Agricultural Marketing Service
Rural Housing Service
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
National Assessment Governing Board
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Copyright Office, Library of Congress
Institute of Museum and Library Services
Federal Aviation Administration
Maritime 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.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Final rule.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is amending its regulations to implement new provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Fiscal Year (FY) 2021. The final rule provides new methods for small business government contractors to obtain past performance ratings to be used with offers on prime contracts with the Federal Government. A small business contractor may use a past performance rating for work performed as a member of a joint venture or for work performed as a first-tier subcontractor. This final rule updates the requirements for small business subcontracting plans to add a requirement for prime contractors to provide past performance to a first-tier, small business subcontractor when requested by the small business.
This rule is effective on August 22, 2022.
Donna Fudge, Procurement Analyst, Office of Policy Planning and Liaison, Small Business Administration, at
Section 868 of National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021, Public Law 116-283, addressed a common obstacle that small businesses may face when competing for prime Federal Government contracts: possessing qualifying past performance. The final rule implements section 868 by providing small businesses with two new methods for obtaining qualifying past performance. First, a small business may use the past performance of a joint venture of which it is a member, provided that the small business worked on the joint venture's contract or contracts. Second, a small business may use past performance it obtained as a first-tier subcontractor on a prime contract with a subcontracting plan. For this latter method, section 868 authorizes the small business to seek a past performance rating from the prime contractor and submit the rating with the small business' offer on a new prime contract. SBA published a proposed rule on November 18, 2021, 86 FR 64410, to implement section 868. After receiving comments from the public, SBA finalizes the rule with the changes described below.
Section 868 added a new section 15(e)(5) to the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 644(e)(5), to address past performance ratings of joint ventures for small business concerns. A small business concern that previously participated in a joint venture with another business concern (whether or not the other concern was small) may use the past performance of the joint venture with the small business' offer on a prime contract. Section 15(e)(5) required SBA to establish regulations to allow the small business to elect to use the joint venture's past performance if the small business has no relevant past performance of its own. The small business must: (i) identify to the contracting officer the joint venture of which the small business was a member; (ii) specify the contract(s) of the joint venture the small business elects to use; and (iii) inform the contracting officer what duties and responsibilities the small business carried out as part of the joint venture. In turn, the contracting officer shall consider the past performance of the joint venture when evaluating the past performance of the small business concern, giving due consideration to the information submitted about the duties and responsibilities that the small business carried out.
To address first-tier small business subcontractors, section 868 amended section 8(d)(17) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 637(d)(17), which previously discussed a pilot program, to provide past performance ratings for small business subcontractors. Under section 868, small business concerns may obtain past performance ratings for performance as a first-tier subcontractor on a prime contract that included a subcontracting plan. The final rule requires the prime contractor on the prime contract to provide a rating of the small business' past performance with respect to that prime contract to the small business within 15 calendar days of the request. If the small business elects to use the past performance rating, the contracting officer shall consider the past performance rating when evaluating the small business' offer on a prime contract.
This final rule creates a separate mechanism for first-tier subcontractors to obtain past performance ratings. A Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) rule implementing this requirement will account for the additional burden in its existing information collection and clearance for the information collection will be obtained by the General Services Administration (GSA) for the FAR Council.
SBA received 15 comments in response to the proposed rule. The following discusses and responds to the comments.
SBA requested comments on whether small business subcontractors have been negatively impacted in competing for prime contracts due to not having a past performance rating(s).
SBA requested comments on whether to prescribe a time frame within which the subcontractor must make a request to the prime contractor for a rating under this final rule.
A separate commenter indicated that the subcontractors should be required to request a rating during the period of performance of the contract. Outside of the performance, the commenter stated, it would be difficult to accurately rate the subcontractor because of shifts in personnel. Similarly, another commenter wrote that subcontractors should not submit requests after the date of their final invoices. One commenter stated that SBA should require that the time period be specified in the subcontract agreement, but the commenter did not suggest a default period. Conversely, two commenters did not support negotiating the timelines and stated that the timelines should be uniform. One commenter expressed that subcontractors should only request ratings after the subcontractor's work is complete.
