtanum desert buckwheat is a long-lived perennial that occurs in a narrow, discontinuous band on Umtanum Ridge at least 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) long. This plant is closely associated with Lolo Flow lithosol soils in the Lower Columbia River Basin in the State of Washington. In April 2013 and as reaffirmed in December 2013, the Umtanum desert buckwheat found along sparsely vegetated, north-facing basalt cliff of Umtanum Ridge in central Washington State, was listed as a threatened species pursuant to the Act (78 FR 23983; April 23, 2013; 78 FR 76995; December 20, 2013).
Recovery of endangered and threatened animals and plants is a primary goal of our endangered species program. To help guide the recovery effort, we prepare recovery plans for most listed species. Recovery plans describe actions considered necessary for conservation of the species, establish criteria for downlisting or delisting, and estimate time and cost for implementing recovery measures.
The Service has recently revised its approach to recovery planning and is now using a new process termed recovery planning and implementation (RPI) (see
The primary recovery strategy for the Umtanum desert buckwheat is to increase the capability of the single population to withstand stochastic events, establish new populations to provide a safety margin against catastrophic events, and to increase the ecological and/or genetic diversity of the species. Recovery will hinge on establishing self-sustaining populations, improving habitat, reducing threats, and preserving or enhancing the ability of individuals to survive and reproduce in the range of conditions they are likely to experience.
We may initiate an assessment of whether recovery has been achieved and delisting is warranted when the recovery criteria have been met, including once a sixth population has been discovered or established on conserved lands and is managed in a way that is compatible with Umtanum desert buckwheat conservation.
Section 4(f) of the Act requires us to provide public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment during recovery plan development. It is also our policy to request peer review of recovery plans (59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994). In an appendix to the approved final recovery plan, we will summarize and respond to the substantive comments raised during public comment and peer review. Substantive comments may or may not result in changes to the recovery plan. Comments regarding recovery plan implementation will be forwarded as appropriate to Federal or other entities so that they can be taken into account during the course of implementing recovery actions.
We will consider all comments we receive by the date specified in
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the approval of Third Amendment to the Tribal-State Compact (Amendment) for Class III Gaming between the Spokane Tribe (Tribe) and the State of Washington (State).
The amendment takes effect on September 1, 2021.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240,
Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approved the Title XVII Pueblo of Jemez Residential Leasing Code under the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act of 2012 (HEARTH Act). With this approval, the Tribe is authorized to enter into residential leases without further BIA approval.
BIA issued the approval on August 25, 2021.
Ms. Sharlene Round Face, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services, 1001 Indian School Road NW, Albuquerque, NM 87104,
The HEARTH Act makes a voluntary, alternative land leasing process available to Tribes, by amending the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955, 25 U.S.C. 415. The HEARTH Act authorizes Tribes to negotiate and enter into business leases of Tribal trust lands with a primary term of 25 years, and up to two renewal terms of 25 years each, without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary). The HEARTH Act also authorizes Tribes to enter into leases for residential, recreational, religious, or educational purposes for a primary term of up to 75 years without the approval of the Secretary. Participating Tribes develop Tribal leasing regulations, including an environmental review process, and then must obtain the Secretary's approval of those regulations prior to entering into leases. The HEARTH Act requires the Secretary to approve Tribal regulations if the Tribal regulations are consistent with the Department of the Interior's (Department) leasing regulations at 25 CFR part 162 and provide for an environmental review process that meets requirements set forth in the HEARTH Act. This notice announces that the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, has approved the Tribal regulations for the Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico.
The Department's regulations governing the surface leasing of trust and restricted Indian lands specify that, subject to applicable Federal law, permanent improvements on leased land, leasehold or possessory interests, and activities under the lease are not subject to State and local taxation and may be subject to taxation by the Indian Tribe with jurisdiction. See 25 CFR 162.017. As explained further in the preamble to the final regulations, the Federal government has a strong interest in promoting economic development, self-determination, and Tribal sovereignty. 77 FR 72440, 72447-48 (December 5, 2012). The principles supporting the Federal preemption of State law in the field of Indian leasing and the taxation of lease-related interests and activities applies with equal force to leases entered into under Tribal leasing regulations approved by the Federal government pursuant to the HEARTH Act.
Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. 5108, preempts State and local taxation of permanent improvements on trust land.
The strong Federal and Tribal interests against State and local taxation of improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased under the Department's leasing regulations apply equally to improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased pursuant to Tribal leasing regulations approved under the HEARTH Act. Congress's overarching intent was to “allow Tribes to exercise greater control over their own land, support self-determination, and eliminate bureaucratic delays that stand in the way of homeownership and economic development in Tribal communities.” 158 Cong. Rec. H2682 (May 15, 2012). The HEARTH Act was intended to afford Tribes “flexibility to adapt lease terms to suit [their] business and cultural needs” and to “enable [Tribes] to approve leases quickly and efficiently.” H. Rep. 112-427 at 6 (2012).
Assessment of State and local taxes would obstruct these express Federal policies supporting Tribal economic development and self-determination, and also threaten substantial Tribal interests in effective Tribal government, economic self-sufficiency, and territorial autonomy.
Similar to BIA's surface leasing regulations, Tribal regulations under the HEARTH Act pervasively cover all aspects of leasing.
Accordingly, the Federal and Tribal interests weigh heavily in favor of preemption of State and local taxes on lease-related activities and interests, regardless of whether the lease is governed by Tribal leasing regulations or Part 162. Improvements, activities, and leasehold or possessory interests may be subject to taxation by the Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approved the Title XVI Pueblo of Jemez Tribal Leasing Code under the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act of 2012 (HEARTH Act). With this approval, the Tribe is authorized to enter agricultural, business, and wind and solar leases without further BIA approval.
BIA issued the approval on August 25, 2021.
Ms. Sharlene Round Face, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services, 1001 Indian School Road NW, Albuquerque, NM 87104,
The HEARTH Act makes a voluntary, alternative land leasing process available to Tribes, by amending the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955, 25 U.S.C. 415. The HEARTH Act authorizes Tribes to negotiate and enter into business leases of Tribal trust lands with a primary term of 25 years, and up to two renewal terms of 25 years each, without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary). The HEARTH Act also authorizes Tribes to enter into leases for residential, recreational, religious, or educational purposes for a primary term of up to 75 years without the approval of the Secretary. Participating Tribes develop Tribal leasing regulations, including an environmental review process, and then must obtain the Secretary's approval of those regulations prior to entering leases. The HEARTH Act requires the Secretary to approve Tribal regulations if the Tribal regulations are consistent with the Department of the Interior's (Department) leasing regulations at 25 CFR part 162 and provide for an environmental review process that meets requirements set forth in the HEARTH Act. This notice announces that the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, has approved the Tribal regulations for the Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico.
The Department's regulations governing the surface leasing of trust and restricted Indian lands specify that, subject to applicable Federal law, permanent improvements on leased land, leasehold or possessory interests, and activities under the lease are not subject to State and local taxation and may be subject to taxation by the Indian Tribe with jurisdiction. See 25 CFR 162.017. As explained further in the preamble to the final regulations, the Federal government has a strong interest in promoting economic development, self-determination, and Tribal sovereignty. 77 FR 72,440, 72,447-48 (December 5, 2012). The principles supporting the Federal preemption of State law in the field of Indian leasing and the taxation of lease-related interests and activities applies with equal force to leases entered into under Tribal leasing regulations approved by the Federal government pursuant to the HEARTH Act.
Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. 5108, preempts State and local taxation of permanent improvements on trust land.
The strong Federal and Tribal interests against State and local taxation of improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased under the Department's leasing regulations apply equally to improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased pursuant to Tribal leasing regulations approved under the HEARTH Act. Congress's overarching intent was to “allow Tribes to exercise greater control over their own land, support self-determination, and eliminate bureaucratic delays that stand in the way of homeownership and economic development in Tribal communities.” 158 Cong. Rec. H. 2682 (May 15, 2012). The HEARTH Act was intended to afford Tribes “flexibility to adapt lease terms to suit [their] business and cultural needs” and to “enable [Tribes] to approve leases quickly and efficiently.” H. Rep. 112-427 at 6 (2012).
Assessment of State and local taxes would obstruct these express Federal policies supporting Tribal economic development and self-determination, and threaten substantial Tribal interests in effective Tribal government, economic self-sufficiency, and territorial autonomy.
Similar to BIA's surface leasing regulations, Tribal regulations under the HEARTH Act pervasively cover all aspects of leasing.
Accordingly, the Federal and Tribal interests weigh heavily in favor of preemption of State and local taxes on lease-related activities and interests, regardless of whether the lease is governed by Tribal leasing regulations or Part 162. Improvements, activities, and leasehold or possessory interests may be subject to taxation by the Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the approval of Third Amendment to the Tribal-State Compact (Amendment) for Class III Gaming between the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (Tribe) and the State of Washington (State).
The amendment takes effect on September 1, 2021.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240,
Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the approval of the Fourth Amendment to the Tribal-State Compact (Fourth Amendment) for Class III Gaming between the Suquamish Tribe (Tribe) and the State of Washington (State), and the Fifth Amendment to the Tribal-State Compact (Fifth Amendment) for Class III Gaming between the Suquamish Tribe and the State of Washington.
The amendment takes effect on September 1, 2021.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240,
Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the approval of the Fifth Amendment to the Tribal-State Compact (Amendment) for Class III Gaming between the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe (Tribe) and the State of Washington (State).
The amendment takes effect on November 1, 2021.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240,
Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approved the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona Business Site Leasing Ordinance under the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act of 2012 (HEARTH Act). With this approval, the Tribe is authorized to enter into Business leases without further BIA approval.
BIA issued the approval on August 25, 2021.
Ms. Sharlene Round Face, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services, 1001 Indian School Road NW, Albuquerque, NM 87104,
The HEARTH Act makes a voluntary, alternative land leasing process available to Tribes, by amending the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955, 25 U.S.C. 415. The HEARTH Act authorizes Tribes to negotiate and enter into business leases of Tribal trust lands with a primary term of 25 years, and up to two renewal terms of 25 years each, without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary). The HEARTH Act also authorizes Tribes to enter into leases for residential, recreational, religious or educational purposes for a primary term of up to 75 years without the approval of the Secretary. Participating Tribes develop Tribal leasing regulations, including an environmental review process, and then must obtain the Secretary's approval of those regulations prior to entering into leases. The HEARTH Act requires the Secretary to approve Tribal regulations if the Tribal regulations are consistent with the Department of the Interior's (Department) leasing regulations at 25 CFR part 162 and provide for an environmental review process that meets requirements set forth in the HEARTH Act. This notice announces that the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, has approved the Tribal regulations for the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona.
The Department's regulations governing the surface leasing of trust and restricted Indian lands specify that, subject to applicable Federal law, permanent improvements on leased land, leasehold or possessory interests, and activities under the lease are not subject to State and local taxation and may be subject to taxation by the Indian Tribe with jurisdiction. See 25 CFR 162.017. As explained further in the preamble to the final regulations, the Federal government has a strong interest in promoting economic development, self-determination, and Tribal sovereignty. 77 FR 72440, 72447-48 (December 5, 2012). The principles supporting the Federal preemption of State law in the field of Indian leasing and the taxation of lease-related interests and activities applies with equal force to leases entered into under Tribal leasing regulations approved by the Federal government pursuant to the HEARTH Act.
Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. 5108, preempts State and local taxation of permanent improvements on trust land.
The strong Federal and Tribal interests against State and local taxation of improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased under the Department's leasing regulations apply equally to improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased pursuant to Tribal leasing regulations approved under the HEARTH Act. Congress's overarching intent was to “allow Tribes to exercise greater control over their own land, support self-determination, and eliminate bureaucratic delays that stand in the way of homeownership and economic development in Tribal communities.” 158 Cong. Rec. H. 2682 (May 15, 2012). The HEARTH Act was intended to afford Tribes “flexibility to adapt lease terms to suit [their] business and cultural needs” and to “enable [Tribes] to approve leases quickly and efficiently.” H. Rep. 112-427 at 6 (2012).
Assessment of State and local taxes would obstruct these express Federal policies supporting Tribal economic development and self-determination, and also threaten substantial Tribal interests in effective Tribal government, economic self-sufficiency, and territorial autonomy.
Similar to BIA's surface leasing regulations, Tribal regulations under the HEARTH Act pervasively cover all aspects of leasing.
Accordingly, the Federal and Tribal interests weigh heavily in favor of preemption of State and local taxes on lease-related activities and interests, regardless of whether the lease is governed by Tribal leasing regulations or Part 162. Improvements, activities, and leasehold or possessory interests may be subject to taxation by the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the approval of Third Amendment to the Tribal-State Compact (Third Amendment) for Class III Gaming between the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians (Tribe) and the State of Washington (State), and the Fourth Amendment to the Tribal-State Compact (Fourth Amendment) for Class III Gaming between the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians and the State of Washington.
The amendment takes effect on September 1, 2021.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240,
Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the approval of Sixth Amendment to the Tribal-State Compact (Amendment) for Class III Gaming between the Squaxin Island Tribe (Tribe) and the State of Washington (State).
The amendment takes effect on September 1, 2021.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240,
Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approved the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish-Band of Pottawatomi Indians (Tribe) Lease Regulations under the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act of 2012 (HEARTH Act). With this approval, the Tribe is authorized to enter into business, agriculture, and residential leases without further BIA approval.
BIA issued the approval on August 25, 2021.
Ms. Sharlene Round Face, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services, 1001 Indian School Road NW, Albuquerque, NM 87104,
The HEARTH Act makes a voluntary, alternative land leasing process available to Tribes, by amending the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955, 25 U.S.C. 415. The HEARTH Act authorizes Tribes to negotiate and enter into business leases of Tribal trust lands with a primary term of 25 years, and up to two renewal terms of 25 years each, without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary). The HEARTH Act also authorizes Tribes to enter into leases for residential, recreational, religious, or educational purposes for a primary term of up to 75 years without
The Department's regulations governing the surface leasing of trust and restricted Indian lands specify that, subject to applicable Federal law, permanent improvements on leased land, leasehold or possessory interests, and activities under the lease are not subject to State and local taxation and may be subject to taxation by the Indian Tribe with jurisdiction. See 25 CFR 162.017. As explained further in the preamble to the final regulations, the Federal government has a strong interest in promoting economic development, self-determination, and Tribal sovereignty. 77 FR 72440, 72447-48 (December 5, 2012). The principles supporting the Federal preemption of State law in the field of Indian leasing and the taxation of lease-related interests and activities applies with equal force to leases entered into under Tribal leasing regulations approved by the Federal government pursuant to the HEARTH Act.
Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. 5108, preempts State and local taxation of permanent improvements on trust land.
The strong Federal and Tribal interests against State and local taxation of improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased under the Department's leasing regulations apply equally to improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased pursuant to Tribal leasing regulations approved under the HEARTH Act. Congress's overarching intent was to “allow Tribes to exercise greater control over their own land, support self-determination, and eliminate bureaucratic delays that stand in the way of homeownership and economic development in Tribal communities.” 158 Cong. Rec. H. 2682 (May 15, 2012). The HEARTH Act was intended to afford Tribes “flexibility to adapt lease terms to suit [their] business and cultural needs” and to “enable [Tribes] to approve leases quickly and efficiently.” H. Rep. 112-427 at 6 (2012).
Assessment of State and local taxes would obstruct these express Federal policies supporting Tribal economic development and self-determination, and also threaten substantial Tribal interests in effective Tribal government, economic self-sufficiency, and territorial autonomy.
Similar to BIA's surface leasing regulations, Tribal regulations under the HEARTH Act pervasively cover all aspects of leasing.
Accordingly, the Federal and Tribal interests weigh heavily in favor of preemption of State and local taxes on lease-related activities and interests, regardless of whether the lease is governed by Tribal leasing regulations or Part 162. Improvements, activities, and leasehold or possessory interests may be subject to taxation by the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish-Band of Pottawatomi Indians.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the approval of Fifth Amendment to the Tribal-State Compact (Amendment) for Class III Gaming between the Lummi Nation (Tribe) and the State of Washington (State).
The amendment takes effect on September 1, 2021.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic
Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the approval of Sixth Amendment to the Tribal-State Compact (Amendment) for Class III Gaming between the Puyallup Tribe of Indians (Tribe) and the State of Washington (State).
The amendment takes effect on September 1, 2021.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240,
Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approved the Table Mountain Rancheria Tribal Trust Lands Residential Lease Regulations under the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act of 2012 (HEARTH Act). With this approval, the Tribe is authorized to enter into residential leases without further BIA approval.
BIA issued the approval on August 25, 2021.
Ms. Sharlene Round Face, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services, 1001 Indian School Road NW, Albuquerque, NM 87104,
The HEARTH Act makes a voluntary, alternative land leasing process available to Tribes, by amending the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955, 25 U.S.C. 415. The HEARTH Act authorizes Tribes to negotiate and enter into business leases of Tribal trust lands with a primary term of 25 years, and up to two renewal terms of 25 years each, without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary). The HEARTH Act also authorizes Tribes to enter into leases for residential, recreational, religious, or educational purposes for a primary term of up to 75 years without the approval of the Secretary. Participating Tribes develop Tribal leasing regulations, including an environmental review process, and then must obtain the Secretary's approval of those regulations prior to entering into leases. The HEARTH Act requires the Secretary to approve Tribal regulations if the Tribal regulations are consistent with the Department of the Interior's (Department) leasing regulations at 25 CFR part 162 and provide for an environmental review process that meets requirements set forth in the HEARTH Act. This notice announces that the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, has approved the Tribal regulations for the Table Mountain Rancheria.
The Department's regulations governing the surface leasing of trust and restricted Indian lands specify that, subject to applicable Federal law, permanent improvements on leased land, leasehold or possessory interests, and activities under the lease are not subject to State and local taxation and may be subject to taxation by the Indian Tribe with jurisdiction. See 25 CFR 162.017. As explained further in the preamble to the final regulations, the Federal government has a strong interest in promoting economic development, self-determination, and Tribal sovereignty. 77 FR 72440, 72447-48 (December 5, 2012). The principles supporting the Federal preemption of State law in the field of Indian leasing and the taxation of lease-related interests and activities applies with equal force to leases entered into under Tribal leasing regulations approved by the Federal government pursuant to the HEARTH Act.
Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. 5108, preempts State and local taxation of permanent improvements on trust land.
The strong Federal and Tribal interests against State and local taxation of improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased under the Department's leasing regulations apply equally to improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased pursuant to Tribal leasing regulations approved under the HEARTH Act. Congress's overarching intent was to “allow Tribes to exercise greater control over their own land, support self-determination, and eliminate bureaucratic delays that stand in the way of homeownership and economic development in Tribal communities.” 158 Cong. Rec. H. 2682 (May 15, 2012). The HEARTH Act was intended to afford Tribes “flexibility to adapt lease terms to suit [their] business and cultural needs” and to “enable [Tribes] to approve leases quickly and efficiently.” H. Rep. 112-427 at 6 (2012).
Assessment of State and local taxes would obstruct these express Federal policies supporting Tribal economic development and self-determination, and also threaten substantial Tribal interests in effective Tribal government, economic self-sufficiency, and territorial autonomy.
Similar to BIA's surface leasing regulations, Tribal regulations under the HEARTH Act pervasively cover all aspects of leasing.
Accordingly, the Federal and Tribal interests weigh heavily in favor of preemption of State and local taxes on lease-related activities and interests, regardless of whether the lease is governed by Tribal leasing regulations or Part 162. Improvements, activities, and leasehold or possessory interests may be subject to taxation by the Table Mountain Rancheria.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the approval of the Tenth Amendment to the Tribal-State Compact (Amendment) for Class III Gaming between the Tulalip Tribes of Washington (Tribe) and the State of Washington (State).
The amendment takes effect on September 1, 2021.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240,
Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted a review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), as amended, to determine whether termination of the suspended antidumping duty investigation on lemon juice from Argentina would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission.
Instituted September 1, 2021. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is October 1, 2021. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by November 16, 2021.
Lawrence Jones (202-205-3358), 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 (
Effective September 10, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) suspended an antidumping duty investigation on imports of lemon juice from Argentina (72 FR 53991). On August 1, 2012, Commerce initiated and the Commission instituted its first five-year review of the suspended investigation (77 FR 45589 and 77 FR 45653). On August 1, 2013, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, the Commission determined that termination of the suspended investigation on lemon juice from Argentina would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time (78 FR 46610). As a result, on August 7, 2013, Commerce published notice of the continuation of the suspended investigation on lemon juice from Argentina. Following the first five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, effective October 20, 2016, Commerce signed a new suspension agreement with substantially all growers/exporters of lemon juice from Argentina and issued a continuation of the suspended investigation on imports of lemon juice from Argentina (81 FR 74395). The Commission is now conducting a second review pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), to determine whether termination of the suspended investigation would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. Provisions concerning the conduct of this proceeding may be found in the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure at 19 CFR part 201, subparts A and B, and 19 CFR part 207, subparts A and F. The Commission will assess the adequacy of interested party responses to this notice of institution to determine whether to conduct a full review or an expedited review. The Commission's determination in any expedited review will be based on the facts available, which may include information provided in response to this notice.
The following definitions apply to this review:
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) An
Persons, including industrial users of the
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post-employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Charles Smith, Office of the General Counsel, at 202-205-3408.
Pursuant to § 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI submitted in this proceeding available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the proceeding, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to § 207.3 of the Commission's rules, any person submitting information to the Commission in connection with this proceeding must certify that the information is accurate and complete to the best of the submitter's knowledge. In making the certification, the submitter will acknowledge that information submitted in response to this request for information and throughout this proceeding or other proceeding may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in
Pursuant to § 207.61 of the Commission's rules, each interested party response to this notice must provide the information specified below. The deadline for filing such responses is October 1, 2021. Pursuant to § 207.62(b) of the Commission's rules, eligible parties (as specified in Commission rule 207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments concerning the adequacy of responses to the notice of institution and whether the Commission should conduct an expedited or full review. The deadline for filing such comments is November 16, 2021. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of § 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of §§ 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's
Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings at this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS,
No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117 0016/USITC No. 21-5-497, expiration date June 30, 2023. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436.
Pursuant to § 207.61(c) of the Commission's rules, any interested party that cannot furnish the information requested by this notice in the requested form and manner shall notify the Commission at the earliest possible time, provide a full explanation of why it cannot provide the requested information, and indicate alternative forms in which it can provide equivalent information. If an interested party does not provide this notification (or the Commission finds the explanation provided in the notification inadequate) and fails to provide a complete response to this notice, the Commission may take an adverse inference against the party pursuant to § 776(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677e(b)) in making its determination in the review.
As used below, the term “firm” includes any related firms.
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is an interested party under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, including whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the termination of the suspended investigation on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3-5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), as amended, to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty orders on imports of hot-rolled steel flat products (“hot-rolled steel”) from Brazil and Korea and revocation of the antidumping duty orders on hot-rolled steel from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Russia, Turkey, and the United Kingdom would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission.
Instituted September 1, 2021. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is October 1, 2021. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by November 16, 2021.
Lawrence Jones (202-205-3358), 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 (
Effective July 12, 1999, the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) suspended the antidumping duty investigation on hot-rolled steel imports from Russia (64 FR 38642, July 19,
On October 3, 2016, Commerce issued countervailing duty orders on imports of hot-rolled steel from Brazil and Korea and antidumping duty orders on imports of hot-rolled steel from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom (81 FR 67960 and 81 FR 67962).
The Commission is conducting first five-year reviews of the orders concerning Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom and a fourth five-year review of the order concerning Russia pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), to determine whether revocation of the orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. Provisions concerning the conduct of this proceeding may be found in the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure at 19 CFR part 201, subparts A and B, and 19 CFR part 207, subparts A and F. The Commission will assess the adequacy of interested party responses to this notice of institution to determine whether to conduct a full review or an expedited review. The Commission's determination in any expedited review will be based on the facts available, which may include information provided in response to this notice.
The following definitions apply to these reviews:
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) An
Persons, including industrial users of the
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post-employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Charles Smith, Office of the General Counsel, at 202-205-3408.
Pursuant to § 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI submitted in this proceeding available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the proceeding, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to § 207.3 of the Commission's rules, any person submitting information to the Commission in connection with this proceeding must certify that the information is accurate and complete to the best of the submitter's knowledge. In making the certification, the submitter will acknowledge that information submitted in response to this request for information and throughout this proceeding or other proceeding may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of
Pursuant to § 207.61 of the Commission's rules, each interested party response to this notice must provide the information specified below. The deadline for filing such responses is October 1, 2021. Pursuant to § 207.62(b) of the Commission's rules, eligible parties (as specified in Commission rule 207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments concerning the adequacy of responses to the notice of institution and whether the Commission should conduct an expedited or full review. The deadline for filing such comments is November 16, 2021. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of § 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of §§ 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's
Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings at this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS,
No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117 0016/USITC No. 21-5-498, expiration date June 30, 2023. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436.
Pursuant to § 207.61(c) of the Commission's rules, any interested party that cannot furnish the information requested by this notice in the requested form and manner shall notify the Commission at the earliest possible time, provide a full explanation of why it cannot provide the requested information, and indicate alternative forms in which it can provide equivalent information. If an interested party does not provide this notification (or the Commission finds the explanation provided in the notification inadequate) and fails to provide a complete response to this notice, the Commission may take an adverse inference against the party pursuant to § 776(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677e(b)) in making its determination in the review.
If you are a domestic producer, union/worker group, or trade/business association; import/export
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is an interested party under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, including whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the countervailing and the antidumping duty orders on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3-5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the
By order of the Commission.
Bureau of Prisons, Justice.
Notice.
This Notice publishes the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 and 2020 Cost of Incarceration Fee (COIF) for Federal inmates.
September 1, 2021.
Office of General Counsel, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 320 First St. NW, Washington, DC 20534.
Sarah Qureshi, (202) 353-8248.
Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 505, allows for assessment of a fee to cover the average cost of incarceration for Federal inmates. We calculate the cost of incarceration fee (COIF) by dividing the number representing the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) facilities' monetary obligation (excluding activation costs) by the number of inmate-days incurred for the fiscal year, and then by multiplying the quotient by the number of days in the fiscal year.
Based on FY 2019 data, the average annual COIF for a Federal inmate in a Federal facility in FY 2019 was $35,347 ($107.85 per day). The average annual COIF for a Federal inmate in a Residential Reentry Center for FY 2019 was $39,924 ($109.38 per day). (Please note: There were 365 days in FY 2019.)
Based on FY 2020 data, the average annual COIF for a Federal inmate in a Federal facility in FY 2020 was $39,158 ($120.59 per day). The average annual COIF for a Federal inmate in a Residential Reentry Center for FY 2020 was $35,663 ($97.44 per day). (Please note: There were 365 days in FY 2020.)
The National Science Board (NSB), pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference of the Committee on Strategy (CS) for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:
Closed teleconference of the CS, to be held Thursday, September 9, 2021, at 2:00-2:30 p.m. EDT.
This meeting will be held by videoconference organized through the National Science Foundation.
Closed.
Chair's remarks; review and discussion of proposed CS recommendation to the Board for NSF to transmit the National Science Foundation, NSB and Office of the Inspector General FY 2023 budget submissions to the Office of Management and Budget.
Point of contact for this meeting is: Chris Blair, (703) 292-7000,
The National Science Board (NSB), pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:
Closed teleconference of the National Science Board, to be held Thursday, September 9, 2021, at 2:30-3:00 p.m. EDT.
This meeting will be held by videoconference organized through the National Science Foundation.
Closed.
Chair's remarks; vote on transmittal to the Office of Management and Budget the FY 2023 budget submissions for the National Science Foundation, NSB, and the Office of the Inspector General.
Point of contact for this meeting is: Chris Blair, (703) 292-7000,
The National Science Board's Committee on Oversight hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act.
Friday, September 3, 2021, from 1:00-1:30 p.m. EDT.
This meeting will be held by teleconference through the National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.
Closed.
The agenda of the teleconference is: Chair's remarks: review and discussion of proposed Office of the Inspector General (OIG) budget request for FY 2023; recommendation of approval to the National Science Board.
Point of contact for this meeting is: Chris Blair,
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice of modified system of records.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is proposing a change to one of its systems of records notices (SORNs). PBGC is adding a new routine use to allow disclosure of information to other government agencies to allow PBGC to fulfill its statutory responsibilities.
The modification of the system of records described herein will become effective October 1, 2021, without further notice, unless comments result in a contrary determination and a notice is published to that effect. Comments must be received on or before October 1, 2021 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit written comments to PBGC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Commenters are strongly encouraged to submit public comments electronically. PBGC expects to have limited personnel available to process public comments that are submitted on paper through mail. Until further notice, any comments submitted on paper will be considered to the extent practicable.
All submissions must include the agency's name (Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, or PBGC) and reference this notice. Comments received will be posted without change to PBGC's website,
Shawn Hartley, Chief Privacy Officer, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Office of the General Counsel, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, 202-229-6321. For access to any of the PBGC's systems of records, contact D. Camilla Perry, Disclosure Officer, Office of the General Counsel, Disclosure Division, 1200 K Street NW,
PBGC is proposing to add a routine use to the system PBGC-19: Office of General Counsel Case Management System (SORN last published at 83 FR 6270 (February 13, 2018)). This routine use would allow disclosure of records to other government agencies to ensure facilitation of responsibilities under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), including the special financial assistance program created by the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act of 2021 (Pub. L. 117-2). PBGC's responsibilities include coordination and information sharing with the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the U.S. Department of Labor's Employee Benefits Security Administration for proper administration and enforcement of the provisions of ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code applicable to multiemployer plans.
Also, PBGC is proposing to amend the name of the system of records and update the owner of the system PBGC-19. PBGC is proposing to amend the name of the system of records to more accurately reflect the records maintained in the system. The new name of the system will be PBGC-19: Office of Negotiations and Restructuring/Office of General Counsel Case Management System. PBGC also proposes updating the system owner to reflect that the Office of Negotiations and Restructuring co-owns the system with the Office of General Counsel.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(11), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed change described in this notice. A report has been sent to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget for their evaluation.
For the convenience of the public, the amended SORN is published in full below with changes italicized.
Issued in Washington, DC.
PBGC-19:
Unclassified.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), 1200 and 1275 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005. (Records may be kept at an additional location as backup for continuity of operations.)
Office of the General Counsel
29 U.S.C. 1055, 1056(d)(3), 1302, 1303, 1310, 1321, 1322a, 1341, 1342, 1343, 1350; 1431, and 1432; 5 U.S.C. app. 105; 5 U.S.C. 301, 552(a), 552a(d), 7101; 42 U.S.C. 2000e,
The purpose of this system of records is to catalog, litigate, review or otherwise resolve any case or matter handled by the
Individuals who are participants, beneficiaries, and alternate payees in pension plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1301,
Draft and final versions of notes, reports, memoranda; settlements; legal opinions; agreements; correspondence; contracts; contract proposals and other procurement documents; plan documents; participant, alternate payee, and beneficiary files; initial and final PBGC determinations of ERISA matters; Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act of 1974 disclosures, determinations, appeals and decisions of those appeals; records and information obtained from other Federal, state, tribal, and local agencies and departments, including, but not limited to: Office of Personnel Management, Social Security Administration, Department of Treasury and Department of Justice; drafts and legal reviews of proposed personnel actions; ethics inquiries; personnel records; financial records; individual tax returns; litigation files; labor relations files; information provided by labor unions or other organizations; witness statements; summonses, subpoenas, discovery requests and responses; and breach reports and supporting documentation.
Subject individuals; pension plan participants, sponsors, administrators and third parties; Federal government records; current and former employees, contractors, interns, and externs; PBGC debt and disbursement records; insurers; the Social Security Administration; labor organizations; court records; articles from publications; and other individuals, organizations, and corporate entities with relevant knowledge/information.
Information about covered individuals may be disclosed without consent as permitted by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), and:
1. General Routine Uses G1 through
2. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, in furtherance of proceedings under Title IV of ERISA, to a contributing sponsor (or other employer who maintained the plan), including any predecessor or successor, and any member of the same control group.
3. Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of employees, former employees, participants, and beneficiaries and information pertaining to debts to PBGC may be disclosed to the Department of Treasury, the Department of Justice, a credit agency, and a debt collection to collect the debt. Disclosure to a debt collection may be made only under a contract that binds
4. Information may be disclosed to a court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal in the course of presenting evidence, including disclosures to opposing counsel or witnesses in the course of civil discovery, litigation, or settlement negotiations in response to a court order or in connection with criminal law proceedings.
5. Information may be provided to a congressional office in response to an inquiry made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
6. Information may be provided to third parties during the course of an investigation to the extent necessary to obtain information pertinent to the investigation.
7. Relevant and necessary information may be disclosed to a former employee of PBGC for the purposes of: (1) Responding to an official inquiry by Federal, state, tribal or local government entity or professional licensing authority; or (2) facilitating communications with a former employee that may be necessary for personnel-related or other official purposes where PBGC requires information and/or consultation assistance from the former employee regarding a matter within that person's former area of responsibility.
8. A record relating to a case or matter may be disseminated to a foreign country pursuant to an international treaty or convention entered into and ratified by the United States or to an executive agreement.
9. A record may be disseminated to a foreign country, through the United States Department of State or directly to the representative of such country, to the extent necessary to assist such country in civil or criminal proceedings in which the United States or one of its officers or agencies has an interest.
10. A record from this system of records may be disclosed to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), to the extent necessary to fulfill its responsibilities in 5 U.S.C. 552(h), to review administrative agency policies, procedures and compliance with the FOIA, and to facilitate use of OGIS' mediation services.
11. A record from this system may be disclosed to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(e).
Records are maintained manually in paper and/or electronic form (including computer databases or discs). Records may also be maintained on back-up tapes, or on a PBGC or a contractor-hosted network.
Records are indexed by assigned case number and sequential record identifier. Records are full-text indexed and information from this system may be retrieved using any free-form key, which may include names, social security number, address, representative or any other personal identifiers. For certain systems, only individuals assigned to the particular matter may retrieve associated records.
Records are maintained and destroyed in accordance with the National Archives and Record Administration's (NARA) Basic Laws and Authorities (44 U.S.C. 3301,
PBGC has established security and privacy protocols that meet the required security and privacy standards issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Records are maintained in a secure, password protected electronic system that utilizes security hardware and software to include multiple firewalls, active intruder detection, and role-based access controls. PBGC has adopted appropriate administrative, technical, and physical controls in accordance with PBGC's security program to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information, and to ensure that records are not disclosed to or accessed by unauthorized individuals. Paper records are kept in file folders in areas of restricted access that are locked after office hours.
Electronic records are stored on computer networks, which may include cloud-based systems, and protected by controlled access with Personal Identity Verification (PIV) cards, assigning user accounts to individuals needing access to the records and by passwords set by authorized users that must be changed periodically. Further, for certain systems covered by this notice, heightened security access is required. Such access is granted by the specific permissions group assigned to monitor that particular system and only authorized employees of the agency may retrieve, review or modify those records.
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to request access to their records in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.4, should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to amend their records must submit a written request,
Individuals, or third parties with written authorization from the individual, wishing to learn whether this system of records contains information about them should submit a written request to the Disclosure Officer, PBGC, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, providing their name, address, date of birth, and verification of their identity in accordance with 29 CFR 4902.3(c).
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), records in this system are exempt from the requirements of subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4) (G), (H), (I), and (f) of 5 U.S.C. 552a, provided, however, that if any individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit that he or she would otherwise be entitled to by Federal law, or for which he or she would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of these records, such material will be provided to the individual, except to the extent that the disclosure of the material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government with an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence.
PBGC-19, Office of General Counsel Case Management System (last published at
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Suitability Executive Agent Programs, is notifying the general public and other federal agencies that OPM proposes to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to renew a previously-approved information collection, Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive Positions (SF 85).
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until October 1, 2021.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management Budget by the following method:
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting Christine Bilunka, 724-738-1190, ext. 7400, or the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Suitability Executive Agent Programs, P.O. Box 699, Slippery Rock, PA 16057, or sent by email to
This notice announces that OPM has submitted to OMB a request for renewal of a previously-approved information collection, control number 3206-0261, Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive Positions (SF 85). The public has an additional 30-day opportunity to comment.
The Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive Positions, SF 85 is an information collection completed by applicants for, or incumbents of, Federal Government civilian positions, or positions in private entities performing work for the Federal Government under contract. The collection is used as the basis of information for background investigations to establish that such persons are:
Suitable for employment or retention in Federal employment in a low risk, non-sensitive position, or fit for employment or retention in Federal employment in the excepted service when the duties to be performed are equivalent to a low risk, non-sensitive position;
Fit to perform work on behalf of the Federal Government pursuant to the Government contract, when the duties to be performed are equivalent to a low risk, non-sensitive position;
Eligible for physical and logical access to federally controlled facilities or information systems, when the duties to be performed by the individual are equivalent to the duties performed by an employee in a low risk, non-sensitive position.
For applicants, the SF 85 is to be used only after a conditional offer of employment has been made. e-QIP (Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing) is a web-based system application that houses the SF 85. A variable in assessing burden hours is the nature of the electronic application. The electronic application includes branching questions and instructions which provide for a tailored collection from the respondent based on varying factors in the respondent's personal history. The burden on the respondent is reduced when the respondent's personal history is not relevant to particular question, since the question branches, or expands for additional details, only for those persons who have pertinent information to provide regarding that line of questioning. Accordingly, the burden on the respondent will vary depending on whether the information collection relates to the respondent's personal history.
OPM recommends renewal of the form without any proposed changes, except to underlying authorities, which have been revised in the period since the last renewal; the Privacy Act Information Statement, to acknowledge the transfer of background investigations files from OPM to the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency; and the Purpose Statement, to make more clear that the form may be used for investigations for fitness for appointment to a position in the excepted service. No other changes are recommended at this time.
Ongoing assessments will occur to ensure the SF 85 reflects and collects pertinent information for the investigative process and aligns with governing policies, rules, and regulations requiring use of this form.
The 60 day
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the provisions of Section 314.00 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual (“Manual”) in relation to the review and approval of related party transactions. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
Section 314.00 of the Manual provides that a company's audit committee or another independent body of the board of directors, shall conduct a reasonable prior review and oversight of all related party transactions for potential conflicts of interest and will prohibit such a transaction if it determines it to be inconsistent with the interests of the company and its shareholders. For purposes of this rule, the term “related party transaction” refers to transactions required to be disclosed pursuant to Item 404 of Regulation S-K under the Act (but without applying the transaction value threshold of that provision). In the case of foreign private issuers, the term “related party transactions” refers to transactions required to be disclosed pursuant to Item 7.B of Form 20-F (but without regard to the materiality threshold of that provision).
Item 404 of Regulation S-K and Item 7.B of Form 20-F set forth the SEC's requirements for the disclosure of related party transactions by domestic issuers and foreign private issuers respectively. Related party transaction disclosures are required in a number of SEC filings, including annual reports and, in the case of domestic issuers, annual meeting proxy statements. Item 404 of Regulation S-K requires disclosure of a related party transaction when the amount involved in such transaction exceeds $120,000.
The Exchange recently amended Section 314.00 to provide greater clarity as to the types of transactions that were specifically subject to review and approval under the rule.
In the period since the adoption of that amendment, it has become clear to the Exchange that the amended rule's exclusion of the applicable transaction value and materiality thresholds is inconsistent with the historical practice of many listed companies, and has had unintended consequences. The Exchange has learned that many listed companies have had a longstanding understanding that they were required to subject related party transactions to the review process required by Section 314.00 only if such transactions exceeded any applicable transaction value or materiality thresholds in the applicable SEC rules and therefore were required to be disclosed. This approach is embodied in the written related party transaction policies of many listed companies and is typically a part of the annual questionnaire completed by directors and officers in connection with the company's annual meeting. By not permitting the use of transaction value and materiality thresholds, the amendment to Section 314.00 has had the unintended effect of disrupting the normal course transactions of listed companies. Because of the amendment, many companies have been required to adopt for the first time two separate standards for related party transactions—one for disclosure and another for review and approval of transactions. This has created a significant compliance burden for issuers with respect to small transactions that are considered immaterial for purposes of other regulatory requirements. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the review and approval of large numbers of immaterial transactions is not an effective use of the time of independent directors who have many other time-consuming oversight obligations with respect to matters that are higher risk and more material to the company.
The Exchange notes that domestic listed companies are also required to comply with the requirements of Section 303A of the Manual with respect to director independence, including the bright line independence tests set forth in Section 303A.02(b). This proposal does not seek in any way to modify listed companies' obligation to comply with the independence requirements of Section 303A or listed companies' obligations to make disclosures to the Exchange with respect to their compliance with those obligations.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that it is consistent with the protection of
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
All companies listed on the NYSE will be subject to the amended form of Section 314.00. Therefore, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed amendment will have any meaningful effect on the competition among issuers listed on the Exchange.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to provide for an efficient and transparent framework for the review and approval of related party transactions at all listed companies. As such, it is focused solely on corporate governance and is not intended to confer any commercial or competitive benefit on NYSE listed companies. In addition, the proposal substantively conforms Section 314.00 to the related party transaction approval rule of Nasdaq, the other primary listing venue for operating companies in the United States. For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed amendment will have any meaningful effect on intermarket competition for the listing of operating companies.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Notice of meeting.
The Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee, established pursuant to Section 911 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, is providing notice that it will hold a public meeting. The public is invited to submit written statements to the Committee.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, September 9, 2021 from 10:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. (ET). Written statements should be received on or before September 8, 2021.
The meeting will be conducted by remote means and/or at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F St. NE, Washington, DC 20549. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's website at
Use the Commission's internet submission form (
Send an email message to
Send paper statements to Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Statements also will be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Room 1503, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All statements received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
Marc Oorloff Sharma, Chief Counsel, Office of the Investor Advocate, at (202) 551-3302, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
The meeting will be open to the public, except during that portion of the meeting reserved for an administrative work session during lunch. Persons needing special accommodations to take part because of a disability should notify the contact person listed in the section above entitled
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Request for information and comment.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission” or the “SEC”) is requesting information and public comment (“Request”) on matters related to: Broker-dealer and investment adviser use of “digital engagement practices” or “DEPs”, including behavioral prompts, differential marketing, game-like features (commonly referred to as “gamification”), and other design elements or features designed to engage with retail investors on digital platforms (
Comments should be received on or before October 1, 2021.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Studies, memoranda, or other substantive items may be added by the Commission or staff to the comment file during this Request. A notification of the inclusion in the comment file of any such materials will be made available
Division of Trading and Markets, Office of Chief Counsel, at (202)-551-5550 or
The Commission is requesting information and public comment on matters related to (1) broker-dealer and investment adviser use of digital engagement practices on digital platforms, as well as the analytical and technological tools and methods used in connection with such practices; and (2) investment adviser use of technology to develop and provide investment advice.
With the advent and growth of digital platforms for investing, such as online brokerages and robo-advisers, and more recently, mobile investment apps and portals, broker-dealers and investment advisers (referred to collectively as “firms”) have multiplied the opportunities for retail investors to invest and trade in securities. This increased accessibility has been one of the many factors associated with the increase of retail investor participation in U.S. securities markets in recent years.
As discussed in Section II of this Request, firms employ a variety of digital engagement practices when interacting with retail investors through digital platforms. Examples of digital engagement practices include: Social networking tools; games, streaks and other contests with prizes; points, badges, and leaderboards; notifications; celebrations for trading; visual cues; ideas presented at order placement and other curated lists or features; subscriptions and membership tiers; and chatbots.
Various analytical and technological tools and methods can underpin the creation and use of these practices, such as predictive data analytics and artificial intelligence/machine learning (“AI/ML”) models. Firms may use these tools to analyze the success of specific features and practices at influencing retail investor behavior (
As discussed in Section III of this Request, some investment advisers also use these tools to develop and provide investment advice, including through online platforms or as part of more traditional investment advisory services. Investment advisers can use analytical tools to learn more about their clients and develop and provide investment advice based on that information. These developments may provide potential benefits and risks for investment advisers and their clients.
The Commission is issuing this Request related to the use and development of digital engagement practices by firms on their digital platforms, in order to:
1. Assist the Commission and its staff in better understanding and assessing the market practices associated with the use of DEPs by firms, including: (1) The extent to which firms use DEPs; (2) the types of DEPs most frequently used; (3) the tools and methods used to develop and implement DEPs; and (4) information pertaining to retail investor engagement with DEPs, including any data related to investor demographics, trading behaviors, and investment performance.
2. Provide a forum for market participants (including investors), and other interested parties to share their perspectives on the use of DEPs and the related tools and methods, including potential benefits that DEPs provide to retail investors, as well as potential investor protection concerns.
3. Facilitate an assessment by the Commission and its staff of existing regulations and consideration of whether regulatory action may be needed to further the Commission's mission including protecting investors and maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets in connection with firms' use of DEPs and related tools and methods.
In addition to addressing the questions below, the Commission encourages commenters to provide or identify any data and other information in furtherance of the purposes articulated in this Request.
The Commission is issuing this Request, in part, to develop a better understanding of the market practices associated with firms' use of DEPs, which broadly include behavioral prompts, differential marketing, game-like features, and other design elements or features designed to engage retail investors. The Commission is aware of a variety of DEPs that may be used by firms, including the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DEPs may be designed to encourage account opening, account funding, and trading, or may be designed solely to increase investor engagement with investing apps, as there may be value in the number of investors interacting with the platform, how often they visit, and how long they stay.
The use of DEPs carries both potential benefits and risks for retail investors. Simplified user interfaces and game-like features have been credited with making investment platforms more accessible to retail investors (in particular, younger retail investors),
On the other hand, DEPs can potentially harm retail investors if they prompt them to engage in trading activities that may not be consistent with their investment goals or risk tolerance. Some have expressed concerns that DEPs encourage: (1) Frequent trading;
In the questions below, the Commission's request for comment pertains to all DEPs on brokerage and advisory digital platforms, including, but not limited to, those identified above.
1.1 What types of DEPs do firms use (or in the future expect to use) on digital platforms and what are the intended purposes of each type of DEP used? For example, are particular DEPs designed to encourage or discourage particular investor actions or behaviors, such as opening of accounts, funding of accounts, trading, or increasing engagement with the app or platform? To what extent and how are firms using DEPs such as notifications (
1.2 To what extent do firms that utilize DEPs provide retail investors the ability to opt in or out of interacting with those DEPs when using the firm's digital platform? To what extent, and how, are firms tailoring or personalizing DEPs to a particular retail investor?
1.3 What types of firms use DEPs on their digital platforms, and on what types of platforms? Are these practices more prevalent among certain types of firms, or on certain types of platforms? How prevalent is the use of DEPs by broker-dealers? How prevalent is the use of DEPs by investment advisers? Which types of DEPs are most prevalent? For firms that have chosen not to use DEPs or certain DEPs, what are their reasons? Are firms that are not currently using DEPs considering adopting such features in the future?
1.4 What market forces are driving the adoption of DEPs on digital platforms and how? For example, to what extent and how is the use of DEPs influenced or driven by market practices related to compensation and revenue (
1.5 Are DEPs used to promote or otherwise direct retail investors to specific securities or certain types of securities, investment strategies, or services? If so, what types of securities, investment strategies, and services, what types of DEPs are used, and how are the DEPs used for these purposes? Do firms use DEPs to promote or otherwise direct retail investors to securities, investment strategies, or services that are more lucrative for the firm or that may be riskier to the retail investor than others—such as: margin services, options trading, proprietary products, products for which the firm receives revenue sharing or other third-party payments, or other higher fee products? Do firms use DEPs that are or can be tailored to the retail investor's investment profile and risk tolerance? If so, how? If not, why not?
1.6 To what extent and how do firms monitor the use and proper functioning of DEPs? For example, to what extent and how do firms monitor notifications that retail investors receive or see from or on the firm's digital platforms?