SBA disagrees that subcontractors should be limited to requesting ratings after their work on a contract is complete. For prime contracting, the government can provide ratings prior to contract completion (
Furthermore, subcontractors may notify the contracting officer of the prime's failure to provide a required rating, similar to the process provided for in FAR 52.242-5. SBA is therefore adding to this final rule that subcontractors should notify the contracting officer in the event that the prime contractor fails to submit the requested rating within the rule's prescribed timeframe.
This final rule adds a requirement to prime contractors' subcontracting plans. The subcontracting plan requires the prime contractor to provide a rating of a first-tier subcontractor's past performance within 15 calendar days of the first-tier subcontractor's request. The requested rating is prepared including, at a minimum, the following evaluation factors in the requested rating: (a) Technical (quality of product or service); (b) Cost control (not applicable for firm-fixed-price or fixed-price with economic price adjustment arrangements); (c) Schedule/timeliness; (d) Management or business relations; and (e) Other (as applicable). The requested rating will use the five-scale rating system from FAR 14.1503: Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, and Unsatisfactory.
This final rule renumbers 13 CFR 125.11 and subsequent sections to create a new section 125.11. New subsection 125.11(a) provides general guidance to require agencies to consider the past performance of certain small business offerors that have been members of joint ventures or first-tier subcontractors. The remainder of this final rule addresses the two scenarios from NDAA 2021.
First, a small business concern may receive past performance consideration for the past performance of a joint venture of which the small business was a member. To receive past performance consideration, where the small business does not independently demonstrate past performance necessary for award, the small business may elect to use the joint venture's past performance and the contracting officer shall consider the joint venture past performance that the small business has elected to use. In its offer for a prime contract, the small business must identify: (i) the joint venture; (ii) the contract(s) of the joint venture that the small business elects to use; and (iii) describe to the agency what duties or responsibilities the small business carried out as a joint venture member. The small business cannot, however, claim past performance credit for work performed exclusively by other partners to the joint venture.
As required by NDAA 2021, the contracting officer shall consider the information that the small business provided about its duties and responsibilities carried out as part of the joint venture. Where the small business does not independently demonstrate past performance necessary for award, agencies shall consider a small business' successful rating of past performance through a joint venture. For example, a solicitation might require three past performance examples. This final rule authorizes the small business offeror to submit two examples from performance in its own name and one example from performance of a joint venture of which it was a member if the small business cannot independently provide the third example of past performance on its own. This final rule provides that the joint venture's past performance may supplement the relevant past performance of the small business when the small business cannot independently demonstrate the past performance on its own.
Second, a small business concern may receive past performance consideration for performance as a first-tier subcontractor. NDAA FY21 directs that this mechanism is limited to small businesses that performed as first-tier subcontractors on contracts that include subcontracting plans. The small business may request a rating of its subcontractor past performance from the prime contractor. Under the final rule, the prime contractor must provide a rating to the requesting small business within 15 calendar days of the request.
Under this final rule, the requested rating is prepared including, at a minimum, the following evaluation factors in the requested rating: (a) Technical (quality of product or service); (b) Cost control (not applicable for firm-fixed-price or fixed-price with economic price adjustment arrangements); (c) Schedule/timeliness; (d) Management or business relations; and (e) Other (as applicable). The requested rating will use the five-scale rating system from FAR 42.1503: Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, and Unsatisfactory. The final rule does not contain a limit on how recent the evaluated contract must be. The final rule clarifies that one scenario where this applies is where the small business lacks a rating in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).
This final rule clarifies that a joint venture composed of small businesses may receive past performance consideration for work that the joint venture performed as a first-tier subcontractor. A small business member of the joint venture subcontractor may request a past performance rating from the prime contractor for a contract that included a subcontracting plan. The prime contractor must provide the requested rating to the joint venture member within 15 calendar days of the request. The requested rating would be prepared to include, at a minimum, the following evaluation factors in the requested record: (a) Technical (quality of product or service); (b) Cost control (not applicable for firm-fixed-price or fixed-price with economic price adjustment arrangements); (c) Schedule/timeliness; (d) Management or business relations; (e) Other (as applicable). The small business could then use that rating to establish its past performance in accordance with the prior provision on submitting joint venture past performance.