1.7 To what extent and how do firms use DEPs or alter their use of DEPs in response to changes in the market price volatility and trading volumes in securities, both for specific assets and the market as a whole? For example, to what extent and how do firms use DEPs to notify retail investors of market events? To what extent and how do firms use DEPs to notify retail investors of firm policies and procedures or other actions that may be taken by the firm, such as in response to market events (
1.8 Are firms seeking to use DEPs specifically to increase investor education? If so, how? What type of investor educational content is provided, how is that content chosen, and what types of DEPs are used? For example, are firms using DEPs to educate investors about the risks of certain activities, such as trading on margin or options trading? Are firms using DEPs to help investors understand how to make investment choices that are consistent with their investment objectives? If so, what types of DEPs are they using for these purposes, and how are they used? Have firms tested or otherwise observed the effectiveness of any such educational efforts at increasing retail investor knowledge and understanding of investing concepts including risks? Please explain and include any relevant data or information.
1.9 Do firms use DEPs to encourage longer-term investment activities, including, but not limited to, increased contributions to or establishment of retirement accounts? If so, how?
1.10 Do firms that utilize DEPs offer live, phone-based customer support or customer support through live, human-directed online support (
1.11 To what extent and how do firms target certain specific groups of retail investors (including prospective customers or clients) through DEPs? What types of DEPs are used, and how are they targeted to specific retail investors or groups of retail investors? What factors do firms look to when deciding which groups of retail investors to target for each type of DEP?
1.12 What feedback, positive or negative, or complaints do firms receive from retail investors relating to the use of DEPs?
1.13 What types of retail investors are customers or clients of firms that utilize DEPs? How does this customer or client base differ, if at all, from those firms that do not use such features—including as to age, prior investment experience, education, net worth, risk
1.14 What trading or investment activities are retail investors engaging in through digital platforms that use DEPs? For retail investors who were investing prior to using digital platforms that use DEPs, how have their activities with respect to trading and investing changed since they started using such platforms and/or were first exposed to DEPs? For example, how often do retail investors engage in trading or investing through such platforms, how often did they engage in trading or investing prior to using such platforms, and how has such frequency changed as a result of using such platforms and/or being exposed to DEPs? How often do retail investors engage in other ways with such platforms (
1.15 What customer and client trends have been observed in connection with or as a result of the adoption and implementation of DEPs? Specifically, is data available regarding changes in customer or client behavior, including in accounts opened, amount invested, frequency of deposits, order frequency, order size (including fractional shares), types of securities traded, the risk profiles of securities that are traded, use of margin, volume of customer complaints, and the adoption and use of new features on the firms' digital platforms? Is there data showing how, for customers with a similar investment profile, these changes compare with any changes in the behavior of customers or clients of firms that do not utilize DEPs? Is there data regarding numbers or percentages of new accounts opened by retail investors that received targeted communications from the firm as compared to new accounts opened by retail investors that had received no prior communications from the firm? Please provide or identify any relevant data and other information. What experience did retail investors have in the market prior to interacting with DEPs? What percentage of retail investors invested for the first time after interacting with a DEP? What role did DEPs play in their decision to begin investing?
1.16 What are the benefits associated with the use of DEPs from the perspective of firms, retail investors, and other interested parties? How do these benefits differ depending upon the type of feature used? Are there specific types of DEPs or specific uses of DEPs that have the potential to be particularly beneficial to retail investors? Are there significant investor protection benefits that arise from the use of DEPs generally or particular DEPs? Which particular DEPs and why? Are there ways in which DEPs are particularly successful at conveying information to retail investors in a way that they can process and implement effectively? Please provide or identify any relevant data and other information.
1.17 What are the risks and costs associated with the use of DEPs from the perspective of firms, retail investors, and other interested parties? How do these risks or costs differ depending upon the type of feature used? Are there significant investor protection concerns that arise from the use of DEPs generally or particular DEPs? Are there particular DEPs that may pose unique risks or elevated investor protection concerns? Are there characteristics of particular DEPs that may encourage retail investors to engage in more frequent trading or invest in higher risk products or strategies? Please provide or identify any relevant data and other information.
1.18 What experience do retail investors have with DEPs? Do retail investors believe that DEPs have caused a change in their investing behavior or type of investments? If so, how? Do retail investors feel like DEPs help or hurt their overall investment performance? Do retail investors believe DEPs have helped increase their understanding of securities markets and investing? If so, how? Do retail investors believe DEPs have made trading, investing, and monitoring their investments more or less accessible to them? Do retail investors believe DEPs have increased or decreased the benefits or risks of trading or investing in securities products? Do retail investors believe that they would have invested in the markets if only more traditional methods were available? Do retail investors believe that they would trade less frequently, invest in different products, or use different investment strategies if only more traditional methods were available?
1.19 Do retail investors believe they are receiving investment advice or recommendations from DEPs or certain types of DEPs? If so, please explain. What types of DEPs do retail investors believe are most beneficial, and what types of features are most harmful, in meeting their own trading or investment objectives?
1.20 For retail investors who have previously invested with the assistance of a financial professional, how do they believe their investing experience has changed as a result of interacting with a digital platform as opposed to a financial professional?
1.21 How do commenters view the educational services currently provided by digital platforms? How could firms adopt or modify DEPs to facilitate and increase opportunities for investor education and encourage longer-term investment activities, including, but not limited to, through increased contributions to or establishment of retirement accounts?
1.22 What similarities and differences exist between the functionality, and overall user experience, including with respect to DEPs, on a digital trading or investment platform versus similar practices on digital platforms in other contexts (
1.23 Have researchers (including in the fields of behavioral finance, economics, psychology, marketing, and other related fields) studied the use of DEPs by broker-dealers and investment advisers? In particular, how have these practices been studied or observed to influence or reinforce the behavior of retail investors? To the extent retail investors have shifted from investing through human interaction (with a financial professional) to digital interaction (on a digital platform), how has that shift affected the behavior of retail investors? Please identify any relevant literature or data, including
1.24 Is there research in the fields of experimental psychology and marketing that contains evidence regarding the ability of DEPs to influence retail investors? Are there findings in those fields that suggest retail investors may not be fully aware that they have been influenced by a particular DEP?
1.25 Do studies of gambling or addiction offer evidence regarding whether and to what extent the immediate positive feedback provided by certain DEPs may influence retail investor decision-making?
1.26 How do commenters view the disclosures that firms are providing in connection with or specifically addressing the use of DEPs and the timing of such disclosures? In particular, how effective are disclosures at informing retail investors of any associated conflicts of interest presented by the use of DEPs and how DEPs could influence them and their trading and investing behavior? How accessible are these disclosures to retail investors engaging with DEPs? Please identify any relevant data or other information.
In order to develop, test, and implement these practices, and thereafter to assess their effectiveness, firms may use numerous analytical and technological tools and methods.
Relatedly, firms that utilize AI/ML models may utilize model risk management to provide a governance framework for these models throughout their life cycle in order to account for AI/ML-specific risks. Technological tools and methods also include the use of natural language processing (“NLP”) and natural language generation (“NLG”). These specific uses of AI/ML may be employed to transform user interfaces and the interactions that retail investors have on digital platforms by developing an understanding of the investor's preferences and adapting the interface and related prompts to appeal to those preferences.
Beyond technological tools, firms may engage in various forms of research in order to help shape the DEPs developed and implemented on their platforms. This may include consultations with behavioral science professionals, and cross-industry research intended to identify those customer engagement practices used in other industries that have proven most effective.
2.1 To what extent, and how, do firms use (or in the future expect to use) tools based on AI/ML (including deep learning, supervised learning, unsupervised learning, and reinforcement learning) and NLP and NLG, to develop and evolve DEPs? What are the objective functions of AI/ML models (
2.2 To what extent, and how, do firms use (or in the future expect to use) behavioral psychology to develop and evolve platforms or DEPs? To what extent, and how, do firms use (or in the future expect to use) predictive data analytics to develop and evolve DEPs? To what extent, and how, do firms use “dark patterns”
2.3 What types of research, information, data, and metrics are firms collecting, acquiring, and using in connection with the tools and methods identified above, or otherwise to design, implement, and modify DEPs and to assess their effectiveness? What are the sources for such information and data (
2.4 How are firms using cross-industry research and sources to design, implement, and modify DEPs? Specifically, how are firms using techniques employed, and lessons learned, within industries like retail shopping, video gaming, and video or music streaming services? What features originally adopted in other industries have been utilized and implemented by firms to increase user engagement? How has the use of such features impacted investor activity on digital platforms?
2.5 To what extent, and how, do firms test or otherwise assess how their DEPs affect investor behavior and investing outcomes? What metrics are used for these assessments? What data and other results have such tests and assessments yielded? Have firms found that DEPs can be developed, evolved and implemented in order to affect retail investors' trading or investment behavior, either individually or as a group? Have firms found that those behaviors can be affected in a statistically significant way? If so, how? What controls do firms have in place to monitor the impact of DEPs on investor outcomes? How do firms incorporate any testing and monitoring into their policies and procedures?
2.6 How do firms develop, test, deploy, monitor, and oversee the tools and methods they use, including any AI/ML models (including deep learning, supervised learning, unsupervised learning, and reinforcement learning), NLP, NLG, or other types of artificial intelligence? To what extent are these tools and methods proprietary to firms or offered by third parties? Do relationships with vendors result in conflicts of interest, and if so, what types of conflicts of interest? For example, are broker-dealers or investment advisers affiliated with these providers, or does compensation of the provider vary based upon investor activity? What formal governance
2.7 What type of data concerning retail investors is used to develop, evolve, implement, test and run DEPs? How is this data used? For example, are firms using data on how retail investors—individually and/or when grouped together—have engaged with their digital platform (including trading or investment activity) following exposure to DEPs? If so, how? Are firms tailoring or personalizing DEPs to individual retail investors or groups (or sub-groups) of retail investors? If so, how? Are firms collecting information about specific identifiers attributable to particular retail investors or groups (or sub-groups) of retail investors? If so, what types of specific identifiers are collected? Do firms use such identifiers (or others) in connection with determining the location of retail investors? If so, how do firms use location information? Do firms seek to cause any particular types of engagement with DEPs? If so, how? Are there other ways firms are using data concerning retail investors to develop, evolve, implement, test, and run DEPs?
2.8 To what extent do firms purchase data from third-party vendors, including data concerning retail investors, to develop, evolve, implement, test, and run DEPs? How are firms utilizing data acquired from third-party vendors to develop, evolve, implement, test, and run DEPs? Are firms using data obtained from third-party vendors to tailor or personalize DEPs to individual retail investors? If so, how? To what extent do firms sell or otherwise share data about their own customers' or clients' behavior on their digital platforms, and who are the primary purchasers or recipients of that data?
2.9 To the extent that firms use AI/ML to develop, evolve, implement, test, and run DEPs, are they ensuring that the AI/ML is explainable and reproducible?
2.10 Are there any particular challenges or risks that firms face in using AI/ML (including deep learning, supervised learning, unsupervised learning, and reinforcement learning), including AI developed or provided by third parties? If so, what are they and how do firms address such challenges or impediments and any risks associated with them? Have firms found that using AI/ML or retail investor data gathered in connection with DEPs raises unique issues related to financial privacy, information security, or identity theft prevention?
2.11 To what extent and how do firms employ controls to identify and mitigate any biases or disparities that may be perpetuated by the use of AI/ML models
2.12 What are the benefits associated with the use of the tools and methods identified above (
2.13 What are the risks and costs associated with the use of the tools and methods identified above (
2.14 What are the similarities and differences between the use of the types of tools and methods identified above in the context of DEPs versus other contexts? Do commenters believe that certain types of tools or methods are more, less, or as appropriate in the investing context than in other contexts? Please provide or identify any relevant data and other information.
2.15 Are there any particular challenges or risks associated with the use of AI/ML (including deep learning, supervised learning, unsupervised learning, and reinforcement learning), including AI developed or provided by third parties? If so, what are they and how should firms address such challenges or impediments and any risks associated with them? What model risk management steps should firms undertake? Does the use of AI/ML or retail investor data gathered in connection with DEPs raise unique issues related to financial privacy, information security, or identity theft prevention?
2.16 Have researchers (including in the fields of behavioral finance, economics, psychology, marketing, and other related fields) studied the use of such tools and methods in the context of the use of DEPs by firms, or in related contexts of individual decision-making? Please identify any relevant literature or data, including research related to the use of similar practices in other fields, that could assist the Commission in its consideration of these issues.
2.17 To what extent can the use of the tools and methods identified above (
Broker-dealers and investment advisers are currently subject to
In addition to these specific obligations, federal securities laws and regulations broadly prohibit fraud by broker-dealers and investment advisers as well as fraud by any person in the offer, purchase, or sale of securities, or in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. Generally, these anti-fraud provisions cover manipulative or deceptive conduct, including an affirmative misstatement or the omission of a material fact that a reasonable investor would view as significantly altering the total mix of information made available.
Under the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws and SRO rules, broker-dealers are required to deal fairly with their customers and observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade.
•
Additional obligations apply for investors to transact in certain types of securities (
With respect to margin, broker-dealers are required to obtain the signature of the account owner with respect to a margin account
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) establishes a federal fiduciary duty for investment advisers, whether or not registered with the Commission, which is made enforceable by the anti-fraud provisions of the Advisers Act. The fiduciary duty is broad and applies to the entire adviser-client relationship, and must be viewed in the context of the agreed-upon scope of that relationship.
Rules adopted under the Advisers Act also impose various obligations on registered investment advisers (or investment advisers required to be registered with the Commission), including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3.1 How are firms approaching compliance relating to their use of DEPs and the related tools and methods, in order to ensure compliance with their obligations under federal securities laws and regulations, including those identified above? For example, how do firms supervise communications or marketing to retail investors through or in connection with DEPs? Do firms approach compliance relating to the use of DEPs and related tools and methods differently from how they approach compliance relating to other engagement with customers or clients? If so, how do the approaches differ? For example, do such approaches differ based on any unique risks associated with or innate characteristics of DEPs and the related tools and methods?
3.2 What types of policies and procedures and controls do firms establish and maintain to ensure the design, development, and use of DEPs and related tools and methods comply with existing obligations? How do firms
3.3 Do firms implement registration or certification requirements for personnel primarily responsible for the design, development, and supervision of DEPs? If so, what are the requirements? What type of training do firms offer to their personnel in connection with the design, development, and use of DEPs and related tools and methods? Do firms outsource the design or development of DEPs? Do firms outsource the design and development of DEPs outside the United States?
3.4 What policies, procedures, and controls do firms have in place with respect to the use of DEPs that are designed to promote or that could otherwise direct retail investors to higher-risk products and services, for example, margin services and options trading? What policies, procedures, and controls do firms have in place with respect to the use of DEPs that are designed to promote or that could otherwise direct retail investors to securities or services that are more lucrative for the firm such as: Proprietary products, products for which the firm receives revenue sharing or other third-party payments, or other higher fee products? To what extent do these policies and procedures consider or address the characteristics of retail investors to whom such products and services may be promoted or directed? For example, do the policies and procedures place controls around how DEPs may be utilized to promote or otherwise direct certain products or services to certain types of retail investors?
3.5 What disclosures are firms providing in connection with or specifically addressing DEPs and the related tools and methods (including with respect to any data or information collected from the retail investor)? How are such disclosures presented to retail investors? Does such disclosure address how the use of DEPs or the related tools and methods may affect investors and specifically their trading and investing behavior? Does such disclosure differ from other disclosures that firms provide? How do firms currently disclose information such as risks, fees, costs, conflicts of interest, and standard of conduct to retail investors on their digital platforms? To what extent and how do firms use DEPs to make such disclosures?
3.6 Do broker-dealers consider the observable impacts of DEPs when determining if they are making “recommendations” for purposes of Reg BI? How does the fact that a DEP might impact the behavior of a statistically significant number of retail investors affect this determination? What statistical concepts, tools, and quantitative thresholds do broker-dealers use in making this determination?
3.7 Are there particular types of DEPs that broker-dealers avoid using because they would be recommendations? If so, which DEPs and why? What are broker-dealers doing to ensure that the DEPs they adopt comply with Reg BI and other sales practice rules, where applicable?
3.8 Do investment advisers consider the observable impacts of DEPs when determining if they are providing investment advice? How does the fact that a DEP might impact the behavior of a statistically significant number of investors affect this determination? What statistical concepts, tools, and quantitative thresholds do investment advisers use in making this determination?
3.9 Are there particular types of DEPs that investment advisers avoid using because they would constitute providing investment advice? If so, which DEPs and why? How do investment advisers satisfy their fiduciary duty when using DEPs and related tools and methods? How do investment advisers take into account their fiduciary duty when designing and developing DEPs?
3.10 When providing investment advice or recommendations to a retail investor, do firms adjust that investment advice or recommendation to take into account any data they have about how their DEPs affect investor behavior and investing outcomes? If so, how is such investment advice or recommendation adjusted?
3.11 How do firms using DEPs obtain sufficient retail investor information and provide sufficient oversight to satisfy their regulatory obligations, including, for example, applicable anti-fraud provisions and account opening or approval requirements?
3.12 How does the recordkeeping process used by firms in connection with DEPs and the related tools and methods compare to the recordkeeping process used in connection with firms' traditional business? Do firms generate and retain records with respect to the development, implementation, modification, and use of DEPs, including the testing of, or due diligence with respect to, the technology that they use for those purposes? Do firms generate and retain records with respect to retail investor interaction with such DEPs? If so, what types of records?
3.13 What additions or modifications to existing regulations, including, but not limited to, those identified above, or new regulations or guidance might be warranted to address investor protection concerns identified in connection with the use by broker-dealers and investment advisers of DEPs, the related tools and methods, and the use of retail investor data gathered in connection with DEPs? What types of requirements, limitations, or prohibitions would be most appropriate to address any such identified investor protection concerns?
3.14 Are there regulations that currently prevent firms from using DEPs and related tools and methods in ways that might be beneficial to retail investors? If so, what additions or modifications to those regulations would make it easier for firms to use DEPs and related tools and methods to benefit investors? Are there regulatory approaches that would facilitate firms' ability to innovate or test the use of new technology consistent with investor protection?
3.15 To the extent commenters recommend any modifications to existing regulations or new regulations, how should DEPs and the scope of tools and methods be defined to capture practices and tools and methods in use today and remain flexible to adapt as technology changes? Should any such modifications or new regulations specifically and uniquely address DEPs or the related tools and methods (
3.16 Should any such modifications or additional regulations be targeted specifically to address particular risks, such as those related to certain types of securities (
3.17 Are there laws, regulations, or other conduct standards that have been adopted in other contexts, fields, or jurisdictions that could serve as a useful model for any potential regulatory approaches?
3.18 To the extent commenters recommend any modifications to existing regulations or new regulations, what economic costs and benefits do commenters believe would result from their recommendations? Please provide or identify any relevant data and other information.
The Commission is also issuing the Request to assist the Commission and its staff in better understanding the nature of analytical tools and other technology used by investment advisers to develop and provide investment advice to clients, including (1) oversight of this technology; (2) how investment advisers and clients have benefited from technology; (3) potential risks to investment advisers, clients, and the markets more generally related to this technology; and (4) whether regulatory action may be needed to protect investors while preserving the ability of investors to benefit from investment advisers' use of technology.
Financial technology enables investment advisers to develop and provide investment advice in new ways or complements existing methods or tools for developing and providing advice,
While the increased role of technology has presented investment advisers and clients with benefits, it may also present risks. We recognize that some of these risks may be presented, or be presented differently, for advisers providing traditional investment advice that does not rely on technology. We understand as well that investment advisers may weigh differently those potential benefits and risks, including those described below, in determining how to use technology in developing and providing investment advice. We therefore are seeking comment to understand better the tools used by investment advisers to develop and provide investment advice and investment advisers' understanding and oversight of these tools and the related benefits and risks. In addition, we seek comment on other ways in which technology has changed investment advisers' development and provision of investment advice to their clients.
Some investment advisers, which we refer to here as robo-advisers, provide asset management services to their clients through online algorithm-based platforms.
In addition to using analytical tools to engage with clients, robo-advisers may use technology (including AI/ML tools) for a variety of other functions. For example, an adviser may use these tools to match clients to individual portfolios based on client inputs or determine how or when to trade for individual client accounts. An adviser also may use these tools to determine asset allocations, determine how to fill allocations, generate trading signals, or make other strategic decisions.
All Commission-registered robo-advisers are subject to all of the requirements of the Advisers Act, including the requirement that they provide advice consistent with the fiduciary duty they owe to clients.
Robo-advisers also must determine how to effectively understand and oversee use of their algorithms (including those developed by third parties) and the construction of client portfolios, including any potential conflicts of interest. For example, robo-advisers' algorithms may result in clients being invested in assets in which the adviser or its affiliate holds interests or advises separately (
Some investment advisers may solely use an interactive website to provide investment advice. These investment advisers, otherwise known as “internet investment advisers,” are eligible for SEC registration even if they do not meet the assets-under-management threshold if they satisfy certain criteria, including that they provide advice to all of their clients exclusively through their interactive website (“internet clients”), subject to a
For purposes of the exemption, “interactive website” means a website in which computer software-based models or applications provide investment advice to clients based on personal information each client supplies through the website. These websites generally require clients to answer questions about personal finances and investment goals, which the adviser's application or algorithm analyzes to develop investment advice that the website transmits to the client. The Commission has stated that the exemption is not available to investment advisers that merely use websites as marketing tools or use internet tools such as email, chat rooms, bulletin boards, and webcasts or other electronic media in communicating with clients.
This exemption is limited in scope. In the Internet Investment Adviser Adopting Release, the Commission stated that internet investment advisers typically are not eligible to register with the Commission because they “do not manage the assets of their internet clients” and thus do not meet the statutory threshold for registration with the Commission. Further, the Commission stated that, in order to be eligible for registration under this exemption, an investment adviser “may not use its advisory personnel to elaborate or expand upon the investment advice provided by its interactive website, or otherwise provide investment advice to its internet clients.” The exemption generally requires that the investment adviser “provides investment advice to all of its clients” through its website, which means that the adviser must operate an interactive website through which advice is given. That is, the exemption is unavailable to investment advisers lacking such a website.
Despite the limited nature of the exemption, we understand that some investment advisers may seek to rely on it and to register with the Commission without meeting the exemption's terms or intended purpose.
Some robo-advisers may provide a broader array of advisory services than those provided by internet investment advisers but not be eligible for Commission registration unless they can rely on another exemption or until they have met the statutory assets-under-management threshold.
Investment advisers may use, or be considering the use of, software or models based on, or otherwise incorporating, AI/ML (including deep learning, supervised learning, unsupervised learning, and reinforcement learning) in developing and providing investment advice, including by supporting human personnel's decision-making.
Because ML models learn and develop over time, advisory personnel may face challenges in monitoring and tracking them, including reviewing both a model's input to assess whether it is appropriate and its output to assess accuracy or relevance.
The use of technology in developing and providing investment advice has provided certain benefits to investment advisers and, in turn, their clients. For example, digital advisers and internet investment advisers may offer lower cost advisory services. They also may provide attractive, user-friendly design features that clients appreciate, and may offer advisory services and online access at all hours of the day.
At the same time, these developments may pose new or different risks to clients, including risks presented by investment advisers' reliance on technology and any third parties that provide or service such technology. For example, digital advisers may limit clients' access to human personnel, including when clients are considering major life changes such as retirement or when clients have questions that are highly fact-specific. Clients of internet investment advisers may have issues accessing the interactive websites, which can present unique challenges when the website is the sole means for advice delivery. The quality of the investment advice may depend on an algorithm that human personnel may monitor infrequently, incorrectly or face challenges overseeing.
To the extent that a third party, rather than the investment adviser, develops the analytical tools, the adviser may face challenges in understanding or overseeing those third parties or the technology. For example, there may be challenges in cases where software or a model is based on an approach or technology that is proprietary to the third party or is hosted by a third party, or where the investment adviser's personnel do not have the knowledge or experience necessary to understand the technology or to challenge its results. These circumstances may exacerbate exposure of investment advisers and their clients to cybersecurity and data privacy risks. Further, these risks may affect more clients than those posed by investment advisers using traditional methods because of the scale at which investment advisers are able to reach clients through digital platforms.
Clients' ability to understand these and other risks rests on the quality and sufficiency of their investment advisers' disclosures, which may be particularly important to the extent that these developments reflect the use of underlying technology that is complex or otherwise requires technical expertise. Disclosure can put clients in a position to understand the different roles played by technology and advisory personnel in developing the investment advice that clients receive. Investment advisers may face challenges in disclosing sufficiently these types of risks where any such disclosure might be necessarily technical.
There may also be systemic risks associated with widespread use of AI/ML, including deep learning, supervised learning, unsupervised learning, and reinforcement learning, which may affect the maintenance of fair, orderly, and efficient markets. For example, the Financial Stability Board has stated that “applications of AI and machine learning could result in new and unexpected forms of interconnectedness between financial markets, for instance based on the use by various institutions of previously unrelated data sources.”
We request comment on all aspects of investment advisers' use of technology, particularly with respect to developing and providing investment advice, and the potential effect on investor protection and regulatory compliance. We specifically request comment on the following:
4.1 How do investment advisers currently use technology in developing and providing investment advice? What types of technology do advisers use for these purposes? How do investment advisers use technology in any quantitative investment processes that they employ?
4.2 Are our descriptions of the potential benefits and risks of investment advisers' use of technology in developing and providing investment advice accurate and comprehensive? If not, what additional benefits or risks to advisory clients are there from such use? What additional benefits or risks does using these types of technology provide to investment advisers? How do investment advisers weigh these benefits and risks in using technology to develop and provide investment advice? Does technology enable investment advisers to develop investment advice in a more cost-effective way and are clients able to receive less expensive advice as a result? Does technology increase access to investment advice for some clients who would otherwise not afford it or mitigate (or have the potential to mitigate) biases in the market that may have prevented access to some clients or prospective clients? Are there risks associated with the quality of services clients ultimately receive? If so, what are they and how do investment advisers address such risks? What factors do advisory clients consider in choosing to engage a robo-adviser rather than a traditional investment adviser? In what ways does investment advice developed or provided by a robo-adviser differ from investment advice developed or provided by a traditional investment adviser?
4.3 To the extent investment advisers use technology in developing and providing investment advice, do advisers assess whether the technology or its underlying models are explainable to advisory personnel or to clients? Is the technology or underlying model explainable? To what extent do investment advisers assess whether the results are reproducible? If so, are the results reproducible? To what extent do investment advisers rely on third parties to make these assessments?
4.4 How do investment advisers develop, test, deploy, monitor, and oversee the technology they use to develop and provide investment advice? Do investment advisers develop, test, and monitor AI/ML models differently from how they develop, test, and monitor traditional algorithms? How do investment advisers assess the effect on client accounts of any material change to advisers' technology, algorithm, or
4.5 What, if anything, do investment advisers do to understand how AI/ML models will operate during periods of unusual or volatile market activity or other periods where such models may have less, or less relevant, input data with which to operate? How does the use of these models by investment advisers affect the market more generally? What formal governance mechanisms do investment advisers have in place for oversight of the vendors that create or manage these models?
4.6 How do investment advisers disclose the use of algorithms or models to their clients, including the role of advisory personnel or third parties in creating and managing these algorithms or models? Do these disclosures address any effects that such use may have on client outcomes? When investment advice is developed and provided through an automated algorithm, how do advisers disclose the use of that automated algorithm? Do investment advisers assess how effective these disclosures are in informing clients about such use? If so, how effective are such disclosures? Please provide any available data to show how effective such disclosures are. What are clients' expectations for investment advice produced by an investment adviser's automated algorithm, and how are those expectations shaped by investment advisers' disclosures?
4.7 How do investment advisers account for the use of any poor quality, inaccurate, or biased data that are used by AI/ML models, and how do investment advisers determine the effect of this kind of data on the algorithms' output or seek to reduce the use of this kind of data? To what extent can the use of AI/ML models in developing investment advice perpetuate social biases and disparities? How have commenters seen this in practice with regard to the use of AI/ML models (
4.8 Are there any particular challenges or impediments that investment advisers face in using AI/ML to develop and provide investment advice? If so, what are they and how do investment advisers address such challenges or impediments and any risks associated with them?
4.9 When relying on AI/ML models to develop investment advice, how do advisers determine whether those models are behaving as expected? How do advisers verify the quality of the assumptions and methodologies incorporated into such models? How frequently do advisers test these models? For example, do advisers test a model each time it is updated? What model risk management steps should advisers undertake? What is advisers' understanding of their responsibility to monitor, test, and verify model outputs? How do advisers' approaches with respect to AI/ML models differ from other models that advisers may use in developing investment advice?
4.10 In the context of developing and providing investment advice, what is the objective function of AI/ML models (
4.11 What cybersecurity and data security risks result from investment advisers' use of technology in developing and providing investment advice? How do investment advisers address or otherwise manage those risks and how do investment advisers disclose these risks to clients? Do investment advisers believe that delivering investment advice through email, which may be encrypted, is more secure than delivery through online client portals? Conversely, do investment advisers believe that delivery through online client portals is more secure? How do investment advisers address these concerns when clients are using mobile apps?
4.12 How do investment advisers generate records to support the investment advice they develop from using these types of technology? What types of records do they produce and how do investment advisers retain them? Does an investment adviser's recordkeeping process differ based on the type of technology it uses? If so, how?
4.13 Do investment advisers generate and retain records with respect to the testing of, or due diligence with respect to, the technology that they use in developing and providing investment advice?
4.14 To what extent do investment advisers market the types of technology the adviser uses in developing and providing investment advice? To the extent investment advisers market their use of technology, do advisers demonstrate that use to clients? To what extent do prospective and existing clients seek to assess investment advisers' understanding of the technology, or seek to understand the technology for themselves, in determining whether to hire or retain an investment adviser? If prospective or existing clients make such an assessment, how do they do so?
4.15 How do investment advisers disclose the types of technology used in developing and providing investment advice? What types of potential risks and conflicts of interest are disclosed? How are fees disclosed? To what extent does investment advisers' use of technology produce conflicts of interest that are similar to those of investment advisers that do not use such technologies? To what extent does investment advisers' use of technology produce conflicts that result from such use?
4.16 In what ways do investment advisers assess whether using these types of technology to develop and provide investment advice enables them to satisfy their fiduciary duty to their clients? How do investment advisers assess their ability to satisfy their duty of care and duty of loyalty when using these types of technology? How does an investment adviser determine whether the advice produced by its automated algorithm is in the best interest of a particular client? To what extent and how often do advisory personnel review investment advisers' algorithms to be sure that such advice is in the client's best interest? In conducting such review, to what extent do advisory personnel understand the algorithm, how it was created, and how it operates in practice? How do advisers take into account their fiduciary duty when developing, testing, monitoring, and overseeing these types of technology? To what extent do investment advisers rely on technology vendors or other third parties to provide technical knowledge so that advisers can understand the algorithms and the information or analysis they generate? When relying on such vendors or third parties, how do investment advisers assess whether the investment advisers are able to satisfy their duty of care and duty of loyalty?
4.17 What types of policies and procedures do investment advisers
4.18 What types of operational risks do investment advisers face using digital platforms to interact with clients? How do investment advisers interact with clients when the platform is unavailable—for example, when the adviser has lost internet service or when the platform is undergoing maintenance? What alternative means of communication are available to clients during those times? When issues arise, is the investment adviser responsible to the client for resolving those issues, or does the investment adviser rely on others to resolve the issues or to be responsible to the client? What terms of service do investment advisers put in place with cloud service providers in connection with the potential for loss of service or loss of data? We understand that investment advisers, like other financial services companies, may rely on a small number of cloud service providers.
4.19 Under what circumstances do robo-advisers typically override their algorithm, and in what ways? What steps do robo-advisers take to ensure that any override of the algorithm is consistent with the adviser's disclosure and clients' best interest? Do robo-advisers document their determinations to override the algorithm and, if so, what specifically is documented? What have robo-advisers found to be the outcomes from overriding an algorithm?
4.20 When evaluating digital platforms, how do investment advisers weigh the platform's cost and quality of service?
4.21 Should the Commission consider amending Form ADV to collect information about the types of technology that advisers use to develop and provide investment advice? If so, what type of technology and why? What information about technology should we consider collecting? Should the Commission require investment advisers to describe their efforts to monitor the outputs of technology upon which they rely? Should the Commission consider another method of collecting this information?
4.22 What costs or benefits do investment advisers experience in registering with the Commission under the exemption for internet investment advisers? What costs or benefits do clients of internet investment advisers experience as compared to clients of other investment advisers registered with the Commission? Do commenters believe that the exemption for internet investment advisers should be updated in any way, including to facilitate its use or to modernize it? Are its conditions appropriate? Should we consider changes to, for example, the
4.23 The Commission has stated that an investment adviser relying on the internet investment adviser exemption “may not use its advisory personnel to elaborate or expand upon the investment advice provided by its interactive website, or otherwise provide investment advice to its internet clients.”
4.24 As discussed above, the Commission acknowledged that the internet investment adviser exemption was designed to balance these advisers' multiple state registration requirements with the Advisers Act's allocation of responsibility for regulating smaller advisers to state securities authorities. Consistent with this design, are there changes to the exemption that might help to ensure that it encompasses those investment advisers that provide advice through the internet while ensuring that advisers that use the internet only as a marketing tool, for example, remain subject to state registration? Should the Commission consider creating a registration exemption that reflects investment advisers' current use of technology in providing investment advice in a better way than the internet investment adviser exemption?
4.25 To what extent do investment advisers use digital platforms and other analytical tools in connection with wrap fee programs?
4.26 To what extent do robo-advisers (as well as other sponsors of investment advisory programs) rely on Rule 3a-4 to determine that they are not sponsoring or otherwise operating investment companies under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Investment Company Act”)?
4.27 To satisfy the conditions of Rule 3a-4, among other things, a sponsor and personnel of the manager of the client's account who are knowledgeable about the account and its management must be reasonably available to the client for consultation. The rule does not dictate the manner in which such consultation with clients should occur. How do sponsors and other advisers satisfy this condition? Should we consider amending Rule 3a-4 to address technological developments, such as chatbots and/or other responsive technologies providing novel ways of interacting with clients? Should the Commission address these developments in some other way? Should the Commission provide additional guidance about this condition? If yes, what specifically should this guidance address?
4.28 To satisfy the conditions of Rule 3a-4, among other things, each client's account must be managed on the basis of the client's financial situation and investment objectives. Sponsors must obtain information from each client about their financial situation and investment objectives at account opening and must contact each client at least annually thereafter to determine whether there have been any changes in the client's financial situation or investment objectives. The Commission stated that the receipt of individualized advice is “one of the key differences between clients of investment advisers and investors in investment companies.”
4.29 One of the conditions of Rule 3a-4 is that investment advisory programs relying on the rule be managed in accordance with any reasonable restrictions imposed by the client on the management of the client's account. In addition, the client must have the opportunity to impose reasonable restrictions at the time the account is opened and must be asked at least annually whether the client might wish to impose any reasonable restrictions or reasonably modify existing restrictions. The Commission explained that the ability of a client to impose reasonable restrictions on the management of a client account is a critical difference between a client receiving investment advisory services and an investor in an investment company. Since the rule was adopted, enhanced technological capabilities and industry practices may have made it practical for sponsors to provide clients with other means of receiving meaningful individualized treatment regarding the management of their accounts. Do sponsors of investment advisory programs currently provide their clients with ways of customizing or personalizing their accounts other than through the imposition of reasonable restrictions? If yes, please provide examples of such practices. To what extent do clients avail themselves of those options for individualized treatment and do they find them to be valuable or important? Should we consider amending Rule 3a-4 to address these developments or should we address them in some other way, such as by providing additional guidance about this condition?
4.30 In view of the variety and increasing availability of technologies used by investment advisers to develop and provide investment advice, are there other regulatory matters that the Commission should consider? If so, what are they, and why? To the extent commenters recommend any modifications to existing regulations or additional regulations, what economic costs and benefits do commenters believe would result from their recommendations? Please provide or identify any relevant data and other information.
This Request is not intended to limit the scope of comments, views, issues, or approaches to be considered. In addition to broker-dealers, investment advisers and investors, we welcome comment from other interested parties, researchers and particularly welcome statistical, empirical, and other data from commenters that may support their views or support or refute the views or issues raised by other commenters.
By the Commission.
We're asking individual investors like you what you think about online trading or investment platforms such as websites and mobile applications (“apps”). It's important to us at the SEC to hear from investors who trade and invest this way so we can understand your experiences.
Please take a few minutes to answer any or all of these questions. Please provide your comments on or before October 1, 2021—and thank you for your feedback!
1. Do you have one or more online trading or investment accounts?
2. If your response to Question 1 is “Yes”, do you think you would trade or invest if you could not do so online using a computer or using a mobile app?
3. On average, how often do you access your online account?
If Other, Explain:
4. On average, how often are trades made in your online account, whether by you or someone else?
If Other, Explain:
5. If you access your account online, did you have the account first, and only began to access it electronically later? Or did you open the account with the idea that you would access it electronically immediately?
6. My goals for trading or investing in my online account are (check all that apply):
If Other, Explain:
7. What would you like us to know about your experience with the features of your online trading or investment platform? (Examples of features are: Social networking tools; games, streaks, or contests with prizes; points, badges, and leaderboards; notifications; celebrations for trading; visual cues, like changing colors; ideas presented at order placement or other curated lists or features; subscription and membership tiers; or chatbots.)
8. If you were trading or investing prior to using an online account, how have your investing and trading behaviors changed since you started using your online account? (For example, the amount of money you have invested, your interest in learning about investing and saving for retirement, the amount of time you have spent trading, your knowledge of financial products, the number of trades you have made, the amount of money you have made in trading, your knowledge of the markets, the number of different types of financial products you have traded, or your use of margin.)
9. How much experience do you have trading or investing in the following products (None, Less than 12 months, 1-2 years, 2-5 years, 5+ years):
10. What is your understanding, if any, of the circumstances under which trading or investing in your account can be suspended or restricted?
11. What else would you like us to know—positive or negative—about your experience with online trading and investing?
You also can send us feedback in the following ways (include the file number S7-10-21 in your response):
We will post your feedback on our website. Your submission will be posted without change; we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should only make submissions that you wish to make available publicly.
If you are interested in more information on the proposal, or want to provide feedback on additional questions, click here. Comments should be received on or before October 1, 2021.
Thank you!
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice of change to secondary market program.
The purpose of this Notice is to inform the public that the Small Business Administration (SBA) is making a change to its Secondary Market Loan Pooling Program. SBA is increasing the minimum maturity ratio for both SBA Standard Pools and Weighted-Average Coupon (WAC) Pools by 400 basis points, to 93.0%. The change described in this Notice is being made to cover the estimated cost of the timely payment guaranty for newly formed SBA 7(a) loan pools. This change will be incorporated, as needed, into the SBA Secondary Market Program Guide and all other appropriate SBA Secondary Market documents.
This change will apply to SBA 7(a) loan pools with an issue date on or after October 1, 2021.
Address comments concerning this Notice to John M. Wade, Chief Secondary Market Division, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Washington, DC 20416; or
John M. Wade, Chief, Secondary Market Division at 202-205-3647; or
The Secondary Market Improvements Act of 1984, 15 U.S.C. 634(f) through (h), authorized SBA to guarantee the timely payment of principal and interest on Pool Certificates. A Pool Certificate represents a fractional undivided interest in a “Pool,” which is an aggregation of SBA guaranteed portions of loans made by SBA Lenders under section 7(a) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 636(a). In order to support the timely payment guaranty requirement, SBA established the Master Reserve Fund (MRF), which serves as a mechanism to cover the cost of SBA's timely payment guaranty. Borrower payments on the guaranteed portions of pooled loans, as well as SBA guaranty payments on defaulted pooled loans, are deposited into the MRF. Funds are held in the MRF until distributions are made to investors (Registered Holders) of Pool Certificates. The interest earned on the borrower payments and the SBA guaranty payments deposited into the MRF supports the timely payments made to Registered Holders.
From time to time, SBA provides guidance to SBA Pool Assemblers on the required loan and pool characteristics necessary to form a Pool. These characteristics include, among other things, the minimum number of guaranteed portions of loans required to form a Pool, the allowable difference between the highest and lowest gross and net note rates of the guaranteed portions of loans in a Pool, and the minimum maturity ratio of the guaranteed portions of loans in a Pool. The minimum maturity ratio is equal to the ratio of the shortest and the longest remaining term to maturity of the guaranteed portions of loans in a Pool.
Based on SBA's expectations as to the performance of future Pools, SBA has determined that for pools formed on or after October 1, 2021, SBA Pool Assemblers may decrease the difference between the shortest and the longest remaining term of the guaranteed portions of loans in a Pool by 4 percentage points (
SBA will continue to monitor loan and pool characteristics and will provide notification of additional changes as necessary. It is important to note that there is no change to SBA's obligation to honor its guaranty of the amounts owed to Registered Holders of Pool Certificates and that such guaranty continues to be backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.
This program change will be incorporated as necessary into SBA's Secondary Market Guide and all other appropriate SBA Secondary Market documents. As indicated above, this change will be effective for Standard Pools and WAC Pools with an issue date on or after October 1, 2021.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice of SBIC fee increases.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is providing notice of the increased licensing and examination fees charged to Small Business Investment Companies (SBICs) due to the annual inflation adjustment required under SBIC program regulations.
The changes to the SBIC program licensing and examination fees identified in this notice take effect on October 1, 2021.
Steve Knott, Office of Investment and Innovation, at 202-205-7731 or
Beginning October 1, 2021, the SBIC program regulations at 13 CFR 107.300(b)(2) and 107.692(b)(2) require SBA to annually adjust the licensing and examination fees for SBICs using the Inflation Adjustment defined in 13 CFR 107.50. This document provides notice of that adjustment. The table below identifies the amounts of the adjusted licensing and examination fees payable by SBICs and SBIC license applicants, which become effective on October 1, 2021.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
Renewal of Federal Advisory Committee.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the TVA Board of Directors has renewed the Regional Energy Resource Council (RERC) charter for an additional two-year period beginning on July 30, 2021.
Cathy Coffey, 865-632-4494,
Pursuant to FACA and its implementing regulations, and following consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration (GSA) in accordance with 41 CFR 102-3.60(a), notice is hereby given that the RERC has been renewed for a two-year period beginning July 30, 2021. The RERC will provide advice to TVA on its issues affecting energy resource activities. The RERC was originally established in 2013 to advise TVA on its energy resource activities and the priority to be placed among competing objectives and values. It has been determined that the RERC continues to be needed to provide an additional mechanism for public input regarding energy resource issues. Additionally, we would like to correct the error in the Summary section of the April 28, 2020, Regional Resource Stewardship Council renewal notice published in the
The DFO of the Tennessee Valley Authority and Vice President of External Strategy & Regulatory Affairs, Melanie Farrell, having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to sign this document to Cathy Coffey, Senior Program Manager of Stakeholder Relations, for purposes of publication in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion nor omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before September 21, 2021.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2021-0423 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Tiffany Jackson (202-267-9677), Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner operates a De Havilland (DHC) DHC-8-103 and DHC-8-106 series aircraft and seeks relief from § 121.407(a)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to allow flightcrew training and checking to be conducted in a De Havilland DHC-8-200 series simulator and operate the Dash-8-100 series aircraft.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of Safety Oversight and Certification Advisory Committee (SOCAC) meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the SOCAC.
The meeting will be held on September 22, 2021, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
Requests to attend the meeting must be received by September 13, 2021.
Requests for accommodations to a disability must be received by September 13, 2021.
Requests to submit written materials to be reviewed during the meeting must be received no later than September 13, 2021.
The meeting will be held virtually. Members of the public who wish to observe the meeting must RSVP by emailing
Natalie Mitchell-Funderburk, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-0254; email
The SOCAC was created under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), in accordance with the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, Public Law 115-254, to provide advice to the Secretary on policy-level issues facing the aviation community that are related to FAA safety oversight and certification programs and activities.
At the meeting, the agenda will cover the following topics:
• Review and Acceptance of March 29, 2021, Meeting Minutes.
• Subcommittee Report.
• FAA Updates.
Additional information will be posted on the committee's website listed in the
The meeting will be open to the public on a first-come, first served basis, as space is limited. Please confirm your attendance with the person listed in the
The U.S. Department of Transportation is committed to providing equal access to this meeting for all participants. If you need alternative formats or services because of a disability, such as sign language, interpretation, or other ancillary aids, please contact the person listed in the
The FAA is not accepting oral presentations at this meeting due to time constraints. Any member of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any time by providing a copy to the Designated Federal Officer via the email listed in the
Issued in Washington, DC.
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that on August 10, 2021, the Everett Railroad Company (EV) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an extension of a special approval/waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR parts 215 (Railroad Freight Car Safety Standards), 223 (Safety Glazing Standards—Locomotives, Passenger Cars and Cabooses), and 224 (Reflectorization of Rail Freight Rolling Stock). The relevant FRA Docket Number is FRA-2012-0024.
Specifically, EV requested to extend its special approval pursuant to 49 CFR 215.203,
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted at
Communications received by October 18, 2021 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable. Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that on February 1, 2021, Penn Valley Railroad, LLC (PVRR) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an extension of a special approval/waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part
Specifically, PVRR requests relief from 49 CFR 215.203,
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted at
Communications received by October 18, 2021 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable. Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that on August 16, 2021, the Steam Locomotive Heritage Association (SLHA) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR 230.16,
Specifically, SLHA requested relief for steam locomotive #1003, which is owned by 1003 Operations, LLP, and leased to SLHA to use for educational purposes. SHLA requests that #1003's annual inspection be delayed from its current due date of October 17, 2021, to December 31, 2021, so SLHA can use #1003 in several planned events during the month of November. In support of its request, SLHA states that #1003 would accumulate a total of 12 service days and 178 miles traveled since the previous annual inspection on October 17, 2020.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted at
Communications received by October 18, 2021 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable. Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comments. A
Comments must be submitted on or before October 1, 2021.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Michael Yarrington, (202) 366-1915,
By Order of the Acting Maritime Administrator.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petition to modify an exemption of a previously approved antitheft device.
On February 2, 2009, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) granted in full Mitsubishi Motors R&D (Mitsubishi) of America's petition for an exemption from the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard (theft prevention standard) for its Mitsubishi Outlander vehicle line beginning in model year (MY) 2011. On November 12, 2012, the agency granted Mitsubishi's first petition to modify its previously approved exemption for the Outlander vehicle line beginning with MY 2014. On August 1, 2019, Mitsubishi submitted a second petition to modify its previously approved exemption for the Outlander vehicle line beginning with MY 2022. On February 17, 2021, Mitsubishi submitted a third petition to modify its previously approved exemption for a confidential variant of the Outlander vehicle line beginning with MY 2023. Mitsubishi also requested confidential treatment for specific information in its petition. Therefore, no confidential information provided for purposes of this notice has been disclosed.
The modification granted by this notice is effective beginning with the 2023 MY.
Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West Building, W43-439, NRM-310, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's phone number is (202) 366-5222. Her fax number is (202) 493-2990.
On February 2, 2009, NHTSA published in the
On August 6, 2012, Mitsubishi submitted a petition to modify the previously approved exemption for the Outlander vehicle line. On November 28, 2012 (see 77 FR 71030), the agency granted the petition for modification of the previously granted exemption for the Outlander vehicle line beginning with its MY 2014 vehicles. On August 1, 2019, Mitsubishi submitted a second petition to modify the previously approved exemption for the Outlander vehicle line. On May 11, 2020 (see 85 FR 27798), the agency granted the petition for modification of the previously granted exemption for the Outlander vehicle line beginning with its MY 2021 vehicles, although Mitsubishi later notified the agency that the modification would be applied starting with its MY 2022 vehicles. On February 17, 2021, Mitsubishi submitted a third petition to modify the previously approved exemption for a confidential variant of the Outlander vehicle line beginning with its MY 2023 vehicles.
Mitsubishi's submission is a complete petition, as required by 49 CFR part 543.10(d), in that it meets the general requirements contained in 49 CFR part 543.5 and the specific content requirements of 49 CFR part 543.6. Mitsubishi's petition for modification provides a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft device proposed for installation beginning with the 2023 MY.
The details of Mitsubishi's first three previously-approved antitheft devices are described in the February 2009, November 2012, and May 2020
In its third modification for its 2023 vehicles, Mitsubishi stated that it will offer the one touch starting system (OSS 3) as standard equipment for all confidential variants of the Outlander vehicles. The OSS 3 is a transponder-based electronic immobilizer system that starts the engine without using a mechanical key as long as the registered iKey Fob is located in close proximity to the driver.