SBA is changing the reference from 125.15(a) to 125.18(a) everywhere it appears in this section due to renumbering of sections. Section 125.18(a) provides the requirements for representation of service-disabled veteran-owned (SDVO) small business status.
SBA is changing the reference from 125.8 to 125.12 everywhere it appears in this section due to renumbering of sections. Section 125.12 provides the definitions that are important in the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned (SDVO) Small Business Concern (SBC) program.
SBA is changing the reference from 125.8 to 125.12 everywhere it appears in this section due to renumbering of sections. Section 125.12 provides the definitions that are important in the SDVO SBC program.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is a significant regulatory action for the purposes of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the next section contains SBA's Regulatory Impact Analysis.
Regulatory Impact Analysis:
1.
This rule is necessary to satisfy statutory requirements to implement section 868 of National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2021 (NDAA FY 2021). Section 868 (e) requires the Administrator to issue rules to carry out the section.
Absence of past performance has been a limitation for small businesses when pursuing procurement opportunities that evaluate past performance. Small businesses often have past performance through work performed as a joint venture partner or as a subcontractor, but this experience and past performance is often not acknowledged or credited to the relevant small business in the evaluation process. This final rule is necessary to address that shortcoming in the evaluation of past performance and experience.
The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) states that “past performance, except as set forth in paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section, shall be evaluated in all source selections for negotiated competitive acquisitions expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.” See FAR 15.304(c)(3)(i). Past performance is “one indicator of an offeror's ability to perform the contract successfully.” See FAR 15.305(a)(2). FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) provides that, “[i]n the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.” Because past performance may be considered a responsibility factor or because past performance affects an offeror's evaluation as compared to other offerors, the ability of small businesses that have been first-tier subcontractors or participated in joint ventures to demonstrate past performance increases their competitiveness in Federal contracting.
2.
OMB directs agencies to establish an appropriate baseline to evaluate any benefits, costs, or transfer impacts of regulatory actions and alternative approaches considered. The baseline should represent the agency's best assessment of what the world would look like absent the regulatory action. For a regulatory action that modifies or replaces an existing regulation, a baseline assuming no change to the regulation generally provides an appropriate benchmark for evaluating benefits, costs, or transfer impacts of proposed regulatory changes and their alternatives. This final rule implements the changes, by modifying and expanding the rating procedures of the unimplemented pilot program in 8(d)(17) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(17)), which was added by section 1822 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2017.
NDAA FY 2021 amends Section 8(d)(17) of the Act to allow small businesses that performed as first tier subcontractors to request a past performance rating from the prime contractor. The prime contractor must provide a rating of the small business past performance with respect to that prime contract to the small business within 15 calendar days of the request. The requested rating would be prepared to include, at a minimum, the following evaluation factors in the requested rating: (a) Technical (quality of product or service); (b) Cost control (not applicable for firm-fixed price or fixed-price with economic price adjustment arrangements); (c) Schedule/timeliness; (d) Management or business relations; (e) Other (as applicable). The requested rating will use the five-scale rating system from FAR 42.1503: Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, and Unsatisfactory. This final rule modifies the pilot program, in which a small business that had not performed as a prime contractor could request a past performance rating in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), if the small business is a first-tier subcontractor under a covered Federal Government contract requiring a subcontracting plan. Section 868(a) amends Section 15(e) of the Small Business Act to direct the establishment of regulations that allow the use of past performance in joint ventures in Federal contracting offers. This amendment expands the opportunities for past performance consideration by including consideration of the past performance of a joint venture of which the small business was a member.
The baseline is that which exists without implementation of the pilot program in section 8(d)(17) of the Small Business Act. In this environment, when a Federal agency creates a procurement opportunity requiring an offeror to provide examples of past performance, a newer small business concern may forego the opportunity because it individually lacks the required number of examples and then opt to join an established prime contractor's team as a subcontractor.
The most significant benefit of this final rule to small businesses is that it enhances the small businesses' ability to compete for Federal contracting opportunities. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) states that “past performance, except as set forth in paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section, shall be evaluated in all source selections for negotiated competitive acquisitions expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.” See FAR 15.304(c)(3)(i). FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) provides that, “[i]n the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.” Nevertheless, small businesses without past experience as prime contractors may forego seeking some Federal contracting opportunities. This enhancement of Federal contracting opportunities is consistent with the amendment of the Small Business Act, which states that “procurement strategies used by a Federal department or agency having contract authority shall facilitate the maximum participation of small business concerns as prime contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers.” 15 U.S.C. 644(e)(1).
With more small businesses able to demonstrate past performance, agencies will have a larger pool of small businesses competing for contracting opportunities. This added competition may result in lower prices to the Government. SBA cannot quantify this impact prior to proposal of applicable FAR rules.
Costs of this final rule to the private sector include the prime contractor's provision, upon request to provide a past performance rating. The time burden of this requirement to the prime contractor is similar to that of the pilot program's past performance rating requirement. SBA estimates the fulfillment of a past performance request to require about 30 minutes of time. Assuming that a compilation of a rating of past performance involves 30 minutes of work by an employee of the prime contractor and valuing the time at $93.44 per hour,
Assuming half, or 900, of the small businesses with active agreements in the Mentor-Protégé program request a rating of past performance each year, the annual cost to the private sector of fulfilling these requests for past performance ratings would be $42,048 plus de minimis costs. Assuming small businesses with 10 percent of 24,000 subcontracting plans at the prime contract level, in addition to those in the Mentor-Protégé program, request a rating of past performance each year, the annual cost to the private sector of fulfilling these requests is $112,128. Assuming each of the 2,082 commercial plans has two to four subcontracts, and half of the total subcontracts represents small business that would request a past performance rating each year, then the annual cost to the private sector of fulfilling these requests would be $145,907 plus de minimis costs. With these assumptions, total annual costs to the private sector of fulfilling requests is $300,083 plus de minimis costs.
The requirement of small business offerors that have been members of joint ventures to identify the joint venture, identify the contract(s) of the joint venture, and describe duties or responsibilities as a joint venture member in order to receive consideration of past performance involves a resource cost to the small business offerors that compile the specified information. SBA notes that this cost would be voluntarily incurred by small businesses that assess the enhancement of Federal contracting opportunities from consideration of past performance to be of greater value than the incremental costs incurred.
If more small businesses meet past performance standards and then submit proposals to contracting agencies, administrative costs to the Government may increase when a contracting agency reviews an increased number of proposals and past performance ratings. SBA cannot quantify these costs and notes that increased competition may offset these costs to the Government.
The ability of more small businesses to demonstrate past performance may redistribute some Federal contracts from businesses that can demonstrate past performance in the baseline scenario that exists with no implementation of the pilot program. This redistribution would not affect overall economic activity. This final rule and its effects do not change the amount of dollars in all available Federal contracts. SBA cannot quantify the actual outcome of the gains and losses from the redistribution of contracts among different groups of small businesses that would result from an increased number of small businesses with the ability to demonstrate their experience and past performance, but it expects that competition from small businesses with newly established past performance ratings may displace some small businesses that had established ratings in Federal contracting opportunities. A partial offset of this transfer impact among small businesses may occur with increased numbers of contracts set aside for small businesses through the Rule of Two, which states there is a reasonable expectation that the contracting officer will obtain offers from at least two small businesses and award will be made at fair market price.
3.
This final rule implements specific statutory provisions in Section 868 of the NDAA FY 2021. There are no alternatives that would meet the statutory requirements.
This final rule meets applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The action does not have retroactive or preemptive effect.
This final rule does not have federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in the Executive Order. As such it does not warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
This final 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.
This Executive Order directs agencies to, among other things: (a) afford the public a meaningful opportunity to comment through the internet on proposed regulations, with a comment period that should generally consist of not less than 60 days; (b) provide for an “open exchange” of information among government officials, experts, stakeholders, and the public; and (c) seek the views of those who are likely to be affected by the rulemaking, even before issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking. As far as practicable or relevant, SBA considers these requirements in developing this rule, as discussed below.
1. Did the agency use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future costs when responding to E.O. 12866 (
To the extent possible the Agency utilized the most recent data available in the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation, System for Award Management, and Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System.
2.
The proposed rule had a 60-day comment period and was posted on
3.