When the ignition switch is pushed to the “on” position, the transceiver module reads the specific ignition key code for the vehicle and transmits an encrypted message containing the key code to the electronic control unit (ECU) or hands free module (HFM), which verifies that the key is correct. The immobilizer then sends a separate encrypted start-code signal to the engine ECU or HFM to allow the driver to start
Mitsubishi stated that its immobilizer system is further enhanced by several features that make it impossible to defeat, including encrypted communication between the transponder and the ECU (HFM). There are millions of different possible key codes for the new OSS 3 system making a successful key code duplication nearly impossible. Mitsubishi stated that the immobilizer device and the ECU or HFM share security data when first installed during vehicle assembly, making them a matched set. These matched modules will not function if taken out and reinstalled separately on other vehicles. Mitsubishi also stated that the device is extremely reliable and durable because there are no moving parts, the key does not require a separate battery and it is impossible to mechanically override the device and start the vehicle.
Mitsubishi stated that the Mitsubishi Outlander has been equipped with the immobilizer device since MY 2007. Mitsubishi also stated that the Eclipse, Galant, Endeavor, Lancer, Outlander Sport, I-MiEv, Mirage, and the Eclipse Cross vehicle lines have been equipped with a similar type of immobilizer device since January 2000, January 2004, April 2004, March 2007, September 2010, October 2011, July 2013 and December 2017 respectively, and they have all been granted parts-marking exemptions by the agency. Mitsubishi further stated that its Eclipse vehicle line has been equipped with a similar device since introduction of its MY 2000 vehicles. Mitsubishi further stated that the theft rate for the MY 2000 Eclipse decreased by almost 42% when compared with that of its MY 1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse (unequipped with an immobilizer device).
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.8(b), the agency grants a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of part 541, either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541. In this case, Mitsubishi's petition is granted under 49 U.S.C. 33106(d) and 49 CFR 543.8(c), which state that if the Secretary of Transportation (NHTSA, by delegation) does not make a decision about a petition within 120 days of the petition submission, the petition shall be deemed to be approved and the manufacturer shall be exempt from the standard for the line covered by the petition for the subsequent model year.
Separately, the agency finds that Mitsubishi has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the antitheft device for its vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard. This conclusion is based on the information Mitsubishi provided about its antitheft device. NHTSA believes, based on the supporting evidence submitted by Mitsubishi and other information NHTSA has received about the effectiveness of antitheft devices, that the antitheft device for the confidential variant of the Outlander vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard.
The agency concludes that Mitsubishi's antitheft device will continue to provide the five types of performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; attracting attention to the efforts of unauthorized persons to enter or operate a vehicle by means other than a key; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.
The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted from the theft prevention standard for a given model year. 49 CFR 543.8(f) contains publication requirements incident to the disposition of all part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the petition is granted and a general description of the antitheft device is necessary in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard.
If Mitsubishi decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must be fully marked as required by 49 CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
NHTSA notes that if Mitsubishi wishes in the future to modify the device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a petition to modify the exemption. Section 543.8(d) states that a part 543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted under this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the line's exemption is based. Further, section 543.10(c)(2) provides for the submission of petitions “to modify an exemption to permit the use of an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in the exemption.”
The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that section 543.10(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself. The agency did not intend in drafting part 543 to require the submission of a modification petition for every change to the components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if Mitsubishi contemplates making any changes, the effects of which might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency before preparing and submitting a petition to modify.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby announces a grant in full Mitsubishi's petition to modify the exemption for the confidential variant of the Outlander vehicle line, beginning with its MY 2023 vehicles. NHTSA has determined that the modified device is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the name of one person that has been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of this person are blocked, and U.S.
See
OFAC: Andrea Gacki, Director, tel.: 202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or the Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On August 23, 2021, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following person are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
1. WOLDEYOHANNES, Filipos (a.k.a. WELDEYOHANES, Philipos; a.k.a. WELDEYOHANNES, Filipos; a.k.a. WELDEYOHANNES, Fillipos; a.k.a. WELDEYOHANNES, Philipos; a.k.a. WOLDEYOHANES, Filipos; a.k.a. WOLDEYOHANES, Phillipos; a.k.a. WOLDEYOHANNES, Philipos), Shire, Tigray, Ethiopia; Eritrea; DOB 1955; POB Ts'elot, Asmara, Eritrea; nationality Eritrea; Gender Male (individual) [GLOMAG].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C)(1) of Executive Order 13818 of December 20, 2017, “Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption,” 82 FR 60839, 3 CFR, 2018 Comp., p. 399, (E.O. 13818) for being a foreign person who is or has been a leader or official of an entity, including any government entity, that has engaged in, or whose members have engaged in, serious human rights abuse relating to the leader's or official's tenure.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is soliciting comments on the effectiveness of OFAC's licensing procedures for the exportation of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to Sudan and Iran for the time period between October 1, 2016, to September 30, 2018. Pursuant to the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, OFAC is required to submit a biennial report to the Congress on the operation of licensing procedures for such exports.
Written comments should be received on or before October 1, 2021, to be assured of consideration for the report.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Requests for additional information about these licensing procedures should be directed to the Assistant Director for Licensing, 202-622-2480. Additional information about these licensing procedures is also available at
The current procedures used by OFAC pursuant to the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (Title IX of Pub. L. 106-387, 22 U.S.C. 7201
Effective October 12, 2017, sections 1 and 2 of Executive Order (E.O.) 13067 of November 3, 1997, “Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Sudan” (62 FR 59989, November 5, 1997), and E.O. 13412 of October 13, 2006, “Blocking Property of and Prohibiting Transactions With the Government of Sudan” (71 FR 61369, October 17, 2006), were revoked, pursuant to E.O. 13761 of January 13, 2017, “Recognizing Positive Actions by the Government of Sudan and Providing for the Revocation of Certain Sudan-Related Sanctions” (82 FR 5331, January 18, 2017), as amended by E.O. 13804 of July 11, 2017, “Allowing Additional Time for Recognizing Positive Actions by the Government of Sudan and Amending Executive Order 13761” (82 FR 32611, July 14, 2017). As a result of the revocation of these sanctions provisions, U.S. persons are no longer prohibited from engaging in transactions that were previously prohibited under these provisions, and the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 538, were revoked (83 FR 30539, June 29, 2018). However, pursuant to the Act, an OFAC license was required for exports and reexports to the Government of Sudan or any other entity in Sudan of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices prior to the Secretary of State's December 14, 2020, recission of the designation of Sudan as a State Sponsor of Terrorism (85 FR 82565, December 18, 2020).
Under the provisions of section 906(c) of the Act, OFAC must submit a biennial report to the Congress on the operation, during the preceding two-year period, of the licensing procedures required by section 906 of the Act for the export of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to Sudan and Iran. This report is to include:
(1) The number and types of licenses applied for;
(2) The number and types of licenses approved;
(3) The average amount of time elapsed from the date of filing of a license application until the date of its approval;
(4) The extent to which the licensing procedures were effectively implemented; and
(5) A description of comments received from interested parties about the extent to which the licensing procedures were effective, after holding a public 30-day comment period.
This document solicits comments from interested parties regarding the effectiveness of OFAC's licensing procedures for the export of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to Sudan and Iran for the time period between October 1, 2016 and September 30, 2018. Interested parties submitting comments are asked to be as specific as possible. In the interest of accuracy and completeness, OFAC requires written comments. All comments received on or before October 1, 2021, will be considered by OFAC in developing the report to the Congress. Consideration of comments received after the end of the comment period cannot be assured.
All comments made will be a matter of public record. OFAC therefore will neither accept nor consider comments accompanied by a request that part or all of the comments be treated confidentially because of their business proprietary nature or for any other reason. Copies of past biennial reports may be obtained from OFAC's website:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8849, Claim for Refund of Excise Taxes.
Written comments should be received on or before November 1, 2021 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Kinna Brewington, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224. You must reference the information collection's title, form number, reporting or record-keeping requirement number, and OMB number in your comment.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Jon Callahan, (737) 800-7639, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The IRS is currently seeking comments concerning the following information collection tools, reporting, and record-keeping requirements:
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning information collection requirements related to the guidance regarding the qualified severance of a trust for generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax purposes.
Written comments should be received on or before November 1, 2021 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Kinna Brewington, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224. You must reference the information collection's title, form number, reporting or record-keeping requirement number, and OMB number in your comment.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Jon Callahan, (737) 800-7639, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The IRS is currently seeking comments concerning the following information collection tools, reporting, and record-keeping requirements:
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is currently soliciting comments concerning public approval of tax-exempt private activity bonds.
Written comments should be received on or before November 1, 2021 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Kinna Brewington, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224. You must reference the information collection's title, form number, reporting or record-keeping requirement number, and OMB number in your comment.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Jon Callahan, (737) 800-7639, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The IRS is currently seeking comments concerning the following information collection tools, reporting, and record-keeping requirements:
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service, Department of Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
The Internal Revenue Service Advisory Council will hold a public meeting.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, September 22, 2021.
The meeting will be held virtually.
Ms. Anna Brown, Office of National Public Liaison, at 202-317-6564 or send an email to
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988), that a public meeting of the Internal Revenue Service Advisory Council (IRSAC) will be held on Wednesday, September 22, 2021, to discuss topics that may be recommended for inclusion in a future report of the Council. The meeting will take place 4:00-5:00 p.m. ET.
The meeting will be held via Zoom. To register and for meeting link instructions, members of the public may contact Ms. Anna Brown at 202-317-6564 or send an email to
Time permitting, after the close of this discussion by IRSAC members, interested persons may make oral statements germane to the Council's work. Persons wishing to make oral statements should contact Ms. Anna Brown at
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses (RAC-GWVI) will meet by teleconference on September 28, 2021. The open session will convene at 12:00 p.m. (EST) and end at 1:30 p.m. (EST). The open session will be available to the public by connecting to: Webex URL:
The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice and make recommendations to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on proposed research studies, research plans, and research strategies relating to the health consequences of military service in the Southwest Asia Theater of operations during the Gulf War in 1990-1991.
The Committee will review VA program activities related to Gulf War Veterans' illnesses and updates on relevant scientific research published since the last Committee meeting. This meeting will include discussions and voting of the 2021 Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses recommendations to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Public comment will be open starting at 1:00 p.m. (EST).
The meeting will include time reserved for public comments 30 minutes before the meeting closes. Individuals who wish to address the Committee may submit a 1-2 page summary of their comments for inclusion in the official meeting record. Members of the public may submit written statements for the Committee's review or seek additional information by contacting Dr. Karen Block, Designated Federal Officer, at 202-443-5600, or at
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Veterans' Rural Health Advisory Committee will hold a teleconference meeting Monday, September 20, through Wednesday, September 22, 2021. The Zoom meeting link is
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on rural health care issues affecting Veterans. The Committee examines programs and policies that impact the delivery of VA rural health care to Veterans and discusses ways to improve and enhance VA access to rural health care services for Veterans.
The agenda will include updates from Department leadership, the Executive Director Office of the VA Office of Rural Health, and the Committee Chair; as well as presentations by subject-matter experts on general rural health care access.
Public comments will be received at 3:00 p.m. on September 22, 2021. Interested parties should contact Ms. Judy Bowie, Management Analyst, via email at
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.2, that a meeting of the Geriatrics and Gerontology Advisory Committee will be held virtually on Monday, September 27 and Tuesday, September 28, 2021. The meetings will begin at 12:00 p.m. and adjourn at 4:00 p.m. on both days. The meetings will be conducted virtually via WebEx and is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Secretary of VA and the Under Secretary for Health on all matters pertaining to geriatrics and gerontology. The Committee assesses the capability of VA health care facilities and programs to meet the medical, psychological, and social needs of older Veterans, and evaluates VA programs designated as Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Centers.
Although no time will be allocated for receiving oral presentations from the public, members of the public may submit written statements for review by the Committee to: Marianne Shaughnessy, CRNP, Ph.D., Designated Federal Officer, Veterans Health Administration by email at
Any member of the public wishing to attend virtually, or seeking additional information should email
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that the Veterans and Community Oversight and Engagement Board will meet virtually on September 29, 2021. The meeting will begin and end as follows:
The meetings are open to the public and will be recorded. Members of the public can attend the meeting by registering at the link below:
The Board was established by the West Los Angeles Leasing Act of 2016 on September 29, 2016. The purpose of the Board is to provide advice and make recommendations to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on: Identifying the goals of the community and Veteran partnership; improving services and outcomes for Veterans, members of the Armed Forces, and the families of such Veterans and members; and on the implementation of the Draft Master Plan approved by the Secretary on January 28, 2016, and on the creation and implementation of any successor master plans.
On September 29, the agenda will include opening remarks from the Committee Chair, Executive Sponsor, and other VA officials. There will be a comprehensive briefing from the Veterans Administration Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (VAGLAHS) on a revised Draft Master Plan v1.0 timeline and activities. The Board's Master Plan with Services and Outcomes subcommittee will present a recommendation that introduces a comprehensive engagement strategy considered for forwarding to the SECVA, that allows sufficient opportunity to obtain Veteran input.
A public comment session will occur from 5:45 p.m. to 6:15 p.m. Individuals wishing to make public comments are required to register during the WEBEX registration process. In the interest of time management, speakers will be held to a 5-minute time limit and selected in the order of event registration. If time expires and your name was not selected, or you did not register to provide public comment and would like to do so, you are asked to submit public comments via email at
To attend the meeting, use the registration instructions—Registration Instructions: Select the “Register” hyperlink in event status or the “Register” button located bottom center of the page. Attendees will then be asked to identify themselves by first name, last name, email address, affiliation (if any) and interest in making a public comment. Please select “Submit” to finish registration. You will receive a confirmation email from WEBEX shortly after registration. The confirmation email will include a calendar event invitation and instructions to join the meeting via web browser or telephone. Attempts to join the meeting will not work until the host opens the meeting approximately ten minutes prior to start time.
Any member of the public seeking additional information should contact Mr. Eugene W. Skinner Jr. at (202) 631-7645 or
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise and Integration, Data Governance Analytics (008), 1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20006, (202) 266-4688 or email
Substantive changes have been made to both VA Forms 21-674 and 21-674b. Redundant questions have been removed. However, even with these changes, the estimated burden time has not changed. The decrease in respondent burden is due to the estimated number of receivables decreasing over the previous year.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
a. 15 minutes for VA Forms 21-674 and 674c.
b. 5 minutes for VA Form 21-674.
By direction of the Secretary.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to take action on portions of four state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by California to address Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”) requirements for the 2012 fine particulate matter (PM
Any comments on this proposal must be received by October 1, 2021.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0543 at
Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), EPA Region IX, by phone at (415) 972-3227 or email at
Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to the EPA.
On January 15, 2013, the EPA strengthened the primary annual NAAQS for particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM
Epidemiological studies have shown statistically significant correlations between elevated PM
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is required by CAA section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. Under subpart 4 of part D of title I of the CAA and applicable implementing regulations, the EPA designates areas found to be violating the PM
On January 15, 2015, the EPA designated and classified the SJV as Moderate nonattainment for the 2012 PM
States with areas designated as nonattainment are required to submit SIP revisions that address various requirements, including the requirement to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the maximum attainment date established in the CAA or EPA's implementing regulations. However, states with Moderate PM
On May 10, 2019, CARB made two SIP submissions intended to address the attainment plan requirements for areas designated as nonattainment for the 2012 PM
The 2018 PM
The 2018 PM
Lastly, the 2018 PM
In response to the commitment made in the 2018 PM
The SJVUAPCD Governing Board adopted the 2016 PM
The 2016 PM
• Appendix A (“Air Quality Modeling”) provides the State's photochemical air quality modeling in support of the plan's impracticability demonstration and precursor demonstration;
• Appendix B (“Emissions Inventory”) presents the base year and future year emissions inventory for direct PM
• Appendix C (“SIP Creditable Incentive-Based Emission Reductions”) provides a demonstration of NO
• Appendix D (“New Source Review and Emission Reduction Credits”) discusses the use of emission reduction credits (ERCs) in the context of the plan; and
• Appendix E (“Summary of Significant Comments and Responses”) summarizes significant comments received during the District's 2016 public review period and the District's responses thereto.
In addition, the 2016 PM
Lastly, on December 13, 2019, CARB submitted the following two additional documents that CARB had prepared for the 2016 PM
The SJVUAPCD Governing Board adopted the 2018 PM
The following portions of the 2018 PM
The appendices to the 2018 PM
The 2018 PM
Lastly, on February 11, 2020, CARB submitted, via the EPA State Planning Electronic Collaboration System, a revised version of App. H (“RFP, Quantitative Milestones, and Contingency”) that replaces the version submitted with the 2018 PM
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) of the CAA require each state to provide reasonable public notice and an opportunity for a public hearing prior to the adoption and submittal of a SIP or SIP revision to the EPA. To meet this requirement, every SIP submission should include evidence that adequate public notice was given and an opportunity for a public hearing was provided consistent with the EPA's implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.102.
Both the District and CARB satisfied applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior to adoption and submission of the 2016 PM
Subsequently, the District provided public notice and opportunity for public comment prior to its November 15, 2018 public hearing on and adoption of the 2018 PM
We present our evaluation of the 2016 PM
With respect to the statutory requirements for particulate matter (PM) attainment plans, the general nonattainment area planning requirements of title I, part D of the CAA are found in subpart 1, and the attainment planning requirements specifically for PM are found in subpart 4.
The EPA has a longstanding general guidance document that interprets the 1990 amendments to the CAA, commonly referred to as the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (“General Preamble”).
To implement the PM
The general subpart 1 statutory requirements for attainment plans include the following: (i) The section 172(c)(1) requirement for reasonably available control measures (RACM)/reasonably available control technology (RACT) and attainment demonstrations; (ii) the section 172(c)(2) requirement to RFP; (iii) the section 172(c)(3) requirement for emissions inventories; (iv) the section 172(c)(5) requirement for a nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permitting program; and (v) the section 172(c)(9) requirement for contingency measures.
The more specific subpart 4 statutory requirements for Moderate PM
Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires that each SIP include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the nonattainment area. We refer to this inventory as the “base year inventory.” The EPA has established regulatory requirements for base year and other emissions inventories in the PM
The base year emissions inventory should provide a state's best estimate of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutants in the area,
In its SIP submission, a state must include documentation explaining how it calculated emissions data. In estimating mobile source emissions, a state should use the latest emissions models and planning assumptions available at the time it develops the SIP submission. States are also required to use the EPA's “Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors” (“AP-42”) road dust method for calculating re-entrained road dust emissions from paved roads.
In addition to the base year inventory submitted to meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3), a state must also submit future “baseline inventories” for the projected attainment year, each RFP milestone year, and any other year of significance for meeting applicable CAA requirements.
Within the 2016 PM
Similarly, within the 2018 PM
The base year inventories for stationary sources were developed using actual emissions reports made by facility operators. The State developed the base year emissions inventories for area sources using the most recent models and methodologies available at the time the State was developing the 2016 PM
Furthermore, the 2016 PM
CARB used EMFAC2014 to estimate on-road motor vehicle emissions based on transportation activity data from the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan adopted by the transportation planning agencies in the SJV.
CARB developed the emissions forecasts by applying growth and control profiles to the base year inventory. CARB's mobile source emissions projections take into account predicted activity rates and vehicle fleet turnover by vehicle model year and adopted controls.
Table 1 provides a summary of the 2018 PM
Consistent with the requirement that inventories be based on the most current and accurate information available to the State and District at the time they were developing the plans and inventories, our evaluation for the SJV for the 2012 PM
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.1008(a), the 2013 base year is one of the three years for which monitored data were used for designating the area, and it represents annual average emissions of all sources within the nonattainment area. Direct PM
With respect to future year baseline projections, we have reviewed the growth and control factors and find them acceptable and thus conclude that the future baseline emissions projections in the 2016 PM
Given the State's impracticability demonstration for attaining the 2012 PM
For these reasons, we are proposing to approve the 2013 base year emissions inventory in the 2018 PM
The provisions of subpart 4 of part D, title I of the CAA do not define the term “precursor” for purposes of PM
Section 189(e) of the Act requires that the control requirements for major stationary sources of direct PM
Under the PM
We are evaluating the 2016 PM
The State presents analyses of PM
In the 2016 PM
The responses range from 0.5 µg/m
In the 2018 PM
The State estimates that anthropogenic emissions of NO
While these analyses are primarily designed to evaluate the role of precursors in attaining the 2006 24-hour PM
We summarize the State's analyses and conclusions in the following paragraphs. For ammonia, SO
Given that these levels are well above the EPA's recommended contribution threshold in the Draft PM
For ammonia, SO
For ammonia, the modeled sensitivity of ambient PM
The State supplements the sensitivity analysis, particularly for ammonia, with consideration of additional information, including factors identified in the Draft PM
For ammonia, the State notes that a 53% reduction in (baseline) NO
The EPA has evaluated the State's precursor demonstrations in the 2016 PM
The State based its analyses on the latest available data and studies concerning ambient PM
For the sensitivity-based analysis, the State performed its analyses in a straightforward application of the EPA's recommended approach—
The State's emissions projections in the 2016 PM
In the subsections that follow, we summarize below our evaluation of the State's precursor demonstrations for ammonia, SO
In the 2016 PM
As part of its analysis in the 2016 PM
First, multiple researchers have suggested that ammonia emissions are underestimated in the SJV by a factor of two to five or more.
If ammonia emissions were increased in the modeling to correct the likely underestimation, then modeled ammonia would be more abundant relative to nitrate; particulate nitrate formation would be more NO
In addition, an upward revision in the ammonia emission estimate would make the model response more consistent with the ambient measurement studies discussed in the submittal.
Based on these evaluations, we find that a correction to the likely underestimation of the ammonia emission inventory would likely result in a modeled response to ammonia reductions below the 0.2 µg/m
Second, the air quality benefit of ammonia emission reductions is projected to decline steeply over time and both the Moderate and Serious area plans for the 2012 PM
In selecting the analysis year for a precursor demonstration, we find it appropriate to consider changes in atmospheric chemistry that may occur between the base or current year and the attainment year because the changes may ultimately affect the nonattainment area's progress toward expeditious attainment. Based on these considerations, we find it reasonable for the State to focus on the ambient PM
The State's precursor demonstrations in the 2016 PM
Moreover, given the likely underestimate in ammonia emissions in the SJV, 2024 modeling results may be more representative even of current conditions than 2020 modeling results. For example, if 2013 ammonia emissions are underestimated by a factor of three, as suggested by the CalNex summary report,
Finally, the decision on whether to control ammonia does not affect the attainment year for the 2012 annual PM
Such reductions would also have little effect in 2025. Based on the 2024 sensitivity results,
In sum, we find that the State quantified the sensitivity of ambient PM
As described in section IV.B.2 of this proposed rule, in the 2016 PM
We note that the 2016 PM
Therefore, on the basis of these modeled ambient PM
In the 2016 PM
We note that the 2016 PM
The EPA has evaluated and agrees with the State's determination in the 2018 PM
For these reasons, we propose to approve the State's demonstration that VOC emissions do not contribute significantly to ambient PM
Section 189(a)(1)(B) of the CAA requires each state in which a Moderate area is located to submit a plan that includes a demonstration (including air quality modeling) of either (i) attainment of the PM
The EPA's PM
The EPA has not issued modeling guidance specific to impracticability demonstrations but believes that a state seeking to make such a demonstration generally should provide air quality modeling similar to that required for an attainment demonstration.
For an attainment demonstration, a thorough review of all modeling inputs and assumptions (including consistency with EPA guidance) is especially important because the modeling must ultimately support a conclusion that the plan (including its control strategy) will provide for timely attainment of the applicable NAAQS. In contrast, for an impracticability demonstration, the end point is a reclassification to Serious, which triggers the requirement for a new Serious area attainment plan with a new air quality modeling analysis, and a new control strategy.
In the 2016 PM
The State then generated site- and species-specific RRFs for the ammonium ion, nitrate ion, sulfate ion, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and a combined grouping of other primary PM
The 2021 baseline simulation used emission levels projected from the 2013 base year that reflect all control measures adopted by the time of the 2016 PM
The 2018 PM
The Plan's primary discussion of the photochemical modeling appears in Appendix K (“Modeling Attainment Demonstration”) of the 2018 PM
CARB's air quality modeling approach investigated the many interconnected facets of modeling ambient PM
The model performance evaluation in section 5.2 (“CMAQ Model Evaluation”) of both Appendix A of the 2016 PM
The EPA previously evaluated and approved the modeling conducted for the 2006 24-hour PM
Most aspects of the 2018 PM
Another modeling aspect that can differ between 24-hour and annual average is the focus of the model performance evaluation on the respective averaging times. For the 24-hour average, it is especially important that modeled concentrations on the highest days are comparable to those on the highest monitored days, since calculation of the design value for the 24-hour PM
The 2018 PM
The high days are generally captured by the model, even though some are underpredicted in December at certain monitoring sites such as Fresno. Overall, the modeled site maxima are comparable to the measurements; also, the frequency of high and low days generally matches observations so the annual as well as the daily model performance is acceptable.
The EPA evaluated the State's choice of model for the impracticability demonstration and the extensive discussion in the 2016 PM
The general subpart 1 attainment plan requirement for RACM/RACT is described in CAA section 172(c)(1), which requires that attainment plan submissions “provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology)” and provide for attainment of the NAAQS.
The attainment planning requirements specific to PM
The PM
Under the PM
States must provide written justification in a SIP submission for eliminating potential control options from further review on the basis of technological or economic infeasibility.
Consistent with these requirements, CARB and SJVUAPCD must implement RACM, including RACT, for sources of direct PM
The RACM/RACT evaluation for sources of direct PM
The 2015 PM
With respect to mobile sources, the 2016 PM
Finally, with respect to transportation control measures (TCMs), the 2016 PM
We have reviewed the State and District's demonstrations in the 2016 PM
With respect to transportation controls, we find that the SJV MPOs have well-established TCM development programs in which TCMs are continuously identified, reviewed, and evaluated throughout the transportation planning process. Overall, we believe that the programs developed and administered by CARB and the SJV MPOs provide for the implementation of RACM and additional reasonable measures for sources of direct PM
For these reasons, we propose to find that the 2016 PM
Section 189(e) of the CAA specifically requires that the control requirements applicable to major stationary sources of direct PM
California submitted NNSR SIP revisions for the SJV to address the subpart 4 requirements for Moderate PM
Section 189(a)(1)(B) of the CAA requires that each Moderate area attainment plan include a demonstration that the plan provides for attainment by the applicable Moderate area attainment date or, alternatively, that attainment by such date is impracticable. This provision explicitly requires that a demonstration of attainment be based on air quality modeling but does not require such modeling for an impracticability demonstration. Although the EPA expects that most impracticability demonstrations will also be supported by air quality modeling, it may be possible in some cases to support an impracticability demonstration with ambient PM
Section 188(c) of the CAA states, in relevant part, that the Moderate area attainment date “shall be as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the end of the sixth calendar year after the area's designation as nonattainment . . . .” For the SJV, which was initially designated as nonattainment for the 2012 PM
In SIP submissions that demonstrate impracticability, the state should document how its required control strategy in the attainment plan represents the application of RACM/RACT and additional reasonable measures, at minimum, to existing sources. The EPA believes it is appropriate to require adoption of all available control measures that are reasonable,
The 2016 PM
As further described in section IV.C.2 of this proposed rule, the 2018 PM
Table 3 shows the projected annual PM
The impracticability demonstration in the 2016 PM
We have also evaluated the State's control measure demonstration, which relies on its BACM/MSM
Finally, we have reviewed available monitored data to assess the practicability of attaining by 2021. Specifically, the certified 2018-2020 annual average design value for SJV is 17.6 µg/m
Based on this evaluation, we propose to approve the State's demonstration in the 2016 PM
Section 172(c)(2) of the CAA states that all nonattainment area plans shall require RFP. In addition, CAA section 189(c) requires that all PM
For purposes of the PM
• The pollutant is emitted by a large number and range of sources,
• the relationship between any individual source or source category and overall air quality is not well known,
• a chemical transformation is involved (
• the emission reductions necessary to attain the PM
The General Preamble Addendum indicates that requiring linear progress may be less appropriate in other situations, such as in situations where:
• there are a limited number of sources of direct PM
• the relationships between individual sources and air quality are relatively well defined, and/or
• the emission control systems utilized (
In nonattainment areas characterized by any of these latter conditions, RFP may be better represented as stepwise progress as controls are implemented and achieve significant reductions soon thereafter. For example, if an area's nonattainment problem can be attributed to a few major sources, the EPA's guidance indicates that “RFP should be met by `adherence to an ambitious compliance schedule' which is likely to periodically yield significant emission reductions of direct PM
Attainment plans for the PM
The PM
Section 189(c) requires that attainment plans include quantitative milestones that demonstrate RFP. The purpose of the quantitative milestones is to allow for periodic evaluation of the area's progress towards attainment of the NAAQS consistent with RFP requirements. Because RFP is an annual emission reduction requirement and the quantitative milestones are to be achieved every three years, when a state demonstrates compliance with the quantitative milestone requirement, it will demonstrate that RFP has been achieved during each of the relevant three years. Quantitative milestones should provide an objective means to evaluate progress toward attainment meaningfully,
The CAA does not specify the starting point for counting the three-year periods for quantitative milestones under CAA section 189(c). In the General Preamble and General Preamble Addendum, the EPA interpreted the CAA to require that the starting point for the first three-year period be the due date for the Moderate area plan submission.
The RFP demonstration and quantitative milestones are discussed in section 3.5 of the 2016 PM
Table 3-6 of the 2016 PM
The 2016 PM
For quantitative milestones, the 2016 PM
Appendix H of the 2018 PM
Like the 2016 PM
In addition to these baseline measures, the 2018 PM
Specifically, for the 2019 milestone year, Appendix H of the 2018 PM
Appendix H describes CARB's quantitative milestones as a report on three measure-specific milestones: (1) Actions taken between 2017 and 2019 to implement the Truck and Bus Regulation that required particulate filters and cleaner engine standards on existing heavy-duty diesel trucks and buses in California; (2) implementation of the “In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation” (the “Off-Road Regulation”) that began in 2014 for large fleets and in 2017 for medium fleets and limited emissions from existing off-road diesel vehicles operated in California; and (3) the “status of SIP measures adopted between 2017 and 2019, including the California
For the 2022 milestone year, Appendix H of the 2018 PM
Appendix H of the 2018 PM
The majority of the NO
The EPA has evaluated the RFP demonstrations in the 2016 PM
First, the 2016 PM
Second, the RFP demonstration contains projected emission levels for direct PM
As shown in tables 4 and 5 of this proposed rule, the projected RFP emission levels in each plan for 2019 and 2022 are equal to the target RFP emission levels in 2019 and 2022, respectively. We note that the 2013 base year emissions in the 2018 PM
Finally, the RFP demonstration shows that overall pollutant emissions in each milestone year will be at levels that reflect generally linear progress toward attainment. The RFP target emissions levels for 2019 and 2022 identified in both the 2016 PM
For these reasons, we propose to determine that the 2016 PM
The 2016 PM
The State's quantitative milestones in Appendix H are to implement specific baseline measures identified in the plan (
For these reasons, we propose to determine that the 2016 PM
We note that on January 13, 2020, CARB submitted the SJV “2019 Quantitative Milestone Report for the 2012 PM
We are presenting our review of the SIP submittals for compliance with contingency measure requirements in two different sections of this document. In this section, we present our review of the submittals with respect to the contingency measure requirements for the SJV as a Moderate area for the 2012 PM
Under CAA section 172(c)(9), states required to make an attainment plan SIP submission must include contingency measures that they will implement if the area fails to meet RFP (“RFP contingency measures”) or fails to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date (“attainment contingency measures”). Under the PM
The EPA does not interpret the requirement for contingency measures for failing to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date to apply to a Moderate area that a state adequately demonstrates cannot practicably attain the NAAQS by the statutory attainment date. Rather, the EPA believes it is appropriate for the state to identify and adopt these contingency measures in a timely way as part of the Serious area attainment plan that it will develop once the EPA reclassifies such an area. However, if a state with a Moderate area that the EPA has found cannot practicably attain the NAAQS by the attainment date fails to meet RFP, when reviewed as part of the quantitative milestone either 4.5 or 7.5 years after designation, then the requirement to implement contingency measures would be triggered as required by CAA section 172(c)(9).
The purpose of contingency measures is to continue progress in reducing emissions while a state revises its SIP to meet the missed RFP requirement or to correct ongoing nonattainment. Neither the CAA nor the EPA's implementing regulations establish a specific level of
To satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 51.1014, the contingency measures adopted as part of a PM
The 2016 PM
CARB and the District prepared the 2016 PM
CARB and the District then established a ratio of 1:8.8 to trade direct PM
Therefore, the 2016 PM
The 2018 PM
Accordingly, we have evaluated the relevant portions of the 2018 PM
With respect to the District contingency measure, the 2018 PM
District Rule 4901 is designed to limit emissions generated by the use of wood burning fireplaces, wood burning heaters, and outdoor wood burning devices. The rule establishes requirements for the sale/transfer, operation, and installation of wood burning devices and for advertising the sale of seasoned wood consistent with a moisture content limit within the SJV.
The rule includes a two-tiered, episodic wood burning curtailment requirement that applies during four winter months, November through February. During a level one episodic wood burning curtailment, section 5.7.1 prohibits any person from operating a wood burning fireplace or unregistered wood burning heater but permits the use of a properly operated wood burning heater that meets certification requirements and has a current registration with the District. Sections 5.9 through 5.11 impose specific registration requirements on any person operating a wood burning fireplace or wood burning heater and section 5.12 imposes specific certification requirements on wood burning heater professionals. During a level two episodic wood burning curtailment, operation of any wood burning device is prohibited by section 5.7.2.
Prior to the 2019-2020 wood burning season, the District imposed a level one curtailment when the PM
The District's 2019 revision to Rule 4901 also included the addition of a contingency measure in section 5.7.3 of the rule, requiring that 60 days following the effective date of an EPA final rulemaking that the SJV has failed to attain the 1997, 2006, or 2012 PM
We have evaluated the contingency measure element in the 2016 PM
PM
First, the emission reductions relied upon in the contingency measure element to show compliance with the contingency measure requirement (
We recognize that the District has taken action to fulfill the commitment in the 2018 PM
Second, as a general matter, we find that surplus emissions reductions in the years following RFP milestone years can be taken into account in determining whether a contingency measure or contingency measures are adequate for a given area for a given pollutant notwithstanding the fact that the contingency measure or contingency measures would not achieve reductions equivalent to one year's worth of RFP. However, the contingency measure element in the 2016 PM
Furthermore, with respect to the emissions analysis for 2019, neither Rule 9610 (“State Implementation Plan Credit for Emission Reductions Generated Through Incentive Programs”) nor the list of Carl Moyer incentive projects in Appendix C of the 2016 PM
Third, as a general matter, we agree that the use of trading ratios established through modeling techniques to convert surplus reductions of direct PM
Therefore, in light of the deficiencies described in the preceding paragraphs, we are proposing to disapprove the contingency measure element of the 2016 PM
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires federal actions in nonattainment and
Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the EPA's transportation conformity rule, codified at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Under this rule, MPOs in nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate with state and local air quality and transportation agencies, the EPA, the FHWA, and the FTA to demonstrate that an area's regional transportation plans and transportation improvement programs conform to the applicable SIP. This demonstration is typically done by showing that estimated emissions from existing and planned highway and transit systems are less than or equal to the MVEBs contained in all control strategy SIPs. An attainment, maintenance, or RFP SIP should include budgets for the attainment year, each required RFP milestone year, and the last year of the maintenance plan, as appropriate. Budgets are generally established for specific years and specific pollutants or precursors and must reflect all of the motor vehicle control measures contained in the attainment and RFP demonstrations.
Under the PM
PM
By contrast, transportation conformity requirements apply with respect to emissions of NO
The criteria for insignificance determinations are provided in 40 CFR 93.109(f). In order for a pollutant or precursor to be considered an insignificant contributor, the control strategy SIP must demonstrate that it would be unreasonable to expect that such an area would experience enough motor vehicle emissions growth in that pollutant/precursor for a NAAQS violation to occur. Insignificance determinations are based on factors such as air quality, SIP motor vehicle control measures, trends and projections of motor vehicle emissions, and the percentage of the total SIP inventory that is comprised of motor vehicle emissions. The EPA's rationale for providing for insignificance determinations is described in the July 1, 2004, revision to the transportation conformity rule.
The EPA's process for determining the adequacy of a budget consists of three basic steps: (1) Notifying the public of a SIP submittal; (2) providing the public the opportunity to comment on the budget during a public comment period; and (3) making a finding of adequacy or inadequacy. The EPA can notify the public by either posting an announcement that the EPA has received SIP budgets on the EPA's adequacy website (40 CFR 93.118(f)(1)), or through a
For budgets to be approvable, they must meet, at a minimum, the EPA's adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)). To meet these requirements, the budgets must be consistent with the attainment and RFP requirements and reflect all of the motor vehicle control measures
The 2016 PM
The budgets in both the 2016 PM
As with the 2016 PM
The 2018 PM
To ensure that the trading mechanism does not affect the ability of the SJV to meet the NO
In the submittal letter for the 2018 PM
For the reasons discussed in section IV.F of this proposed rule, we are proposing to approve the State's demonstration that it is impracticable to attain the 2012 PM
The EPA generally first conducts a preliminary review of budgets submitted with an attainment or maintenance plan for PM
The 2018 PM
For the reasons discussed in sections IV.G of this proposed rule, the EPA proposes to approve the RFP demonstration in the 2018 PM
As noted above, the State included a trading mechanism to be used in transportation conformity analyses that would be used in conjunction with the budgets in the 2018 PM
The EPA has reviewed the trading mechanism as described on pages D-125 through D-127 in Appendix D of the 2018 PM
In the updated analysis for the 2018 PM
Under the transportation conformity rule, once budgets are approved, they cannot be superseded by revised budgets submitted for the same CAA purpose and the same year(s) addressed by the previously approved SIP until the EPA approves the revised budgets as a
In the submittal letter for the 2018 PM
CARB's request includes an explanation for why the budgets have become, or will become, outdated or deficient. In short, CARB has requested that we limit the duration of the approval of the budgets in light of the EPA's approval of EMFAC2017, an updated version of the EMFAC2014 used for the budgets in the 2018 PM
In light of the EPA's approval of EMFAC2017, CARB explains that the budgets in the 2018 PM
We note that CARB has not committed to update the budgets as part of a comprehensive SIP update, but as a practical matter, CARB must submit a SIP revision that includes updated demonstrations as well as the updated budgets to meet the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
Lastly, in section IV.H of this proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to disapprove the contingency measure element of the 2016 PM
Section 188 of the Act outlines the process for classification of PM
We have reviewed the air quality modeling and impracticability demonstration in the 2016 PM
In accordance with section 188(b)(1) of the Act, the EPA is proposing to reclassify the SJV from Moderate to Serious nonattainment for the 2012 annual PM
Under section 188(c)(2) of the Act, the attainment date for a Serious area “shall be as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the end of the tenth calendar year beginning after the area's designation as nonattainment . . .” The EPA designated the SJV as nonattainment for the 2012 PM
Under section 188(e) of the Act, a state may apply to the EPA for a single extension of the Serious area attainment date of up to five additional years, which the EPA may grant if the state satisfies certain statutory conditions. Before the EPA may extend the attainment date for a Serious area under section 188(e), the state must: (1) Apply for an extension of the attainment date beyond the statutory attainment date; (2) demonstrate that attainment by the statutory attainment date is impracticable; (3) demonstrate that it has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the implementation plan; (4) demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the plan for the area includes the most stringent measures that are included in the implementation plan of any state or are achieved in practice in any state, and can feasibly be implemented in the area; and (5) submit a demonstration of attainment by the most expeditious alternative date practicable.
Upon reclassification as a Serious nonattainment area for the 2012 PM
The Serious area SIP elements that California will be required to submit are as follows:
1. Provisions to assure that BACM,
2. a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the plan provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but not later than December 31, 2025, or where the state is seeking an extension of the attainment date under section 188(e), a demonstration that attainment by December 31, 2025, is impracticable and that the plan provides for attainment by the most expeditious alternative date practicable and not later than December 31, 2030 (CAA sections 189(b)(1)(A), 188(c)(2), and 188(e));
3. plan provisions that require RFP (CAA section 172(c)(2));
4. quantitative milestones that are to be achieved every three years until the area is redesignated to attainment and that demonstrate RFP toward attainment by the applicable date (CAA section 189(c));
5. provisions to assure that control requirements applicable to major stationary sources of PM
6. a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of PM
7. contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to meet RFP (including quantitative milestones and related reports) or to attain by the applicable attainment date (CAA section 172(c)(9)); and
8. a revision to the NNSR program to lower the applicable “major stationary source”
As discussed in section IV.E of this proposed rule, California submitted NNSR SIP revisions for the SJV to address the subpart 4 NNSR requirements for Serious PM
Finally, reclassification of the SJV as Serious nonattainment for the 2012 annual PM
When the EPA reclassifies a nonattainment area to a higher classification, the CAA sets the parameters for establishing deadlines for attainment plan SIP submissions for that higher classification. The State has already made submissions intended to address the Serious area attainment plan requirements for the 2012 PM
For an area reclassified as a Serious nonattainment area before the applicable attainment date under CAA section 188(b)(1), section 189(b)(2) requires the state to submit the required BACM provisions “no later than 18 months after reclassification of the area as a Serious Area” and to submit the required attainment demonstration “no later than 4 years after reclassification of the area to Serious.” Section 189(b)(2) establishes outer bounds on the SIP submission deadlines as necessary or appropriate to assure consistency among the required submissions and to implement the statutory requirements.
The Act provides the state with up to 18 months after final reclassification of an area to Serious to submit the required BACM provisions. Because an up-to-date emissions inventory serves as the foundation for a state's BACM/BACT determination, the PM
The PM
Finally, the PM
Accordingly, if we finalize our proposal to reclassify the SJV as a Serious nonattainment area for the 2012 PM
We note that the 2018 PM
Eight Indian tribes are located within the boundaries of the SJV nonattainment area for the 2012 PM
We have considered the relevance of our proposal to reclassify the SJV as Serious nonattainment for the 2012 PM
Directly-emitted PM
Uniformity of classification throughout a nonattainment area is thus a guiding principle and premise when an area is being reclassified. In this particular case, we are proposing to determine, based on the State's demonstration and current ambient air quality trends, that the entire SJV nonattainment area, including all reservations areas of Indian country and any other area located within the SJV where a tribe has jurisdiction, cannot practicably attain the 2012 PM
In light of the considerations outlined above that support retention of a uniformly-classified PM
Generally, the effect of reclassification is to lower the applicable “major source” threshold for purposes of the NNSR program and the Title V operating permit program from 100 tpy to 70 tpy,
The EPA has contacted tribal officials to invite government-to-government consultation on this rulemaking effort.
With one exception, the SIP requirements for contingency measures that apply to areas classified as Serious for the 2006 PM
The EPA deferred action on the contingency measure element of the 2018 PM
The 2018 PM
Accordingly, we have evaluated the relevant portions of the 2018 PM
With respect to the District contingency measure, the 2018 PM
District Rule 4901 is designed to limit emissions generated by the use of wood burning fireplaces, wood burning heaters, and outdoor wood burning devices. The rule establishes requirements for the sale/transfer, operation, and installation of wood burning devices and for advertising the sale of seasoned wood consistent with a moisture content limit within the SJV.
The rule includes a two-tiered, episodic wood burning curtailment requirement that applies during four winter months, November through February. During a level one episodic wood burning curtailment, section 5.7.1 prohibits any person from operating a wood burning fireplace or unregistered wood burning heater but permits the use of a properly operated wood burning heater that meets certification requirements and has a current registration with the District. Sections 5.9 through 5.11 impose specific registration requirements on any person operating a wood burning fireplace or wood burning heater and section 5.12 imposes specific certification requirements on wood burning heater professionals. During a level two episodic wood burning curtailment, operation of any wood burning device is prohibited by section 5.7.2.
Prior to the 2019-2020 wood burning season, the District imposed a level one curtailment when the PM
The District's 2019 revision to Rule 4901 also included the addition of a contingency measure in section 5.7.3 of the rule, requiring that 60 days following the effective date of an EPA final rulemaking that the SJV has failed to attain the 1997, 2006, or 2012 PM
The 2018 PM
For the 2006 PM
As noted in our summary of the State's submission, the contingency provision in District Rule 4901 is structured to provide for implementation if the area fails to attain the 2006 PM
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.1014, the contingency provision in District Rule 4901 identifies a specific triggering mechanism. In this case, the triggering mechanism in the rule is the EPA's final determination that the SJV has failed to attain the 2006 PM
In addition, the contingency measure provision of Rule 4901 is not structured to achieve any additional emissions reductions if the EPA finds that the monitoring locations in the “hot spot” counties (
Next, we considered the adequacy of the section 5.7.3 of District Rule 4901 from the standpoint of the magnitude of emissions reductions the measures would provide (if triggered). Neither the CAA nor the EPA's implementing regulations for the PM
The State's contingency measure element in the 2018 PM
For these reasons, we propose to disapprove the contingency measure element of the 2018 PM
Lastly, if the EPA finalizes the proposed disapproval of the contingency measure element for the 2006 PM
Under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is proposing to approve the following elements of the 2016 PM
1. The 2013 base year emissions inventories in the 2016 PM
2. The reasonably available control measures/reasonably available control technology demonstration in the 2016 PM
3. The demonstration in the 2016 PM
4. The reasonable further progress demonstration in the 2016 PM
5. The quantitative milestones in the 2016 PM
6. The motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2022 in the 2018 PM
Pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA proposes to disapprove the contingency measure element of the 2016 PM
If we finalize the disapproval of the contingency measure elements as proposed, the offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) would apply in the SJV 18 months after the effective date of a final disapproval, and the highway funding sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(1) would apply in the area six months after the offset sanction is imposed.
In addition to the sanctions, CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that the EPA must promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) addressing any disapproved elements of the plan two years after the effective date of disapproval unless the State submits, and the EPA approves, the required SIP submittal. As a result of the EPA's December 6, 2018 determination that California had failed to submit the required contingency measures for the 2006 PM
Also, because we previously approved the Serious area plan RFP and attainment demonstrations and the motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 2006 PM
Finally, pursuant to CAA section 188(b)(1), the EPA is proposing to reclassify the SJV PM
We note that the 2018 PM
In addition, because the EPA is proposing to similarly reclassify reservation areas of Indian country and any other area of Indian country where the EPA or a tribe has demonstrated that the tribe has jurisdiction within the SJV PM
We will accept comments from the public on these proposals for the next 30 days. The deadline and instructions for submission of comments are provided in the
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
The proposed actions are not a significant regulatory action and were therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
The proposed actions do not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because they do not contain any information collection activities.
I certify that the proposed actions will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The proposed actions will not impose any requirements on small entities. This proposed rule would approve or disapprove State plans as meeting federal requirements and would not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Additionally, the proposed rule would reclassify the SJV nonattainment area as Serious nonattainment for the 2012 PM
The proposed actions do not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This proposed rule would approve or disapprove State plans as meeting federal requirements and would not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Additionally, the proposed rule would reclassify the SJV nonattainment area as Serious nonattainment for the 2012 PM
The proposed actions do not have federalism implications. They will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have Tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes.”
Eight Indian tribes are located within the boundaries of the SJV nonattainment area for the 2012 PM
The EPA's proposed actions on the SIP elements submitted by California to address the Moderate area requirements for the 2012 PM
The EPA has concluded that the proposed reclassification might have tribal implications for the purposes of Executive Order 13175, but would not impose substantial direct costs upon the tribes, nor would it preempt tribal law. The proposed reclassification from Moderate to Serious for a PM
Given the potential implications, the EPA contacted tribal officials during the process of developing this proposed rule to provide an opportunity to have meaningful and timely input into its development. On March 3, 2021, we sent letters to leaders of the eight tribes with areas of Indian country in the SJV nonattainment area inviting government-to-government consultation on the rulemaking effort. We requested that the tribal leaders, or their
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. The proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it would approve or disapprove a State plan implementing a federal standard, and reclassify the SJV nonattainment area as Serious nonattainment for the 2012 PM
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA has determined that the proposed actions will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because they do not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The proposed actions would only approve or disapprove State plans implementing a federal standard, and reclassify the SJV nonattainment area as Serious nonattainment for the 2012 PM
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ammonia, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate matter.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed rulemaking, request for comment, and announcement of webinar.