Yes, the final rule implements statutory provisions that provide new methods for small business government contractors to obtain past performance ratings to be used with offers on prime contracts with the Federal Government. The final rule updates the requirements for small business subcontracting plans to add a requirement for prime contractors to provide past performance to a small business, first-tier subcontractor when requested by the small business first-tier subcontractor. The final rule enhances the small business' ability to compete for Federal Government prime contracting opportunities.
Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (codified at 5 U.S.C. 801-808), also known as the Congressional Review Act or CRA, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. SBA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States. A major rule under the CRA cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the
This rule updates the requirements for small business subcontracting plans to add a requirement for prime contractors to provide past performance ratings to a first-tier small business subcontractor when requested. A FAR rule implementing this requirement will account for the additional burden in its existing information collection and clearance for the information collection will be obtained by the GSA for the FAR Council.
In this final rule, SBA provides for a small business concern to receive past performance consideration for the past performance of a joint venture of which the small business was a member. This does not require a new information collection because the burden is already accounted for when the Government contracting officer rates the joint venture entity serving as a prime contractor.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, requires administrative agencies to consider the effect of their actions on small entities, small nonprofit enterprises, and small local governments. Pursuant to the RFA, when an agency issues a rulemaking, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis which describes the impact of the rule on small entities. However, section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA defines “small entity” to include “small businesses,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdictions.”
This final rule provides new methods for small business contractors to obtain past performance ratings to be used with offers on prime contracts. As such, the rule relates to small business concerns but would not affect “small organizations” or “small governmental jurisdictions” because those programs generally apply only to “business concerns” as defined by SBA regulations; in other words, to small businesses organized for profit. “Small organizations” or “small governmental jurisdictions” are non-profits or governmental entities and do not generally qualify as “business concerns” within the meaning of SBA's regulations.
There are approximately 1,800 active SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé agreements and SBA estimates that half, or 900, small businesses with active agreements would request a past performance rating from its prime contractor in a year. Of the 24,000 subcontracting plans at the prime contract level in fiscal year 2015, SBA assumes for this analysis that up to 2,400 that are not in the Mentor-Protégé program may request a past performance rating each year. Additionally, in FY 2019 there were 2,082 commercial plans with small businesses. Assuming two to four subcontracts for each commercial plan, and half of them request a past performance rating, SBA estimates that up to 3,123 small businesses involved in commercial plans may request a past performance rating each year. The changes allow small business contractors to request a past performance rating from a prime contractor for whom they performed
As a result, SBA does not believe the final rule would have a disparate impact on small businesses or would impose any additional significant costs. For the reasons discussed, SBA certifies that this final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business concerns.
Government contracts, Government procurement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small business subcontracting, Small businesses.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, SBA amends 13 CFR part 125 as follows:
15 U.S.C. 632(p), (q), 634(b)(6), 637, 644, 657b, 657(f), and 657r.
The addition reads as follows:
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(xii)(A) The prime contractor, upon request from a first-tier small business subcontractor, shall provide the subcontractor with a rating of the subcontractor's past performance. The prime contractor must provide the small business subcontractor the requested rating within 15 calendar days of the request. The rating provided by the prime contractor to the first-tier small business subcontractor shall utilize the five-scale ratings system found in FAR 42.1503 (48 CFR 42.1503): Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, and Unsatisfactory. If the subcontractor will use the rating for an offer on a prime contract, it must include, at a minimum, the following evaluation factors in the requested rating:
(
(
(
(
(
(B) The requirement in paragraph (c)(1)(xii)(A) of this section is not subject to the flow-down in paragraph (c)(1)(x) of this section.
(C) A first-tier small business subcontractor must make the request for a performance rating from the prime contractor within 30 calendar days after the completion of the period of performance for the prime contractor's contract with the Government. The prime contractor and the first-tier small business subcontractor may negotiate a later deadline for the request for a performance rating, but in no case can the prime contractor impose a deadline earlier than 30 calendar days after the completion of the period of performance for the prime contractor's contract with the Government.
(D) The rating provided by the prime contractor to the first-tier small business subcontractor shall utilize the five-scale ratings system found in FAR 42.1503 (48 CFR 42.1503): Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, and Unsatisfactory.