The U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) proposes to amend the test procedures for residential and commercial clothes washers to specify test conditions, instrument specifications, and test settings; address large clothes container capacities; add product-specific enforcement provisions; delete obsolete provisions; and consolidate all test cloth-related provisions and codify additional test cloth material verification procedures used by industry. DOE also proposes to create a new test procedure for residential and commercial clothes washers with additional modifications for certain test conditions, measurement of average cycle time, required test cycles, tested load sizes, semi-automatic clothes washer provisions, new performance metrics, and updated usage factors. The proposed new test procedure would be used for the evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards, as well as to determine compliance with the updated standards. As part of this proposal, DOE is announcing a webinar to collect comments and data on this proposal. DOE is seeking comment from interested parties on the proposal.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposal no later than November 1, 2021. See section V, “Public Participation,” for details. DOE will hold a webinar on Tuesday, September 14, 2021, from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. See section V, “Public Participation,” for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions through a variety of mechanisms, including postal mail and hand delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary to make temporary modifications to the comment submission process in light of the ongoing corona virus 2019 (“COVID-19”) pandemic. DOE is currently accepting only electronic submissions at this time. If a commenter finds that this change poses an undue hardship, please contact Appliance Standards Program staff at (202) 586-1445 to discuss the need for alternative arrangements. Once the COVID-19 pandemic health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates resuming all of its regular options for public comment submission, including postal mail and hand delivery/courier.
No telefacsimilies (“faxes”) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section V of this document.
The docket web page can be found at
Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. Email:
Ms. Kathryn McIntosh, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2002. Email:
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the webinar, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the following standards into part 430.
American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists (“AATCC”) Test Method 79-2010, “Absorbency of Textiles,” Revised 2010.
AATCC Test Method 118-2007, “Oil Repellency: Hydrocarbon Resistance Test,” Revised 2007.
AATCC Test Method 135-2010, “Dimensional Changes of Fabrics after Home Laundering,” Revised 2010.
Copies of AATCC test methods can be obtained from AATC, P.O. Box 12215, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (919) 549-3526, or by going to
International Electrotechnical Commission (“IEC”) 62301, “Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power,” (Edition 2.0, 2011-01).
Copies of IEC 62301 are available from the American National Standards Institute, 25 W 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or by going to
For a further discussion of these standards, see section IV.M of this document.
Consumer (residential) clothes washers (“RCWs”) are included in the list of “covered products” for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)) DOE's energy conservation standards and test procedures for RCWs are currently prescribed at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”), part 430 section 23(j), and subpart B appendices J1 (“Appendix J1”) and J2 (“Appendix J2”). DOE also prescribes a test method for measuring the moisture absorption and retention characteristics of new lots of energy test cloth, which is used in testing clothes washers, at appendix J3 to subpart B (“Appendix J3”). Commercial clothes washers (“CCWs”) are included in the list of “covered equipment” for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(H)) The test procedures for CCWs must be the same as those established for RCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(8)) The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish test procedures for RCWs and CCWs and relevant background information regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures for these products and equipment.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”),
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291; 42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293; 42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294; 42 U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295; 42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296; 42 U.S.C. 6316).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of those consumer products (42 U.S.C. 6293(c); 42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products and equipment comply with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products and equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297; 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d); 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293 and 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products and equipment, respectively. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product or equipment during a representative average use cycle or period of use and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3); 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
In addition, EPCA requires that DOE amend its test procedures for all covered products to integrate measures of standby mode and off mode energy consumption. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate test procedures for each type of covered product, including RCWs, to determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
If the Secretary determines, on his own behalf or in response to a petition by any interested person, that a test procedure should be prescribed or amended, the Secretary shall promptly publish in the
EPCA requires the test procedures for CCWs to be the same as the test procedures established for RCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(8)) As with the test procedures for RCWs, EPCA requires that DOE evaluate, at least once every 7 years, the test procedures for CCWs to determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))
DOE is publishing this notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) in satisfaction of the 7-year review requirement specified in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C.6314(a)(1))
As discussed, DOE's existing test procedures for clothes washers appear in Appendix J1, Appendix J2, and Appendix J3.
DOE originally established its clothes washer test procedure, codified at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J (“Appendix J”),
DOE amended Appendix J in August 1997 (62 FR 45484 (Aug. 27, 1997); “August 1997 Final Rule”) and January 2001 (66 FR 3313 (Jan. 12, 2001); “January 2001 Final Rule”). The August 1997 Final Rule also established an Appendix J1. 62 FR 45484. DOE amended Appendix J1 in the January 2001 Final Rule (66 FR 3313) and in March 2012. 77 FR 13887 (Mar. 7, 2012) (“March 2012 Final Rule”). The March 2012 Final Rule also established a new test procedure at Appendix J2 and removed the obsolete Appendix J-2001.
DOE most recently amended both Appendix J1 and Appendix J2 in a final rule published on August 5, 2015. 80 FR 46729 (“August 2015 Final Rule”). The August 2015 Final Rule also moved the test cloth qualification procedures from Appendix J1 and Appendix J2 to the newly created Appendix J3. 80 FR 46729, 46735.
The current version of the test procedure at Appendix J2 includes provisions for determining modified energy factor (“MEF”) and integrated modified energy factor (“IMEF”) in cubic feet per kilowatt-hour per cycle (“ft
DOE published the May 2020 RFI to initiate an effort to determine whether to amend the current test procedures for clothes washers. 85 FR 31065. DOE requested comment on specific aspects of the current test procedure, including product definitions and configurations, testing conditions and instrumentation,
On December 16, 2020, DOE established separate product classes for top-loading RCWs with a cycle time of less than 30 minutes and for front-loading RCWs with a cycle time of less than 45 minutes. 85 FR 81359 (“December 2020 Final Rule”). DOE is re-evaluating the new short-cycle product classes in response to Executive Order 13900, “Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.” 86 FR 7037 (Jan. 25, 2021). In addition, stakeholders and interested parties filed multiple lawsuits challenging the December 2020 Final Rule, and DOE has received several petitions for reconsideration of the December 2020 Final Rule.
DOE received comments in response to the May 2020 RFI from the interested parties listed in Table I.1.
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to update Appendix J2 as follows:
(1) Further specify supply water temperature test conditions and water meter resolution requirements;
(2) Add specifications for measuring wash water temperature using submersible data loggers;
(3) Expand the load size table to accommodate clothes container capacities up to 8.0 cubic feet (“ft
(4) Define “user-adjustable automatic water fill control;”
(5) Specify the applicability of the wash time setting for clothes washers with a range of wash time settings;
(6) Specify how the energy test cycle flow charts apply to clothes washers that internally generate hot water;
(7) Specify that the energy test cycle flow charts are to be evaluated using the Maximum load size;
(8) Specify that testing is to be conducted with any network settings disabled if instructions are available to the user to disable these functions;
(9) Further specify the conditions under which data from a test cycle would be discarded;
(10) Add product-specific enforcement provisions to accommodate the potential for test cloth lot-to-lot variation in remaining moisture content (“RMC”);
(11) Delete obsolete definitions, metrics, and the clothes washer-specific waiver section; and
(12) Move additional test cloth related specifications to Appendix J3.
In this NOPR, DOE is also proposing to update 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J3, “Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Moisture Absorption and Retention Characteristics,” as follows:
(1) Consolidate all test cloth-related provisions, including those proposed to be moved from Appendix J2;
(2) Reorganize sections for improved readability; and
(3) Codify the test cloth material verification procedure as used by industry.
In this NOPR, DOE is also proposing to create a new appendix J to 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, “Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Automatic and Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers,” which would be used for the evaluation and issuance of any updated efficiency standards, as well as to determine compliance with the updated standards, should DOE determine that amended standards are warranted based on the criteria established by EPCA.
(1) Modify the hot water supply target temperature and clothes washer pre-conditioning requirements;
(2) Modify the Extra-Hot Wash threshold temperature;
(3) Add measurement and calculation of average cycle time;
(4) Reduce the number of required test cycles by requiring the use of no more than two Warm Wash/Cold Rinse cycles, and no more than two Warm Wash/Warm Rinse cycles;
(5) Reduce the number of required test cycles by removing the need for one or more cycles used for measuring RMC;
(6) Reduce the number of load sizes from three to two for units with automatic water fill controls;
(7) Modify the load size definitions consistent with two, rather than three, load sizes;
(8) Update the water fill levels to be used for testing to reflect the modified load size definitions;
(9) Specify the installation of single-inlet clothes washers, and simplify the test procedure for semi-automatic clothes washers;
(10) Define new performance metrics that are functions of the weighted-average load size rather than clothes
(11) Update the number of annual clothes washer cycles from 295 to 234; and
(12) Update the number of hours assigned to low-power mode to be based on the clothes washer's measured cycle time rather than an assumed fixed value.
Finally, in this NOPR, DOE is proposing to remove Appendix J1 and to update the relevant sections of 10 CFR parts 429, 430 and 431 in accordance with the edits discussed previously, and to modify the product-specific enforcement provisions regarding the determination of RMC.
DOE's proposed actions are summarized in Table II.1 compared to the current test procedures as well as the reason for the proposed change.
DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments to Appendix J2 and Appendix J3 described in section III of this document would not alter the measured efficiency of clothes washers, and that the proposed test procedures would not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments in the new Appendix J would alter the measured efficiency of clothes washers, in part because the amended test procedures would adopt a different energy efficiency metric and water efficiency metric than in the current test procedure. Because the proposed new Appendix J would be used for the evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards, DOE is proposing that use of new Appendix J, if finalized, would not be required until the compliance date of any updated standards. Discussion of DOE's proposed actions are addressed in detail in section III of this document.
In the following sections, DOE describes the proposed amendments to the test procedures for residential and commercial clothes washers. This NOPR includes issues identified in previous rulemakings and discusses additional issues that DOE has become aware of since the completion of the August 2015 Final Rule. DOE seeks input from the public to assist with its consideration of the proposed amendments presented in this document. In addition, DOE welcomes comments on other relevant issues that may not specifically be identified in this document.
DOE received a number of general comments from stakeholders, as summarized below.
AHAM commented generally that no test can be considered “reasonably designed” under EPCA if the test is not accurate, repeatable, and reproducible. AHAM stated that test procedures with significant variation do not allow consumers to make informed purchase decisions based on energy use/efficiency and do not adequately serve the purpose of demonstrating compliance with energy conservation standards. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 2) AHAM also claimed that as energy conservation standards become more stringent, minimizing variation in test procedure results becomes more important because of the need for manufacturers to conservatively rate their products. AHAM asserted that lack of uniform test results requires manufacturers to rate more conservatively, which effectively makes the standard more stringent in practice.
AHAM commented that the clothes washer test procedure is one of the most burdensome DOE test procedures for consumer appliances. AHAM provided an example that a full-featured clothes washer (one that includes manual and user-adjustable automatic water fill control systems (“WFCS”), a heater, four warm wash temperatures, warm rinse, and selectable spin speeds) could require more than 70 test cycles per unit under Appendix J2. (AHAM, No. 5 at pp. 4-5) GEA similarly commented that DOE should work to reduce test burden for full-featured clothes washers, stating that requiring 70 individual cycles for a single test of certain clothes washers demonstrates that the clothes washer test procedure has become overly complicated and fails to fulfill the representativeness requirement under the EPCA. (GEA, No. 13 at p. 2)
AHAM requested that if DOE implements any changes that will significantly impact measured energy, DOE should require compliance with the revised test procedure on the same date as the next amended energy conservation standards for clothes washers. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 16)
Electrolux, GEA, and Whirlpool support AHAM's comments to the RFI. (Electrolux, No. 11 at p. 1; GEA, No. 13 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 7 at p. 1) GEA incorporates them into its own comments by reference. (GEA, No. 13 at
As stated, EPCA requires that any test procedures be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product or equipment during a representative average use cycle or period of use and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3); 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) As described in this NOPR, DOE is proposing a number of changes to be implemented in a proposed new Appendix J that DOE has tentatively concluded would significantly reduce test burden while maintaining or improving the representativeness of test results. In addition, both the amendments to Appendix J2 and the proposed new Appendix J are intended to further improve the repeatability and reproducibility of test results, as described in the relevant sections of this document.
DOE is proposing to establish a new test procedure at a new Appendix J at 10 CFR part 430 subpart B. Any changes to the test procedure that would impact measured efficiency would be provided in this proposed new Appendix J, which DOE would use for the evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards. Therefore, DOE is proposing that use of new Appendix J would not be required until the compliance date of any updated standards that are based on new Appendix J. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(C)). DOE also proposes to state in the introductory text to both Appendix J2 and the proposed new Appendix J that Appendix J2 is required to determine compliance with energy conservation standards until any such amended standards are adopted.
This NOPR covers those consumer products that meet the definition of “clothes washer,” as codified at 10 CFR 430.2.
EPCA does not define the term “clothes washer.” DOE has defined a “clothes washer” as a consumer product designed to clean clothes, utilizing a water solution of soap and/or detergent and mechanical agitation or other movement, that must be one of the following classes: Automatic clothes washers, semi-automatic clothes washers, and other clothes washers. 10 CFR 430.2.
An “automatic clothes washer” is a class of clothes washer that has a control system that is capable of scheduling a preselected combination of operations, such as regulation of water temperature, regulation of the water fill level, and performance of wash, rinse, drain, and spin functions without the need for user intervention subsequent to the initiation of machine operation. Some models may require user intervention to initiate these different segments of the cycle after the machine has begun operation, but they do not require the user to intervene to regulate the water temperature by adjusting the external water faucet valves.
A “semi-automatic clothes washer” is a class of clothes washer that is the same as an automatic clothes washer except that user intervention is required to regulate the water temperature by adjusting the external water faucet valves.
“Other clothes washer” means a class of clothes washer that is not an automatic or semi-automatic clothes washer.
This NOPR also covers commercial equipment that meets the definition of “commercial clothes washer.” “Commercial clothes washer” is defined as a soft-mount front-loading or soft-mount top-loading clothes washer that—
(A) Has a clothes container compartment that—
(i) For horizontal-axis clothes washers, is not more than 3.5 cubic feet; and
(ii) For vertical-axis clothes washers, is not more than 4.0 cubic feet; and
(B) Is designed for use in—
(i) Applications in which the occupants of more than one household will be using the clothes washer, such as multi-family housing common areas and coin laundries; or
(ii) Other commercial applications.
DOE is not proposing any changes to the scope of products and equipment covered by its clothes washer test procedures, or to the relevant definitions.
Section 2.5.5 of Appendix J2 requires the use of water meters (in the hot and cold water lines) with a resolution no larger than 0.1 gallons and a maximum error no greater than 2 percent of the measured flow rate. DOE has observed that some clothes washers use very small amounts of hot water on some temperature selections, on the order of 0.1 gallons or less. 85 FR 31065, 31069. For example, some clothes washers have both Cold and Tap Cold temperature selections, and the Cold selection may use a fraction of a gallon of hot water. 85 FR 31065, 31070. DOE believes that Appendix J2 may not provide the necessary resolution to accurately and precisely measure the hot water usage of such temperature selections.
The Joint Commenters encouraged DOE to require a water meter with greater precision than that of the current specification to ensure that the test procedures are accurately representing energy use. (Joint Commenters, No. 10 at p. 3)
AHAM commented that requiring more precise water meters could provide a benefit by increasing the accuracy of the measurements but could also increase the burden due to the cost of obtaining these meters that could become overly burdensome. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 7)
GEA supported moving to a 0.01-gallon resolution for water meters. GEA stated that it uses water meters with this resolution and has encountered reproducibility issues when using a water meter with only 0.1-gallon resolution. (GEA, No. 13 at p. 2)
Whirlpool commented that requiring a more precise water meter is not justified. Whirlpool estimates that a manufacturer without these meters installed could face a cost of over $100,000 to purchase and install them, and cautioned that the need for a more precise water meter needs to be balanced with the cost burden. (Whirlpool, No. 7 at p. 1)
DOE has identified clothes washers on the market that use less than 0.1 gallons of hot water on certain temperature selections or load sizes required for testing. In DOE's experience with such clothes washers, the maximum load size typically uses more than 0.1 gallons of hot water on each of the available temperature selections (providing indication of which temperature selections use hot water), whereas the average and minimum load sizes may use a quantity less than 0.1 gallons. For these clothes washers, the existing water meter resolution of 0.1 gallons is insufficient to provide an accurate measurement of hot water consumption,
DOE is proposing to include in section 2.5.5 of both the proposed new Appendix J and Appendix J2 the following specification: “If the volume of hot water for any individual cycle within the energy test cycle is less than 0.1 gallons (0.4 liters), the hot water meter must have a resolution no larger than 0.01 gallons (0.04 liters).”
DOE requests comment on its proposal to require a hot water meter resolution no larger than 0.01 gallons for clothes washers that use less than 0.1 gallons in any of the individual cycles within the energy test cycle. DOE requests comment on the extent to which manufacturers and test laboratories already use water meters with this greater resolution. DOE also requests comment on whether proposing this requirement for Appendix J2 would require manufacturers to retest any basic models that have already been certified under the existing water meter resolution requirements.
Section 2.10 of Appendix J2 provides specifications for installing a clothes washer, referencing both the hot water and cold water inlets. Additionally, section 2.5.5 of Appendix J2 specifies that a water meter must be installed in both the hot and cold water lines. DOE is aware of RCWs on the market that have a single water inlet rather than separate hot and cold water inlets. 85 FR 31065, 31070. DOE has observed two types of single-inlet RCWs: (1) Semi-automatic clothes washers, which are generally intended to be connected to a kitchen or bathroom faucet and which require user intervention to regulate the water temperature by adjusting the external water faucet valves; and (2) automatic clothes washers intended to be connected only to a cold water inlet, and which regulate the water temperature through the use of an internal heating element to generate any hot water used during the cycle.
DOE stated in the May 2020 RFI that it understood that a “Y”-shaped hose or other similar device may be provided by the manufacturer on some automatic models to allow separate cold and hot water supply lines to be connected to the single inlet on the unit; however, other models may not include such a connector.
For single-inlet semi-automatic clothes washers (
Section 3.2.3.2 of Appendix J2 provides setup instructions for semi-automatic clothes washers regarding the configuration of both cold and hot water faucets during testing. Specifically, the test procedure specifies that to obtain a hot inlet water temperature, open the hot water faucet completely and close the cold water faucet; for a warm inlet water temperature, open both hot and cold water faucets completely; and for a cold inlet water temperature, close the hot water faucet and open the cold water faucet completely. In the laboratory setup defined by section 2.2 of Appendix J2, the cold and hot water supplies are provided as separate hookups, in contrast to most faucets in residential settings, in which the cold and hot water supply lines combine internally within the faucet into a single output. Thus, the instructions in section 3.2.3.2 of Appendix J2 can be conducted only for either a semi-automatic clothes washer with both hot and cold water inlets (of which no such models are currently on the market, according to DOE research), or a single-inlet semi-automatic clothes washer installed with a Y-shaped hose or other similar device that combines the cold and hot water supply lines to connect to the single inlet on the unit (simulating most residential faucets, which combine the cold and hot water supply lines internally, as described). Appendix J2 does not, however, explicitly prescribe the use of a Y-shaped hose.
As described in the May 2020 RFI, without the use of a Y-shaped hose, connecting a single-inlet semi-automatic clothes washer to only a single water supply would limit the available water temperature to either 60 degrees Fahrenheit (“°F”) (provided by the cold water supply) or 135 °F (provided by the hot water supply), based on the supply water specifications currently provided in section 2.2 of Appendix J2. 85 FR 31065, 31070. In effect, only Cold Wash/Cold Rinse or Hot Wash/Hot Rinse could be tested with a single-hose installation.
No comments were received regarding installation or testing of single-inlet semi-automatic clothes washers.
Based on the previous discussion, DOE maintains that additional direction in the test procedure is warranted for single-inlet semi-automatic clothes washers to produce test results that reflect representative consumer usage of cold, warm, and hot wash/rinse temperatures. DOE considered three potential changes to address the installation of single-inlet semi-automatic clothes washers: (1) Require the use of a Y-shaped hose, which would be used to connect the single inlet of the clothes washer to both the cold and hot water supply connections; (2) connect the single inlet of the clothes washer to a single water supply
Regarding option 1, requiring the use of a Y-shaped hose would provide a simple and low-cost approach for testing of cold, warm, and hot wash/rinse temperatures on single-inlet semi-automatic clothes washers. The Y-shaped hose would mimic the functionality provided by most residential faucets, and thus would provide a representative installation setup. However, by connecting the cold and hot lines to each other, differences in water pressure
Regarding option 2, (requiring a non-fixed temperature supply line that can be set to the specified cold, warm, or hot temperature), DOE tentatively concludes that such a requirement could present undue test burden on laboratories that do not currently implement variable-temperature supply water controls and instrumentation, given the relatively low number of single-inlet semi-automatic models on the market that would be tested each year. In addition, because temperature sensors are typically calibrated around the target temperature being measured, varying the temperature of the supply line between 60 °F and 120 °F could result in less accurate inlet water temperature measurements.
Regarding option 3, (connecting to the cold water inlet only, testing only on the Cold/Cold cycle, and determining performance at other temperatures numerically), as discussed further in section III.D.8.b of this document, energy and water performance at temperatures other than Cold Wash/Cold Rinse can be calculated numerically using test data from the Cold/Cold cycle because the measured characteristics
DOE is proposing in this NOPR to make this change only in the proposed new Appendix J because connecting to only the cold water inlet may differ from how such units are currently being tested by manufacturers and laboratories under Appendix J2. DOE seeks information about implementing this change to Appendix J2 as well, specifically regarding how single-inlet semi-automatic clothes washers are being tested and any potential impact on the measured energy use of these clothes washers on the market.
See section III.D.8 of this document for a full discussion of other proposed edits to testing provisions for semi-automatic clothes washers and a list of related issues on which DOE seeks comment.
For a single-inlet
AHAM commented that it is not aware of a Y-shaped hose connecter being used for typical installation of single-inlet automatic clothes washers. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 7)
As described previously, DOE inadvertently attributed the use of a Y-shaped hose to
Therefore, DOE is proposing in this NOPR to specify that all single-inlet automatic clothes washers be installed to the cold water supply only. As discussed above, DOE is proposing to include this provision in the proposed new Appendix J only. The proposed edit would specify in section 2.10.1 of the proposed new Appendix J that if the clothes washer has only one water inlet, connect the inlet to the cold water supply in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to require all single-inlet clothes washers to be installed to the cold water supply only. DOE also requests comment on whether this requirement should be included in only the proposed new Appendix J, or whether, if adopted, it should be included as an amendment to Appendix J2.
Section 2.2 of Appendix J2 requires maintaining the hot water supply temperature between 130 °F (54.4 degrees Celsius (“°C”)) and 135 °F (57.2 °C), using 135 °F as the target temperature.
DOE has revised the hot water supply temperature requirements several times throughout the history of the clothes washer test procedures to remain representative of household water temperatures at the time of each analysis. When establishing the original clothes washer test procedure at Appendix J in 1977, DOE specified a hot water supply temperature of 140 °F ± 5 °F for clothes washers equipped with thermostatically controlled inlet water valves. 42 FR 49802, 49808. In the August 1997 Final Rule, DOE specified in Appendix J1 that for clothes washers in which electrical energy consumption or water energy consumption is affected by the inlet water temperatures,
DOE analyzed household water temperatures as part of the test procedure final rule for residential and commercial water heaters published July 11, 2014. 79 FR 40541 (“July 2014 Water Heater Final Rule”). In the July 2014 Water Heater Final Rule, DOE revised the hot water delivery temperature from 135 °F to 125 °F based on an analysis of data showing that the average set point temperature for consumer water heaters in the field is 124.2 °F (51.2 °C), which was rounded to the nearest 5 °F, resulting in a test set point temperature of 125 °F. 79 FR 40541, 40554. Additionally, a 2011 compilation of field data across the United States and southern Ontario by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (“LBNL”)
Additionally, DOE's consumer dishwasher test procedure, codified at 10 CFR part 430 subpart B, appendix C1 (“Appendix C1”), specifies a hot water supply temperature of 120 °F ± 2 °F for water-heating dishwashers designed for heating water with a nominal inlet temperature of 120 °F, which includes nearly all consumer dishwashers currently on the U.S. market. Section 2.3.2 of Appendix C1. This water supply temperature is intended to be representative of household hot water temperatures.
Table III.1 summarizes the various hot water temperature data considered for the present rulemaking.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested comments on whether DOE should consider updating the hot water supply temperature specification for the clothes washer test procedures to be within the range of 120 °F to 125 °F, providing better consistency with DOE's test procedures for dishwashers and consumer water heaters. 85 FR 31065, 31069.
AHAM suggested that product design changes may be required if DOE amends the clothes washer test procedures to harmonize the hot water supply temperature with the dishwasher test procedure. AHAM stated that changing the hot water supply temperature specification would impact measured efficiency, and DOE would thus need to address that change in the accompanying standards rulemaking. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 6)
GEA stated that there is little benefit to consumers by moving the target temperature to 120 °F. If DOE does change the target temperature, GEA is concerned about the change in measured hot water energy usage. (GEA, No. 13 at p. 2)
The CA IOUs recommended keeping the target temperature at 135 °F to prevent the growth of
The Joint Commenters stated that DOE should consider changing the target temperature to 120 °F, because 120 °F is the hot water supply temperature for the consumer dishwasher test procedure and is a common water heater set point. (Joint Commenters, No. 10 at p. 3) However, the Joint Commenters also stated that the 135 °F target temperature may be appropriate to maintain as average set points increase in the field due to
UL supports specifying the hot water supply temperature to be consistent with hot water heater outlet temperatures, as supported by field data. (UL, No. 9 at p. 1)
Samsung recommended that DOE specify a hot water supply temperature of 120 ± 2 °F, consistent with the temperature specified in the consumer dishwasher test procedure. Samsung also commented that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recommends this temperature to consumers as the safest set point for water heaters to avoid scalds. (Samsung, No. 6 at p. 3)
NEEA encouraged DOE to investigate the hot water supply temperature that would be most representative of field use. NEEA added that water heater set points may increase closer to the Appendix J2-specified 135 °F in the future, due to concerns about
Based on the analysis of recent water temperature data summarized in Table III.1, DOE is proposing to update the hot water supply temperature in the proposed new Appendix J from 130-135 °F to 120-125 °F. DOE preliminarily concludes that an inlet temperature of 120-125 °F is more representative of consumer hot water temperatures than the range of 130-135 °F currently specified in Appendix J2.
In addition, section 4.1.2 of Appendix J2 calculates the hot water energy consumption for each tested load size, by multiplying the hot water consumption for each tested load size, by “T,” the temperature rise, and by “K,” the specific heat of water. In Appendix J2, T is defined as 75 °F, which represents the nominal difference between the hot and cold water inlet temperatures. In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to use a value for T of 65 °F in the proposed new Appendix J, consistent with the differential between the nominal values for the proposed hot
DOE agrees with AHAM and GEA that changing the hot water supply temperature would likely impact measured efficiency because hot water energy consumption is a significant component in the calculation of the IMEF metric. As a result, DOE is proposing to update the hot water supply temperature only in the proposed new Appendix J and not in existing Appendix J2. Therefore, DOE's proposal would not affect the measured efficiency of clothes washers currently tested using Appendix J2. The ongoing RCW and CCW energy conservation standards rulemakings would consider the impact of this proposed modification to the hot water supply temperature on measured efficiency.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to update the hot water supply temperature for the proposed new Appendix J from 130-135 °F to 120-125 °F. DOE seeks more recent data on hot water supply temperatures in consumer clothes washer installations. DOE also requests comment on any potential impact to testing costs that may occur by harmonizing temperatures between the clothes washer and dishwasher test procedures, and the impacts on manufacturer burden associated with any changes to the hot water supply temperature.
In the NOPR preceding the July 2014 Water Heater Final Rule, DOE cited a comment from Applied Energy Technology,
Clothes washers are tested using an energy test cycle that is comprised of certain cycles taking into consideration all cycle settings available to the end user. Section 2.12 of Appendix J2. Figure 2.12.5 of Appendix J2 specifies that for the energy test cycle to include an Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse, the clothes washer must have an internal heater and the Normal cycle
DOE has revised the Extra-Hot wash temperature parameters previously. In the August 1997 Final Rule, DOE changed the minimum hot water supply temperature from 140 °F in Appendix J-1977 to 135 °F in Appendix J1-1997, and also revised the threshold temperature for Extra-Hot Wash from 140 °F to 135 °F accordingly. 62 FR 45484, 45497. As noted, Appendix J2 retains this threshold temperature of 135 °F for Extra-Hot Wash.
As described previously, DOE is proposing to update the hot water inlet temperature from 135 °F to 125 °F (see section III.C.3.a of this document). This proposed change to the hot water inlet temperature prompted DOE to reassess the threshold temperature for the Extra-Hot wash temperature. Because the inclusion of an Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse in the energy test cycle requires the clothes washer to have an internal heater, the threshold temperature is not limited to the input temperature.
DOE testing of a broad range of clothes washers
In addition to improving representativeness, changing the Extra-Hot Wash temperature threshold to 140 °F could potentially reduce test burden. As discussed more fully in section III.C.4 of this document, a threshold of 140 °F would enable easier confirmation that an Extra-Hot temperature has been achieved when measuring wash temperature with non-reversible temperature indicator labels, as permitted by section 3.3 of Appendix J2. Temperature indicator labels are widely available with a 140 °F indicator, whereas DOE is not aware of any commercially available temperature indicator labels that provide a 135 °F indicator.
In summary, DOE is proposing to specify in the proposed new Appendix J that the minimum temperature threshold for the Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse is 140 °F. This change would be reflected in the proposed Extra Hot Wash/Cold Rinse flowchart in section 2.12 of the proposed new Appendix J as well as any references to this temperature threshold elsewhere
DOE recognizes that for the 30 percent of units with Extra-Hot Wash temperatures that do not exceed 140 °F, DOE's proposal to change the Extra-Hot Wash definition may impact measured efficiency. Therefore, in this NOPR, DOE is proposing to include the amended Extra-Hot Wash temperature parameter only in the proposed new Appendix J and not in existing Appendix J2. The ongoing RCW and CCW energy conservation standards rulemakings would consider the impact of any modifications to the Extra-Hot Wash definition on measured efficiency.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to specify in the proposed new Appendix J that the Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse designation would apply to a wash temperature greater than or equal to 140 °F. DOE requests any additional data on the wash temperature of cycles that meet the Appendix J2 definition of Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse. DOE is also interested in data and information on any potential impact to testing costs that may occur by changing the Extra-Hot Wash temperature threshold, and the impacts on manufacturer burden associated with any changes to the Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse definition.
Section 2.2 of Appendix J2 specifies that the hot water supply temperature must be maintained between 130 °F (54.4 °C) and 135 °F (57.2 °C), using 135 °F as the target temperature. Based on experience working with third-party test laboratories, as well as its own testing experience, DOE recognizes that maintaining 135 °F as the target temperature for the hot water supply may be difficult given that the target temperature of 135 °F lies at the edge, rather than the midpoint, of the allowable temperature range of 130 °F to 135 °F. 85 FR 31065, 31069. On electronic temperature-mixing valves commonly used by test laboratories, the output water temperature is maintained within an approximately two-degree tolerance above or below a target temperature programmed by the user (
In the May 2020 NOPR, DOE requested comments on whether it should consider changes to the target temperature or allowable range of temperature specified for the hot and cold water inlets, and if so, what alternate specifications should be considered.
UL commented that it supports the change to an equal sided tolerance for the hot and cold water inlet temperature requirements. (UL, No. 9 at p. 1)
AHAM also supported DOE updating the target water temperature to have a tolerance and nominal value (rather than any temperature within the range) specified as the target,
The CA IOUs supported a change in the water supply temperature tolerance to ± 2.5 °F around the target temperature, claiming that it may create a more repeatable test procedure and decrease the number of failed test runs. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 15)
GEA supported a hot water target temperature adjustment to 132.5 ± 2.5 °F, stating that doing so would align the test procedure with engineering best practices. (GEA, No. 13 at p. 2)
DOE recognizes the widespread support for defining a temperature range centered around a target midpoint of the range. Although this would appear to reflect current test laboratory practice, DOE is concerned that specifying a cold water target temperature of 57.5 °F in Appendix J2 and the proposed new Appendix J, or specifying a hot water target temperature of 132.5 °F for Appendix J2 or 122.5 °F for the proposed new Appendix J, could imply that the test procedure requires a precision of 0.5 °F in temperature control, which could create undue test burden. Furthermore, DOE is concerned that defining a “target” temperature, whether as currently defined or defined as the midpoint of the range, could unintentionally imply that a test would be invalid if the water temperature remains within the allowable range, but not centered exactly around the target.
For these reasons, DOE is proposing to remove the “target” temperature associated with each water supply temperature range, and to instead define only the allowable temperature range. Specifically, the cold water supply temperature range would be defined as 55 °F to 60 °F in both Appendix J2 and the proposed new Appendix J; the hot water supply temperature range in Appendix J2 would be defined as 130 °F to 135 °F; and the hot water supply temperature range in the proposed new Appendix J would be defined as 120 °F to 125 °F. Defining allowable water supply temperature ranges instead of specific target temperatures at the upper end of the allowable ranges would reduce the difficulty of maintaining water supply temperatures within the desired ranges.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to remove the target temperatures and instead specify water supply temperature ranges as 55 °F to 60 °F for cold water in both Appendix J2 and the proposed new Appendix J, 130 °F to 135 °F for hot water in Appendix J2, and 120 °F to 125 °F for hot water in the proposed new Appendix J.
In the August 2015 Final Rule, DOE amended section 3.3 of Appendix J2, “Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse,” to allow the use of non-reversible temperature indicator labels to confirm that a wash temperature greater than 135 °F had been achieved. 80 FR 46729, 46753. Since the publication of the August 2015 Final Rule, DOE has become aware that some third-party laboratories measure wash temperature using self-contained temperature sensors in a waterproof capsule placed inside the clothes washer drum during testing. 85 FR 31065, 31069. In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested comments on manufacturers' or test laboratories' experience with these or any other methods for determining the temperature during a wash cycle that may reduce manufacturer burden, including the reliability and accuracy of those methods.
UL commented that it has not found any temperature labels that read exactly 135 °F, but rather only labels that provide 10 °F increments between 130 °F and 140 °F. (UL, No 9 at p. 2) UL added that if a label does not change at 140 °F but does change at 130 °F, there is no way of knowing if the water temperature reached 135 °F without running an additional test run with a data logger.
AHAM similarly commented that the non-reversible temperature indicator labels currently specified in the test procedure do not work well because the labels available on the market do not easily identify when 135 °F is reached, as they typically provide 10 °F
As discussed by UL and AHAM, DOE is aware that none of the temperature indicator labels available on the market provide an indicator at 135 °F, the current Extra-Hot Wash water temperature threshold. Because of this, temperature indicator labels can be used to confirm that the water temperature reached 135 °F only if the water temperature exceeds 140 °F. The temperature indicator labels are unable to identify an Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse cycle if the temperature of the cycle is greater than 135 °F but less than 140 °F. DOE recognizes the potential benefit of other methods of measurement to supplement or replace the temperature indicator labels.
DOE investigated submersible temperature loggers as suggested by AHAM. DOE found submersible temperature loggers available for less than $175 and available with a resolution of 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) or better and an accuracy of ±0.5 °C (0.9 °F) for water temperatures between -10 °C (14 °F) and +65 °C (149 °F).
For Appendix J2, DOE is proposing to allow the use of a submersible temperature logger as an additional temperature measurement option to confirm that an Extra-Hot Wash temperature greater than 135 °F has been achieved during the wash cycle. DOE is proposing that the submersible temperature logger must have a time resolution of at least 1 data point every 5 seconds and a temperature measurement accuracy of ±1 °F. As described currently for temperature indicator labels, DOE would include a note that failure to measure a temperature of 135 °F would not necessarily indicate of the lack of an Extra-Hot Wash temperature. However, such a result would not be conclusive due to the lack of verification of that the required water temperature was achieved, in which case an alternative method must be used to confirm that an extra-hot wash temperature greater than 135 °F has been achieved during the wash cycle.
Because DOE is proposing to change the Extra-Hot Wash water temperature threshold to 140 °F for the proposed new Appendix J, commercially available temperature indicator labels with indications at 140 °F would be able to be used more readily to determine whether the water temperature reached the Extra-Hot Wash temperature threshold. DOE is also proposing to allow the usage of a submersible temperature logger in the proposed new Appendix J as an option to confirm that an Extra-Hot Wash temperature greater than 140 °F has been achieved during the wash cycle. Like the temperature threshold of 135 °F in Appendix J2, failure to measure a temperature of 140 °F would not necessarily indicate the lack of an Extra-Hot Wash temperature. However, such a result would not be conclusive due to the lack of verification of that the required water temperature was achieved, in which case an alternative method must be used to confirm that an extra-hot wash temperature greater than 140 °F has been achieved during the wash cycle.
Lastly, DOE is proposing to move the description of allowable temperature measuring devices from section 3.3 of Appendix J2 to section 2.5.4 of both Appendix J2 and the proposed new Appendix J (“Water and air temperature measuring devices”), specifying the use of non-reversible temperature indicator labels in new section 2.5.4.1, and adding specifications for the use of submersible temperature loggers to new section 2.5.4.2 of both Appendix J2 and the proposed new Appendix J.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to allow the use of a submersible temperature logger in Appendix J2 and the proposed new Appendix J as an option to confirm that an Extra-Hot Wash temperature greater than the Extra-Hot Wash threshold has been achieved during the wash cycle. DOE requests data and information confirming (or disputing) DOE's discussion of the benefits and limitations of using a submersible temperature logger, including DOE's determination that a submersible logger's failure to measure a temperature greater than the Extra-Hot Wash threshold does not necessarily indicate that the cycle under test does not meet the definition of an Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse cycle.
Section 2.11 of Appendix J2 specifies the procedure for clothes washer pre-conditioning. The current pre-conditioning procedure requires that any clothes washer that has not been filled with water in the preceding 96 hours, or any water-heating clothes washer that has not been in the test room at the specified ambient conditions for 8 hours, must be pre-conditioned by running it through a Cold Rinse cycle and then draining it to ensure that the hose, pump, and sump are filled with water. The purpose of pre-conditioning is to promote repeatability and reproducibility of test results by ensuring a consistent starting state for each test, as well as to promote the representativeness of test results by ensuring that the clothes washer is operated consistent with the defined ambient conditions. In particular, the additional specification for water-heating clothes washers was first suggested in a supplemental NOPR published on April 22, 1996, (“April 1996 SNOPR”), in which DOE expressed concern about the testing of water-heating clothes washers that may have been stored at a temperature outside of the specified ambient temperature range (75 °F ± 5 °F) prior to testing. 61 FR 17589, 17594-17595. DOE stated that the energy consumed in a water-heating clothes washer may be affected by the ambient temperature.
DOE is concerned that the energy use of non-water-heating clothes washers could also be affected by the starting temperature of the clothes washer, particularly those that implement temperature control by measuring internal water temperatures during the wash cycle. For example, if the ambient temperature prior to testing is relatively hot, causing the internal components of the clothes washer to be at a higher temperature than the specified ambient temperature range, less hot water may be consumed during the test than otherwise would be if the starting temperature of the clothes washer is within the specified ambient temperature range. Noting that third-party test laboratories cannot necessarily identify whether a unit is a water-heating clothes washer or not, DOE is proposing to require the same pre-conditioning procedure for both water-heating and non-water-heating clothes washers, which would minimize the influence of ambient temperature on energy use and alleviate the need for third-party test laboratories to determine whether a clothes washer is water-heating or not. If adopted, this proposed change may impact the measured energy use of non-water-heating clothes washers that implement temperature control by measuring internal water temperatures during the wash cycle. Due to the potential impact on the measured energy use, DOE is proposing this change only for the proposed new Appendix J, which would be used for the evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards, and to determine compliance with those standards. DOE is therefore proposing that use of the proposed new Appendix J, if finalized, would not be required until the compliance date of any updated standards.
In addition, the proposed amendments to the pre-conditioning requirements would eliminate the differentiation between “water-heating clothes washer” and “non-water heating clothes washer,” which are defined terms in the test procedure. Therefore, DOE is also proposing to remove the definitions of “water-heating clothes washer” and “non-water-heating clothes washer” from section 1 of the proposed new Appendix J.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to specify the same pre-conditioning requirements for all clothes washers and to remove the “water-heating clothes washer” and “non-water-heating clothes washer” definitions in the proposed new Appendix J. DOE also requests information regarding whether test laboratories typically pre-condition water-heating and non-water-heating clothes washers using the same procedure.
Table 5.1 of Appendix J2 provides the minimum, average, and maximum load sizes to be used for testing based on the measured capacity of the clothes washer. The table defines capacity “bins” in 0.1 ft
□ Minimum load is 3 pounds (“lb”) for all capacity bins;
□ Maximum load (in lb) is equal to 4.1 times the mean clothes washer capacity of each capacity bin (in ft3); and
□ Average load is the arithmetic mean of the minimum load and maximum load.
These three load sizes are used for testing clothes washers with automatic WFCS. Clothes washers with manual WFCS are tested with only the minimum and maximum load sizes.
DOE originally introduced the load size table in Appendix J1-1997, which accommodated clothes container capacities up to 3.8 ft
On May 2, 2016 and April 10, 2017, DOE granted waivers to Whirlpool and Samsung, respectively, for testing RCWs
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether to extrapolate Table 5.1 of Appendix J2 to accommodate RCW capacities up to 8.0 ft
In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to expand Table 5.1 in both Appendix J2 and the proposed new Appendix J to accommodate clothes washers with capacities up to 8.0 ft
DOE requests comment on its proposal to expand the load size table in both Appendix J2 and the proposed new Appendix J to accommodate RCWs with capacities up to 8.0 ft
As discussed in the previous section, Appendix J2 currently defines three load sizes for automatic clothes washers (minimum, average, and maximum) for each capacity bin in Table 5.1 of the appendix. In this NOPR, DOE is proposing for the proposed new Appendix J to define two load sizes for automatic clothes washers (small and large) for each capacity bin, which are intended to represent the same load size distribution underlying the existing three load sizes. DOE has tentatively concluded that this would substantially reduce test burden while maintaining or improving representativeness. The following paragraphs describe the development of the current load size definitions to provide context and
The current load size definitions (
In the August 1997 Final Rule, DOE defined three load sizes—minimum, average, and maximum—to represent this normal distribution. 62 FR 45484, 45490. The minimum load size represented approximately the 14th percentile of the distribution (
In the August 1997 Final Rule, these load size relationships were scaled across the range of 0.8 ft
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested data and information on whether the minimum, average, and maximum load size definitions in Table 5.1 are representative of the range of load sizes used by consumers for each capacity bin in the table, particularly for larger-capacity RCWs. 85 FR 31065, 31078.
UL commented that in order to make load sizes more equitable for the widening range of clothes washer capacities, all three load sizes should be proportional to capacity, similar to the current definition of maximum load. UL suggested that minimum and average load sizes could be proportional to the maximum load size (
Fixing the minimum load size at 3 lb represents the need for consumers to wash a small load of laundry (for example, a single outfit of clothing) regardless of the capacity of the clothes washer. The “average” load size as constructed in Appendix J2 represents the middle of the range of load sizes
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE amend the average and maximum load sizes in Table 5.1 of Appendix J2 to use
DOE appreciates the CA IOUs providing consumer usage data from the 2016 PG&E field survey. While the conclusions from this data may be instructive as a point of comparison, these data are limited in that they represent usage in a single season (summer), in a single state (California), and only around three wash cycles per participating household.
NEEA recommended that, if DOE were to adopt an efficiency metric that is a function of capacity, DOE should eliminate the current average load calculation method and replace it with a fixed 7.6 lb load, which it believes would be more representative. NEEA cited its 2014 laundry field study that found an average clothes washer load size of 7.6 lb, which NEEA characterized as being close to the average load size of 8.5 lb that corresponds with the 2010 market-weighted average capacity of 3.5 ft
DOE appreciates NEEA providing the consumer usage data from the 2014 laundry study. DOE does not agree with NEEA's conclusion that the 2014 laundry study confirms that the field average load size is independent of clothes container size and is relatively small. In support of its assertion, NEEA presented data indicating that current (2019) average capacity has increased to 4.4 ft
The Joint Commenters also encouraged DOE to consider specifying an average load size that is a constant value independent of capacity. (Joint
As noted previously, DOE preliminary concludes that the data provided by NEEA, as referenced by the Joint Commenters, do not demonstrate that using a fixed average load size would be representative of U.S. consumer usage. DOE also notes that the assertion made by NEEA and the Joint Commenters—that consumer average load sizes are
As noted, DOE is proposing to replace the minimum, maximum, and average load sizes with two new load sizes in the proposed new Appendix J, designated as “small” and “large.” In the paragraphs that follow, DOE explains its rationale for (1) reducing the number of load sizes from three to two, and (2) defining the two load sizes for each capacity bin.
As discussed in section III.A of this document, AHAM and GEA commented on the current test burden associated with conducting the Appendix J2 test procedure. While DOE acknowledges the theoretical possibility of Appendix J2 requiring up to 70 test cycles, DOE is not aware of any products currently or historically on the market that would require this maximum number of test cycles. In DOE's experience, in practice the number of test cycles is around 6 cycles for clothes washers with very few and basic features; around 15-20 cycles for the most typical configurations on the market; and around 35 cycles for the most feature-rich models that would trigger the greatest number of required test cycles in Appendix J2. Nevertheless, DOE seeks to find opportunities for reducing the test burden associated with its test procedures, while maintaining representative, repeatable, and reproducible test results.
One of the key contributors to the total number of required cycles is the requirement to test three load sizes for each wash/rinse temperature selection required for testing on clothes washers with automatic WFCS (which represent the majority of the market). As described previously, the three load sizes were devised to approximate a normal distribution of consumer load sizes. At the time of the August 1997 Final Rule, clothes washer control panels were not as feature-rich as current models available on the market, and DOE had not contemplated that future clothes washer models could require testing up to 35 cycles.
Given the increasing prevalence of more feature-rich clothes washer models that require a higher number of test cycles under Appendix J2, DOE is proposing to reduce test burden by reducing the number of defined load sizes for the proposed new Appendix J from three to two for clothes washers with automatic WFCS. The following paragraphs discuss how DOE proposes to define the two load sizes for each capacity bin.
The new proposed small and large load sizes would continue to represent the same roughly normal distribution presented in the 1995 P&G data described above. The weighted-average load size using the proposed small and large load sizes would match the weighted-average load size using the current minimum, average, and maximum load sizes. As proposed, the small and large load sizes would have equal load usage factors (“LUFs”)
Figure III.3 illustrates how the proposed new small and large load sizes would overlay with the P&G load distribution data.
As noted, DOE defined the proposed new load sizes and LUFs such that the weighted-average load size equals the weighted-average load size of the current minimum, average, and maximum load definitions for clothes washers with automatic WFCS, and thus will produce test results with equivalent representativeness. As noted in DOE's responses to comments above, DOE is not aware of any more recent, nationally representative field data indicating that the consumer load size distribution in relation to clothes washer capacity has changed since the introduction of the three load sizes in the August 1997 Final Rule.
Further, defining the small and large loads to represent approximately the 25th and 75th percentiles of the normal distribution balances the need to capture as large of a load size range as possible while remaining representative of the “peak” of the load distribution curve, which represents the most frequently used load sizes.
Specifically, DOE is proposing that the small and large load sizes be calculated using Equation III.1 and Equation III.2, respectively.