(a)
(b)
(A) Identify to the contracting officer the joint venture of which the small business concern is or was a member;
(B) Identify the contract or contracts of the joint venture that the small business elects to use for its experience and past performance for the prime contract offer; and
(C) Inform the contracting officer what duties and responsibilities the concern carried out or is carrying out as part of the joint venture.
(ii) A small business cannot identify and use as its own experience and past performance work that was performed exclusively by other partners to the joint venture.
(2)
(c)
(i) Technical (quality of product or service);
(ii) Cost control (not applicable for firm-fixed-price or fixed-price with economic price adjustment arrangements);
(iii) Schedule/timeliness;
(iv) Management or business relations; and
(v) Other (as applicable).
(2)
(3)
(4)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection; DHS.
Final rule; technical amendment.
This document amends U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations by revising the list of user fee airports. User fee airports are airports that have been approved by CBP to receive, for a fee, the customs services of CBP officers for processing aircraft, passengers, and cargo entering the United States, but do not qualify for designation as international or landing rights airports. Specifically, this technical amendment reflects the designation of user fee status for four additional airports: Coeur d'Alene Airport in Hayden, Idaho; Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport in Ithaca, New York; University of Illinois-Willard Airport in Savoy, Illinois; and Sheboygan County Memorial Airport in Sheboygan Falls, Wisconsin. This document also amends CBP regulations by removing the designation of user fee status for two airports: Ardmore Industrial Airpark, in Ardmore, Oklahoma, and Decatur Airport in Decatur, Illinois.
Effective July 22, 2022.
Ryan Flanagan, Director, Alternative Funding Program, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection at
Title 19, part 122, of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 122) sets forth regulations relating to the entry and clearance of aircraft engaged in international commerce and the transportation of persons and cargo by aircraft in international commerce.
Section 236 of the Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-573, 98 stat. 2948, 2994 (1984)), codified at 19 U.S.C. 58b, created an alternative option for civil aircraft seeking to land at an airport that is neither an international airport nor a landing rights airport. This alternative option allows the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to designate an airport, upon request by the airport authority or other sponsoring entity, as a user fee airport.
CBP designates airports as user fee airports in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 58b and 19 CFR 122.15 on a case-by-case basis. If CBP decides that the conditions for designation as a user fee airport are satisfied, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is executed between the Commissioner of CBP and the sponsor of the user fee airport. Pursuant to 19 CFR 122.15(c), the designation of an airport as a user fee airport must be withdrawn if either CBP or the airport authority gives 120 days written notice of termination to the other party or if any amounts due to CBP are not paid on a timely basis.
The list of designated user fee airports is set forth in 19 CFR 122.15(b). Periodically, CBP updates the list to include newly designated airports that were not previously on the list, to reflect any changes in the names of the designated user fee airports, and to remove airports that are no longer designated as user fee airports.
This document updates the list of user fee airports in 19 CFR 122.15(b) by adding the following four airports: Coeur d'Alene Airport in Hayden, Idaho; Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport in Ithaca, New York; University of Illinois-Willard Airport in Savoy, Illinois; and Sheboygan County Memorial Airport in Sheboygan Falls, Wisconsin. CBP has signed MOAs with the respective airport authorities designating each of these four airports as a user fee airport.
Additionally, this document updates the list of user fee airports in 19 CFR 122.15(b) by removing two airports: Ardmore Industrial Airpark in Ardmore, Oklahoma and Decatur Airport in Decatur, Illinois. The airport authority of Ardmore Industrial Airpark requested to terminate its user fee status on March 19, 2020, and the airport authority and CBP mutually agreed to terminate the user fee status of Ardmore Industrial Airpark effective on July 17, 2020. The airport authority of Decatur Airport requested to terminate its user fee status on July 17, 2019, and the airport authority and CBP mutually agreed to terminate the user fee status of Decatur Airport effective on November 13, 2019.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), an agency is exempted from the prior public notice and comment procedures if it finds, for good cause, that such procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. This final rule makes conforming changes by updating the list of user fee airports to add four airports that have already been designated by CBP as user fee airports and by removing two airports for which CBP has withdrawn the user fee airport designation, in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 58b. Because this conforming rule has no substantive impact, is technical in nature, and does not impose additional burdens on or take away any existing rights or privileges from the public, CBP finds for good cause that the prior public notice and comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. For the same reasons, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), a delayed effective date is not required.