As noted, clothes washers with manual WFCS are tested only with the minimum and maximum load sizes, in contrast to clothes washers with automatic WFCS, which are tested with all three load sizes. Given DOE's proposal to define only two load sizes in the proposed new Appendix J, the same two load sizes could be used for all clothes washers, regardless of whether a clothes washer's WFCS is automatic or manual.
DOE's proposal would reduce test burden under the proposed new Appendix J by requiring only two load sizes to be tested instead of three for clothes washers with automatic WFCS. Specifically, the number of cycles tested would be reduced by 33 percent for clothes washers with automatic WFCS, which represent a large majority of clothes washers on the market.
DOE's proposed water fill selections corresponding to the new small and large load sizes are further discussed in section III.D.2 of this document.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to replace the minimum, maximum, and average load sizes with the small and large load sizes in the proposed new Appendix J. DOE seeks comment on how reducing the number of load sizes tested would impact the
Section 3.2.6 of Appendix J2 prescribes the water fill setting selections to use with each load size based on the type of WFCS on the clothes washer. As discussed in section III.D.1.b of this document, DOE is proposing that the proposed new Appendix J test newly-defined small and large load sizes, rather than the minimum, maximum, and average load sizes used in Appendix J2. To test clothes washers using these new small and large load sizes, the appropriate water fill setting selections would also need to be provided in the proposed new Appendix J for each load size for each type of WFCS.
Appendix J2 defines two main types of WFCS: manual WFCS, which “requires the user to determine or select the water fill level,” and automatic WFCS, which “does not allow or require the user to determine or select the water fill level, and includes adaptive WFCS and fixed WFCS.” Sections 1.22 and 1.5 of Appendix J2, respectively. Section 3.2.6.2 of Appendix J2 further distinguishes between user-adjustable and not-user-adjustable automatic WFCS. Additionally, section 3.2.6.3 of Appendix J2 accommodates clothes washers that have both an automatic WFCS and an alternate manual WFCS. Proposed amendments to the definitions of fixed WFCS and user-adjustable automatic WFCS are further discussed in section III.H.3.a of this document.
Section 3.2.6.1 of the current Appendix J2 specifies that clothes washers with a manual WFCS are set to the maximum water level available for the wash cycle under test for the maximum test load size and the minimum water level available for the wash cycle under test for the minimum test load size.
Section 3.2.6.2.1 of Appendix J2 specifies that clothes washers with non-user-adjustable automatic WFCS are tested using the specified maximum, minimum, and average test load sizes, and that the maximum, minimum, and average water levels are selected by the control system when the respective test loads are used (
Section 3.2.6.2.2 of Appendix J2 specifies that clothes washers with user-adjustable automatic WFCS undergo four tests. The first test is conducted using the maximum test load and with the automatic WFCS set in the setting that will give the most energy intensive result. The second test is conducted with the minimum test load and with the automatic WFCS set in the setting that will give the least energy intensive result. The third test is conducted with the average test load and with the automatic WFCS set in the setting that will give the most energy intensive result for the given test load. The fourth test is conducted with the average test load and with the automatic WFCS set in the setting that will give the least energy intensive result for the given test load. The energy and water consumption for the average test load and water level are calculated as the average of the third and fourth tests.
As discussed in section III.D.1.b of this document, DOE is proposing that the proposed new Appendix J test newly-defined small and large load sizes, rather than the minimum, maximum, and average load sizes used in Appendix J2. To test clothes washers using these new small and large load sizes, the appropriate water fill setting selections would also need to be provided in the proposed new Appendix J for each load size for each type of WFCS.
For manual WFCS clothes washers, DOE first considered maintaining the current water fill level settings as specified in Appendix J2 (
Based on these considerations, DOE is instead proposing to specify the use of the second-lowest water fill level setting for the proposed small load size. Although DOE is not aware of any clothes washers with manual WFCS currently on the market with only two water fill level settings available, DOE proposes to accommodate such a design by specifying that if the water fill level selector has two settings available for the wash cycle under test, the minimum water fill level setting would be selected for the small load size, consistent with the current specification in Appendix J2. In all cases, the water fill level selector would be set for the large load size to the maximum water fill level setting available for the wash cycle under test, consistent with the current specification in Appendix J2 for testing the maximum load size.
For clothes washers with non-user-adjustable automatic WFCS, no changes would be required because the water fill levels are determined automatically by the WFCS.
As discussed, section 3.2.6.2.2 of Appendix J2 specifies that clothes washers with user-adjustable automatic WFCS require four test cycles: one test at the most energy-intensive setting
In summary, DOE tentatively concludes that the proposed changes to the water fill level settings, in conjunction with the proposed changes to the load sizes and the applicable LUFs, would continue to produce representative test results for each type of WFCS. Collectively, this combination of amendments would continue to approximate the same consumer usage patterns that provide the foundation for the current Appendix J2 test procedure.
DOE recognizes that for some models, these proposed amendments could change the measured efficiency. As noted, DOE is proposing to include the changes to the water fill level specifications only in the proposed new Appendix J, which DOE would use for the evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards. Thus, DOE is proposing that use of the proposed new Appendix J, if finalized, would not be required until such time as the energy conservation standards are amended using the measured efficiency as determined under Appendix J.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to change the water fill level selections in the proposed new Appendix J for clothes washers with manual and user-adjustable automatic WFCS to reflect the proposed small and large test load sizes. DOE seeks data and information on how the proposed changes to the water fill level selection for clothes washers with manual and user-adjustable automatic WFCS would impact test procedure representativeness.
Section 3.5 of Appendix J2 states that if a clothes washer has four or more Warm Wash/Cold Rinse temperature selections, either all discrete selections shall be tested, or the clothes washer shall be tested at the 25-percent, 50-percent, and 75-percent positions of the temperature selection device between the hottest hot (≤135 °F (57.2 °C)) wash and the coldest cold wash. If a selection is not available at the 25, 50 or 75-percent position, in place of each such unavailable selection, the next warmer temperature selection shall be used. DOE refers to the latter provision as the “25/50/75 test.” Section 3.6 of Appendix J2 states that the 25/50/75 test provision also applies to the Warm Wash/Warm Rinse temperature selection.
DOE first established the 25/50/75 test in Appendix J1-1997 to address the test burden for clothes washers that offer a large number of warm wash temperature selections, if the test procedure were to require testing all warm temperature selections. 62 FR 45484, 45497. DOE had originally proposed a similar method
DOE notes that the 25/50/75 test was adopted before the widespread use of electronic controls, which now allow for the assignment of wash water temperatures that may not reflect the physical spacing between temperature selections on the control panel. For example, with electronic controls, the 25-percent, 50-percent, and 75-percent positions on the dial may not necessarily correspond to 25-percent, 50-percent, and 75-percent temperature differences between the hottest and coldest selections. DOE is aware of clothes washers on the market with four or more warm wash temperature selections, in which the temperature selections located at the 25, 50, and 75-percent positions are low-temperature cycles that have wash temperatures only a few degrees higher than the coldest wash temperature; whereas the temperature selection labeled “Warm” is located beyond the 75-percent position on the temperature selection dial and is therefore not included for testing under the 25/50/75 test. 85 FR 31065, 31073.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested feedback on the representativeness of using the 25/50/75 test on clothes washers with electronic controls, particularly for clothes washers in which the 25-percent, 50-percent, and 75-percent positions on the dial do not correspond to 25-percent, 50-percent, and 75-percent temperature increments between the hottest and coldest selections.
AHAM opposed any changes to the 25/50/75 test for clothes washers with four or more warm/cold temperature selections, stating that changes are not necessary. AHAM asserted that introducing any change could lead to increased test burden with no evident benefit to consumers or energy savings. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 13)
The CA IOUs supported DOE amending the 25/50/75 test to define positions along the temperature range instead of positions along the temperature selection device. The CA IOUs expressed concern that the current 25/50/75 test significantly underestimates energy usage of clothes washers in situations where positions along the temperature selection device do not match positions along the temperature range. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 16)
The Joint Commenters expressed concern that the 25/50/75 test for clothes washers with four or more Warm Wash/Cold Rinse temperature selections is not representative because, for some clothes washers, the 25-percent, 50-percent, and 75-percent positions on the temperature dial may not accurately represent the 25-percent, 50-percent, and 75-percent temperature differences between the coldest and hottest selections. The Joint Commenters encouraged DOE to amend the 25/50/75 test so that it adequately represents the energy use of all clothes washers' Warm Wash/Cold Rinse temperature selections. (Joint Commenters, No. 10 at p. 3)
NEEA recommended that DOE characterize the Warm Wash/Cold Rinse temperature selections using a single test run on the wash temperature setting labeled “Warm” in order to increase representativeness of real-world use. NEEA expressed concern that the current test procedure likely underestimates hot water use and adds unnecessary test burden. (NEEA, No. 12 at pp. 18-20) NEEA added that its recommended change would eliminate up to six test runs from the test procedure (three load sizes at two wash/rinse temperatures). NEEA expects that this benefit would affect a sizeable percentage of the market, given NEEA's estimate that more than 75 percent of clothes washers sold in the Northwest have three or more discrete Warm Wash/Cold Rinse temperature selections.
DOE is proposing to require testing of both the hottest Warm Wash/Cold Rinse setting and the coldest Warm Wash/Cold Rinse setting for all clothes washers in the proposed new Appendix J instead of the 25/50/75 test. Water consumption, electrical energy consumption, and all other measured values
DOE's proposal would decrease the test burden under the proposed new Appendix J for clothes washers that offer more than two Warm Wash/Cold Rinse or Warm Wash/Warm Rinse temperature settings, which DOE estimates represent around half of the market, by reducing the number of Warm Wash/Cold Rinse and Warm Wash/Warm Rinse tested cycles from three to two. Because this proposed approach may, however, change the measured energy use of clothes washers that offer more than two Warm Wash/Cold Rinse or Warm Wash/Warm Rinse settings, the proposed edits would not apply to Appendix J2 and therefore would not affect the measured efficiency of existing clothes washers. The ongoing RCW and CCW energy conservation standards rulemakings would consider the impact of any modifications to the measured efficiency using the proposed new Appendix J.
DOE tentatively concludes that the proposed approach in the proposed new Appendix J would maintain representativeness by continuing to capture the complete range of Warm Wash temperatures available for selection (
DOE acknowledges that NEEA's suggestion to characterize the Warm Wash/Cold Rinse temperature selections using a single test run on the wash temperature setting labeled “Warm” would reduce test burden even further by requiring just a single test cycle. However, DOE tentatively concludes that testing a single Warm Wash temperature on a clothes washer that offers multiple Warm Wash selections to the user may not provide as accurate a representation of consumer usage as DOE's proposal, which captures the full range of available Warm Wash temperatures. In addition, DOE is concerned that defining the tested temperature as the setting labeled “Warm” would create ambiguity for clothes washers that offer multiple Warm Wash temperatures but for which no setting is expressly labeled “Warm.” For example, DOE is aware of clothes washers that use descriptors such as “Colors,” “Brights,” and “Whites” to describe the different wash temperature selections available to the user.
DOE requests comment on the proposal to require in the proposed new Appendix J testing only the hottest and the coldest Warm Wash/Cold Rinse settings. DOE seeks data and information on how this proposed change to the Warm Wash temperature settings required for testing would impact representativeness, testing costs, and manufacturer burden.
As noted, based on its market research, DOE estimates that roughly half of all clothes washer models on the U.S. market offer more than two Warm Wash/Cold Rinse temperature settings. For these units, DOE's proposal to simplify the Warm Wash/Cold Rinse settings required for testing may impact measured efficiency. Therefore, in this NOPR, DOE is proposing to change the Warm Wash tested settings only in the proposed new Appendix J and not in the existing Appendix J2. The ongoing RCW and CCW energy conservation standards rulemakings would consider the impact of these modifications to the Warm Wash/Cold Rinse tested cycles on measured efficiency.
Section 3.8.4 of Appendix J2 requires that for clothes washers that have multiple spin settings
DOE is aware of clothes washers on the market that offer multiple spin settings, but which offer only the maximum spin setting on the Cold/Cold temperature selection. 85 FR 31065, 31073. This results in the lower spin setting not being factored into the RMC calculation, despite being available at other temperature selections in the energy test cycle. As defined in the Temperature Use Factor (“TUF”)
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested comment on testing clothes washers that offer only the maximum spin setting on the Cold/Cold temperature selection but provide lower spin settings on other temperature selections.
AHAM stated that it is not necessary to address clothes washers with spin settings that are only available on certain temperature selections because the current method of RMC calculation is representative of an average use cycle. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 13)
Samsung commented that clothes washers with spin settings that are available only on certain temperature selections make the current test procedure unrepresentative of real world use, since customers can select an
NEEA commented that it was not aware of any units with spin speeds that are available only on certain temperature selections, but asserted that Appendix J2's current RMC test does not represent the range of RMCs expected in the field, even when maximum and minimum speeds are tested as specified in Appendix J2. NEEA presented RMC data from its testing of three top-selling clothes washer models, which demonstrated a difference in RMC of 0.3-1.1 percentage points between maximum and minimum speed.
The Joint Commenters and CA IOUs supported NEEA's comments and urged DOE to amend the test procedure to measure RMC for all load sizes and temperature selections, and to weight the measurements using LUFs and TUFs because doing so would improve the representativeness of the test procedure. (Joint Commenters, No. 10 at pp. 1-2; CA IOUs, No. 8 at pp. 6-7) The Joint Commenters stated that the current test procedure is likely significantly underestimating drying energy use and is leading to inaccurate efficiency ratings. (Joint Commenters, No. 10 at p. 1)
DOE is proposing an amended method for measuring RMC in the proposed new Appendix J that would require measuring RMC on each of the energy test cycles using the default spin settings, and determining the final RMC by weighting the individual RMC measurements using the same TUFs and LUFs that apply to the water and energy measurements. DOE notes that this proposal is largely consistent with the approach recommended by NEEA and supported by the Joint Commenters and CA IOUs.
DOE tentatively concludes (based on its test observations as described above and the test results presented by NEEA) that the current method of measuring RMC may no longer produce test results that measure energy and water use during a representative average use cycle or period of use, particularly as the prevalence of clothes washers with complex electronic controls continues to increase in the market. On a clothes washer with basic controls (
The data presented by NEEA illustrates how, on average, the spin portion of the cycle on the setting used to measure RMC (
The proposed update to the RMC measurement would provide a more representative measure of RMC than the current test procedures because RMC would be measured on all of the energy test cycles rather than only the Cold Wash/Cold Rinse cycles, which represent only 37 percent of consumer cycles and may not share the same RMC performance as the other 63 percent of consumer cycles.
Regarding Samsung's suggestion to require an additional RMC test at a different temperature setting that would provide the spin speed that is unavailable on the Cold setting, DOE tentatively concludes that its proposed approach would provide a more representative measure of RMC by capturing RMC across all the temperature settings within the energy test cycle.
Because RMC directly affects drying energy, which is a large component in the calculation of IMEF, it is important that the RMC value be representative of all test cycles. DOE's proposal would make the RMC calculation consistent with how hot water energy, electrical energy, and water usage are calculated,
DOE tentatively concludes that this proposal would reduce overall test burden. The proposal would require weighing the cloth before and after each test cycle, but would avoid the need to perform extra cycles for capturing both the maximum and minimum spin settings available on the clothes washer if such spin settings are not activated by default as part of the energy test cycle. In DOE's experience, a majority of clothes washers offer multiple spin settings, thus requiring between one and eight RMC cycles, depending on the specific options available on the clothes washer. Appendix J2 currently requires measuring the test load weight before each cycle in order to verify that the load is bone-dry.
This proposal would likely impact the measured RMC value and thus would impact a clothes washer's IMEF value. Therefore, in this NOPR, DOE is proposing the revised RMC procedure only in the proposed new Appendix J and not in existing Appendix J2. The ongoing RCW and CCW energy conservation standards rulemakings would consider the impact of any modifications to the RMC calculation on measured efficiency.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to revise the RMC procedure so that RMC would be measured at the default spin setting for each temperature selection and load size, and the individual RMC values would be averaged using TUFs and LUFs to calculate the final RMC. DOE seeks data and information regarding how this change to the RMC calculation would impact testing costs and manufacturer test burden.
DOE further requests comment on whether DOE should implement any changes to the RMC calculation in Appendix J2 to address clothes washers with spin settings that are available only on certain temperature selections.
In section 1.6 of Appendix J2, the term “bone-dry” is defined as a condition of a load of test cloth that has been dried in a dryer at maximum temperature for a minimum of 10 minutes, removed and weighed before cool down, and then dried again for 10-minute periods until the final weight change of the load is 1 percent or less. The bone-dry definition was first established in the September 1977 Final Rule. 42 FR 49801, 49807-49808. In the March 2012 Final Rule, DOE added a specification to section 2.6 of Appendix J2 requiring that the dryer used for drying the cloth to bone-dry must heat the test cloth (and stuffer cloths) above 210 °F (99 °C). 77 FR 13888, 13924.
In response to the May 2020 RFI, NEEA recommended that DOE update its procedure for achieving bone-dry test cloth to harmonize with Annex G of IEC Standard 60456, “Clothes washing machines for household use—Methods for measuring the performance” Edition 5.0 (“IEC 60456”). (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 26) In particular, NEEA recommended that DOE consider the tumble dryer specifications in Section G.2 of IEC 60456, the dryer inlet temperature measurement method, and the requirement that the weight of the bone-dry load change be no more than 1 percent or 0.044 lb (whichever is smaller) between 10-minute drying periods (Section G.3 of IEC 60456).
DOE is not aware of any problems with the current bone-dry definition that would justify changing the bone-dry definition as NEEA has suggested. DOE has tentatively concluded that specifying a weight change of no more than 1 percent or 0.044 lb (whichever is smaller) would increase the test burden because for a majority of tested loads, the 0.044 lb requirement would apply, which would be more stringent than the existing 1 percent requirement. DOE has not identified, and commenters have not suggested, any problems with the current approach. In the absence of data indicating any problems with the current procedure, DOE is not proposing any changes to the bone-dry definition or associated dryer temperature measurement method in this NOPR.
DOE requests comment on its tentative conclusion not to propose changes to the bone-dry definition and associated dryer temperature measurement method.
Section 2.9.1 of Appendix J2 requires the test load for energy and water consumption measurements to be bone-dry prior to the first cycle of the test, and allows the test load to be dried to a maximum of 104 percent of the bone-dry weight for subsequent testing. This allowance effectively allows for an increase to the starting moisture content of the load from 1 percent moisture (as implied in the definition of “bone-dry” in section 1 of Appendix J2) to 4 percent moisture, which creates two concerns.
First, for the largest clothes washers on the market, which use the largest test load sizes, a 4 percent tolerance can represent up to 1 lb of additional water weight in a starting test load. DOE is concerned that the range of starting water weights that this provision allows could reduce the repeatability and reproducibility of test results, particularly for larger clothes washers.
Second, as described in section III.D.4.a of this document, DOE is proposing to require the measurement of RMC for all tested cycles in the proposed new Appendix J. The RMC of each tested cycle would be calculated based on the bone-dry weight at the start of the cycle. Allowing the bone-dry weight to vary within a range of 1 percent to 4 percent moisture at the beginning of each tested cycle would introduce variability into the RMC calculation.
Therefore, to improve repeatability and reproducibility of test results, DOE is proposing in new Appendix J to remove the provision that allows for a starting test load weight of 104 percent of the bone-dry weight, and instead require that each test cycle use a bone-dry test load. DOE is not proposing to make any changes to section 2.9.1 of Appendix J2, recognizing that such a change could impact measured energy efficiency.
In DOE's experience, most test laboratories use the bone-dry weight as the starting weight of each test load rather than a starting weight up to 104 percent of bone-dry, as allowed by section 2.9.1 of Appendix J2. If a test laboratory does make use of this provision in section 2.9.1 of Appendix J2, the requirement to use the bone-dry weight would add no more than 10 minutes of drying time per cycle to ensure that the test load has reached the bone-dry requirement. In DOE's experience, most test laboratories dry the load from the previous test cycle while the next cycle is being tested on the clothes washer, such that a minor increase in drying time would not affect the overall time required to conduct the test procedure.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to require that each test cycle use a bone-dry test load in the proposed new Appendix J. DOE requests comment on whether test laboratories
The current test procedure does not specify a measurement for average cycle time. In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to base the allocation of annual combined low-power mode hours on the measured average cycle time rather than a fixed value of 8,465 hours, for the proposed new Appendix J (see section III.G.3 of this document). DOE is therefore proposing to require the measurement of average cycle time for the proposed new Appendix J. Calculating the annual standby mode and off mode hours using the measured average cycle time would provide a more representative basis for determining the energy consumption in the combined low-power modes for the specific clothes washer under test.
DOE is proposing to define the overall average cycle time of a clothes washer model as the weighted average of the individual cycle times for each wash cycle configuration conducted as part of the test procedure, using the TUFs and LUFs for the weighting. Using the weighted-average approach would align the average cycle time calculation with the calculations for determining weighted-average energy and water use. These proposed changes would apply only to the proposed new Appendix J.
DOE does not expect the measurement of cycle time to increase test burden. To DOE's knowledge, test laboratories are either already measuring cycle time for all tested cycles or using data acquisition systems to record electronic logs of each cycle, from which determining the cycle time would require minimal additional work.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to add cycle time measurements and to calculate average cycle time using the weighted-average method in the proposed new Appendix J. DOE also requests comment on its assertion that adding cycle time measurements and a calculation of a weighted-average cycle time would not increase testing costs or overall test burden.
Section 3.1 of Appendix J2 provides the procedure for measuring the clothes container capacity, which represents the maximum usable volume for washing clothes. The clothes container capacity is measured by filling the clothes container with water and using the weight of the water to determine the volume of the clothes container. For front-loading clothes washers, this procedure requires positioning the clothes washer on its back surface such that the door opening of the clothes container faces upwards and is leveled horizontally.
DOE is aware that for some front-loading clothes washers, positioning the clothes washer on its back surface may be impractical or unsafe, particularly for very large or heavy clothes washers or those with internal components that could be damaged by the procedures specified in section 3.1 of Appendix J2. 85 FR 31065, 31072. On other clothes washers, filling the clothes container volume as described could be difficult or impractical, particularly for clothes washers with concave or otherwise complex door geometries.
Recognizing these challenges, in the May 2020 RFI, DOE considered whether to allow manufacturers to determine the clothes container capacity by performing a calculation of the volume based upon computer-aided design (“CAD”) models of the basic model in lieu of physical measurements of a production unit of the basic model. 85 FR 31065, 31072. DOE allows a CAD-based approach for consumer refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, as specified at 10 CFR 429.72(c).
AHAM stated that the current volume measurement procedure works well as written, and AHAM does not believe it is necessary to allow for CAD-based determination of volume, stating that it would add unnecessary complexity to the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 10)
UL commented that while manufacturers could easily use CAD models of their clothes washer containers in order to measure capacity, third-party laboratories would still need to use the water-filling method. UL suggested that in order to eliminate the necessity of the water-filling method, manufacturers could submit CAD drawings to DOE as part of the certification process. (UL, No. 9 at p. 3)
NEEA commented that DOE should not allow manufacturers to declare capacities that cannot be verified by a third party (such as manufacturer-reported CAD-based determinations). (NEEA, No. 12 at pp. 26-27)
No information is available at this time to determine how a capacity rating based on a CAD model would compare to the measured capacity using the procedure defined in Appendix J2. DOE is not proposing to allow CAD-based capacity measurement at this time.
In test procedures established in certain other jurisdictions (
Some of the alternate representations of clothes washer capacity that DOE could consider include:
• A weight-based capacity, such as pounds of clothing, which could be derived from the measured volume of the clothes container in a similar manner to the way that the maximum test load is currently specified in Table 5.1 of Appendix J2 based on the measured clothes container volume.
• A clothes container capacity that is declared by the manufacturer using an industry-standard methodology. For example, IEC 60456 provides two optional methodologies for determining clothes container capacity, using either table tennis balls or water.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether to consider any changes to the representation of clothes washer capacity, including, but not limited to, a weight-based capacity or manufacturer-declared capacity based on industry-standard methodology. 85 FR 31065, 31072. Specifically, DOE
AHAM supported the continued use of the current DOE clothes washer volume measurement, stating that it is accurate, repeatable, and reproducible. AHAM opposed any changes of the representation of clothes washer volume to a weight-based measurement or other manufacturer-declared capacity because, to AHAM's knowledge, there is not a repeatable, reproducible way to do so. (AHAM, No. 5 at pp. 10-12) AHAM described work it has performed over the past decade to develop a test procedure to evaluate capacity in terms of the weight of clothes that can be effectively washed and rinsed, similar to various international approaches.
Electrolux supported AHAM's position that alternative capacity measurement methods should not be considered. Electrolux stated that the water volume-based method in use today is easy for third-party laboratories to use, and provides the best and most accurate data for the DOE test method. Electrolux stated that the water method is neither too restrictive nor too burdensome. (Electrolux, No. 11 at p. 1)
NEEA commented that DOE should maintain a single method of measurement of volumetric capacity, as it does currently in Appendix J2. (NEEA, No. 12 at pp. 26-27) NEEA stated that DOE should not allow multiple methods of capacity measurement under the test method, stating that this can lead to inconsistency and inequitable application of the test procedure that includes a maximum load size based on basket capacity.
DOE appreciates details and insights from stakeholders and industry regarding efforts to investigate this issue. DOE is not proposing to specify any alternatives to the current capacity measurement procedure at this time.
Section 3.1 of Appendix J2 provides the methodology for determining clothes container capacity. In the March 2012 Final Rule, DOE revised the clothes container capacity measurement to better reflect the actual usable capacity compared to the previous measurement procedures. 77 FR 13887, 13917. In the August 2015 Final Rule, DOE further added to the capacity measurement procedure a revised description of the maximum fill volume for front-loading clothes washers, as well as illustrations of the boundaries defining the uppermost edge of the clothes container for top-loading vertical-axis clothes washers and the maximum fill volume for horizontal-axis clothes washers. 80 FR 46729, 46733.
For top-loading vertical-axis clothes washers, DOE defined the uppermost edge of the clothes container as the uppermost edge of the rotating portion of the wash basket. 77 FR 13887, 13917-13918. DOE also concluded that the uppermost edge is the highest horizontal plane that a dry clothes load could occupy in a top-loading vertical-axis clothes washer that would allow clothing to interact with the water and detergent properly.
Samsung recommended that DOE reconsider the capacity measurement guideline for top-loading clothes washers. Samsung stated that volume should be measured up to the manufacturer-recommended fill line, instead of measuring up to the top of the rotating portion of the clothes container. Samsung added that the discrepancy between measured volume and manufacturer-recommended fill line may overstate the energy and water efficiency in the test method compared to real-world use. (Samsung, No. 6 at p. 2)
DOE discussed its justification for the current fill level definition for top-loading clothes washers as part of the March 2012 Final Rule. 77 FR 13888, 13917-13920. The fill level recommended by Samsung corresponds to “Fill Level 1” as described in the March 2012 Final Rule, while the current definition as the uppermost edge of the rotating portion of the wash basket corresponds to “Fill Level 2” as described in the March 2012 Final Rule. As DOE explained in the March 2012 Final Rule, by respecting manufacturer recommendations, Fill Level 1 would best ensure wash performance is maintained, and thus is the most consumer-relevant fill level. However, should clothing occupy the space between Fill Level 1 and Fill Level 2 during a wash cycle, the clothing could be cleaned sufficiently because water can still be contained within that volume. Clothing above Fill Level 2, however, is not likely to be cleaned sufficiently because it would be outside the wash basket during the wash cycle and risks being damaged if it becomes entangled on stationary fixtures such as the tub cover or other mechanical components of the clothes washer during the wash cycle.
DOE is not aware of any changes to product designs since the March 2012 Final Rule that would cause DOE to reevaluate its conclusions about the most appropriate capacity fill level. In DOE's experience since the March 2012 Final Rule, the existing capacity fill definition is implemented consistently by test laboratories and results in repeatable and reproducible measurements of capacity. DOE is therefore not proposing any changes to the existing capacity measurement method.
DOE requests comment on its tentative determination to maintain the current capacity measurement method.
Section 3.2.9 of Appendix J2 specifies discarding the data from a wash cycle that “provides a visual or audio indicator to alert the user that an out-of-balance condition has been detected, or that terminates prematurely if an out-of-balance condition is detected, and thus does not include the agitation/tumble operation, spin speed(s), wash times, and rinse times applicable to the wash cycle under test.” In the May 2020 RFI, DOE sought input on whether the test procedure should, in addition to out-of-balance conditions, also require discarding data for wash cycles in which any other anomalous behavior may be observed. 85 FR 31065, 31070. DOE also requested information on whether the test procedure should explicitly require that any wash cycle for which data was discarded due to anomalous behavior must also be repeated to obtain data without the anomalous behavior to be included in the energy test cycle.
NEEA requested more specific guidance on when test cycle data should be considered anomalous to ensure test
UL commented that DOE should consider amending section 3.2.9 of Appendix J2 to specify whether the term “audio indicator” includes only electronic tones from the clothes washer (
AHAM commented that sometimes a cycle may not terminate due to an out-of-balance or other anomalous behavior, and that some models do not provide audio or visual indicators to notify the consumer that an anomalous condition was detected and fixed by the machine. (AHAM, No. 5 at pp. 7-8) According to AHAM, these actions benefit the consumer—instead of requiring consumer interaction during the cycle, the clothes washer addresses the anomalous behavior and finishes the cycle. AHAM added that this also often saves energy and water by finishing the cycle with some incrementally increased water or energy usage instead of requiring a cycle to be canceled and completely re-run.
AHAM recommended that DOE add language to the test procedure specifying that if there is a visual or audio indicator that would alert the user about anomalous behavior, or if there are other indicators that suggest anomalous behavior, the test be stopped and the results discarded.
Electrolux supported the suggestion that energy data obtained from a cycle that may be acting erratically or abnormally in any way should be discarded. Electrolux recommended that DOE consider a possible manufacturer-supplied cycle status code that would be available to any test agency following completion of a cycle, which would monitor the cycle for anomalous behavior and provide an error code indicating not to use that cycle data. Electrolux additionally supported AHAM's comments on this issue. (Electrolux, No. 11 at p. 3)
DOE acknowledges that as clothes washer technology has improved, certain clothes washers are designed to self-correct out-of-balance loads or make other adjustments to the operation of the unit to complete the cycle without alerting the consumer or requiring user intervention. DOE also recognizes the benefit of objective and observable criteria to determine when an anomalous cycle has occurred, based on a single test, such that the data from that anomalous cycle should be discarded.
To provide more objective and observable criteria, DOE proposes that data from a wash cycle would be discarded if either: The washing machine signals to the user by means of an audio or visual alert that an off-balance condition has occurred; or the wash cycle terminates prematurely and thus does not include the agitation/tumble operation, spin speed(s), wash times, and rinse times applicable to the wash cycle under test. The proposed reference to an audio or visual alert refers to a warning sound initiated by the clothes washer, or visual cue such as a flashing light or persistent error code, that is provided to the user to actively inform the user that a problem has occurred; as opposed to a more passive indication such as the cabinet hitting the side or a change in the projected cycle duration, which could go unnoticed by the user or which itself may not be an indication of an out-of-balance load that warrants discarding the data for a test cycle. To emphasize this intent, DOE is proposing to change the current phrase “provides a visual or audio indicator to alert the user” to “signals to the user by means of a visual or audio alert” in both section 3.2.9 of Appendix J2 and section 3.2.6 of the proposed new Appendix J.
DOE is also proposing to change the current phrase “terminates prematurely if an out-of-balance condition is detected” to simply “terminates prematurely,” in recognition that other factors beyond an out-of-balance condition could also cause a wash cycle to terminate prematurely (
DOE is further proposing non-substantive wording changes to section 3.2.9 of Appendix J2 and section 3.2.6 of the proposed new Appendix J to make explicit that if data are discarded for the reasons described in these sections, the wash cycle is repeated.
DOE requests comment on the proposed criteria for determining whether test data are to be discarded. Specifically, DOE requests comment on the proposal that test data are discarded if a washing machine either signals to the user by means of a visual or audio alert that an out-of-balance condition has occurred or terminates prematurely. DOE requests comment on whether additional or alternate criteria would provide objective and observable indication during a single test that test data are to be discarded.
Section III.C.2 of this document discussed the installation of semi-automatic clothes washers for testing.
Semi-automatic clothes washers inherently do not provide wash/rinse temperature selections on the control panel, as any combination of cold, warm, and hot wash temperatures and rinse temperatures are provided by the user's adjustment of the external water faucet valves. The following discussion provides relevant historical context on this issue.
Section 6.1 of Appendix J-1977 and Appendix J-1997 provided separate TUFs explicitly for semi-automatic clothes washers for the following wash/rinse temperature combinations: Hot/Hot, Hot/Warm, Hot/Cold, Warm/Warm, Warm/Cold, and Cold/Cold. The specification of these TUFs indicated that these six wash/rinse temperature combinations were required for testing. Section 3.2.2.6 of Appendix J-1977 and Appendix J-1997 and section 3.2.3.1.6 of Appendix J1-1997 and Appendix J1-2001 provided a table indicating the following external water faucet valve positions required to achieve each wash and rinse temperature selection:
• Hot: Hot valve completely open, cold valve closed;
• Warm: Hot valve completely open, cold valve completely open; and
• Cold: Hot valve closed, cold valve completely open.
Inherently, testing the Hot/Hot, Warm/Warm, and Cold/Cold temperature combinations require no changes to the water faucet valve positions between the wash and rinse portions of the cycle. However, testing the Hot/Warm, Hot/Cold, and Warm/Cold temperature combinations requires the test administrator to manually regulate the water temperature between the wash and rinse portions of the cycle by adjusting the external water faucet valves. As reflected in DOE's definition of semi-automatic clothes washer, user intervention is required to regulate the water temperature of all semi-automatic clothes washers (
When it established Appendix J1-1997, DOE combined all of the TUF tables—for both automatic and semi-automatic clothes washers—that were provided in section 5 and section 6 of Appendix J-1997 into a single condensed table in Table 4.1.1 of Appendix J1-1997. 62 FR 45484, 45512. In contrast to Appendix J-1997, which provided separate TUF tables for every possible set of available wash/rinse temperature selections, the simplified table in Appendix J1-1997 was organized into columns based on the number of wash temperature selections available on a clothes washer. Warm rinse was considered separately within each column of the table.
The simplified Table 4.1.1 in Appendix J2 does not state which column(s) of the table are applicable to semi-automatic clothes washers. In the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE stated that it was not aware of any semi-automatic clothes washers on the market. 77 FR 32307, 32317. However, DOE is currently aware of several semi-automatic clothes washer models available in the U.S. market.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested input on whether to amend the test procedure with regard to the specificity of wash/rinse test combinations for semiautomatic clothes washers in Appendix J2, and whether those updates would provide test results that measure energy efficiency and water use during a representative average use cycle or period of use, and whether they would be unduly burdensome to conduct. 85 FR 31065, 31077.
No comments were received regarding these aspects of the test procedure for semi-automatic clothes washers. The following sections describe DOE's proposals for specifying how to test semi-automatic clothes washers.
DOE is proposing to specify how to test semi-automatic clothes washers in the proposed new Appendix J. In this section, DOE describes its proposals to specify which temperatures to test and which TUFs to apply to the measured results.
As described above, Appendix J-1977 required testing six wash/rinse temperature combinations: Hot/Hot, Hot/Warm, Hot/Cold, Warm/Warm, Warm/Cold and Cold/Cold. The TUFs in Table 6.1 of Appendix J-1977 used the same general usage factors for semi-automatic clothes washers as for automatic clothes washers. 42 FR 49802, 49810. For example, the Cold/Cold TUF of 0.15 was the same for both types, and the sum of Hot/Hot, Hot/Warm and Hot/Cold (with a total TUF of 0.30) for semi-automatic clothes washers was the same as the TUF for Hot/Cold on an automatic clothes washer with only three temperature selections.
DOE updated the TUFs in the August 1997 Final Rule, based on P&G data provided by AHAM. 62 FR 45484, 45491. Currently, Table 4.1.1 of Appendix J2 does not include TUFs for all six of the temperatures required for testing in Appendix J-1977.
DOE considered requiring that semi-automatic clothes washers be tested with the same six temperature settings as in Appendix J-1977. Table III.2 lists potential TUF values that could be used if DOE were to require testing all six possible temperature combinations. These values follow the same pattern that was used in Table 6.1 of Appendix J-1977, such that the sum of all temperature selections with a Hot Wash add up to 0.14 and the sum of all temperature selections with a Warm Wash add up to 0.49,
By including all six possible temperature combinations, Table 6.1 of Appendix J-1977 included wash/rinse temperature settings that require the water temperature to be changed between the wash portion and the rinse portion of the cycle (
In implementing specific provisions for testing semi-automatic clothes washers in the proposed new Appendix J, DOE is proposing to require testing only those temperature settings that do not require a water temperature change (
DOE requests comment on its proposal for testing semi-automatic clothes washers in the proposed new Appendix J that would require testing only the wash/rinse temperature combinations that do not require a wash temperature change between the wash and rinse portions of the cycle (
To define the TUFs for these three temperature combinations, DOE proposes to use the TUFs from the existing column of Table 4.1.1 of Appendix J2 specified for testing clothes washers with Hot/Cold, Warm/Cold, and Cold/Cold temperature selections, and presented in Table III.3. To further simplify the test procedure, since DOE is proposing to require testing only those temperature selections that do not require a change in the water temperature, DOE is proposing to label these selections “Hot,” “Warm,” and “Cold,” respectively (as opposed to “Hot/Hot”, “Warm/Warm”, and “Cold/Cold”).
DOE requests feedback on its proposal to test semi-automatic clothes washers using TUF values of 0.14 for Hot, 0.49 for Warm, and 0.37 for Cold.
DOE further requests comment on whether the temperature selections and TUFs that DOE has proposed for semi-automatic clothes washers would be representative of consumer use; and if not, which temperature selections and TUF values would better reflect consumer use.
DOE recognizes that these proposed specifications for testing semi-automatic clothes washers may differ from how manufacturers are currently testing semi-automatic clothes washers under Appendix J2 (which, as described, does not provide explicit instructions for semi-automatic clothes washers). Therefore, DOE is proposing to include these provisions only in the proposed new Appendix J, which would be used for the evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards, and would not be required until the compliance date of any updated standards. However, DOE could consider replicating these changes in Appendix J2 as well, to provide greater clarity on how to test semi-automatic clothes washers using Appendix J2.
DOE requests comment on whether to include explicit instructions for how to test semi-automatic clothes washers in Appendix J2, and if so, whether DOE should implement the same procedures being proposed for the proposed new Appendix J.
DOE requests feedback on how manufacturers of semi-automatic clothes washers are currently testing their products using Appendix J2.
Inherent to semi-automatic clothes washer operation is that the clothes washer provides the same cycle operation for a given load size and cycle setting, regardless of the water temperature that the user provides. As a result, when testing a semi-automatic clothes washer, machine energy consumption, total water consumption, bone-dry weight, cycle-completion weight, and cycle time for a given load size are unaffected by wash/rinse temperature. When testing a given load size, only the relative amount of cold and hot water consumption is based on the water temperature provided by the user. For the Cold cycle as proposed, all of the water used is cold; for the Hot cycle as proposed, all of the water used is hot; and for the Warm cycle as proposed, half of the water used is cold and half is hot.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to require semi-automatic clothes washers to test only the Cold cycle, and to determine the representative values for the Warm and Hot cycles formulaically, for the proposed new Appendix J.
DOE notes that if it were to require measuring all six temperature options listed in Table III.2 of this document (Hot/Hot, Hot/Warm, Hot/Cold, Warm/Warm, Warm/Cold, and Cold/Cold), the determination of hot and cold water use would be more complicated for temperature selections that require a
DOE requests comment on the test burden associated with determining the apportionment between wash water use and rinse water use on semi-automatic clothes washers.
To implement the changes described above for semi-automatic clothes washers, DOE is proposing to create a section 3.4 in the proposed new Appendix J (see discussion in section III.H.7 of this document for an explanation of how section 3 of the proposed new Appendix J would be structured) specifying the cycles required for testing semi-automatic clothes washers. Section 3.4.1 would specify the required test measurements for the Cold cycle and would define variables for each measured value. Section 3.4.2 would specify the formulas used to calculate the representative values for the Warm and Hot cycles, based on the measured values from the Cold cycle.
DOE is also proposing to create a section 2.12.2 in the proposed new Appendix J to state that the energy test cycle for semi-automatic clothes washers includes only the Cold Wash/Cold Rinse (“Cold”) test cycle. DOE would also create a section 2.12.1, which would parallel the current section 2.12 in Appendix J2 and would be identified as applying to automatic clothes washers. DOE is further proposing to specify that section 3.2.1 of the proposed new Appendix J (which would mirror section 3.2.4 of Appendix J2) would apply only to automatic clothes washers.
Section 3.2.7 of Appendix J2 states that for clothes washers with electronic control systems, the manufacturer default settings must be used for any cycle selections, except for (1) the temperature selection, (2) the wash water fill levels, or (3) if necessary, the spin speeds on wash cycles used to determine RMC. Specifically, the manufacturer default settings must be used for wash conditions such as agitation/tumble operation, soil level, spin speed on wash cycles used to determine energy and water consumption, wash times, rinse times, optional rinse settings, water heating time for water-heating clothes washers, and all other wash parameters or optional features applicable to that wash cycle. Any optional wash cycle feature or setting (other than wash/rinse temperature, water fill level selection, or spin speed on wash cycles used to determine RMC) that is activated by default on the wash cycle under test must be included for testing unless the manufacturer instructions recommend not selecting this option, or recommend selecting a different option, for washing normally soiled cotton clothing.
DOE has observed a trend towards increased availability of optional cycle modifiers such as “deep fill,” and “extra rinse,” among others. 85 FR 31065, 31076. These optional settings may significantly impact the water and/or energy consumption of the clothes washer when activated.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE sought comment on whether testing cycle settings other than the manufacturer default settings would measure the energy efficiency and water use of the clothes washer during a representative average use cycle or period of use.
AHAM opposed testing of cycle settings other than the manufacturer default and recommended that DOE should not test every possible clothes washer cycle or combination of options. AHAM stated that it does not believe optional cycle modifiers are used in most cycles—they exist to provide additional choices to the consumer and increase customer satisfaction. (AHAM, No. 5 at pp. 14-15) AHAM, stated that testing these optional cycle modifiers could increase test burden without a corresponding benefit in improving consumer representativeness, and that DOE should only measure cycles that are representative of an average use cycle or period of use, as required by EPCA.
Electrolux also opposed additional testing for cycle modifiers. Electrolux commented that cycle modifiers are included on clothes washers for special purposes and are not intended for full-time use. According to Electrolux, these modifiers may be unavailable for specific test cycles and are never a default option due to their specific use. Electrolux stated that adding these to an energy calculation would require extensive survey of their use by consumers. Electrolux further commented that the variety and number of cycle modifiers on machines on the market make it difficult to track and understand usage of the modifiers. (Electrolux, No. 11 at p. 3)
The CA IOUs supported the investigation of the usage frequency of cycle modifiers, stating that the increased presence of such modifiers implies that there is a market desire for such features and that clothes washers are being used with these cycle settings at a non-trivial frequency. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 16)
NEEA commented that, since options such as “extra water” and/or “deep fill” improve clothes washer performance,
The Joint Commenters encouraged DOE to capture the impact of cycle modifiers such as “deep fill” and “extra rinse” on energy and water use. The Joint Commenters expressed concern that since the default position for these modifiers is most often “off,” the test procedure is effectively assigning a value of zero to the energy and water use of these features, which is likely not representative. According to the Joint Commenters, the test procedure may therefore be significantly underestimating energy and/or water use of clothes washers with these
Samsung suggested that DOE amend section 2.8 of Appendix J2 to note that at test load sizes “Max” and “Min” for manual and automatic water control systems, the corresponding water fill setting should require the use of any user-selectable options to change water level in order to reflect real-world minimum and maximum fill levels. (Samsung, No. 6 at p. 3)
DOE is not aware of any consumer usage data concerning the use of optional cycle modifiers, nor did interested parties provide any such data. Although DOE maintains that the growing presence of such features may be indicative of an increase in consumer usage of these features, DOE lacks consumer usage data that would be required to incorporate the testing of such features in the test procedure. Therefore, DOE is not proposing to change the current requirement to use the manufacturer default settings for optional cycle modifiers.
In response to Samsung's comment, DOE notes that in section 3.2.7 of Appendix J2, wash water fill levels are excluded from the list of cycle options for which the manufacturer default settings must be used. Selecting the most (or least) energy intensive water fill setting as required in section 3.2.6.2.2 for clothes washers with user-adjustable automatic WFCS would therefore require changing an optional cycle modifier from its default position if doing so would provide the most (or least) energy intensive result.
Finally, as discussed in section III.D.4 of this document, DOE is proposing in the proposed new Appendix J to require measuring RMC on each tested cycle using the default spin settings for each cycle. Consistent with this proposal, DOE is proposing to remove “spin speeds on wash cycles used to determine RMC” from the list of cycle settings that are excluded from the requirement to use the manufacturer default settings in section 3.2.4 (
DOE requests comment on maintaining the current requirement to use the manufacturer default settings for optional cycle modifiers.
DOE is aware of several “connected” RCW models currently on the market, from at least four major manufacturers. 85 FR 31065, 31068. These products offer optional wireless network connectivity to enable features such as remote monitoring and control via smartphone, as well as certain demand response features
As noted previously, section 3.2.7 of Appendix J2 specifies using the manufacturer default settings for any cycle selections except temperature selection, wash water fill level, or spin speed. Furthermore, section 3.9.1 of Appendix J2 specifies performing the combined low-power mode testing without changing any control panel settings used for the active mode wash cycle. With regard to the measurement of network mode energy use specifically, DOE stated in the March 2012 Final Rule that “DOE cannot thoroughly evaluate these [IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition)] network mode provisions, as would be required to justify their incorporation into DOE's test procedures at this time.” 77 FR 13887, 13899. DOE notes that although an individual appliance may consume a relatively small amount of power in network mode, the potential exists for energy-related benefits that more than offset this additional power consumption if the appliance can be controlled by the “smart grid” to consume power during non-peak periods. 85 FR 31065, 31068.
If connected features on a clothes washer affect its inactive mode power consumption in the as-shipped configuration (
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested feedback on its characterization of connected RCWs, and any CCWs, currently on the market.
The CA IOUs recommended that network-capable RCWs be tested with connected functions activated to capture the energy use associated with these functions, especially as connected clothes washers become more prevalent. The CA IOUs commented that while network capabilities may use a small amount of power compared to the active washing cycle, these features often operate year-round and could potentially consume a significant amount of energy annually. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at pp. 12-13) The CA IOUs added that capturing the energy consumption associated with connected features should not hinder their continued development.
The Joint Commenters recommended that DOE incorporate a measurement of “network mode” power consumption to provide consumers with information about any additional energy consumption associated with connected features. The Joint Commenters stated that, although it asserts that DOE is concerned about impeding innovation, the power consumption associated with “network mode” may be accounted for in energy conservation standards so as not to hinder the availability of models with connected features. (Joint Commenters, No. 10 at p. 2)
NEEA recommended that DOE develop a method for measuring standby mode energy use of clothes washers with connected functionality,
AHAM commented that there is not yet adequate consumer use data on connected features to justify amending the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 5) AHAM stated that consumer use and understanding of new technologies continues to evolve and inform manufacturers' designs. According to AHAM, some consumers do not even connect their network-enabled appliances to use the available features.
DOE recognizes the potential benefits that could be provided by connected capability, such as providing energy saving benefits to consumers, enabling peak load shifting on the electrical grid, and other consumer-related benefits. While a number of connected clothes washers are currently on the market with varying implementations of connected features, DOE is not aware of any data available, nor did interested parties provide any such data, regarding the consumer use of connected features. Therefore, DOE is unable to establish a representative test configuration for assessing the energy consumption of connected functionality for clothes washers.
As noted previously, while DOE's current test procedure does not specifically consider energy use of network features, the test procedure may result in the measurement of the energy use of connected features in inactive mode. Specifically, as discussed, any energy use of connected features would be measured in section 3.9 of Appendix J2 for measuring combined low-power mode power if the connected features are enabled in the “as-shipped” configuration. If the consumer is required to actively enable the connected functionality, however, such energy consumption would not be measured. Similarly, any incremental energy consumption in active mode, or any other modes of operation impacted by the product's connected features, would not be measured because the test cycle requirements in section 3.2.7 of Appendix J2 do not include instructions for activating any such features before performing the active mode test cycles.
Given the lack of data to establish a test configuration that would be representative of consumer use of connected features on clothes washers, DOE is proposing to amend section 3.2.7 of Appendix J2 and section 3.2.4 of the proposed new Appendix J to specify that network settings (on clothes washers with network capabilities) must be disabled during testing if such settings can be disabled by the end-user, and the product's user manual provides instructions on how to do so.
If, however, connected functionality cannot be disabled by the end-user or the product's user manual does not provide instruction for disabling connected functionality that is enabled by default, then the unit must be tested with the network capability in the factory default setting as specified in the current test procedure. DOE has preliminarily determined that if connected functionality cannot be disabled, or the product's user manual does not provide instruction for disabling the function, it is more representative to include the energy consumption of the clothes washer in the default condition, including the enabled connected function, than to exclude the energy consumption associated with the connected feature. As such, the energy consumption of a connected function that cannot be disabled would continue to be measured, as in the current test procedure. DOE notes that this approach is consistent with the approach proposed in the test procedure supplemental NOPR for microwave ovens published on August 3, 2021. 86 FR 41759.
DOE requests comment on its proposed amendment to Appendix J2 and the proposed new Appendix J to specify that network settings (on clothes washers with network capabilities) must be disabled during testing if such settings can be disabled by the end-user, and the product's user manual provides instructions on how to do so.
DOE seeks the following information regarding connected clothes washers, which could inform future test procedure considerations:
DOE requests feedback on its characterization of connected clothes washers currently on the market. Specifically, DOE requests input on the types of features or functionality enabled by connected clothes washers that exist on the market or that are under development.
DOE requests data on the percentage of users purchasing connected clothes washers, and, for those users, the percentage of the time when the connected functionality of the clothes washer is used.
DOE requests data on the amount of additional or reduced energy use of connected clothes washers.
DOE requests data on the pattern of additional or reduced energy use of connected clothes washers; for example, whether it is constant, periodic, or triggered by the user.
DOE requests information on any existing testing protocols that account for connected features of clothes washers, as well as any testing protocols that may be under development within the industry.
As discussed, the current energy efficiency standards for RCWs are based on the IMEF metric, measured in ft
The current energy efficiency standards for CCWs are based on the MEF
The current water efficiency standards for both RCWs and CCWs are based on the IWF metric, measured in gal/cycle/ft
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested feedback on whether to consider changing the energy or water efficiency metrics for RCWs or CCWs to maintain consistency with any changes to the capacity metric or for other reasons. 85 FR 31065, 31080. DOE included several examples such as incorporating the weighted-average weight of test cloth test load, which would result in energy efficiency metric expressed in terms of pounds of clothing per kWh per cycle.
AHAM stated that DOE does not need to change the energy efficiency or water efficiency metrics. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 16)
The CA IOUs recommended changing IWF and IMEF to eliminate their relationship to capacity. The CA IOUs stated that by normalizing with the capacity of a clothes washer, the current metrics create a built-in bias towards larger-capacity machines, as the minimum- and average-sized test loads are not purely scaled with the clothes washer's capacity. The CA IOUS stated that this leads to larger-capacity clothes washers washing a smaller fraction of clothing compared to their capacity. The CA IOUs commented that in order to remove this bias, IMEF and IWF should be normalized with the weighted-average load size of clothing washed (
The Joint Commenters encouraged DOE to consider basing efficiency metrics on pounds of clothes washed instead of capacity of the clothes washer. According to the Joint Commenters, basing efficiency metrics on clothes washer capacity creates a bias towards large-capacity clothes washers, since weighted-average load size is much greater for large-capacity clothes washers than it is for small-capacity clothes washers. The Joint Commenters encouraged DOE to instead consider alternative efficiency metrics based on the LUF-weighted-average load size for a given clothes washer capacity. (Joint Commenters, No. 10 at p. 5)
NEEA commented that the current DOE test procedure allows larger-capacity clothes washers to use more energy and water per pound of textiles washed than smaller-capacity clothes washers with the same IMEF ratings. NEEA has also observed that IMEF generally increases with capacity in the most recent models to come into the market. NEEA stated that due to the increase in average clothes washer capacity from 3.5 ft
As noted throughout the discussion previously, under Appendix J2, energy use (the denominator of the IMEF and MEF equations) scales with weighted-average load size, whereas capacity (the numerator of the IMEF and MEF equations) scales with maximum load size. This provides an inherent numerical advantage to large-capacity clothes washers that is disproportionate to the efficiency advantage that can be achieved through “economies of scale” associated with washing larger loads. This advantage means that a larger-capacity clothes washer consumes more energy to wash a pound of clothes than a smaller-capacity clothes washer with the same IMEF rating. This relationship applies similarly to water efficiency through the IWF equation. As noted in the comments summarized previously, this disproportionate benefit increases as average clothes washer capacity increases over time. To avoid providing bias for large-capacity clothes washers, DOE is proposing to change the energy and water efficiency metrics in the proposed new Appendix J by replacing the capacity term with the weighted-average load size, in pounds. Under this proposed change, energy and water use would scale proportionally with weighted-average load size in the IMEF, MEF, and IWF formulas and thus eliminate the efficiency bias currently provided to large-capacity clothes washers.
EPCA defines energy efficiency as “the ratio of the useful output of services from a consumer product to the energy use of such product.” (42 U.S.C. 6291(5); 42 U.S.C. 6311(3)) In the current efficiency metrics, clothes washer capacity is used to represent the measure of useful output. DOE has tentatively determined that clothing load size (
Were DOE to finalize the proposed metric change, changes to the energy conservation standards would be addressed in an energy conservation standards rulemaking.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to replace the capacity term with weighted-average load size in the energy efficiency metrics and the water efficiency metric in the proposed new Appendix J.
In addition, DOE is proposing to rename the efficiency metrics to avoid any confusion between the proposed new metrics and the existing metrics. DOE is proposing to designate energy efficiency ratio (“EER”) as the energy efficiency metric for RCWs (replacing IMEF); active-mode energy efficiency ratio (“AEER”) as the energy efficiency metric for CCWs (replacing MEF
DOE is also proposing to establish provisions in 10 CFR 430.23(j) to specify the procedure for determining EER and WER for RCWs, and in 10 CFR 431.154 to specify the procedure for determining AEER and WER for CCWs.
DOE requests comment on its proposed names for the proposed new efficiency metrics: Energy efficiency ratio (EER), active-mode energy efficiency ratio (AEER), and water efficiency ratio (WER).
As described previously, IWF is calculated in section 4.2.13 of Appendix J2 as the total weighted per-cycle water consumption (in gallons) for all wash cycles divided by the capacity of the clothes container (in ft
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested feedback on whether to consider any changes to the water efficiency metric defined in the test procedure to maintain consistency with any changes to the capacity metric or for any other purpose, including those described for the energy efficiency metric, and whether it would be appropriate to invert the existing calculation such that a higher value of IWF would represent more efficient performance. 85 FR 31065, 31080.
The CA IOUs supported inverting the IWF and WF metrics to better align with the IMEF and MEF metrics. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 6) Additionally, the CA IOUs recommended that DOE should consider changing the name of the updated metrics in order to alert customers and relevant stakeholders of the implications of the change.
DOE is proposing to invert the water metric, in conjunction with replacing the capacity term with weighted-average load size, as described in the previous section. By inverting the metric, a higher value would represent more efficient performance, consistent with the energy efficiency metrics. In addition, by inverting the metric, the proposed WER metric would represent the ratio of the useful output of services to the water use of the product, consistent with EPCA's definition of energy efficiency as described.
DOE is proposing to define WER in the proposed new Appendix J as the quotient of the weighted-average load size (in lb) divided by the total weighted per-cycle water consumption for all wash cycles (in gallons).
DOE requests comment on its proposal to invert the water efficiency metric and calculate the newly defined WER metric as the quotient of the weighted-average load size divided by the total weighted per-cycle water consumption for all wash cycles.
The annual energy consumption of an RCW tested according to Appendix J2 is calculated as part of the estimated annual operating cost calculations at 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(ii)(A) and (B).
DOE considered whether to make changes to the method for calculating annual energy use so that the calculation more directly reflects annual energy use during a representative average use cycle. DOE also considered whether changes to the overall calculation methodology would improve the usefulness of the information presented to the consumer on the product label.
According to the current calculation methodology, all clothes washers are assumed to be used for 295 cycles per year, while the per-cycle energy reflects a weighted-average load size based on the clothes washer capacity. Therefore, the annual energy calculation reflects an annual volume of laundered clothing that scales with clothes washer capacity. For example, the current annual energy calculation methodology is based on an annual laundry volume of 2,258 pounds for a 3.0-ft
Under the current annual energy calculation methodology, the information presented on the product label would indicate that a larger-capacity RCW would use significantly more annual energy than a smaller-capacity model with the same IMEF rating. This is because the larger-capacity RCW's label would be based on a significantly larger amount of annual laundry than the smaller-capacity model, as illustrated above. Whereas, if compared on the basis of an equivalent volume of laundered clothing, both RCWs could be expected to use the same amount of annual energy since they have the same IMEF efficiency rating. This potential disparity may limit the ability of an individual consumer to use the information presented on the product label to compare the differences in expected energy use among RCW models with the same rated energy efficiency but different capacities.
When DOE originally developed the annual energy calculation methodology at 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(i), the test procedure accommodated clothes washers with capacities up to 3.8 ft
Given the increasingly wide range of RCW capacities available on the market, and the significant changes over time in estimated annual RCW cycles, DOE considered whether any changes are warranted for the annual energy and annual water calculations to ensure that the results continue to reflect representative average use for all clothes washer sizes, to harmonize with any changes to other metrics within the DOE test procedures, and to continue to provide useful comparative information to consumers. 85 FR 31065, 31081. DOE described two examples in the May 2020 RFI:
• Revising the annual energy and annual water calculation methodology from being based on a fixed number of annual cycles to a fixed number of annual pounds of clothing.
• Varying the annual number of wash cycles based on clothes washer capacity, rather than a fixed number of annual cycles for all clothes washers.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested data and information regarding whether and how the annual number of wash cycles varies as a function of clothes washer capacity.
NEEA recommended that DOE change the annual energy metric to use an average number of pounds of textiles washed annually instead of using an average number of cycles per year. NEEA stated that its research found that neither number of cycles nor load size scales with capacity, suggesting that this change would provide a more effective comparison of clothes washers with different capacities. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 25)
The CA IOUs supported DOE's current method of basing annual energy calculations on a fixed number of wash cycles per year, rather than using a fixed amount of clothing washed per year.
The CA IOUs also recommended that if DOE changes the annual energy calculation from a fixed number of annual wash cycles to a fixed amount of clothing washed, this change should also be reflected in the rest of the test procedure to capture any operational difference by capacity. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 12)
Notwithstanding the potential limitations of DOE's current approach of calculating annual energy consumption, as described previously, in the absence of any new nationally representative data showing either a constant annual weight of washed laundry, or a correlation between clothes washer capacity and annual weight of washed laundry, DOE is not proposing to change the methodology for calculating annual energy use. DOE could, however, consider such a change should additional data or information become available, as previously described.
DOE requests data on the annual amount of laundry washed by consumers, and whether the annual amount of laundry washed by consumers is correlated with clothes washer capacity.
Representation requirements for RCWs and CCWs are codified at 10 CFR 429.20(a) and 10 CFR 429.46(a), respectively.
DOE is proposing to specify that the sampling requirements for RCWs specified at 10 CFR 429.20(a)(2)(ii) would also apply to the new proposed EER and WER metrics. DOE is proposing to clarify that the capacity specified in 10 CFR 429.20(a)(3) is the
DOE is proposing to specify that the sampling requirements specified for CCWs at 10 CFR 429.46(a)(2)(ii) would also apply to the new proposed AEER and WER metrics.
DOE requests comment on its proposed updated representation and sampling requirements for RCWs and CCWs.
EPCA requires DOE to consider any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products (and certain commercial equipment, including CCWs) likely to result from the imposition of potential new or amended standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) EPCA prohibits DOE from prescribing an amended or new standard if the Secretary finds that interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States at the time of the Secretary's finding. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
EPCA authorizes DOE to design test procedures that measure energy efficiency, energy use, water use (in the case of showerheads, faucets, water closets and urinals), or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) DOE regulates only the energy and water efficiency of clothes washers. Manufacturers may design their products to prioritize any of the other consumer-relevant performance characteristics, including cleaning performance. As such, DOE's clothes washer test procedures do not prescribe a method for testing clothes washer cleaning performance.
Samsung commented that a product should perform at least its basic cleaning function during the energy test cycle so that consumers can purchase products that perform their basic function effectively, while saving energy and water. (Samsung, No. 6 at p. 2) Samsung added that unless clothes washers perform at a minimum level of acceptable functionality on the Normal cycle, consumers may use other energy- or water-intensive modes and unknowingly sacrifice energy efficiency.
Electrolux encouraged DOE to introduce an independent cleaning and rinsing performance test into the energy test procedure, because Electrolux is concerned that as more cycles become available to consumers, they are less likely to select the more efficient energy test cycle due to performance concerns. (Electrolux, No. 11 at p. 2) Electrolux added that tying performance testing to the energy test cycle could give consumers visibility into the tradeoff between efficiency and cleaning/rinsing performance, and place the energy test cycle as a more prominent cycle that is efficient and has high cleaning performance.
As noted, EPCA authorizes DOE to design test procedures that measure energy efficiency, energy use, water use (in the case of showerheads, faucets, water closets and urinals), or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) Also as noted, in determining whether a new or amended energy conservation standard is economically justified, EPCA requires DOE to consider any lessening of the utility or the performance likely to result from the imposition of a new standard. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)). As indicated by comments summarized above, multiple test procedures from industry and international organizations are available for measuring clothes washer cleaning performance (among other attributes). DOE may conduct research and testing that uses these or other established test methods as part of an energy conservation standards rulemaking to evaluate any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the imposition of potential new or amended standards, as required by EPCA. For example, in the most recent energy conservation standards final rule for CCWs, published on December 15, 2014 (“December 2014 Final Rule”), DOE conducted performance testing using AHAM's HLW-1-2010 test procedure to quantitatively evaluate potential impacts on cleaning performance, rinsing performance, and solid particle removal as a result of higher standard levels. 79 FR 74492, 74506.
DOE is not, however, proposing to add a cleaning performance test procedure to the proposed new Appendix J or to Appendix J2 in this NOPR.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested information on whether, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3), the consumer usage factors incorporated into the test procedure produce test results that measure energy efficiency and water use of clothes washers during a representative average use cycle or period of use. 85 FR 31065, 31077. DOE also sought comment on whether testing cycle configurations with usage factors below a certain percentage would be unduly burdensome to conduct and would not be considered to be reasonably designed to measure energy and water use during a representative average use cycle or period of use because they are rarely used by consumers.
AHAM commented generally that it supports updating the test procedure to reflect average use cycles, but commented that any updates must reflect changes observed in national, statistically significant field use studies and must not impact repeatability or reproducibility, or be unduly burdensome to conduct. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 12) AHAM stated that should it find data that would assist DOE in its rulemaking, it will provide it as soon as possible. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 15)
Discussion and consideration of consumer usage assumptions are provided in the following paragraphs.
Section 4.4 of Appendix J2 provides the representative average number of annual clothes washer cycles to translate the annualized inactive and off mode energy consumption measurements into a per-cycle value applied to each active mode wash cycle. Separately, the number of annual wash cycles is also referenced in DOE's test procedure provisions at 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(i)(A) and (B), (j)(1)(ii)(A) and (B), and (j)(3)(i) and (ii) to calculate annual operating cost and annual water consumption of a clothes washer.
In the August 1997 Final Rule, DOE estimated the representative number of annual wash cycles per RCW to be 392, which represented the average number of cycles per year from 1986 through 1994, based on P&G survey data provided to DOE as described in a NOPR published on March 23, 1995. 60 FR 15330, 1533; 62 FR 45484, 45501.
In the March 2012 Final Rule, DOE updated the representative number of wash cycles per year to 295 based on an analysis of the 2005 RECS data. 77 FR 13887, 13909. More recently, in the May 2020 RFI, DOE presented an analysis of the 2009 RECS data, which suggests 284 cycles per year, and of the 2015 RECS data (the most recent available) which suggests 234 cycles per year. 85 FR 31065, 31079.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested data and information on whether any further adjustments to the number of annual wash cycles are warranted to reflect current RCW consumer usage patterns, as suggested by RECS data.
AHAM supported using 2015 RECS data as a basis for determining annual use cycles. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 15) AHAM stated that its survey of members found that the average number of annual cycles is 233, which supports DOE's analysis of the 2015 RECS data indicating 234 cycles per year.
NEEA supported keeping the current number of wash cycles per year or increasing it slightly. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 24) NEEA stated that findings from its 2014 laundry study indicate 313 annual use cycles for RCWs.
DOE appreciates the submission of data by NEEA but notes that the survey results represent regional usage (the Pacific Northwest) during a 4 to 6-week period in 2012, as described in the referenced report. As such, these findings do not provide a basis for estimated national average usage. In lieu of such data, DOE finds that the 2015 RECS survey is the most reliable source available for nationally representative annual usage data.
Based on the data from the 2015 RECS survey, DOE is proposing to update the number of annual wash cycles to 234 in the proposed new Appendix J. This update would impact the per-cycle low-power mode energy consumption value included in the calculation of IMEF and EER. The per-cycle low-power mode energy consumption would be divided by a smaller number (
DOE is not proposing to change the number of annual wash cycles in Appendix J2 because such a change would impact measured energy efficiency. DOE proposes to make such changes only in the proposed new Appendix J, which would be used for the evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards, and for determining compliance with those standards.
In addition to other changes discussed in section III.H.6 of this document, DOE is proposing to update 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(i) and (j)(3)(i) such that the annual operating cost and annual water consumption calculation would reflect the new proposed number of annual wash cycles when a clothes washer is tested using the proposed new Appendix J, if finalized.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to update the number of annual wash cycles to 234 in the
Section 4.3 of Appendix J2 provides an equation for calculating total per-cycle energy consumption for removal of moisture from the clothes washer test load in a clothes dryer,
DOE's test procedure for clothes dryers, codified at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1 (“Appendix D1”), prescribes a final moisture content between 2.5 and 5.0 percent, which is consistent with the 4-percent final moisture content value in the clothes washer test procedure for determining the drying energy. However, DOE's alternate clothes dryer test procedure, codified at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D2 (“Appendix D2”), prescribes a final moisture content between 1 and 2.5 percent for timer dryers, which are clothes dryers that can be preset to carry out at least one operation that is terminated by a timer, but may also be manually controlled without including any automatic termination function. For automatic termination control dryers, which can be preset to carry out at least one sequence of operations to be terminated by means of a system assessing, directly or indirectly, the moisture content of the load, the test cycle is deemed invalid if the clothes dryer terminates the cycle at a final moisture content greater than 2 percent. Section 3.3.2 of Appendix D2. In the final rule establishing Appendix D2, DOE determined a clothes dryer final moisture content of 2 percent using the DOE test load to be more representative in that, generally, consumers would find a final moisture content higher than this level unacceptable. 78 FR 49607, 49625 (Aug. 14, 2013). Timer dryers are allowed a range of final moisture contents during the test because DOE concluded that it would be unduly burdensome to require the tester to dry the test load to an exact final moisture content; however, the measured test cycle energy consumption for timer dryers is normalized to calculate the energy consumption required to dry the test load to 2-percent final moisture content.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested information to determine whether to revise the clothes dryer final moisture content in the clothes washer test procedure. 85 FR 31065, 31079.
AHAM opposed changing the final moisture content to align with DOE's clothes dryer test procedure in Appendix D2 because the current value of 4 percent is consistent with Appendix D1, which is still the mandatory test procedure and the one most often used. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 15)
Samsung supported changing the final moisture content value in the drying energy calculation in Appendix J2 from 4 percent to 2 percent to align with the DOE clothes dryer test procedure in Appendix D2, because automatic termination dryers represent a majority of the clothes dryer market, and Appendix D2 has been recognized by stakeholders as representative of how automatic termination dryers are used by consumers. (Samsung, No. 6 at p. 4) Samsung added that the Appendix D1 test procedure was intended as a stopgap measure to test “sensor dryers” using “non-sensing” settings, and that the Appendix D1 procedure does not represent how the “sensor dry” products are used by consumers as accurately as the Appendix D2 test procedure.
The Joint Commenters and CA IOUs supported changing the final moisture content value in the drying energy calculation from 4 percent to 2 percent in order to align with the clothes dryer test procedure in Appendix D2. (Joint Commenters, No. 10 at p. 4; CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 9)
Although clothes dryer manufacturers may optionally use Appendix D2 to demonstrate compliance with the current energy conservation standards, Appendix D1 provides the basis for the current clothes dryer energy conservation standard levels and, as noted by AHAM, is the test procedure used as the basis for certification for the majority of models on the market. In this NOPR, DOE is not proposing to change the assumed final moisture content of 4 percent in the drying energy calculation, which aligns with Appendix D1. However, DOE could reevaluate updating the assumed final moisture content in the clothes washer test procedure based on future updates to clothes dryer test procedures or standards, among other factors.
DOE requests comment on maintaining the assumed final moisture content of 4 percent in the drying energy equation, or whether it should update the assumed final moisture content to 2 percent to align with DOE's Appendix D2 clothes dryer test procedure.
The DEF represents the nominal energy required for a clothes dryer to remove moisture from clothes. The value of 0.5 kWh/lb was first proposed in the March 23, 1995 NOPR. 60 FR 15330, 15336. DOE received no comments on this proposal and introduced this DEF value into Appendix J1 in the August 1997 Final Rule. 62 FR 45484, 45489.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested information to determine whether to revise the DEF value as a result of the 2015 updates to the DOE clothes dryer test procedure and any market changes due to the most recent energy conservation standards for clothes dryers. 85 FR 31065, 31079.
AHAM proposed that DOE should lower DEF because of the existence of more efficient clothes dryers. (AHAM, No. 5 at pp. 15-16). AHAM did not propose an amended DEF value but commented that one would need to be determined based on the efficiency of products in the market.
The CA IOUs commented that the current DEF represents a reasonable and conservative estimate for residential clothes dryers based on their analysis of current consumer clothes dryer standards and market share data from the most recent energy conservation standards rulemaking for clothes dryers. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at pp. 9-11)
NEEA recommended that DOE retain the current DEF, or increase it slightly to what NEEA stated would be a more representative value, such as 0.66 kWh/lb, as used by the Northwest Regional Technical Forum. (NEEA, No. 12 at pp. 25-26) NEEA stated that its research showed that residential clothes dryers use more energy in the field than what is predicted by the dryer test procedure.
As noted by the CA IOUs, the current estimate of 0.5 kWh/lb is consistent with the estimates that DOE developed to reflect the current installed base of clothes dryers as part of the most recent energy conservation standards final rule for clothes dryers.
DOE is, therefore, not proposing to change the value of DEF at this time.
DOE requests comment on maintaining the current DEF value of 0.5 kWh/lb.
The DUF represents the percentage of clothes washer loads dried in a clothes dryer and is used in section 4.3 of Appendix J2 in the equation for calculating the per-cycle drying energy. In the August 1997 Final Rule, DOE originally established a DUF value of 0.84, which was based in part on data provided by P&G, as described in the April 1996 SNOPR. 61 FR 17589, 17592; 62 FR 45484, 45489. In the March 2012 Final Rule, DOE revised the DUF in Appendix J2 to 0.91 based on updated consumer usage data from 2005 RECS. 77 FR 13887, 13913-13914.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested information to determine whether to revise the DUF value. 85 FR 31065, 31078.
NEEA supported keeping the DUF at 0.91 or raising it to a slightly higher value. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 25) NEEA calculated a DUF of 0.935, using data from its own study.
DOE appreciates the submission of data by NEEA but notes that its survey results represent regional usage (the Pacific Northwest) during a 4 to 6-week period in 2012, as described in its report. As such, NEEA's suggested DUF value of 0.935 does not represent national average usage. DOE is not aware of data or information that would indicate that a value other than 0.91 should be considered and so is not proposing to change the DUF in this NOPR.
DOE requests comment on maintaining the current DUF value of 0.91.
Section 4.4 of Appendix J2 allocates 8,465 combined annual hours for inactive and off modes. If a clothes washer offers a switch, dial, or button that can be optionally selected by the user to achieve a lower-power inactive/off mode than the default inactive/off mode, section 4.4 of Appendix J2 assigns half of those hours (
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested input on whether the annual hours allocated to combined inactive and off modes, as well as the assumed 50-percent split between default inactive/off mode and any optional lower-power inactive/off mode, result in a test method that measures the energy efficiency of the clothes washer during a representative average use cycle or period of use and would not be unduly burdensome to conduct. 85 FR 31065, 31079.
No comments were received regarding the assumed 50-percent split between default inactive/off mode and any optional lower-power inactive/off mode. Other issues regarding low-power mode, specifically regarding CCWs, are further discussed in section III.G.7 of this document.
For the proposed new Appendix J, DOE is proposing to update the number of hours spent in low-power mode from a fixed 8,465 total hours to a formula based on the clothes washer's measured cycle time, as discussed in section III.D.5 of this document, and the updated number of annual cycles, as discussed in section III.G.1 of this document. This proposal would allow for a more representative allocation of hours between active mode and low-power mode. DOE is not proposing to make these changes to Appendix J2 because doing so would likely change the measured efficiency, and DOE proposes to make such changes only in the proposed new Appendix J, which would be used for the evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards, and for determining compliance with those standards.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to update the number of hours spent in low-power mode from a fixed 8,465 total hours to a formula based on measured cycle time and an assumed number of annual cycles.
TUFs are weighting factors that represent the percentage of wash cycles for which consumers choose a particular wash/rinse temperature selection. The TUFs in Table 4.1.1 of Appendix J2 are based on the TUFs established in Appendix J1-1997. As described in the April 1996 SNOPR, DOE established the TUFs in Appendix J1-1997 based on an analysis of consumer usage data provided by P&G, AHAM, General Electric Company, and Whirlpool, as well as linear regression analyses performed by P&G and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”). 61 FR 17589, 17593.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested comment on current consumer usage frequency of the wash/rinse temperature selections required for testing in Appendix J2. 85 FR 31065, 31077. DOE also requested input on whether requiring the testing of temperature selections with low TUFs (for example, the current Table 4.1.1 lists TUFs including 5, 9, and 14 percent) is consistent with the EPCA requirement that the test procedure be reasonably designed to measure the energy use or efficiency of the clothes washer during a representative average use cycle or period of use, and not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
NEEA and the CA IOUs commented that they support the existing TUF values. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 22; CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 7) The CA IOUs provided temperature selection data from the 2016 PG&E survey, which found that wash temperature and rinse temperature usage data aligned
The CA IOUs supported measuring energy and water use of all relevant cycle selections in Table 4.1.1 of Appendix J2, including those with lower TUFs, in order to fully capture energy use in a representative average use cycle or period of use, as required by EPCA. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 7)
As previously mentioned in section III.A of this document, AHAM commented that, in the worst-case scenario of a product with every feature (one that includes manual and user-adjustable automatic WFCS, a heater, four warm wash temperatures, warm rinse, and selectable spin speeds), over half of the test cycles have 1 percent or less overall contribution to the total energy efficiency. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 4) AHAM emphasized that temperature use factors play a role in the overall burden of the test procedure.
DOE appreciates the CA IOUs' data regarding consumer usage of different wash temperatures. As noted previously, the results from the 2016 PG&E survey are instructive as a point of comparison, but limited in geographic and seasonal representation, and represent only a small number of wash cycles per participating household. DOE is not aware of any nationally representative consumer usage data that demonstrate a change in temperature setting usage; therefore, DOE is not proposing any changes to the TUF values at this time.
In response to AHAM's comment regarding the test burden caused by TUFs that represent a relatively smaller percentage of consumer usage, DOE is proposing to implement several other changes to the proposed new Appendix J that would reduce test burden while maintaining representativeness. In particular, DOE is proposing to reduce the number of Warm Wash tested settings, as discussed in section III.D.3 of this document; to reduce the number of tested load sizes, as further discussed in section III.D.1.b of this document; and to measure RMC on the energy test cycle rather than requiring separate additional cycles for measuring RMC, as further discussed in section III.D.4 of this document. Nonetheless, testing the full range of wash temperatures available to consumers on the Normal cycle is necessary to fully capture the energy and water use of a representative use cycle/period of use of a clothes washer.
DOE requests comment on maintaining the current TUF values.
As described previously, LUFs are weighting factors that represent the percentage of wash cycles that consumers run with a given load size. Table 4.1.3 of Appendix J2 provides two sets of LUFs based on whether the clothes washer has a manual WFCS or automatic WFCS.
For a clothes washer with a manual WFCS, the two LUFs represent the percentage of wash cycles for which consumers choose the maximum water fill level and minimum water fill level in conjunction with the maximum and minimum load sizes, respectively. For a clothes washer with an automatic WFCS, the three LUFs represent the percentage of cycles for which the consumer washes a minimum-size, average-size, and maximum-size load (for which the clothes washer determines the water fill level). As discussed in section III.D.1.b of this document, the values of these LUFs are intended to approximate a normal distribution that is slightly skewed towards the minimum load size.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested data on current consumer usage as related to the LUFs and whether any updates to the LUFs in Table 4.1.3 of Appendix J2 are warranted to reflect current consumer usage patterns. 85 FR 31065, 31077. DOE specifically requested comment on whether the use of certain LUFs in the test procedure is consistent with the EPCA requirement that the test procedure be reasonably designed to measure energy and water use during a representative average use cycle or period of use without being unduly burdensome to conduct, because certain load sizes may be rarely used by consumers.
The CA IOUs provided load size data from the 2016 PG&E survey that showed the following load size usage: Very small (3 percent), small (11 percent), medium (28 percent), large (45 percent), and very large (14 percent).
NEEA presented its test data showing that 36 percent of consumer loads are small (less than 6 lb), 52 percent are medium (6 lb to 12 lb), and 11 percent are large (12 lb or more). (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 22) NEEA recommended, based on its testing data, that DOE update the LUFs to place higher weightings on small- and average-sized loads, and less weighting on maximum-sized loads.
DOE notes that, as discussed previously in this document, the data presented from both NEEA and the CA IOUs are regional in scope and do not necessarily represent national U.S.-average usage. In addition, DOE notes that the two data sets offer opposing conclusions with regard to load size usage factors.
As previously discussed in section III.D.1.b of this document, DOE is proposing to replace the minimum, maximum, and average load sizes with the small and large load sizes in the proposed new Appendix J. DOE has defined the small and large load sizes such that the small and large load sizes each have an equal (50-50) weighting. As such, DOE is proposing to update the LUFs in the proposed new Appendix J to 0.5 for both the small and the large load size. Because this proposal simplifies the LUF definitions by using the same LUFs regardless of clothes washer WFCS, a separate LUF table is no longer needed. DOE is therefore proposing to remove the LUF Table 4.1.3 and define the LUFs as 0.5 in the equations where the LUFs are first used in section 4.1.3 of the proposed new Appendix J.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to update the LUFs for the small and large load sizes to be equal to 0.5, consistent with the proposed load size definitions in the proposed new Appendix J.
Section 4.1.2 of Appendix J2 provides equations for calculating total per-cycle hot water energy consumption for all water fill levels tested. The hot water energy consumption is calculated by multiplying the measured volume of hot water by a constant fixed temperature rise of 75 °F and by the specific heat of water, defined as 0.00240 kilowatt-hours per gallon per degree Fahrenheit (“kWh/gal-°F”). No efficiency or loss factor is included in this calculation, which implies an electric water heater efficiency of 100 percent. Similarly, section 4.1.4 of Appendix J2 provides an equation for calculating total per-cycle
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested input on whether any updates were warranted to the water heater efficiency values implied in section 4.1.2 and provided in section 4.1.4 of Appendix J2. 85 FR 31065, 31079.
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE update the gas and oil efficiency factor in section 4.1.4 of Appendix J2, and include a new efficiency factor for electric water heaters in the rest of section 4.1 of Appendix J2, to account for heat losses in the hot water distribution system. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 15)
The CA IOUs did not provide specific recommendations or data that could be used to justify updating the gas and oil efficiency factor, or for a new efficiency factor to account for any heat losses in the hot water distribution system. DOE is unaware of any nationally representative data regarding heat losses in residential water distribution systems.
In the absence of such data, DOE is not proposing any changes to the assumed water heater efficiency factors in the clothes washer test procedure.
DOE requests comment on maintaining the current water heater efficiency assumptions.
As mentioned in section I of this document, CCWs are included in the list of “covered equipment” for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(H)) EPCA requires the test procedures for CCWs to be the same as those established for RCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(8))
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE include CCW use patterns when determining the number of average use cycles, annual loads of laundry, and LUF values. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at pp. 8-9, 12-14) The CA IOUs stated that according to Table HC3.4 of the 2015 RECS data, 17.6 percent of respondents rely on CCWs to wash their clothing. The CA IOUs commented that, due to the exclusion of CCW usage data, DOE's analysis undercounts the average annual use cycles.
The CA IOUs also suggested that DOE develop a DEF for CCWs that is different than the DEF for RCWs. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 11) The CA IOUs recommended that DOE calculate this DEF by investigating any changes to market share distribution of consumer clothes dryers since the 2011 clothes dryer standards rulemaking, and by incorporating energy use and market share implications for CCWs.
NEEA, the CA IOUs, and the Joint Commenters recommended that DOE require standby/low power mode testing for CCWs, and that low-power mode energy consumption should be incorporated into the energy efficiency metric for CCWs. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 18; Joint Commenters, No. 10 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 13) NEEA reported data from its test program that showed CCWs have an average standby power of 6.4 watts compared to 0.5 watts for RCWs. NEEA stated that although CCWs have more active wash cycles than RCWs, CCWs still spend a significant amount of time in low power mode. According to NEEA, low-power mode energy use in CCWs can be reduced cost-effectively in a variety of ways. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 18) The CA IOUs further commented that transitioning CCWs' efficiency metric to IMEF could align with the California Energy Commission's Low Power Modes Roadmap.
NEEA's standby power data for CCWs falls within with the range of test results described by DOE in the December 2014 Final Rule. As part of its market assessment and engineering analysis for the December 2014 Final Rule, DOE performed an in-depth evaluation of the standby and off mode power characteristics of a representative sample of CCWs spanning a wide range of display types, payment systems, and communication features. 79 FR 74492, 74501. DOE observed that manufacturers offer a variety of display and payment functionalities that can be selected independently from the basic model. The standby power associated with these different display and payment functionalities varies from 0.88 to 11.77 watts.
In the December 2014 Final Rule, DOE determined not to include low-power mode energy in the CCW energy efficiency metric.
Moreover, as noted, EPCA requires the test procedures for CCWs to be the same as those established for RCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(8)) Creating load, temperature, or dryer usage factors specific to CCWs within the RCW test procedure would effectively create a separate test procedure for CCWs because the LUF, TUF, DUF, and DEF values are integral to the calculations of per-cycle energy and water use, on which the regulated metrics for RCWs and CCWs are based.
Regarding annual use cycles, DOE notes that in calculating national energy
DOE is not proposing any changes to CCW usage factors or to the CCW energy efficiency metric in this NOPR.
In this section of the NOPR, DOE is proposing amendments to its test procedures for clothes washers at Appendix J2 that DOE has tentatively determined would not alter the measured efficiency of clothes washers. The proposed amendments either codify guidance on the existing regulations, provide more specificity in the test procedure provisions, provide improved organization of each section, or correct formatting errors in DOE's clothes washer test procedures.
DOE has observed an increasing trend of water inlet hoses not being included with the purchase of a new clothes washer. DOE has received questions from test laboratories asking how to install a clothes washer that does not include water inlet hoses among the installation hardware.
Multiple styles of water inlet hoses (different materials, lengths, durability, etc.) are commercially available from appliance and hardware retailers. While most such products intended for consumer use would be appropriate for installing a clothes washer, DOE seeks to provide additional direction to avoid the use of a hose designed for niche purposes (
DOE requests comment on its proposal to specify the use of hoses not to exceed 72 inches in length in the proposed new Appendix J. DOE also requests comment on the length of inlet hose typically used for testing.
DOE could also consider this change for Appendix J2, but is not proposing it in this NOPR because of the potential for this change to impact measured energy efficiency. DOE proposes to make such changes only in the proposed new Appendix J, which would be used for the evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards, and for determining compliance with those standards.
Table 2.8 within section 2.8 of Appendix J2 requires that, for clothes washers with manual WFCS, each temperature selection that is part of the energy test cycle be tested using both the minimum and maximum water fill levels, using the minimum and maximum load sizes, respectively. Section 3.2.6 of Appendix J2 describes these water fill levels as the minimum and maximum water levels available for the wash cycle under test. DOE has observed one RCW model with electronic controls in which the maximum water fill level on the unit cannot be selected with all of the temperature selections required for testing;
The RCW model with this characteristic is no longer available on the market, and DOE is not aware of any other clothes washer models currently on the market with this characteristic. As described further in this discussion, DOE is not proposing any amendments in this NOPR to address the potential for the maximum load size required by the test procedure to conflict with the maximum load size intended or able to be washed on such a cycle. Nevertheless, DOE considered comments received from interested parties on this issue and seeks additional comment on several approaches that DOE has considered that could address this issue in the test procedure.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested comment from interested parties on how the test procedure should accommodate clothes washers in which the maximum available water fill level may differ depending on the temperature selection. 85 FR 31065, 31073.
Samsung stated that it believes that because some clothes washers do not offer all water level selections for all temperature options, the current test procedure is unrepresentative of real-world use. According to Samsung, if the energy test cycle cannot be run at all temperature and water fill options, consumers may switch to a non-tested, and potentially more energy-intensive, mode in order to access the water level and temperature they intend to use. Samsung suggested that DOE consider amending the test procedure to require testing of other cycles, in addition to the Normal cycle, for which all water level selections are available. (Samsung, No. 6 at pp. 2-3)
AHAM commented that it is not necessary to amend the test procedure to include directions for testing clothes washers with water fill levels that are only available at certain temperature settings. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 12) AHAM commented that while consumers have options available for other needs, the Normal cycle remains the most representative of customer use, and there have not been any data to prove otherwise. AHAM emphasized that the purpose of testing is to test the most used, or “representative,” cycle and that the Normal cycle has been and remains that cycle.
The suggestion by Samsung to require testing of other cycles for which all water level selections are available would mirror the approached used in the flowcharts in section 2.12 of Appendix J2 for determining the wash/rinse temperatures that comprise energy test cycle. For each wash/rinse temperature selection other than Cold/Cold, the flowcharts require deviating
DOE could also consider other approaches that would maintain the use of the Normal cycle in such cases; for example, specifying the use of a modified load size if the maximum load size defined by the test procedure conflicts with the maximum load size intended or able to be washed on such a cycle.
DOE notes an important distinction between the requirements of EPCA and AHAM's comment regarding the purpose of the test procedure. As discussed, EPCA requires that test procedures produce test results that measure energy efficiency or energy use during a representative average use cycle or period of use (among other considerations). (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3); 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) AHAM's comment suggests that testing other cycles for models with certain characteristics is not necessary because, according to AHAM, the Normal cycle remains the most representative of customer use. However, EPCA does not require that the results of the test procedure be representative of the average use of consumers across all models of clothes washers; rather, EPCA requires that the results of the test procedure be representative of the energy (and water) use of the particular model being tested. Although the Normal cycle may be the most commonly used cycle across all clothes washers on the market, the “representative average use cycle or period of use” might differ for a model in which the maximum water fill level on the unit cannot be selected with all of the temperature selections required for testing.
As stated, DOE is not proposing any changes at this time to address the potential for the maximum load size required by the test procedure to conflict with the maximum load size intended or able to be washed using the cycle required for testing. To the extent that models with this characteristic were to be reintroduced the market, more research would be needed to address any potential concerns regarding representative use.
Finally, DOE notes that the amended load sizes proposed for new Appendix J (in which the “large” load size is smaller than the “maximum” load size currently defined by Appendix J2) would obviate the need for any changes to the test procedure for the one RCW model of concern.
DOE requests comment on whether it should amend the test procedure to accommodate potential future clothes washer models for which the maximum load size required by the test procedure conflicts with the maximum load size intended or able to be washed with the cycle required for testing. If so, DOE seeks additional comment on the approaches it has considered, or on any other approaches that could be considered, that would address this issue in the test procedure.
Section 1.5 of Appendix J2 defines “automatic water fill control system” as a clothes washer WFCS that does not allow or require the user to determine or select the water fill level, and includes adaptive WFCS and fixed WFCS. Section 1.4 of Appendix J2 defines “adaptive water fill control system” as a clothes washer automatic WFCS that is capable of automatically adjusting the water fill level based on the size or weight of the clothes load placed in the clothes container. Section 1.14 of Appendix J2 defines “fixed water fill control system” as a clothes washer automatic WFCS that automatically terminates the fill when the water reaches an appropriate level in the clothes container. Section 3.2.6.2.2 of Appendix J2 provides testing instructions for a “user-adjustable” automatic WFCS, which is described in that section as an automatic water fill control that affects the relative wash water levels.
In response to the May 2020 RFI, NEEA and the Joint Commenters recommended that DOE develop new definitions for WFCS to address the current variety and sophistication of clothes washer fill options and the range of possible consumer use. NEEA stated that the market has shifted away from the two main types of WFCS currently defined in Appendix J2, and that NEEA has encountered many types of combined WFCS. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 21; Joint Commenters, No. 10 at pp. 3-4)
To provide additional specificity to both Appendix J2 and the proposed new Appendix J, DOE is proposing revisions to some of the WFCS definitions, as follows.
DOE proposes to amend the definition of “fixed water fill control system” to mean “a clothes washer automatic water fill control system that automatically terminates the fill when the water reaches a pre-defined level that is not based on the size or weight of the clothes load placed in the clothes container, without allowing or requiring the user to determine or select the water fill level.” This proposed amendment to the definition would specify that the water fill level for this type of WFCS is pre-defined (
To provide greater specificity regarding user-adjustable automatic WFCS, DOE is proposing to add a definition of a “user-adjustable automatic water fill control system” to section 1 of both Appendix J2 and the proposed new Appendix J. DOE is proposing to define a user-adjustable automatic WFCS as “an automatic clothes washer fill control system that allows the user to adjust the amount of water that the machine provides, which is based on the size or weight of the clothes load placed in the clothes container.” Given DOE's proposal to create a definition of user-adjustable automatic WFCS, DOE proposes to simplify the wording of section 3.2.6.2.2 of Appendix J2 from “[c]onduct four tests on clothes washers with user adjustable automatic water fill controls that affect the relative wash water levels” to “[c]onduct four tests on clothes washers with user-adjustable automatic water fill controls.” For the proposed new Appendix J, section 3.2.3.2.2 would state “For the large test load size, set the water fill selector to the setting that uses the most water. For the small test load size, set the water fill selector to the setting that uses the least water.”
DOE requests comment on its proposed changes to the definition of “fixed water fill control system” and on its proposal to add a definition for “user-adjustable automatic water fill control system.”
As discussed, section 3.2.6.2.2 of Appendix J2 specifies how to test clothes washers with user-adjustable automatic WFCS. Four tests are required:
□ A test using the maximum test load size and with the WFCS set in the setting that will give the most energy intensive result;
□ a test using the minimum test load size and with the WFCS set in the setting that will give the least energy intensive result;
□ a test using the average test load size and with the WFCS set in the setting that will give the most energy intensive result; and
□ a test using the average test load size and with the WFCS set in the setting that will give the least energy intensive result.
DOE has received questions from a test laboratory regarding how to determine which setting is the most “energy intensive” for the purposes of this provision. Depending on the quantity and temperature of water under consideration—as well as whether the term “energy intensive” is intended to include machine electrical energy, hot water heating energy, and/or drying energy—the setting that uses the most (or least) amount of water may not correspond to the most (or least) amount of energy. While the amount of water used in a wash cycle can be readily determined, measuring and calculating the amount of energy consumption requires more time and effort, particularly if energy consumption includes a combination of machine electrical energy, hot water heating energy, and/or drying energy.
The provisions requiring testing the most and least energy intensive settings were initially proposed in response to an interim waiver granted to GEA for a clothes washer with user-adjustable adaptive WFCS. 61 FR 57794, 57795 (Nov. 8, 1996; “November 1996 NOPR”), referencing interim waiver case no. CW-004, 61 FR 18125 (Apr. 24, 1996; “April 1996 Interim Waiver”). These testing provisions were adopted in the August 1997 Final Rule 62 FR 45484, 45487.
At the time of the November 1996 NOPR, the applicable energy efficiency metric (
As the test procedures and energy conservation standards have been amended, the measured energy use accounts for more than just that which correlates to the water fill level. However, use of the energy intensity terminology remained in the user-adjustable automatic WFCS provisions.
Given the evolution of clothes washer control systems and operation since the August 1997 Final Rule, more precise language is needed to avoid an unnecessary determination of whether the highest (or lowest) water fill amount on a user-adjustable automatic WFCS corresponds to the most (or least) energy intensive setting. Therefore, DOE is proposing to change the wording of both section 3.2.6.2.2 of Appendix J2 and section 3.2.3.2.2 of the proposed new Appendix J, to update the phrase “the setting that will give the most energy intensive result” to “the setting that uses the most water” to reflect the original intent of this provision. Similarly, DOE is proposing to update the phrase “the setting that will give the least energy intensive result” to “the setting that uses the least water.”
DOE requests comment on its proposal to update the wording of section 3.2.6.2.2 of Appendix J2 and section 3.2.3.2.2 of the proposed new Appendix J from “the setting that will give the most energy intensive result” to “the setting that uses the most water;” and from “the setting that will give the least energy intensive result” to “the setting that uses the least water.”
In the August 2015 Final Rule, DOE implemented a series of flowcharts to determine the wash/rinse temperature selections required for testing in section 2.12 of Appendix J2. 80 FR 46730, 46744.
Figure 2.12.5 of Appendix J2, which is the flow chart used for the determination of the Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse temperature selection, asks if the wash/rinse temperature selection has a wash temperature greater than 135 °F. DOE is aware that for some clothes washer on the market, the answer to that question could differ depending on what load size is used,
DOE is proposing to specify using the maximum load size to evaluate the flow chart for clothes washers tested to Appendix J2, and the large load size for the proposed new Appendix J.
DOE notes that Figure 2.12.1 of Appendix J2, which is the flow chart used for the determination of the Cold Wash/Cold Rinse temperature selection, provides direction for cases where multiple wash temperature selections in the Normal cycle do not use any hot water for any of the water fill levels or test load sizes required for testing. For Appendix J2, DOE is proposing that the new clarifying language would not apply to the Cold Wash/Cold Rinse temperature settings in order to avoid the potential need for retesting under Appendix J2 if a clothes washer was tested in a manner inconsistent with this proposed change. For the proposed new Appendix J, DOE is proposing to delete from the Cold Wash/Cold Rinse flowchart (Figure 2.12.1) the clause applying it to all tested load sizes, and
DOE requests comment on its proposal to require that the energy test cycle flow charts be evaluated using the large load size for all wash/rinse temperature settings in the proposed new Appendix J. DOE also requests comment on its proposal to require that the energy test cycle flow charts be evaluated using the maximum load size, except for the Cold/Cold flow chart, in Appendix J2.