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
There is no new collection of information required in this document; therefore, the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507) are inapplicable.
This document is limited to a technical correction of CBP regulations. Accordingly, it is being signed under the authority of 19 CFR 0.1(b). Commissioner Chris Magnus, having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this document to Robert F. Altneu, who is the Director of the Regulations and Disclosure Law Division for CBP, for purposes of publication in the
Air carriers, Aircraft, Airports, Customs duties and inspection, Freight.
Part 122 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 122) is amended as set forth below:
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 58b, 66, 1431, 1433, 1436, 1448, 1459, 1590, 1594, 1623, 1624, 1644, 1644a, 2071 note.
The additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for all navigable waters of Fairport Harbor, OH. The safety zone is necessary and intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from hazards created by shoaling in the area.
This rule is effective without actual notice July 22, 2022 through November 15, 2022. For enforcement purposes, actual notice will be used from July 15, 2022, until July 22, 2022.
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 Jared Stevens, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 216-937-0124, 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 the Coast Guard has learned that significant shoaling has developed in the vicinity of the navigational channel, and the nature and location of the shoaling presents an imminent hazard to navigation. The safety zone must be established as soon as possible for the safety of all personnel, vessels, and the marine environment; thus, it is impracticable to publish an NPRM.
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), 46 U.S.C 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. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Buffalo has determined that the hazards associated with shoaling in Fairport Harbor, OH are a safety concern for all marine traffic. This rule is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone until dredging can be completed in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' approved project depth for the federally maintained sections of the waterway.
This rule establishes a safety zone for all federally maintained waters of Fairport Harbor, OH. The duration of the safety zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the federally maintained channel is dredged in accordance with the approved U.S. Army Corps of Engineers federal project depths. All vessels are prohibited from transiting the safety zone with an under keel clearance of less than one (1) foot and six (6) inches. Every vessel's under keel clearance shall be verified by the master prior to entry and departure from Fairport Harbor, OH. Further, draft readings shall be documented and retained on board. Additionally, vessels greater than 100 Gross Registered Tons shall not meet or pass another vessel while navigating within the safety zone.
The most recent U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project condition surveys and hydrological surveys can be found on their website:
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. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 regarding the safety zone, and this regulatory action allows vessel traffic to transit within and around the safety zone under the conditions outlined in this rulemaking.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the 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
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 approximately 120 days, or until cancelled. This rule requires all vessels to maintain a minimum of one (1) foot and six (6) inches under keel clearance while transiting the safety zone. Every vessel's under keel clearance shall be verified by the master prior to entry and departure from Fairport Harbor, OH. Further, draft readings shall be documented and retained on board. Additionally, vessels greater than 100 Gross Registered Tons shall not meet or pass another vessel while navigating within the safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 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, 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) The under keel clearance shall be verified by the vessel's master prior to entry and departure from Fairport Harbor, OH. Draft readings and under keel clearance shall be documented and retained on board, and be readily available for verification upon request by the U.S. Coast Guard.
(3) Vessels greater than 100 Gross Registered Tons shall not meet nor pass another vessel while navigating within the safety zone.
(4) The Coast Guard may patrol the safety zone under the direction of a designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The Patrol Commander may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “PATCOM.”
(5) No vessel shall anchor, block, loiter, or impede the through transit of vessels in the regulated area during the effective dates and times, unless cleared by or through an official patrol vessel. The Patrol Commander may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
(6) Any vessel may anchor outside the regulated areas specified in this chapter, but may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable channel.
(7) The Patrol Commander may terminate the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property.
(8) The Patrol Commander will terminate enforcement of the special regulations upon satisfactory completion of dredging operations in
(d)
U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Final rule.