As described in section III.C.2 of this document, DOE is aware of single-inlet clothes washers on the market that intake only cold water and internally generate all hot water required for a cycle by means of an internal heating element. As observed on the market, these clothes washers offer Cold, Warm, Hot, and/or Extra Hot temperature selections. As part of determining the Cold Wash/Cold Rinse temperature selection, the instruction box in the flowchart in Figure 2.12.1 of Appendix J2 refers to “. . . multiple wash temperature selections in the Normal cycle [that] do not use any hot water for any of the water fill levels or test load sizes required for testing . . .” In the May 2020 RFI, DOE considered rephrasing the text in Figure 2.12.1 of Appendix J2 to say “. . . use
UL supported changing the wording of Figure 2.12.1 of Appendix J2 to specifically address clothes washers that internally generate heated water. (UL, No. 9 at p. 3)
AHAM stated that it does not oppose rephrasing Figure 2.12.1 of Appendix J2 to specifically address clothes washers that internally generate all hot water used for a cycle by means of internal heating elements, and believes it would be a useful clarification. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 13)
As suggested in the May 2020 RFI, DOE proposes rephrasing the text in Figure 2.12.1 of both Appendix J2 and the proposed new Appendix J to say “. . . use
DOE requests comments on its proposal to update the flowcharts for Cold Wash/Cold Rinse and Warm Wash/Warm Rinse in both Appendix J2 and the proposed new Appendix J to explicitly address clothes washers that internally generate hot water.
Section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2 defines how to select the wash time setting on a clothes washer. If no one wash time is prescribed for the wash cycle under test, the wash time setting is the higher of either the minimum or 70 percent of the maximum wash time available, regardless of the labeling of suggested dial locations. Hereafter in this document, DOE refers to this provision as the “70-percent test.”
In the March 2012 Final Rule, DOE added instructions to the wash time section of Appendix J1 and Appendix J2 that specified the direction of rotation of electromechanical dials, and that the 70-percent test applies regardless of the labeling of suggested dial locations. 77 FR 13887, 13927. In the August 2015 Final Rule, DOE specified that, if 70-percent of the maximum wash time is not available on a dial with a discrete number of wash time settings, the next-highest setting greater than 70-percent must be chosen. 80 FR 46729, 46745.
DOE has observed on the market clothes washers that have an electronic cycle selection dial designed to visually simulate a conventional electromechanical dial.
AHAM suggested that section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2 could be clarified by specifying that the instructions pertaining to electromechanical dials (regarding resetting the dial and turning it to reach the appropriate setting) also pertain to timers that control wash time. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 14)
DOE agrees with AHAM's suggestion and is proposing to amend section 3.2.5.3 of both Appendix J2 and the proposed new Appendix J by adding the words “or timer” after the words “electromechanical dial” in order to clarify the application of the instructions to electronic cycle selection dials.
DOE is further proposing to revise the wording of section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2 and section 3.2.2 of the proposed new Appendix J
DOE requests comment on its proposal to clarify the wording of the wash time setting specifications in section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2 and section 3.2.2 of the proposed new Appendix J.
Section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2 states that, for clothes washers with electromechanical dials controlling wash time, the dial must be turned in the direction of increasing wash time to reach the appropriate wash time setting. DOE is aware that not all electromechanical dials currently on the market can be turned in the direction of increasing wash time. 85 FR 31065, 31075. On such models, the dial can only be turned in the direction of decreasing wash time. DOE believes that the direction of rotation need only be prescribed on a clothes washer with an electromechanical dial that can rotate in both directions.
UL commented that it supports specifying that the requirement to rotate the dial in the direction of increasing wash time applies only to dials that can rotate in both directions, because some dials only rotate in one direction. (UL, No. 9 at p. 3)
AHAM supported amending section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2 to specify that the requirement to rotate the dial in the direction of increasing wash time applies only to dials that can rotate in both directions. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 14)
DOE notes general support for its suggestion to specify that the requirement to rotate the dial in the direction of increasing wash time applies only to dials that can rotate in both directions. In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to add a clause in section 3.2.5.2 of Appendix J2 and section 3.2.2.2 of the proposed new Appendix J that would specify that the requirement to rotate the dial in the direction of increasing wash time would only apply to dials that can rotate in both directions.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to add a clause in section 3.2.5.2 of Appendix J2 and section 3.2.2.2 of the proposed new Appendix J stating that the requirement to rotate the dial in the direction of increasing wash time would only apply to dials that can rotate in both directions.
The 70-percent test described above does not explicitly define how to calculate “wash time.” In the May 2020 RFI, DOE was considering whether to state that the phrase “wash time” in section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2 refers to the period of agitation or tumble. 85 FR 31065, 31975. This clarification would be consistent with the historical context of this section of the test procedure. In Appendix J-1997, section 2.10
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested feedback on whether DOE should consider reincorporating language into section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2 to state that the term “wash time” refers to the wash portion of the cycle, including agitation or tumble time. 85 FR 31065, 31076.
UL suggested that the phrase “wash time” include agitation or tumble time, which can be periodic throughout the wash cycle. (UL, No. 9 at p. 3) UL specified in particular that wash time could be defined as starting when the clothes washer starts filling with water, agitating or tumbling, or a combination of both; and as ending when the clothes washer drains the water from the wash portion of the cycle.
AHAM agreed with DOE's proposal to state that “wash time” refers to the period of agitation or tumble. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 14)
In order to provide further clarity in evaluating the wash time setting requirements of section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2 and section 3.2.2 of the proposed new Appendix J, DOE is proposing to define the term “wash time” in section 1 of both Appendix J2 and the proposed new Appendix J as “the wash portion of the cycle, which begins when the cycle is initiated and includes the agitation or tumble time, which may be periodic or continuous during the wash portion of the cycle.”
DOE requests comment on its proposal to add a definition of “wash time” to section 1 of both Appendix J2 and the proposed new Appendix J.
DOE provides in 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(ii) the method for calculating the estimated annual operating cost for automatic and semi-automatic clothes washers, when using Appendix J2. In the March 2012 Final Rule, DOE assigned the symbol “E
In addition, to differentiate between values determined using Appendix J2 from values determined using the proposed new Appendix J throughout 10 CFR 430.23(j), DOE is proposing to add a number “2” to each of the symbols representing values derived from Appendix J2 (
DOE further notes that the formula for calculating the estimated annual operating cost for automatic and semi-automatic clothes washers when gas-heated or oil-heated water is used, provided in 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(ii)(B), is missing a pair of parentheses. The “N
Since DOE is proposing to remove Appendix J1, DOE is also proposing to update 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(i), which currently specifies the formulas for calculating the estimated annual operating cost for automatic and semi-automatic clothes washers when using Appendix J1, with the formulas for calculating the estimated annual operating cost for automatic and semi-automatic clothes washers when using the proposed new Appendix J. These proposed formulas are analogous to the formulas in 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(ii). As discussed further in section III.H.7 of this document, the proposed new Appendix J does not include a separate calculation for “E
DOE requests comment on its proposed updates to the annual operating cost calculations in 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1).
As part of the creation of the proposed new Appendix J, DOE is proposing several changes to the structure of the test procedure as compared to the current Appendix J2 to improve readability, as follows.
DOE is proposing to better organize section 2.8 of the proposed new Appendix J, as compared to the parallel section in Appendix J2. Currently, section 2.8 of Appendix J2 cross-references the load size table to determine the three load sizes, specifies the allowable composition of energy test cloths and energy stuffer cloths in each load,
Section 2.9 of Appendix J2 is named “Use of test loads” and provides specifications for drying each load to bone-dry prior to use and instructions for loading the test cloth into the clothes washer. DOE is proposing to title section 2.9 of the proposed new Appendix J “Preparation and loading of test loads” and to include a statement that the procedures described in section 2.9 to prepare and load each test load are applicable when performing the testing procedures in section 3 of the appendix.
Section 3.2 of Appendix J2 is titled “Procedure for measuring water and energy consumption values on all automatic and semi-automatic washers” and specifies conducting testing under the energy test cycle (3.2.1); provides a table that cross-references to each relevant test section in section 3 of the appendix (3.2.2); and provides specifications for: Configuring the hot and cold water faucets (3.2.3); selecting the wash/rinse temperature selection (3.2.4); selecting the wash time setting (3.2.5); selecting water fill levels for each type of WFCS (3.2.6); using manufacturer default settings (3.2.7); testing active washing mode only (3.2.8); and discarding anomalous data (3.2.9). DOE is proposing to title section 3.2 of the proposed new Appendix J as simply “Cycle settings” and to organize the section as follows: The contents in section 3.2.1 of Appendix J2 would be instead included within the instructions of a new section 3.3 (as described below); the contents of section 3.2 of Appendix J2, including the table, would not be included as the contents would be redundant with the proposed sections 3.3 and 3.4; the contents of section 3.2.3 of Appendix J2 would not be included, as the hot and cold water faucet instructions would no longer be necessary given the proposed changes described in section III.C.2 of this document regarding the installation of single-inlet clothes washers; and sections 3.2.4 through 3.2.9 of Appendix J2 would be included as sections 3.2.1 through 3.2.6, respectively, and include any relevant edits as discussed throughout this document.
Currently, sections 3.3 through 3.7 of Appendix J2 contain detailed instructions for testing each wash/rinse temperature available in the energy test cycle: Extra Hot/Cold (3.3); Hot/Cold (3.4); Warm/Cold (3.5); Warm/Warm (3.6); and Cold/Cold (3.7). The content and structure of each of these sections is nearly identical, except for two caveats: (1) Describing the use of temperature indicator labels in section 3.3 to verify the presence of an Extra Hot wash; and (2) describing the 25/50/75 test, described in section III.D.3 of this document, for clothes washers that offer four or more Warm/Cold or Warm/Warm selections. To significantly simplify this part of test procedure, and because the use of temperature indicator labels would be moved to section 2.5.4 of the proposed new Appendix J and the 25/50/75 test would no longer be applicable under the proposals outlined in section III.D.3 of this document, DOE is proposing to combine the common language from sections 3.3 through 3.7 in Appendix J2 into a single section 3.3 in the proposed new Appendix J for automatic clothes washers and an analogous section 3.4 for semi-automatic clothes washers. Section 3.3 of the proposed new Appendix J would also provide a table designating the symbol definitions of each required measured value for each wash/rinse temperature selection and load size. As discussed in section III.D.8.c of this document, section 3.4 of the proposed new Appendix J would provide the same information for semi-automatic clothes washes.
Section 3.8 of Appendix J2 specifies the procedure for measuring and calculating RMC. As described in section III.D.4 of this document, DOE is proposing in the proposed new Appendix J to require measuring the RMC of each tested cycle within the energy test cycle, and to calculate final RMC using TUFs and LUFs, consistent with how hot water energy, electrical energy, and water usage are calculated. Under this proposed change, the RMC values would be calculated in section 4 (“Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements”) of the proposed new Appendix J. Given these proposed changes, the current specifications in section 3.8 of Appendix J2 would not apply to the proposed new Appendix J. DOE is therefore proposing not to include the RMC provisions from section 3 in Appendix J2 in the proposed new Appendix J.
DOE is proposing to include sections 3.9 and 3.10 of Appendix J2 in the proposed new Appendix J as sections 3.5 and 3.6, respectively, and to provide the appropriate cross-references.
Section 3.10 of Appendix J2 (section 3.6 in the proposed new Appendix J) is titled “Energy consumption for the purpose of determining the cycle selection(s) to be included in the energy test cycle” and specifies the following: Establishing the test conditions and setting the cycle selections (3.10.1); using the maximum test load size (3.10.2); using the maximum water fill level available (3.10.3); including only the active washing mode (3.10.4); and calculating “total energy consumption” using a defined equation (3.10.5). DOE is proposing to simplify section 3.6 in the proposed new Appendix J by condensing the specifications of sections 3.10.1 through 3.10.4 in Appendix J2 into a single statement in section 3.6.1 of the proposed new Appendix J to use the cycle settings as described in section 3.2 of the proposed new Appendix J. Current section 3.10.5 of Appendix J2 would be included in the proposed new Appendix J as section 3.6.2.
Sections 3 and 4 of Appendix J2 assign various different subscripts to each symbol definition to denote load size and wash/rinse temperature selection, among other attributes. Currently, Appendix J2 uses the subscript “x” to denote the maximum load size and the subscript “m” to denote the Extra Hot/Cold temperature selection. In the proposed new Appendix J, DOE proposes to use new subscripts to represent the large load size (“L”) and the small load size (“S”). Because the maximum load size would no longer apply in the proposed new Appendix J, DOE is proposing to update the subscript for Extra-Hot/Cold temperature selection from “m” to “x” (since “x” is more intuitive in representing “Extra”). These changes would apply to sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.6 and 4 in the proposed new Appendix J. Additionally, throughout section 4 of Appendix J2, the symbol “F” is used to refer to load usage factors. For greater clarity in the proposed new Appendix J, DOE is proposing to use the symbol “LUF” throughout section 4 to represent the load usage factors, rather than the symbol “F.”
Section 4.1.7 of Appendix J2 specifies calculating “Total per-cycle energy consumption when electrically heated water is used,” assigned as symbol “E
Section 4.2 of Appendix J2 provides the calculation of water consumption and is structured with multiple subsections. Sections 4.2.1 through 4.2.5 of Appendix J2 provide for the calculation of total water consumption for each load size within each wash/rinse temperature selection by summing the measured values of hot water and cold water: Extra Hot/Cold (4.2.1); Hot/Cold (4.2.2); Warm/Cold (4.2.3); Warm/Warm (4.2.4); and Cold/Cold (4.2.5). In sections 4.2.6 through 4.2.10 of Appendix J2, the total weighted water consumption for each wash/rinse temperature selection is calculated by combining the water consumption values for each load size as calculated in 4.2.1 through 4.2.5 using the LUFs. In section 4.2.11 of Appendix J2, the total weighted water consumption for all wash cycles is calculated by combining the values calculated in sections 4.2.6 through 4.2.10 (representing each wash/rinse temperature) using the TUFs. DOE notes that this order of calculations (which combines the measured values from the individual cycles first using LUFs, then combines the resulting values using TUFs) is the reverse order used for the machine electrical and hot water heating energy calculations in section 4.1 of Appendix J2 (which combines the measured values from the individual cycles first using TUFs, then combines the resulting values using LUFs). In the proposed new Appendix J, DOE is proposing to organize section 4.2 to simplify the calculations and to provide consistency between the water consumption calculations and the energy calculations (
DOE requests comment on its proposed structure of the proposed new Appendix J to simplify and improve readability as compared to Appendix J2.
DOE proposes to remove Appendix J1 to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 along with all references to Appendix J1 in 10 CFR parts 429, 430, and 431. Appendix J1 applied only to RCWs manufactured before March 7, 2015 and CCWs manufactured before January 1, 2018 and is therefore not applicable to models manufactured on or after those dates. Use of Appendix J2 to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 is currently required for any representations of energy or water consumption of both RCWs and CCWs, including demonstrating compliance with the currently applicable energy conservation standards. As discussed, DOE proposes to maintain the current naming of Appendix J2, and to establish a new test procedure at Appendix J, which would be used for the evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards, and for determining compliance with those standards.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to remove Appendix J1 to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 along with all references to Appendix J1 in 10 CFR parts 429, 430, and 431.
Given DOE's proposal to update the energy and water metrics in the proposed new Appendix J, as described in section III.E of this document, DOE proposes to include references to the proposed new metrics EER, AEER, and WER in place of references to the WF, IWF, MEF, and IMEF metrics, as appropriate, in the proposed new Appendix J. Given that the WF metric is no longer the basis for energy conservation standards for either RCWs or CCWs, DOE proposes to remove the calculation of WF in section 4.2.12 of Appendix J2, as well as any references to WF in 10 CFR parts 429, 430, and 431. Similarly, given that MEF is no longer the basis for energy conservation standards for RCWs, DOE proposes to remove references to MEF from 10 CFR 429.20 and 10 CFR 430.23.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to remove obsolete metric definitions.
DOE proposes to delete the following definitions from section 1 of Appendix J2 because they are either no longer used within the appendix currently, or would no longer be used given DOE's proposed amendments in this NOPR: “adaptive control system,” “compact,” “manual control system,” “standard,” and “thermostatically controlled water valves.”
Section 1.13 of Appendix J2 defines the energy test cycle as follows: Energy test cycle means the complete set of wash/rinse temperature selections required for testing, as determined according to section 2.12 [of Appendix J2]. Within the energy test cycle, the following definitions apply:
(a) Cold Wash/Cold Rinse is the wash/rinse temperature selection determined by evaluating the flowchart in Figure 2.12.1 of this appendix.
(b) Hot Wash/Cold Rinse is the wash/rinse temperature selection determined by evaluating the flowchart in Figure 2.12.2 of this appendix.
(c) Warm Wash/Cold Rinse is the wash/rinse temperature selection determined by evaluating the flowchart in Figure 2.12.3 of this appendix.
(d) Warm Wash/Warm Rinse is the wash/rinse temperature selection determined by evaluating the flowchart in Figure 2.12.4 of this appendix.
(e) Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse is the wash/rinse temperature selection determined by evaluating the flowchart in Figure 2.12.5 of this appendix.
Parts (a) through (e) of this definition are redundant with the flowchart definitions provided in section 2.12 of Appendix J2. Therefore, DOE proposes to simplify the definition of energy test cycle in both Appendix J2 and the proposed new Appendix J by keeping only the first sentence of the current definition: Energy test cycle means the complete set of wash/rinse temperature selections required for testing, as determined according to section 2.12.
DOE also proposes to remove section 1.30 of Appendix J2, “Symbol usage,” to rename section 1 of Appendix J2 (currently “Definitions and Symbols”) “Definitions,” and name section 1 of the proposed new Appendix J “Definitions” accordingly. Throughout the appendices, each symbol is defined at each usage, making this section unnecessary for executing the test procedure. DOE notes that most other test procedures in subpart B to part 430 do not include a symbol usage section.
DOE also proposes to remove the numbering of all definitions in section 1 of Appendix J2, and in section 2 of Appendix J3, and instead list the definitions in alphabetical order. This would simplify cross-references to defined terms and would allow for easier editing in the future by avoiding the need to renumber all the definitions (and associated cross-references) any time a definition is added or deleted.
The proposed new Appendix J reflects these changes as proposed for Appendix J2.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to delete the following definitions from section 1 of Appendix J2: “adaptive control system,” “compact,” “manual control system,” “standard,” and “thermostatically controlled water valves.” DOE also requests comment on its proposal to simplify the definition of “energy test cycle.” DOE also requests comment on its proposal to remove section 1.30 “Symbol usage” from Appendix J2. Lastly, DOE requests comment on its proposal to remove the numbering of all definitions in section 1 of Appendix J2 and section 2 of Appendix J3, and to instead list the definitions in alphabetical order.
DOE further proposes to remove section 6,
DOE requests comment on its proposal to remove section 6,
In an effort to improve the readability of the text in certain sections of 10 CFR 430.23 and Appendix J2, DOE is proposing to make minor typographical corrections and formatting modifications as follows. These minor proposed modifications are not intended to change the substance of the test methods or descriptions provided in these sections. The language of the proposed new Appendix J reflects these corrections.
The test procedure provisions at 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(ii)(B) contain a definition for “C
DOE is proposing to correct two misspellings in section 2.8 of Appendix J2 referring to energy stuffer cloths (currently “clothes”) and test load sizes (currently “siszes”). DOE is also proposing to correct the spelling of “discrete” in section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2 (currently “discreet”) and of “test cycle” in section 3.6 of Appendix J2 (currently “testy”). DOE is also proposing to spell out the word “percent” in the paragraph in section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2.
Currently in Appendix J2, the drying energy abbreviation is D
DOE is also proposing to rename section 2 in Appendix J2 from “Testing Conditions” to “Testing Conditions and Instrumentation” to more fully reflect the contents of this section.
In several instances throughout Appendix J2, the qualifier “of this appendix” is missing in section cross-references. DOE is proposing to rectify these omissions. DOE is also proposing to clarify references to Appendix J3 in Appendix J2, and
DOE requests comment on its proposal to make the minor typographical corrections and formatting modifications described in this section.
Appendix J2 requires using specialized test cloth as the material comprising each tested load. DOE originally developed the energy test cloth specifications as part of the January 2001 Final Rule, based on the results of a detailed investigation of the cloth material used by industry for
□ Manufacturability: A 50/50 cotton-polyester momie weave was specified because at the time, such cloth was produced in high volume, had been produced to a consistent specification for many years, and was expected to be produced on this basis for the foreseeable future. 66 FR 3314, 3331.
□ Consistency in test cloth production: The cloth material properties were specified in detail, including fiber content, thread count, and fabric weight; as well as requirements to verify that water repellent finishes are not applied to the cloth.
□ Consistency of the RMC measurement among different lots: A procedure was developed to generate correction factors for each new “lot” (
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested comments on manufacturers' and testing laboratories' experience with the current test cloth specifications and whether DOE should consider any changes to the energy test cloth specifications to reduce burden and improve testing results. 85 FR 31065, 31071.
AHAM commented that it would strongly oppose changing from the uniform test cloth to a more varied load. AHAM stated that the clothes washer test procedure requires the use of a uniform test cloth to produce repeatable and reproducible results. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 3) According to AHAM, the introduction of a “real-world” load that includes items with different weights, sizes, and materials could introduce significant variation in the test procedure. AHAM stated that sufficient data have not been provided that would demonstrate acceptable repeatability and reproducibility using a “real-world” test load.
GEA recommended that DOE not change the current test cloth specifications, noting that significant work has gone into addressing the myriad complexities with test cloth variation. (GEA, No. 13 at p. 2)
DOE is not proposing any changes to the test cloth specification.
Appendix J3 specifies a qualification procedure that must be conducted on all new lots of energy test cloth prior to the use of such test cloths in any clothes washer test procedure. This qualification procedure provides a set of correction factors that correlate the measured RMC values of the new test cloth lot with a set of standard RMC values established as the historical reference point. These correction factors are applied to the RMC test results in section 3.8.2.6 of Appendix J2 to ensure the repeatability and reproducibility of test results performed using different lots of test cloth. The measured RMC of each clothes washer has a significant impact on the final IMEF value.
DOE is proposing several structural changes to Appendix J3 to consolidate all of the test cloth specifications and procedures (some of which are currently located in Appendix J2) that must be evaluated on each new lot of test cloth. Consolidating into a single test procedure will improve the overall logical flow of both test procedures and clarify that the test cloth procedures need not be conducted for each clothes washer under test. As described further, the proposed changes would remove from Appendix J2 specifications and procedures that are not intended to be completed for every clothes washer test. The proposed edits would also formally codify additional qualification procedures that are currently conducted for every new lot of test cloth.
Section 2.7 of Appendix J2 (“Test cloths”) contains specifications and procedures regarding the test cloth. Sections 2.7.1 and 2.7.2 specify the unfinished and finished dimensions, maximum lifetime, and marking requirements for energy test cloth and energy stuffer cloths, respectively. These sections also specify that mixed lots of material must not be used for testing. Section 2.7.3 specifies a procedure for preconditioning new test cloth, which requires performing a series of five wash cycles on all new (unused) test cloths before the cloth can be used for clothes washer tests. Section 2.7.4 provides the material specifications (fabric type, fabric weight, thread count, and fiber content) for the energy test cloths and energy stuffer cloths, as well as three industry test methods that must be performed to confirm the absence of any water-repellent finishes and to measure the cloth shrinkage after preconditioning. Section 2.7.5 references Appendix J3 for performing the standard extractor procedure to measure the moisture absorption and retention characteristic of each new lot of cloth.
Several of these provisions within section 2.7 of Appendix J2 are not intended to be conducted as part of each individual clothes washer test performed under Appendix J2. Based on discussions with the AHAM Test Cloth Task Force, DOE is aware that some of the test cloth provisions in section 2.7 of Appendix J2 are performed by a third-party laboratory on each new lot of test cloth, avoiding the need for manufacturers and test laboratories to perform the same procedures for each individual clothes washer test. 85 FR 31065, 31071.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested comments on whether to consolidate into Appendix J3 provisions from section 2.7 of Appendix J2 that relate only to the testing of the test cloth and are not required to be performed for each individual Appendix J2 clothes washer test.
AHAM supported the consolidation of section 2.7 of Appendix J2 provisions into Appendix J3, stating that doing so would mitigate testing burden. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 9)
NEEA supported reorganization of the test procedure to put all test cloth qualification and lot correction information into the separate Appendix J3 test procedure, as this would add clarity and improve ease of use. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 25)
In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to move most of the specifications from section 2.7 of Appendix J2 to Appendix J3. Section 2.7 of Appendix J2 would retain the following specifications, which are relevant to the conduct of
DOE requests comment on its proposal to consolidate into Appendix J3 the test cloth specifications and procedures from section 2.7 of Appendix J2 that are not intended to be conducted as part of each individual clothes washer test performed under Appendix J2.
Industry has developed a process in which the qualification procedure described above is performed by a third-party laboratory, and the results are reviewed and approved by the AHAM Test Cloth Task Force, after which the new lot of test cloth is made available for purchase by manufacturers and test laboratories. 85 FR 31065, 31071.
DOE has received a request from members of the AHAM Test Cloth Task Force to add to Appendix J3 additional steps to the qualification procedure that have historically been performed on each new lot of test cloth to ensure uniformity of RMC test results on test cloths from the beginning, middle, and end of each new lot.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE sought comment on whether it is necessary to specify any qualification procedure that must be conducted on all new lots of energy test cloth prior to use of such test cloths, as opposed to simply providing requirements for the test cloth without specifying in DOE's regulations the procedure for achieving those requirements.
AHAM commented that the existing cloth uniformity test is effective and does not need to be changed. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 9) AHAM added that DOE should consider requiring that each load that is used for testing contains a mix of cloth from the beginning, middle, and end of the lot so that it is representative of the entire lot. AHAM further added that more sampling may be necessary if test cloth lot sizes increase.
With regards to DOE's consideration of test burden, AHAM commented that the current process works well, and that it is not necessary to develop a particular qualification procedure.
NEEA encouraged DOE to adopt an additional test cloth qualification procedure if one is needed to maintain reproducibility, as it would improve transparency. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 25)
In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to codify in Appendix J3 the “uniformity check” described above and to restructure Appendix J3 to improve the overall logical flow of the procedure.
The sections of Appendix J3 are currently structured as follows: (1) Objective; (2) Definitions; (3) Testing Conditions; (4) Test Loads; (5) Test Measurements; (6) Calculation of RMC Correction Curve; and (7) Application of the RMC Correction Curve.
DOE is proposing to update the objectives included in section 1 to specify that Appendix J3 now includes: (1) Specifications for the energy test cloth to be used for testing clothes washers; (2) procedures for verifying that new lots of energy test cloth meet the defined material specifications; and (3) procedures for developing the RMC correction coefficients.
In section 2 of Appendix J3, DOE is proposing to add a definition for the term “roll,” which refers to a subset of a lot, and to remove the definition of roll from Appendix J2.
DOE is proposing to create a new section 3, “Energy Test Cloth Specifications,” that would specify the test cloth material, dimensions, and use requirements as currently specified in section 2.7 of Appendix J2.
DOE is proposing to change the title of current section 3 of Appendix J3, newly renumbered as section 4, from “Testing Conditions” to “Equipment Specifications.” This section would contain the specifications for the extractor (currently specified in section 3.2) and the bone-dryer (currently specified in section 3.3). DOE proposes to merge the current specification in section 3.1 of Appendix J3 (which specifies the extractor spin conditions to be used) with the proposed edits to newly renumbered section 8 (“RMC Correction Curve Procedure”), as described below.
DOE is proposing to create a new section 5, “Pre-Conditioning Instructions,” in Appendix J3 that would specify the instructions for pre-conditioning test cloth, as currently specified in section 4.1 of Appendix J3, with a clarifying wording change. Currently, the second paragraph of section 4.1 in Appendix J3 specifies “Perform five complete wash-rinse-spin cycles, the first two with current AHAM Standard detergent Formula 3 and the last three without detergent.” The last sentence of that paragraph specifies: “Repeat the cycle with detergent and then repeat the cycle three additional times without detergent, bone drying the load between cycles (for a total of five complete wash-rinse-spin cycles).” DOE is concerned that the wording of the last sentence could be misconstrued as requiring the repeating of the entire sequence of five wash-rinse-spin cycles specified in the first sentence. To avoid this potential misinterpretation, DOE is proposing to replace the last sentence with the following: “Dry the load to bone-dry between each of the five wash-rinse-spin cycles.”
DOE is proposing to create a new section 6, “Extractor Run Instructions,” in Appendix J3 that would specify the instructions for testing test cloth in the extractor at specific spin speed and time conditions, as currently listed in sections 5.1 through 5.10 of Appendix J3, with some minor organizational changes.
DOE is proposing to create a new section 7, “Test Cloth Material Verification Procedure,” in Appendix J3 that codifies the “uniformity check” procedure described above.
DOE is proposing to add a new section 8, “RMC Correction Curve Procedure,” in Appendix J3 which would consolidate the provisions
DOE is proposing to renumber section 7 to section 9 in Appendix J3 and to update any applicable cross references.
Finally, given the broader scope of Appendix J3 as proposed by these amendments, DOE is proposing to rename Appendix J3 from “Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Moisture Absorption and Retention Characteristics of New Energy Test Cloth Lots” to “Energy Test Cloth Specifications and Procedures for Determining Correction Coefficients of New Energy Test Cloth Lots.”
DOE requests comment on its proposed edits to Appendix J3 to codify the “uniformity check” procedure and to restructure Appendix J3 to improve the overall logical flow of the procedure.
DOE provides product-specific enforcement provisions for all clothes washers at 10 CFR 429.134(c), which specify provisions for determining RMC. 10 CFR 429.134(c)(1)(i) specifies that the measured RMC value of a tested unit will be considered the tested unit's final RMC value if the measured RMC value is within two RMC percentage points of the certified RMC value of the basic model (expressed as a percentage), or is lower than the certified RMC value. 10 CFR 429.134(c)(1)(ii) specifies that if the measured RMC value of a tested unit is more than two RMC percentage points higher than the certified RMC value of the basic model, DOE will perform two additional replications of the RMC measurement procedure, each pursuant to the provisions of section 3.8.5 of Appendix J2, for a total of three independent RMC measurements of the tested unit. The average of the three RMC measurements will be the tested unit's final RMC value and will be used as the basis for the calculation of per-cycle energy consumption for removal of moisture from the test load for that unit.
As described in sections I.B and III.I of this document, DOE uses the procedures specified in Appendix J3 to evaluate the moisture absorption and retention characteristics of each new lot of test cloth. The results are used to develop a unique correction curve for each new lot of test cloth, which helps ensure that a consistent RMC measurement is obtained for any test cloth lot used during testing. The correction factors developed for each new cloth lot are used to adjust the “uncorrected” RMC measurements obtained when performing an Appendix J2 test on an individual clothes washer model.
Multiple interested parties have presented confidential data to DOE suggesting that despite the application of correction factors, the “corrected” RMC values can vary by up to three RMC percentage points among different test cloth lots. A variation of three RMC percentage points can lead to over a 5-percent variation in IMEF rating.
Based on these investigations, DOE preliminarily concludes that although the application of correction factors for each test cloth lot significantly reduces the lot-to-lot variation in RMC (from over 10 percentage points uncorrected), the current methodology may be limited to reducing lot-to-lot variation in corrected RMC to around three RMC percentage points.
Recognizing this potential for lot-to-lot variation of up to three RMC percentage points (corrected), DOE proposes to extend its product-specific enforcement provisions for clothes washers to accommodate up to a 3-percentage point variation in the corrected RMC measurement based on the test cloth lot used for testing. The following paragraphs describe DOE's proposed approach for implementation of these provisions.
DOE proposes to modify the text of 10 CFR 429.134(c)(1) to state that its provisions address anomalous RMC results that are not representative of a basic model's performance, as well as differences in RMC values that may result from DOE using a different test cloth lot than was used by the manufacturer for testing and certifying the basic model.
DOE proposes to specify the enforcement provisions when testing according to the proposed new Appendix J at 10 CFR 429.134(c)(1)(i), and when testing according to Appendix J2 at 10 CFR 429.134(c)(1)(ii).
Under the provisions for Appendix J2, DOE proposes new subsection (ii)(A), which would specify that the procedure for determining RMC will be performed once in its entirety, pursuant to the test requirements of section 3.8 of Appendix J2, for each unit tested (as currently specified at 10 CFR 429.134(c)(1)).
DOE proposes new subsection (ii)(B), which would specify that if the measured RMC value of a tested unit is equal to or lower than the certified RMC value of the basic model (expressed as a percentage), the measured RMC value will be considered the tested unit's final RMC value and will be used as the basis for the calculation of per-cycle energy consumption for removal of moisture from the test load for that unit (consistent with the current specifications at 10 CFR 429.134(c)(1)(i)).
DOE proposes new subsection 10 CFR 429.134(ii)(C), which would specify that if the difference between the measured RMC value and the certified RMC value of the basic model is less than or equal to two RMC percentage points, the measured RMC value of a tested unit will be considered the tested unit's final RMC value unless DOE used a different test cloth lot than was used by the manufacturer for testing and certifying the basic model; in which case, DOE may
DOE proposes new subsection 10 CFR 429.134 (ii)(D)—which would address anomalous RMC results that are not representative of a basic model's performance—specifying that if the measured RMC value of a tested unit is more than two RMC percentage points
The proposed new subsection (ii)(E)—which would address differences in RMC values that may result from DOE using a different test cloth lot—specifies two potential courses of action if DOE uses a different test cloth lot than was used by the manufacturer for testing and certifying the basic model. New subsection 10 CFR 429.134 (ii)(E)(1) would specify that if the difference between the tested unit's measured RMC value (or average RMC value pursuant to the new proposed paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(D) of the same section) and the certified RMC value of the basic model is less than or equal to three RMC percentage points, then the certified RMC value of the basic model may be considered the tested unit's final RMC value. New subsection 10 CFR 429.134 (ii)(E)(2) would specify that if the tested unit's measured RMC value (or average RMC value pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(D) of the same section) is more than three RMC percentage points higher than the certified RMC value of the basic model, then a value three RMC percentage points less than the measured RMC value may be considered the tested unit's final RMC value.
For testing conducted according to the proposed new Appendix J, several modifications would be made to the procedures described for Appendix J2 due to the revised methodology for measuring RMC in the proposed new Appendix J, as described in section III.D.4 of this document (specifically, that in the proposed new Appendix J, RMC would be measured for each individual test cycle as opposed to measured using a separate set of additional test cycles, as is required by Appendix J2). The provisions for the proposed new Appendix J would not include the specifications for 10 CFR 429.134 (ii)(A) or 10 CFR 429.134 (ii)(D) as described previously.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to extend its product-specific enforcement provisions for clothes washers to accommodate up to a 3-percentage point variation in the corrected RMC measurement based on the test cloth lot used for testing. DOE also requests comment on alternate enforcement approaches that could be implemented.
EPCA requires that test procedures proposed by DOE not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The following sections discuss DOE's evaluation of estimated costs and savings associated with the amendments proposed in this NOPR.
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend the existing test procedures for clothes washers by:
(1) Further specifying supply water temperature test conditions and water meter resolution requirements;
(2) Adding specifications for measuring wash water temperature using submersible data loggers;
(3) Expanding the load size table to accommodate clothes container capacities up to 8.0 ft
(4) Defining user-adjustable automatic WFCS;
(5) Specifying the applicability of the wash time setting for clothes washers with a range of wash time settings;
(6) Specifying how the energy test cycle flow charts apply to clothes washers that internally generate hot water;
(7) Specifying that the energy test cycle flow charts be evaluated using the Maximum load size;
(8) Specifying that testing is to be conducted with any network settings disabled if instructions are available to the user to disable these functions;
(9) Further specifying the conditions under which data from a test cycle would be discarded;
(10) Adding a product-specific enforcement provision to accommodate the potential for test cloth lot-to-lot variation in RMC;
(11) Deleting obsolete definitions, metrics, and the clothes washer-specific waiver section;
(12) Consolidating all test cloth-related specifications in Appendix J3;
(13) Reorganizing sections of Appendix J3 for improved readability; and
(14) Codifying the test cloth material verification procedure as used by industry.
DOE has tentatively determined that these proposed amendments to Appendix J2 and Appendix J3 would not be unduly burdensome for manufacturers to conduct and would not result in the need for any re-testing.
The proposal to remove the target inlet water temperatures from the specified range of temperatures would allow test laboratories to select the optimal water temperature target for their water supply system within the prescribed range (
The proposal to require more precise hot water meters for clothes washers with hot water usage less than 0.1 gallons in any of the energy test cycles would require additional cost to upgrade existing water meters if a manufacturer or test laboratory expects to test such clothes washers but does not already have a water meter with the proposed more precise resolution. Based on a market survey of water meters, the cost of a water meter that provides the proposed resolution, including associated hardware, is around $600 for each device. DOE recognizes that laboratories may have multiple test stands, and that each test stand would likely be upgraded with the more precise hot water meter (if such an upgrade is required). As an example, for a laboratory with 10 test stands, the material cost associated with installing a more precise hot water meter would total approximately $6,000. However, as discussed, at least one manufacturer already uses water meters with the proposed more precise resolution, and DOE's experience working with third-party laboratories indicates that most, if not all, third-party laboratories already use water meters with this resolution. DOE has not included the potential costs associated with this proposal based on stakeholder comment and DOE's knowledge of third-party laboratory capabilities that suggest that
The proposal to explicitly allow for the use of submersible temperature loggers would specify an additional means for determining wash water temperatures to confirm whether a wash temperature greater than 135 °F (defined as an Extra Hot Wash) has been achieved during the wash cycle. As discussed, other methods for measuring wash water temperatures may provide inconclusive results, thus requiring re-testing of cycles or additional “exploratory” testing to accurately determine the wash water temperature. Explicitly providing for the use of submersible temperature loggers may avoid the need for such additional testing. Based on a market survey of submersible data loggers, the cost of a submersible data logger is around $230 for each device. As discussed, laboratories may have multiple test stands, and DOE expects that a laboratory would purchase a separate data logger for each test stand. As an example, for a laboratory with 10 test stands, the material cost associated with purchasing submersible data loggers for each test stand would total around $2,300. DOE expects that the recurring cost savings enabled by the use of submersible temperature loggers (due to reducing the need for re-testing certain cycles or performing additional exploratory testing) would substantially outweigh the one-time purchase cost associated with each device and therefore has not included this cost in its summary of costs associated with this NOPR.
DOE requests comment, specifically from manufacturers and third-party test laboratories, on whether costs would be incurred for each laboratory as a result of the proposals in this NOPR to specify more precise hot water meters and to explicitly allow the use of submersible temperature loggers; and if so, the total incurred cost associated with outfitting each test stand with the specified instrumentation. DOE also requests comment on the potential cost savings to be expected from enabling the use of submersible temperature loggers.
The proposal to extend the load size table would apply only to clothes washers with capacities exceeding 6.0 ft
The proposal to more explicitly define user-adjustable automatic WFCS would provide greater specification of DOE's existing definitions and could potentially alleviate test burden resulting from an incorrect application of the existing language. The proposals specifying updated language regarding cycle selection for clothes washers with a range of wash time settings would improve repeatability and reproducibility without imposing any additional test burden. The proposal to specify how the energy test cycle flow charts apply to clothes washers that internally generate hot water reflects DOE's interpretation of the current Cold Wash/Cold Rinse flowchart and subsequent flowcharts for the Warm Rinse temperature selections for this type of clothes washer; in addition, comments from interested parties suggest that this interpretation is generally consistent with that of manufacturers and third-party laboratories. The proposal to specify that the energy test cycle flow charts be evaluated using the Maximum load size would improve repeatability and reproducibility without imposing any additional test burden.
The proposal to specify that network settings must be disabled for testing under Appendix J2 would impact only clothes washers with network settings that are enabled by default. DOE is not aware of any clothes washers currently on the market that meet these characteristics, and as such DOE does not expect this proposal to change how any current models are tested.
The proposal to add product-specific enforcement provisions to accommodate the potential for lot-to-lot variation in RMC would extend current product-specific enforcement provisions for clothes washers to accommodate up to a 3-percentage point variation in the corrected RMC measurement based on the test cloth lot used for testing, and would not impact manufacturers' testing costs.
The proposal to delete obsolete definitions, metrics, and the waiver section would not impact manufacturers' testing costs because these sections of the test procedure are no longer in use.
The proposal to move all test cloth-related sections of the test procedures into Appendix J3 would simplify Appendix J2 without any changes to the test conduct or cost to manufacturers. The proposal to add additional test cloth qualification procedures to Appendix J3 would not affect manufacturer cost because the proposal would codify existing industry-standard practices.
DOE requests comment on its characterization of the expected costs of the proposed amendments to Appendix J2 and Appendix J3 and on DOE's preliminary determination that the proposed amendments would not be unduly burdensome.
In this NOPR, DOE is also proposing a new Appendix J that would include, in addition to the amendments discussed previously for Appendix J2, significant additional changes that would affect the measured efficiency of a clothes washer. Because DOE would use the new Appendix J for the evaluation and issuance of any updated efficiency standards, and for determining compliance with those standards, the use of the proposed new Appendix J would not be required until such a time as compliance with any amended energy conservation standards that are developed with consideration of new Appendix J are required. The ongoing energy conservation standards rulemakings for RCWs and CCWs would consider the impact of such changes to manufacturers. The differences between Appendix J2 (as proposed in this NOPR) and the proposed Appendix J are the following:
(1) Modifying the hot water supply temperature range;
(2) Modifying the clothes washer pre-conditioning requirements;
(3) Modifying the Extra-Hot Wash threshold temperature;
(4) Adding a measurement and calculation of average cycle time;
(5) Requiring the testing of no more than two Warm Wash/Cold Rinse cycles, and no more than two Warm Wash/Warm Rinse cycles;
(6) Measuring RMC on each cycle within the energy test cycle, rather than on cycles specifically dedicated to measuring RMC;
(7) Reducing the number of load sizes from three to two for units with automatic WFCS;
(8) Modifying the load size definitions consistent with two, rather than three, load sizes;
(9) Updating the water fill levels to be used for testing to reflect the modified load size definitions;
(10) Specifying the installation of single-inlet clothes washers, and simplifying the test procedure for semi-automatic clothes washers;
(11) Defining new performance metrics that are functions of the weighted-average load size rather than clothes container capacity;
(12) Updating the number of annual clothes washer cycles from 295 to 234; and
(13) Updating the number of hours assigned to low-power mode to be based on the clothes washer's average
The proposal to require the measurement of cycle time could result in an increase in test burden if a laboratory is not currently measuring cycle time. However, although cycle time is not currently required to be measured, it is DOE's understanding that test laboratories already measure cycle time or use a data acquisition system to record electronic logs of each test cycle, from which average cycle time can be readily determined such that any increase in test burden would be
To determine the potential savings to manufacturers, DOE first estimated the number of RCW and CCW models that are currently certified, using data from DOE's publicly available Compliance Certification Database (“CCMS”).
To enable an estimate of cost savings associated with specific features, as described in the paragraphs that follow, DOE developed representative market samples consisting of 100 basic models of RCWs and 10 basic models of CCWs (representing approximately 15 percent of the total basic models for each) that capture the range of available functionalities and options available to consumers. To develop these market samples, DOE selected a sample of basic models for which detailed product features could be determined from product brochures and other marketing materials, representing all major manufacturers and product designs currently on the market, and spanning all available efficiency levels.
The proposal to reduce the number of load sizes from three to two for units with an automatic WFCS would reduce test burden for all clothes washers with an automatic WFCS. DOE's representative market sample suggests that 11 percent of RCWs have a manual WFCS and therefore would experience no change in test burden as a result of this proposal. Whereas, 89 percent of RCWs on the market would experience a reduction in test burden as follows: 20 percent of RCWs would experience a reduction in test burden of 2 to 4 cycles; 54 percent of RCWs would experience a reduction in test burden of 5 to 8 cycles; and 15 percent of RCWs would experience a reduction in test burden of more than 9 cycles. DOE's representative mark sample suggests that all CCWs have an automatic WFCS and therefore DOE estimates that 70 percent of CCWs would experience a reduction in test burden of 3 or 4 cycles and that 30 percent of CCWs would experience a reduction in test burden of 5 cycles. Based on these estimates, DOE estimates a weighted-average test burden reduction of 5.1 cycles per RCW, and 3.7 cycles per CCW.
The proposal to reduce the number of required test cycles by requiring the use of no more than two Warm Wash/Cold Rinse cycles, and no more than two Warm Wash/Warm Rinse cycles, would reduce the number of tested cycles for any clothes washer offering more than two Warm Wash temperatures. Based on DOE's representative market sample, DOE estimates that 49 percent of RCWs offer two or fewer Warm Wash temperature options and therefore would experience no change; 44 percent of RCWs would experience a reduction in test burden of 2 cycles; and 7 percent of RCWs would experience a reduction in test burden of 4 cycles. DOE estimates that 70 percent of CCWs would experience no change and that 30 percent of CCWs would experience a reduction in test burden of 4 cycles. Based on these estimates, DOE estimates a weighted-average additional test burden reduction of 1.2 cycles per RCW, and 0.6 cycles per CCW.
The proposal to reduce the number of required test cycles by measuring RMC on each tested cycle instead of measuring it on dedicated RMC cycles would remove the need for one or more cycles used for measuring RMC for any clothes washer offering more than one spin speed selectable on the Normal cycle. Based on DOE's representative market sample, DOE estimates that 45 percent of RCWs would experience no change; 27 percent of RCWs would experience a reduction in test burden of 1 cycle; 27 percent of RCWs would experience a reduction in test burden of 2 cycles; and 1 percent of RCWs would experience a reduction in test burden of 4 cycles. DOE estimates that no CCWs would experience a reduction in test burden from this change. Based on these estimates, DOE estimates a weighted-average additional test burden reduction of 0.9 cycles per RCW.
The proposal to simplify the test procedure for semi-automatic clothes washers would reduce test burden for all semi-automatic clothes washers by 10 cycles. DOE has determined that approximately 2 percent of RCW basic models in CCMS are semi-automatic and is not aware of any semi-automatic CCWs. DOE therefore estimates a weighted-average additional test burden reduction of 0.2 cycles per RCW.
To estimate the cost savings associated with the amendments that are expected to reduce the number of cycles required for testing, DOE estimated each RCW cycle to have a duration of 1 hour, and each CCW cycle to have a duration of 45 minutes. Based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (“BLS's”) Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, the mean hourly wage for mechanical engineering technologists and technicians is $29.27.
Based on a July 2021 price list from the test cloth manufacturer, the cost of the test cloth required for performing testing is $7.47 per cloth.
Based on an average CCW capacity of 3.17 ft
Based on these estimates, DOE has tentatively determined that the use of proposed new Appendix J would result in a total burden reduction of 7.4 cycles per RCW on average, which results in an average saving of $348 per basic model of RCW.
Based on these estimates, DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed new test procedure at Appendix J would not be unduly burdensome for manufacturers to conduct.
DOE requests comment on any aspect of the estimated testing costs and savings associated with DOE's proposed test procedures.
DOE's established practice is to adopt relevant industry standards as DOE test procedures unless such methodology would be unduly burdensome to conduct or would not produce test results that reflect the energy efficiency, energy use, water use (as specified in EPCA) or estimated operating costs of that product during a representative average use cycle or period of use. Section 8(c) of Appendix A of 10 CFR part 430 subpart C; 10 CFR 431.4. In cases where the industry standard does not meet EPCA statutory criteria for test procedures, DOE will make modifications through the rulemaking process to these standards as the DOE test procedures.
The test procedures for clothes washers at the proposed new Appendix J and Appendix J2 and Appendix J3 incorporate by reference certain provisions of IEC Standard 62301 that provide test conditions, testing equipment, and methods for measuring standby mode and off mode power consumption. These appendices also reference AATCC test methods for qualifying new batches of test cloth, and AHAM Standard Test Detergent Formula 3 for preconditioning new test cloths. DOE is not aware of any existing industry test procedures for clothes washers that measure energy and water efficiency.
AHAM commented on the May 2020 RFI that it is about to begin development of its own clothes washer energy test procedure based on Appendix J2, which will address many of the issues DOE raised in the May 2020 RFI. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 5) For example, AHAM stated that it plans to investigate methods of reducing test burden, including through review of relevant customer usage data. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 4) AHAM suggested that DOE eventually incorporate AHAM's test procedure by reference. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 5) AHAM invited DOE, as well as other entities that are able to contribute technical resources to the effort, to participate in the task force.
The CA IOUs opposed the adoption of industry test procedures without modification without DOE conducting an independent assessment of representativeness in a public rulemaking to allow adequate stakeholder discussion and review. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 16)
DOE is aware of two clothes washer test procedures established by industry: AHAM HLW-1-2013 and IEC 60456. AHAM's existing clothes washer procedure, AHAM HLW-1-2013, does not include a procedure for measuring energy and water. IEC 60456 includes tests for water and energy use, water extraction (
(1) IEC 60456 uses manufacturer-declared capacity or, in the absence of a declared capacity, specifies two alternative capacity measurement procedures: A table tennis ball method (in which the drum is filled with table tennis balls) and a water fill method, which more closely resembles DOE's capacity measurement method. However, the water fill method for top-loading clothes washers corresponds to “Fill Level 1,” as discussed in section III.D.6.c of this document, in contrast to DOE's currently specified “Fill Level 2.”
(2) IEC 60456 defines two types of load materials that can be used: A 100-percent cotton load, consisting of sheets, pillowcases, and towels; or a synthetics/blends load (65-percent polyester, 35-percent cotton), consistent of men's shirt and pillowcases. IEC 60456 requires a distribution in age (
(3) The procedure for determining water and energy consumption (section 8.6 of IEC 60456) specifies that the test load shall be subjected to “performance” testing, which requires operating a reference clothes washer in parallel with the unit under test; using a test load that includes stain strips used to evaluate cleaning performance; and using detergent as specified.
(4) IEC 60456 does not define the “Normal” cycle or energy test cycle; rather, the procedures in IEC 60456 are generic and can be applied to any wash program or cycle selections defined by the tester.
DOE tentatively concludes that IEC 60456 does not meet EPCA statutory criteria, in that IEC 60456 would be unduly burdensome to conduct and would not produce test results that reflect the energy efficiency, energy use, water use, or estimated operating costs of a clothes washer during a representative average use cycle or period of use for a U.S. consumer.
In addition to the issues identified earlier in this document, DOE welcomes comment on any other aspect of the existing test procedures for clothes washers. Note that DOE also issued an RFI to seek more information on whether its test procedures are reasonably designed, as required by EPCA, to produce results that measure the energy use or efficiency of a product during a representative average use cycle or period of use. 84 FR 9721 (Mar. 18, 2019). DOE particularly seeks comment on this issue as it pertains to the test procedures for clothes washers, as well as information that would help DOE create a procedure that is not unduly burdensome to conduct. Comments regarding repeatability and reproducibility are also welcome.
EPCA prescribes that, if DOE amends a test procedure, all representations of energy efficiency and energy use, including those made on marketing materials and product labels, must be made in accordance with that amended test procedure, beginning 180 days after publication of such a test procedure final rule in the
If DOE were to publish amended test procedures, EPCA provides an allowance for individual manufacturers to petition DOE for an extension of the 180-day period if the manufacturer may experience undue hardship in meeting the deadline. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(3); 42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(2)) To receive such an extension, petitions must be filed with DOE no later than 60 days before the end of the 180-day period and must detail how the manufacturer will experience undue hardship. (
Upon the compliance date of test procedure provisions of an amended test procedure, should DOE issue a such an amendment, any waivers that had been previously issued and are in effect that pertain to issues addressed by such provisions are terminated. 10 CFR 430.27(h)(2); 10 CFR 431.401(h)(2). Recipients of any such waivers would be required to test the products subject to the waiver according to the amended test procedures as of the compliance date of the amended test procedures. The amendments proposed in this NOPR pertain to issues addressed by waivers granted to Whirlpool (case no. CW-026) and Samsung (case no. CW-027). 81 FR 26215; 82 FR 17229, respectively.
The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that this test procedure rulemaking does not constitute “significant regulatory actions” under section 3(f) of Executive Order (“E.O.”) 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) in OMB.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”),
EPCA, as amended, authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate test procedures for each type of covered product, including RCWs, to determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
EPCA requires the test procedures for CCWs to be the same as the test procedures established for RCWs. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(8)) As with the test procedures for RCWs, EPCA requires that DOE evaluate, at least once every 7 years, the test procedures for CCWs to determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))
DOE uses the Small Business Administration's (“SBA”) small business size standards to determine whether manufacturers qualify as small
DOE requests comment on its initial determination that there is one small, domestic OEM of RCWs and no small, domestic OEMs of CCWs.
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend Appendix J2 and Appendix J3 by (1) further specifying supply water temperature test conditions; (2) further specifying water meter resolution requirements; (3) adding specifications for measuring wash water temperature using submersible data loggers; (4) expanding the load size table to accommodate up to 8.0 ft
Next, this NOPR proposes to specify a new Appendix J, to be applicable upon the compliance date of any future amended energy conservation standards for clothes washers. The proposed new Appendix J would include modifications beyond Appendix J2 that: (1) Modify the hot water supply target temperature and clothes washer pre-conditioning requirements; (2) modify the Extra-Hot Wash threshold temperature; (3) add measurement and calculation of average cycle time; (4) reduce the number of required test cycles by requiring the use of no more than two Warm Wash/Cold Rinse cycles, and no more than two Warm Wash/Warm Rinse cycles; (5) reduce the number of required test cycles by removing the need for one or more cycles used for measuring RMC; (6) reduce the number of load sizes from three to two for units with automatic water fill controls; (7) modify the load size definitions consistent with two, rather than three, load sizes; (8) update the water fill levels to be used for testing to reflect the modified load size definitions; (9) specify the installation of single-inlet clothes washers, and simplify the test procedure for semi-automatic clothes washers; (10) define new performance metrics that are functions of the weighted-average load size rather than clothes container capacity: “energy efficiency ratio,” “active-mode energy efficiency ratio,” and “water efficiency ratio”; (11) update the number of annual clothes washer cycles from 295 to 234; and (12) update the number of hours assigned to low-power mode to be based on the clothes washer's measured cycle time rather than an assumed fixed value. Due to the reduction in number of loads and number of wash cycles, the proposed new Appendix J would be less burdensome than Appendix J2 for industry. However, the small manufacturer would need to re-rate its one model when any future amended energy conservation standard requires the use of the proposed new Appendix J. The cost of re-rating one model would have a cost of less than $1000. DOE estimates this to be less than 0.1 percent of revenue for the small manufacturer.
DOE requests comment on its initial determination that the proposed amendments would result in small incremental test burdens on the small business manufacturers of RCWs and CCWs in the United States.
DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the rule being considered today.
DOE considered alternative test methods and modifications to the test procedures for RCWs and CCWs, and tentatively determined that there are no better alternatives than the modifications and procedures proposed in this NOPR. DOE expects the proposed amendments to Appendix J2 to result in zero cost to the small manufacturer. DOE expects the new Appendix J would have no impact before an amended energy conservation standard is adopted. After an amended energy conservation standard is adopted, DOE expects the proposed new Appendix J to have
Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final rule establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) Additionally, section 504 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C. 7194, provides authority for the Secretary to adjust a rule issued under EPCA in order to prevent “special hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens” that may be imposed on that manufacturer as a result of such rule. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart E, and part 1003 for additional details.
Manufacturers of RCWs and CCWs must certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. To certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their products according to the DOE test procedures, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
In this proposed rule, DOE proposes test procedure amendments that it expects will be used to develop and implement future energy conservation standards for residential and commercial clothes washers. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this proposed rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“UMRA”) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at
DOE examined this proposed rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these requirements do not apply.
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which are available at
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
The proposed regulatory action to amend the test procedures for measuring the energy efficiency of RCWs and CCWs is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; “FEAA”) Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on competition.
The proposed modifications to the test procedures for clothes washers would continue to incorporate testing methods contained in certain sections of the following commercial standards: AATCC Test Method 79-2010, AATCC Test Method 118-2007, AATCC Test Method 135-2010, and IEC 62031. DOE has evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude whether it fully complies with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA (
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test standard published by AATCC, titled “Absorbency of Textiles,” AATCC Test Method 79-2010. DOE also proposes to incorporate by reference the test standard published by AATCC, titled “Oil Repellency: Hydrocarbon Resistance Test,” AATCC Test Method 118-2007. AATCC 79-2010 and AATCC 118-2007 are industry-accepted test procedure that verify the presence or absence of water repellent finishes on fabric by measuring the water absorbency and oil repellency of the fabric, respectively.
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test standard published by AATCC, titled “Dimensional Changes of Fabrics after Home Laundering,” AATCC Test Method 135-2010. AATCC 135-2010 is an industry-accepted test procedure for measuring dimensional changes in fabric (“shrinkage”) due to laundering.
All three of these AATCC test methods are currently incorporated by reference for use in Appendix J2. This NOPR proposes to transfer the references to these test methods to Appendix J3. Copies of AATCC test methods can be obtained from AATC, P.O. Box 12215, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (919) 549-3526, or by going to
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test standard published by IEC, titled “Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power,” (Edition 2.0, 2011-01), IEC 62301. IEC 62301 is an industry-accepted test procedure for measuring standby energy consumption. IEC 62301 is currently incorporated by reference for use in Appendix J2, which references specific provisions of the industry standard. See 10 CFR 430.3(o)(6). This NOPR proposes to include the same references in the proposed new Appendix J.
Copies of IEC 62301 available from the American National Standards Institute, 25 W 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or by going to
The time and date of the webinar are listed in the
Additionally, you may request an in-person meeting to be held prior to the close of the request period provided in the
Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this proposed rulemaking, or who is representative of a group or class of persons that has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to make an oral presentation at the webinar. Such persons may submit requests to speak by sending an email to
Persons requesting to speak should briefly describe the nature of their interest in this rulemaking and provide a telephone number for contact. DOE requests persons selected to make an oral presentation to submit an advance copy of their statements at least two weeks before the webinar. At its discretion, DOE may permit persons who cannot supply an advance copy of their statement to participate, if those persons have made advance alternative arrangements with the Building Technologies Office. As necessary, requests to give an oral presentation should ask for such alternative arrangements.
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of the webinar. There shall not be discussion of proprietary information, costs or prices, market share, or other commercial matters regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After the webinar and until the end of the comment period, interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings and any aspect of the rulemaking.
The webinar will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the webinar, allow time for prepared general statements by participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will allow, as time permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the webinar will accept additional comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that may be needed for the proper conduct of the webinar.
A transcript of the webinar will be included in the docket, which can be viewed as described in the
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposed rule no later than the date provided in the
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to
DOE processes submissions made through
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. No faxes will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties concerning the following issues:
(1) DOE requests comment on its proposal to require a hot water meter resolution no larger than 0.01 gallons for clothes washers that use less than 0.1 gallons in any of the individual cycles within the energy test cycle. DOE requests comment on the extent to which manufacturers and test laboratories already use water meters with this greater resolution. DOE also requests comment on whether proposing this requirement for Appendix J2 would require manufacturers to retest any basic models that have already been certified under the existing water meter resolution requirements.
(2) DOE requests comment on its proposal to require all single-inlet clothes washers to be installed to the cold water supply only. DOE also requests comment on whether this requirement should be included in only the proposed new Appendix J, or whether, if adopted, it should be included as an amendment to Appendix J2.
(3) DOE requests comment on its proposal to update the hot water supply temperature for the proposed new Appendix J from 130-135 °F to 120-125 °F. DOE seeks more recent data on hot water supply temperatures in consumer clothes washer installations. DOE also requests comment on any potential impact to testing costs that may occur by harmonizing temperatures between the clothes washer and dishwasher test procedures, and the impacts on manufacturer burden associated with any changes to the hot water supply temperature.
(4) DOE requests comment on its proposal to specify in the proposed new Appendix J that the Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse designation would apply to a wash temperature greater than or equal to 140 °F. DOE requests any additional data on the wash temperature of cycles that meet the Appendix J2 definition of Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse. DOE is also interested in data and information on any potential impact to testing costs that may occur by changing the Extra-Hot Wash temperature threshold, and the impacts on manufacturer burden associated with any changes to the Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse definition.
(5) DOE requests comment on its proposal to remove the target temperatures and instead specify water supply temperature ranges as 55 °F to 60 °F for cold water in both Appendix J2 and the proposed new Appendix J, 130 °F to 135 °F for hot water in Appendix J2, and 120 °F to 125 °F for hot water in the proposed new Appendix J.
(6) DOE requests comment on its proposal to allow the use of a submersible temperature logger in Appendix J2 and the proposed new Appendix J as an option to confirm that an Extra-Hot Wash temperature greater than the Extra-Hot Wash threshold has been achieved during the wash cycle. DOE requests data and information confirming (or disputing) DOE's discussion of the benefits and limitations of using a submersible temperature logger, including DOE's determination that a submersible logger's failure to measure a temperature greater than the Extra-Hot Wash threshold does not necessarily indicate that the cycle under test does not meet the definition of an Extra-Hot Wash/Cold Rinse cycle.
(7) DOE requests comment on its proposal to specify the same pre-conditioning requirements for all clothes washers and to remove the “water-heating clothes washer” and “non-water-heating clothes washer” definitions in the proposed new Appendix J. DOE also requests information regarding whether test laboratories typically pre-condition water-heating and non-water-heating clothes washers using the same procedure.
(8) DOE requests comment on its proposal to expand the load size table in both Appendix J2 and the proposed new Appendix J to accommodate RCWs with capacities up to 8.0 ft3.
(9) DOE requests comment on its proposal to replace the minimum, maximum, and average load sizes with the small and large load sizes in the proposed new Appendix J. DOE seeks comment on how reducing the number of load sizes tested would impact the representativeness of test results. DOE also requests data and information to quantify the reduction in test burden that would result from reducing the number of load sizes from three to two for clothes washers with automatic WFCS.
(10) DOE requests comment on its proposal to change the water fill level selections in the proposed new Appendix J for clothes washers with manual and user-adjustable automatic WFCS to reflect the proposed small and large test load sizes. DOE seeks data and information on how the proposed changes to the water fill level selection for clothes washers with manual and user-adjustable automatic WFCS would impact test procedure representativeness.
(11) DOE requests comment on the proposal to require in the proposed new Appendix J testing only the hottest and the coldest Warm Wash/Cold Rinse settings. DOE seeks data and information on how this proposed change to the Warm Wash temperature settings required for testing would impact representativeness, testing costs, and manufacturer burden.
(12) DOE requests comment on its proposal to revise the RMC procedure so that RMC would be measured at the default spin setting for each temperature selection and load size, and the individual RMC values would be averaged using TUFs and LUFs to calculate the final RMC. DOE seeks data and information regarding how this change to the RMC calculation would impact testing costs and manufacturer test burden.
(13) DOE further requests comment on whether DOE should implement any changes to the RMC calculation in Appendix J2 to address clothes washers with spin settings that are available only on certain temperature selections.
(14) DOE requests comment on its tentative conclusion not to propose changes to the bone-dry definition and associated dryer temperature measurement method.
(15) DOE requests comment on its proposal to require that each test cycle use a bone-dry test load in the proposed new Appendix J. DOE requests comment on whether test laboratories start test cycles with the test load at bone-dry or at up to 104 percent of the bone-dry weight. DOE further requests feedback on its assessment that this change would not affect test burden.
(16) DOE requests comment on its proposal to add cycle time measurements and to calculate average cycle time using the weighted-average method in the proposed new Appendix J. DOE also requests comment on its assertion that adding cycle time measurements and a calculation of a weighted-average cycle time would not increase testing costs or overall test burden.
(17) DOE requests comment on its tentative determination to maintain the current capacity measurement method.
(18) DOE requests comment on the proposed criteria for determining whether test data are to be discarded. Specifically, DOE requests comment on the proposal that test data are discarded if a washing machine either signals to the user by means of a visual or audio alert that an out-of-balance condition has occurred or terminates prematurely. DOE requests comment on whether additional or alternate criteria would provide objective and observable indication during a single test that test data are to be discarded.
(19) DOE requests comment on its proposal for testing semi-automatic clothes washers in the proposed new Appendix J that would require testing only the wash/rinse temperature combinations that do not require a wash temperature change between the wash and rinse portions of the cycle (
(20) DOE requests feedback on its proposal to test semi-automatic clothes washers using TUF values of 0.14 for Hot, 0.49 for Warm, and 0.37 for Cold.
(21) DOE further requests comment on whether the temperature selections and TUFs that DOE has proposed for semi-automatic clothes washers would be representative of consumer use; and if not, which temperature selections and TUF values would better reflect consumer use.
(22) DOE requests comment on whether to include explicit instructions for how to test semi-automatic clothes washers in Appendix J2, and if so, whether DOE should implement the same procedures being proposed for the proposed new Appendix J.
(23) DOE requests feedback on how manufacturers of semi-automatic clothes washers are currently testing their products using Appendix J2.
(24) DOE requests comment on its proposal to require semi-automatic clothes washers to test only the Cold cycle, and to determine the representative values for the Warm and Hot cycles formulaically, for the proposed new Appendix J.
(25) DOE requests comment on the test burden associated with determining the apportionment between wash water use and rinse water use on semi-automatic clothes washers.
(26) DOE requests comment on maintaining the current requirement to use the manufacturer default settings for optional cycle modifiers.
(27) DOE requests comment on its proposed amendment to Appendix J2 and the proposed new Appendix J to specify that network settings (on clothes washers with network capabilities) must be disabled during testing if such settings can be disabled by the end-user, and the product's user manual provides instructions on how to do so.
(28) DOE requests feedback on its characterization of connected clothes washers currently on the market. Specifically, DOE requests input on the types of features or functionality enabled by connected clothes washers that exist on the market or that are under development.
(29) DOE requests data on the percentage of users purchasing connected clothes washers, and, for those users, the percentage of the time when the connected functionality of the clothes washer is used.
(30) DOE requests data on the amount of additional or reduced energy use of connected clothes washers.
(31) DOE requests data on the pattern of additional or reduced energy use of connected clothes washers; for example, whether it is constant, periodic, or triggered by the user.
(32) DOE requests information on any existing testing protocols that account for connected features of clothes washers, as well as any testing protocols that may be under development within the industry.
(33) DOE requests comment on its proposal to replace the capacity term with weighted-average load size in the energy efficiency metrics and the water efficiency metric in the proposed new Appendix J.
(34) DOE requests comment on its proposed names for the proposed new efficiency metrics: energy efficiency ratio (EER), active-mode energy efficiency ratio (AEER), and water efficiency ratio (WER).
(35) DOE requests comment on its proposal to invert the water efficiency metric and calculate the newly defined WER metric as the quotient of the weighted-average load size divided by the total weighted per-cycle water consumption for all wash cycles.
(36) DOE requests data on the annual amount of laundry washed by consumers, and whether the annual amount of laundry washed by consumers is correlated with clothes washer capacity.
(37) DOE requests comment on its proposed updated representation and sampling requirements for RCWs and CCWs.
(38) DOE requests comment on its proposal to update the number of annual wash cycles to 234 in the proposed new Appendix J and 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1)(i) and (j)(3)(i).
(39) DOE requests comment on maintaining the assumed final moisture content of 4 percent in the drying energy equation, or whether it should update the assumed final moisture content to 2 percent to align with DOE's Appendix D2 clothes dryer test procedure.
(40) DOE requests comment on maintaining the current DEF value of 0.5 kWh/lb.
(41) DOE requests comment on maintaining the current DUF value of 0.91.
(42) DOE requests comment on its proposal to update the number of hours spent in low-power mode from a fixed 8,465 total hours to a formula based on measured cycle time and an assumed number of annual cycles.
(43) DOE requests comment on maintaining the current TUF values.
(44) DOE requests comment on its proposal to update the LUFs for the small and large load sizes to be equal to 0.5, consistent with the proposed load size definitions in the proposed new Appendix J.
(45) DOE requests comment on maintaining the current water heater efficiency assumptions.
(46) DOE requests comment on its proposal to specify the use of hoses not to exceed 72 inches in length in the proposed new Appendix J. DOE also requests comment on the length of inlet hose typically used for testing.
(47) DOE requests comment on whether it should amend the test procedure to accommodate potential future clothes washer models for which the maximum load size required by the test procedure conflicts with the maximum load size intended or able to be washed with the cycle required for testing. If so, DOE seeks additional comment on the approaches it has considered, or on any other approaches
(48) DOE requests comment on its proposed changes to the definition of “fixed water fill control system” and on its proposal to add a definition for “user-adjustable automatic water fill control system.”
(49) DOE requests comment on its proposal to update the wording of section 3.2.6.2.2 of Appendix J2 and section 3.2.3.2.2 of the proposed new Appendix J from “the setting that will give the most energy intensive result” to “the setting that uses the most water;” and from “the setting that will give the least energy intensive result” to “the setting that uses the least water.”
(50) DOE requests comment on its proposal to require that the energy test cycle flow charts be evaluated using the large load size for all wash/rinse temperature settings in the proposed new Appendix J. DOE also requests comment on its proposal to require that the energy test cycle flow charts be evaluated using the maximum load size, except for the Cold/Cold flow chart, in Appendix J2.
(51) DOE requests comments on its proposal to update the flowcharts for Cold Wash/Cold Rinse and Warm Wash/Warm Rinse in both Appendix J2 and the proposed new Appendix J to explicitly address clothes washers that internally generate hot water.
(52) DOE requests comment on its proposal to clarify the wording of the wash time setting specifications in section 3.2.5 of Appendix J2 and section 3.2.2 of the proposed new Appendix J.
(53) DOE requests comment on its proposal to add a clause in section 3.2.5.2 of Appendix J2 and section 3.2.2.2 of the proposed new Appendix J stating that the requirement to rotate the dial in the direction of increasing wash time would only apply to dials that can rotate in both directions.
(54) DOE requests comment on its proposal to add a definition of “wash time” to section 1 of both Appendix J2 and the proposed new Appendix J.
(55) DOE requests comment on its proposed updates to the annual operating cost calculations in 10 CFR 430.23(j)(1).
(56) DOE requests comment on its proposed structure of the proposed new Appendix J to simplify and improve readability as compared to Appendix J2.
(57) DOE requests comment on its proposal to delete Appendix J1 to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 along with all references to Appendix J1 in 10 CFR parts 429, 430, and 431.
(58) DOE requests comment on its proposal to remove obsolete metric definitions.
(59) DOE requests comment on its proposal to delete the following definitions from section 1 of Appendix J2: “adaptive control system,” “compact,” “manual control system,” “standard,” and “thermostatically controlled water valves.” DOE also requests comment on its proposal to simplify the definition of “energy test cycle.” DOE also requests comment on its proposal to remove section 1.30 “Symbol usage” from Appendix J2. Lastly, DOE requests comment on its proposal to remove the numbering of all definitions in section 1 of Appendix J2 and section 2 of Appendix J3, and to instead list the definitions in alphabetical order.
(60) DOE requests comment on its proposal to remove section 6, Waivers and Field Testing, of Appendix J2 and proposal not to include a parallel section in the proposed new Appendix J.
(61) DOE requests comment on its proposal to make the minor typographical corrections and formatting modifications described in this section.
(62) DOE requests comment on its proposal to consolidate into Appendix J3 the test cloth specifications and procedures from section 2.7 of Appendix J2 that are not intended to be conducted as part of each individual clothes washer test performed under Appendix J2.
(63) DOE requests comment on its proposed edits to Appendix J3 to codify the “uniformity check” procedure and to restructure Appendix J3 to improve the overall logical flow of the procedure.
(64) DOE requests comment on its proposal to extend its product-specific enforcement provisions for clothes washers to accommodate up to a 3-percentage point variation in the corrected RMC measurement based on the test cloth lot used for testing. DOE also requests comment on alternate enforcement approaches that could be implemented.
(65) DOE requests comment, specifically from manufacturers and third-party test laboratories, on whether costs would be incurred for each laboratory as a result of the proposals in this NOPR to specify more precise hot water meters and to explicitly allow the use of submersible temperature loggers; and if so, the total incurred cost associated with outfitting each test stand with the specified instrumentation. DOE also requests comment on the potential cost savings to be expected from enabling the use of submersible temperature loggers.
(66) DOE requests comment on its characterization of the expected costs of the proposed amendments to Appendix J2 and Appendix J3 and on DOE's preliminary determination that the proposed amendments would not be unduly burdensome.
(67) DOE requests comment on any aspect of the estimated testing costs and savings associated with DOE's proposed test procedures.
(68) DOE requests comment on its initial determination that there is one small, domestic OEM of RCWs and no small, domestic OEMs of CCWs.
(69) DOE requests comment on its initial determination that the proposed amendments would result in small incremental test burdens on the small business manufacturers of RCWs and CCWs in the United States.
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation test procedures, Incorporation by reference, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 5, 2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend parts 429, 430, and 431 of chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Any represented value of the integrated water factor, the estimated annual operating cost, the energy or water consumption, or other measure of energy or water consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of:
(ii) Any represented value of the integrated modified energy factor, energy efficiency ratio, water efficiency ratio, or other measure of energy or water consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor higher values shall be less than or equal to the lower of:
(3) The clothes container capacity of a basic model reported in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall be the mean of the measured clothes container capacity, C, of all tested units of the basic model.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Any represented value of the modified energy factor, active-mode energy efficiency ratio, water efficiency ratio, or other measure of energy or water consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor higher values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of:
(c)
(i) When testing according to appendix J to subpart B of part 430:
(A) If the measured RMC value of a tested unit is equal to or lower than the certified RMC value of the basic model (expressed as a percentage), the measured RMC value will be considered the tested unit's final RMC value and will be used as the basis for the calculation of per-cycle energy consumption for removal of moisture from the test load for that unit.
(B) If the measured RMC value is higher than the certified RMC value of the basic model, the measured RMC value of a tested unit will be considered the tested unit's final RMC value unless DOE used a different test cloth lot than was used by the manufacturer for testing and certifying the basic model; in which case, DOE may apply paragraph (c)(1)(i)(C) of this section if the difference between the measured and certified RMC values would affect the unit's compliance with the applicable standards.
(C) If DOE uses a different test cloth lot than was used by the manufacturer for testing and certifying the basic model:
(
(
(ii) When testing according to appendix J2 to subpart B of part 430:
(A) The procedure for determining remaining moisture content (RMC) will be performed once in its entirety, pursuant to the test requirements of section 3.8 of appendix J2 to subpart B of part 430, for each unit tested.
(B) If the measured RMC value of a tested unit is equal to or lower than the certified RMC value of the basic model (expressed as a percentage), the measured RMC value will be considered the tested unit's final RMC value and will be used as the basis for the calculation of per-cycle energy consumption for removal of moisture from the test load for that unit.
(C) If the difference between the measured RMC value and the certified RMC value of the basic model is less than or equal to two RMC percentage points, the measured RMC value of a tested unit will be considered the tested unit's final RMC value unless DOE used a different test cloth lot than was used by the manufacturer for testing and certifying the basic model; in which case, DOE may apply paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(E) of this section if the difference between the measured and certified RMC values would affect the unit's compliance with the applicable standards.
(D) If the measured RMC value of a tested unit is more than two RMC percentage points higher than the certified RMC value of the basic model, DOE will perform two replications of the RMC measurement procedure, each pursuant to the provisions of section 3.8.5 of appendix J2 to subpart B of part 430, for a total of three independent RMC measurements of the tested unit. The average of the three RMC measurements will be calculated.
(
(
(E) If DOE uses a different test cloth lot than was used by the manufacturer for testing and certifying the basic model:
(
(
42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
(d)
(1) AATCC Test Method 79-2010, Absorbency of Textiles, Revised 2010, IBR approved for appendix J3 to subpart B.
(2)
(3)
(o) * * *
(6) IEC 62301 (“IEC 62301”),
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(j) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) When using appendix J (see the note at the beginning of appendix J),
(A) When electrically heated water is used,
(B) When gas-heated or oil-heated water is used,
(ii) When using appendix J2 (see the note at the beginning of appendix J2),
(A) When electrically heated water is used
(B) When gas-heated or oil-heated water is used,
(2) * * *
(ii) The energy efficiency ratio for automatic and semi-automatic clothes washers is determined according to section 4.9 of appendix J (when using appendix J). The result shall be rounded off to the nearest 0.1 pound per kilowatt-hour per cycle.
(3) * * *
(i) When using appendix J, the product of the representative average-use of 234 cycles per year and the total weighted per-cycle water consumption in gallons per cycle determined according to section 4.2.4 of appendix J.
(4)(i) The integrated water factor must be determined according to section 4.2.12 of appendix J2, with the result rounded to the nearest 0.1 gallons per cycle per cubic foot.
(ii) The water efficiency ratio for automatic and semi-automatic clothes washers is determined according to section 4.7 of appendix J (when using appendix J). The result shall be rounded off to the nearest 0.1 pound per gallon per cycle.
(5) Other useful measures of energy consumption for automatic or semi-automatic clothes washers shall be those measures of energy consumption that the Secretary determines are likely to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions and that are derived from the
Manufacturers must use the results of testing under Appendix J to determine compliance with any amended standards for clothes washers provided in § 430.32(g) and in § 431.156 that are published after January 1, 2021. Any representations related to energy or water consumption of residential or commercial clothes washers must be made in accordance with the appropriate appendix that applies (
(a) The machine electrical energy consumption;
(b) The hot water energy consumption;
(c) The energy required for removal of the remaining moisture in the wash load; and
(d) The combined low-power mode energy consumption.
(a) Facilitating the activation of other modes (including activation or deactivation of active mode) by remote switch (including remote control), internal sensor, or timer;
(b) Continuous functions, including information or status displays (including clocks) or sensor-based functions.
A timer is a continuous clock function (which may or may not be associated with a display) that provides regular scheduled tasks (
2.1
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.5.1
2.5.1.1
2.5.1.2
2.5.2
2.5.3
2.5.4
2.5.4.1 Non-reversible temperature indicator labels, adhered to the inside of the clothes container, may be used to confirm that an extra-hot wash temperature greater than or equal to 140 °F has been achieved during the wash cycle, under the following conditions. The label must remain waterproof, intact, and adhered to the wash drum throughout an entire wash cycle; provide consistent maximum temperature readings; and provide repeatable temperature indications sufficient to demonstrate that a wash temperature of greater than or equal to 140 °F has been achieved. The label must have been verified to consistently indicate temperature measurements with an accuracy of ±1 °F. If using a temperature indicator label to test a front-loading clothes washer, adhere the label along the interior surface of the clothes container drum, midway between the front and the back of the drum, adjacent to one of the baffles. If using a temperature indicator label to test a top-loading clothes washer, adhere the label along the interior surface of the clothes container drum, on the vertical portion of the sidewall, as close to the bottom of the container as possible.
2.5.4.2 Submersible temperature loggers placed inside the wash drum may be used to confirm that an extra-hot wash temperature greater than or equal to 140 °F has been achieved during the wash cycle, under the following conditions. The submersible temperature logger must have a time resolution of at least 1 data point every 5 seconds and a temperature measurement accuracy of ±1 °F. Due to the potential for a waterproof capsule to provide a thermal insulating effect, failure to measure a temperature of 140 °F does not necessarily indicate the lack of an extra-hot wash temperature. However, such a result would not be conclusive due to the lack of verification of the water temperature requirement, in which case an alternative method must be used to confirm that an extra-hot wash temperature greater than or equal to 140 °F has been achieved during the wash cycle.
2.5.5
2.5.6
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.8.1
2.8.2
2.9
2.9.1 Test loads for energy and water consumption measurements must be bone-dry prior to each test cycle.
2.9.2 Prepare the energy test cloths for loading by grasping them in the center, lifting, and shaking them to hang loosely, as illustrated in Figure 2.9.2 of this appendix.
For all clothes washers, follow any manufacturer loading instructions provided to the user regarding the placement of clothing within the clothes container. In the absence of any manufacturer instructions regarding the placement of clothing within the clothes container, the following loading instructions apply.
2.9.2.1 To load the energy test cloths in a top-loading clothes washer, arrange the cloths circumferentially around the axis of rotation of the clothes container, using alternating lengthwise orientations for adjacent pieces of cloth. Complete each cloth layer across its horizontal plane within the clothes container before adding a new layer. Figure 2.9.2.1 of this appendix illustrates the correct loading technique for a vertical-axis clothes washer.
2.9.2.2 To load the energy test cloths in a front-loading clothes washer, grasp each test cloth in the center as indicted in section 2.9.2 of this appendix, and then place each cloth into the clothes container prior to activating the clothes washer.
2.10
2.10.1
2.10.2
2.11
2.12
2.12.1
2.12.2.
3.1
3.1.1 Place the clothes washer in such a position that the uppermost edge of the clothes container opening is leveled horizontally, so that the container will hold the maximum amount of water. For front-loading clothes washers, the door seal and shipping bolts or other forms of bracing hardware to support the wash drum during shipping must remain in place during the capacity measurement. If the design of a front-loading clothes washer does not include shipping bolts or other forms of bracing hardware to support the wash drum during shipping, a laboratory may support the wash drum by other means, including temporary bracing or support beams. Any temporary bracing or support beams must keep the wash drum in a fixed position, relative to the geometry of the door and door seal components, that is representative of the position of the wash drum during normal operation. The method used must avoid damage to the unit that would affect the results of the energy and water testing. For a front-loading clothes washer that does not include shipping bolts or other forms of bracing hardware to support the wash drum during shipping, the laboratory must fully document the alternative method used to support the wash drum during capacity measurement, include such documentation in the final test report, and pursuant to § 429.71 of this chapter, the manufacturer must retain such documentation as part its test records.
3.1.2 Line the inside of the clothes container with a 2 mil thickness (0.051 mm) plastic bag. All clothes washer components that occupy space within the clothes container and that are recommended for use during a wash cycle must be in place and must be lined with a 2 mil thickness (0.051 mm) plastic bag to prevent water from entering any void space.
3.1.3 Record the total weight of the machine before adding water.
3.1.4 Fill the clothes container manually with either 60 °F ± 5 °F (15.6 °C ± 2.8 °C) or 100 °F ± 10 °F (37.8 °C ± 5.5 °C) water, with the door open. For a top-loading vertical-axis clothes washer, fill the clothes container to the uppermost edge of the rotating portion, including any balance ring. Figure 3.1.4.1 of this appendix illustrates the maximum fill level for top-loading clothes washers.
For all clothes washers, exclude any volume that cannot be occupied by the clothing load during operation.
3.1.5 Measure and record the weight of water, W, in pounds.
3.1.6 Calculate the clothes container capacity as follows:
3.1.7 Calculate the clothes container capacity, C, to the nearest 0.01 cubic foot for the purpose of determining test load sizes per Table 5.1 of this appendix and for all subsequent calculations that include the clothes container capacity.
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.2.1 If the cycle under test offers a range of wash time settings, the wash time setting shall be the higher of either the minimum or 70 percent of the maximum wash time available for the wash cycle under test, regardless of the labeling of suggested dial locations. If 70 percent of the maximum wash time is not available on a dial with a discrete number of wash time settings, choose the next-highest setting greater than 70 percent.
3.2.2.2 If the clothes washer is equipped with an electromechanical dial or timer controlling wash time that rotates in both directions, reset the dial to the minimum wash time and then turn it in the direction of increasing wash time to reach the appropriate setting. If the appropriate setting is passed, return the dial to the minimum wash time and then turn in the direction of increasing wash time until the appropriate setting is reached.
3.2.3
3.2.3.1
If the water fill level selector has more than two settings available for the wash cycle under test, for the small test load size, select the second-lowest water fill level setting.
3.2.3.2
3.2.3.2.1
3.2.3.2.2
3.2.3.3
3.2.4
3.2.5 For each wash cycle tested, include the entire active washing mode and exclude any delay start or cycle finished modes.
3.2.6
3.3
3.4
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.5
3.5.1 Perform combined low-power mode testing after completion of an active mode wash cycle included as part of the energy test cycle; after removing the test load; without changing the control panel settings used for the active mode wash cycle; with the door closed; and without disconnecting the electrical energy supply to the clothes washer between completion of the active mode wash cycle and the start of combined low-power mode testing.
3.5.2 For a clothes washer that takes some time to automatically enter a stable inactive mode or off mode state from a higher power state as discussed in Section 5, Paragraph 5.1, note 1 of IEC 62301 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), allow sufficient time for the clothes washer to automatically reach the default inactive/off mode state before proceeding with the test measurement.
3.5.3 Once the stable inactive/off mode state has been reached, measure and record the default inactive/off mode power, P
3.5.4 For a clothes washer with a switch, dial, or button that can be optionally selected by the end user to achieve a lower-power inactive/off mode state than the default inactive/off mode state measured in section 3.5.3 of this appendix, after performing the measurement in section 3.5.3 of this appendix, activate the switch, dial, or button to the position resulting in the lowest power consumption and repeat the measurement procedure described in section 3.5.3 of this appendix. Measure and record the lowest-power inactive/off mode power, P
3.6
3.6.1 For the wash/rinse temperature selection being considered under this section, establish the testing conditions set forth in section 2 of this appendix. Select the applicable cycle selection and wash/rinse temperature selection. For all wash/rinse temperature selections, select the cycle settings as described in section 3.2 of this appendix.
3.6.2 Measure each wash cycle's electrical energy consumption (E
4.1
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.1.5
4.1.6
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.3
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.3.5 Apply the RMC correction curve as described in section 9 of appendix J3 to this subpart to calculate the corrected remaining moisture content, RMC
4.4
4.5
4.5.1
4.5.2
4.6
4.6.1
4.6.2
4.7
4.8
4.9
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) The machine electrical energy consumption;
(b) The hot water energy consumption;
(c) The energy required for removal of the remaining moisture in the wash load; and
(d) The combined low-power mode energy consumption.
(a) Facilitating the activation of other modes (including activation or deactivation of active mode) by remote switch (including remote control), internal sensor, or timer;
(b) Continuous functions, including information or status displays (including clocks) or sensor-based functions.
(c) A timer is a continuous clock function (which may or may not be associated with a display) that provides regular scheduled tasks (
2.2
2.5.4 * * *
2.5.4.1 Non-reversible temperature indicator labels, adhered to the inside of the clothes container, may be used to confirm that an extra-hot wash temperature greater than 135 °F has been achieved during the wash cycle, under the following conditions. The label must remain waterproof, intact, and adhered to the wash drum throughout an entire wash cycle; provide consistent maximum temperature readings; and provide repeatable temperature indications sufficient to demonstrate that a wash temperature of greater than 135 °F has been achieved. The label must have been verified to consistently indicate temperature measurements with an accuracy of ±1 °F if the label provides a temperature indicator at 135 °F. If the label does not provide a temperature indicator at 135 °F, the label must have been verified to consistently indicate temperature measurements with an accuracy of ±1 °F if the next-highest temperature indicator is greater than 135 °F and less than 140 °F, or ±3 °F if the next-highest temperature indicator is 140 °F or greater. If the label does not provide a temperature indicator at 135 °F, failure to activate the next-highest temperature indicator does not necessarily indicate the lack of an extra-hot wash temperature. However, such a result would not be conclusive due to the lack of verification of the water temperature requirement, in which case an alternative method must be used to confirm that an extra-hot wash temperature greater than 135 °F has been achieved during the wash cycle. If using a temperature indicator label to test a front-loading clothes washer, adhere the label along the interior surface of the clothes container drum, midway between the front and the back of the drum, adjacent to one of the baffles. If using a temperature indicator label to test a top-loading clothes washer, adhere the label along the interior surface of the clothes container drum, on the vertical portion of the sidewall, as close to the bottom of the container as possible.
2.5.4.2 Submersible temperature loggers placed inside the wash drum may be used to confirm that an extra-hot wash temperature greater than 135 °F has been achieved during the wash cycle, under the following conditions. The submersible temperature logger must have a time resolution of at least 1 data point every 5 seconds and a temperature measurement accuracy of ±1 °F. Due to the potential for a waterproof capsule to provide a thermal insulating effect, failure to measure a temperature of 135 °F does not necessarily indicate the lack of an extra-hot wash temperature. However, such a result would not be conclusive due to the lack of verification of the water temperature requirement, in which case an alternative method must be used to confirm that an extra-hot wash temperature greater than 135 °F has been achieved during the wash cycle.
2.5.5
2.7
2.12
3.2.5
3.2.5.1 If the cycle under test offers a range of wash time settings, the wash time setting shall be the higher of either the minimum or 70 percent of the maximum wash time available for the wash cycle under test, regardless of the labeling of suggested dial locations. If 70 percent of the maximum wash time is not available on a dial with a discrete number of wash time settings, choose the next-highest setting greater than 70 percent.
3.2.5.2 If the clothes washer is equipped with an electromechanical dial or timer controlling wash time that rotates in both directions, reset the dial to the minimum wash time and then turn it in the direction of increasing wash time to reach the appropriate setting. If the appropriate setting is passed, return the dial to the minimum wash time and then turn in the direction of increasing wash time until the appropriate setting is reached.
3.2.6 * * *
3.2.6.2.2
3.2.7
3.2.9
If during a wash cycle the clothes washer: (a) Signals to the user by means of a visual or audio alert that an out-of-balance condition has been detected; or (b) terminates prematurely and thus does not include the agitation/tumble operation, spin speed(s), wash times, and rinse times applicable to the wash cycle under test, discard the test data and repeat the wash cycle. Document in the test report the rejection of data from any wash cycle during testing and the reason for the rejection.
3.3
3.6
This appendix includes the following: (1) Specifications for the energy test cloth to be used for testing clothes washers; (2) procedures for verifying that new lots of energy test cloth meet the defined material specifications; and (3) procedures for developing a set of correction coefficients that correlate the measured remaining moisture content (RMC) values of each new test cloth lot with a set of standard RMC values established as an historical reference point. These correction coefficients are applied to the RMC measurements performed during testing according to appendix J or appendix J2 to this subpart, ensuring that the final corrected RMC measurement for a clothes washer remains independent of the test cloth lot used for testing.
The energy test cloths and energy stuffer cloths must meet the following specifications:
3.1 The test cloth material should come from a roll of material with a width of approximately 63 inches and approximately 500 yards per roll. However, other sizes may be used if the test cloth material meets the specifications listed in sections 3.2 through 3.6 of this appendix.
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6 Water repellent finishes, such as fluoropolymer stain resistant finishes, must not be applied to the test cloth.
3.7.
3.7.1
3.7.2
3.8 The test cloth must be clean and must not be used for more than 60 test runs (after pre-conditioning as specified in section 5 of this appendix). All test cloth must be permanently marked identifying the lot number of the material. Mixed lots of material must not be used for testing a clothes washer according to appendix J or appendix J2 to this subpart.
4.1
4.2
Use the following instructions for performing pre-conditioning of new energy test cloths and energy stuffer cloths as specified throughout section 7 and section 8 of this appendix, and before any clothes washer testing using appendix J or appendix J2 to this subpart:
Perform five complete wash-rinse-spin cycles, the first two with current AHAM Standard detergent Formula 3 and the last three without detergent. Place the test cloth in a clothes washer set at the maximum water level. Wash the load for ten minutes in soft water (17 ppm hardness or less) using 27.0 grams + 4.0 grams per pound of cloth load of AHAM Standard detergent Formula 3. The wash temperature is to be controlled to 135 °F ± 5 °F (57.2 °C ± 2.8 °C) and the rinse temperature is to be controlled to 60 °F ± 5 °F (15.6 °C ± 2.8 °C). Dry the load to bone-dry between each of the five wash-rinse-spin cycles. The maximum shrinkage after preconditioning must not be more than 5 percent of the length and width. Measure per AATCC Test Method 135-2010 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3).
Use the following instructions for performing each of the extractor runs specified throughout section 7 and section 8 of this appendix:
6.1
6.2 Measure the average RMC for each sample loads as follows:
6.2.1 Dry the test cloth until it is bone-dry according to the definition in section 2 of this appendix. Record the bone-dry weight of the test load (WI).
6.2.2 Prepare the test load for soak by grouping four test cloths into loose bundles. Create the bundles by hanging four cloths vertically from one corner and loosely wrapping the test cloth onto itself to form the bundle. Bundles should be wrapped loosely to ensure consistency of water extraction. Then place the bundles into the water to soak. Eight to nine bundles will be formed depending on the test load. The ninth bundle may not equal four cloths but can incorporate energy stuffer cloths to help offset the size difference.
6.2.3 Soak the test load for 20 minutes in 10 gallons of soft (<17 ppm) water. The entire test load must be submerged. Maintain a water temperature of 100 °F ± 5 °F (37.8 °C ± 2.8 °C) at all times between the start and end of the soak.
6.2.4 Remove the test load and allow each of the test cloth bundles to drain over the water bath for a maximum of 5 seconds.
6.2.5 Manually place the test cloth bundles in the basket of the extractor, distributing them evenly by eye. The draining and loading process must take no longer than 1 minute. Spin the load at a fixed speed corresponding to the intended centripetal acceleration level (measured in units of the acceleration of gravity, g) ± 1g for the intended time period ± 5 seconds. Begin the timer when the extractor meets the required spin speed for each test.
6.2.6 Record the weight of the test load immediately after the completion of the extractor spin cycle (WC).
6.2.7 Calculate the remaining moisture content of the test load as (WC − WI)/WI.
6.2.8 Draining the soak tub is not necessary if the water bath is corrected for water level and temperature before the next extraction.
6.2.9 Drying the test load in between extraction runs is not necessary. However, the bone-dry weight must be checked after every 12 extraction runs to make sure the bone-dry weight is within tolerance (8.4 ± 0.1 lbs). Following this, the test load must be soaked and extracted once before continuing with the remaining extraction runs. Perform this extraction at the same spin speed used for the extraction run prior to checking the bone-dry weight, for a time period of 4 minutes. Either warm or cold soak temperature may be used.
7.1
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.1.3
7.2
7.2.1
7.2.2
7.2.3 Measure the remaining moisture content of each of the nine sample test loads, as specified in section 6 of this appendix, using a centripetal acceleration of 350g (corresponding to 1111 ± 1 RPM) and a spin duration of 15 minutes ± 5 seconds.
7.2.4 Repeat section 7.2.3 of this appendix an additional two times and calculate the arithmetic average of the three RMC values to determine the average RMC value for each sample load. It is not necessary to dry the load to bone-dry the load before the second and third replications.
7.2.5 Calculate the coefficient of variation (CV) of the nine average RMC values from each sample load. The CV must be less than or equal to 1 percent for the test cloth lot to be considered acceptable and to perform the standard extractor RMC testing.
8.1
8.2
8.3 Measure the remaining moisture content of the test load, as specified in section 6 of this appendix at five g-force levels: 100 g, 200 g, 350 g, 500 g, and 650 g, using two different spin times at each g level: 4 minutes and 15 minutes. Table 4.1 of this appendix provides the corresponding spin speeds for each g-force level.
8.4 Repeat section 8.3 of this appendix using soft (<17 ppm) water at 60 °F ± 5 °F (15.6 °C ± 2.8 °C).
8.5 Repeat sections 8.3.3 and 8.3.4 of this appendix an additional two times, so that three replications at each extractor condition are performed. When this procedure is performed in its entirety, a total of 60 extractor RMC test runs are required.
8.6 Average the values of the 3 replications performed for each extractor condition specified in section 8.3 of this appendix.
8.7 Perform a linear least-squares fit to determine coefficients A and B such that the standard RMC values shown in Table 8.7 of this appendix (RMC
8.8 Perform an analysis of variance with replication test using two factors, spin speed and lot, to check the interaction of speed and lot. Use the values from section 8.6 of this appendix and Table 8.7 of this appendix in the calculation. The “P” value of the F-statistic for interaction between spin speed and lot in the variance analysis must be greater than or equal to 0.1. If the “P” value is less than 0.1, the test cloth is unacceptable. “P” is a theoretically based measure of interaction based on an analysis of variance.
9.1 Using the coefficients A and B calculated in section 8.7 of this appendix:
9.2 Apply this RMC correction curve to measured RMC values in appendix J and appendix J2 to this subpart.
42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
(1) Has a clothes container compartment that—
(i) For horizontal-axis clothes washers, is not more than 3.5 cubic feet; and
(ii) For vertical-axis clothes washers, is not more than 4.0 cubic feet; and
(2) Is designed for use in—
(i) Applications in which the occupants of more than one household will be using the clothes washer, such as multi-family housing common areas and coin laundries; or
(ii) Other commercial applications.
The test procedures for clothes washers in appendix J2 to subpart B of part 430 of this chapter must be used to determine compliance with the energy conservation standards at § 431.156(b).