The U.S. Copyright Office is amending the rules for registering a single issue of a serial publication, such as an individual issue of a magazine or journal. Under the current regulations, two copies of the best edition are generally needed to register this type of work, and must be in a physical format if the issue was published in that form. The amended rule will liberalize the deposit requirements by letting copyright owners submit one copy of such works instead of two. It also gives copyright owners the option of uploading a digital copy through the electronic registration system, even if the issue was published in a physical format. Alternatively, copyright owners may mail one copy to the Office in a physical format, although mailing a physical copy will delay the examination of the claim and result in a later effective date of registration.
Effective August 22, 2022.
Suzanne V. Wilson, General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights, by email at
When Congress enacted the Copyright Act of 1976, it authorized the Register of Copyrights to issue regulations specifying administrative classes of works for the purpose of seeking a registration.
Section 408 of the Copyright Act states that an application for registration must be accompanied by “two complete copies . . . of the best edition” if the work has been published in the United States.
Copies that are submitted to the Copyright Office to satisfy the section 407 mandatory deposit requirement are intended “for the use or disposition of the Library of Congress.”
Both sections 407 and 408 give the Register authority to issue regulations concerning the nature of the copies that must be deposited, and the ability to create exceptions to the deposit requirements set forth in the statute. Section 408 gives the Register authority to “require or permit, for particular classes [of works], . . . the deposit of only one copy . . . where two would normally be required” for copyright registration.
The legislative history confirms that the Register may adjust the deposit requirements to reduce burdens on copyright owners and to improve efficiencies within the Copyright Office. In discussing the Register's authority under section 407, Congress made clear that the mandatory deposit requirement should be “as flexible as possible, so that there will be no obligation to make deposits where it serves no purpose, so that only one copy . . . may be deposited where two are not needed, and so that reasonable adjustments can be made to meet practical needs in special cases.”
In 2018, the Register exercised this authority to modify the mandatory deposit requirement for serials.
Today, the Register exercises her authority to liberalize another deposit requirement related to serials, specifically for the registration of a single issue of a serial publication. First, the new rule lets copyright owners deposit one copy of the issue instead of two.
A digital copy submission must be contained in one electronic file, and the copy must be presented in an orderly form. A digital copy will be considered “orderly” if the cover and the entire content of the issue are included in the same file, the pages are arranged in sequential reading order, and the digital copy contains the same content as the physical copy. In addition, the file must be viewable and searchable, it must contain embedded fonts,
In addition, the file must be submitted in Portable Document Format (“PDF”), and it must be uploaded to the electronic registration system as an individual file (not in a .zip file). The size of the file must not exceed 500 megabytes. To meet this size limitation, applicants may compress the PDF file in accordance with instructions on the Office's website.
Applicants will be encouraged to follow the file-naming conventions specified on the Office's website.
Over the next twelve months, the Copyright Office plans to contact copyright owners that routinely submit single serial issues to notify them about the change in the deposit requirements and the technical requirements for uploading a digital deposit. If an applicant uploads a digital deposit but fails to follow the technical requirements during this one-year transition period, the Office may communicate with the applicant to discuss the missing technical requirements and allow it to cure the deficiencies.
Accepting digital deposits in cases where the serial was published in a physical format will benefit both the Office and copyright owners by improving the efficiency of the registration process. Because a significantly larger percentage of single serial issues are submitted with physical deposits, the average processing time in FY21 for claims involving a single serial issue was significantly longer than claims involving other types of literary works.
There are many reasons for the disparity in the review time between physical and electronic submissions, the most significant one being related to the time required for the Office to receive mailed deposits. When an applicant uploads a digital file in an acceptable file format, the Office typically receives the application, filing fee, and deposit on the same date. The examiner can review the uploaded file as soon as the claim has been assigned, because the Office does not need physical copies to examine a serial for copyrightable authorship.
Conversely, when an applicant submits an online application and mails physical copies to the Office, the deposit may arrive long after the date that the application and filing fee were received, and in some cases it may take weeks to connect the application with the correct deposit. In addition to the inherent delay in mail versus electronic submission, physical mail sent to the Office faces additional delays. Before the physical deposit can be delivered to the Office, it must be sent offsite to be screened and decontaminated for possible pathogens.
In the vast majority of cases, the Serials Division of the Library of Congress does not need these physical copies for its collections. Physical deposits would be useful only if (1) the
For copyright owners, the rule will reduce the cost of seeking a registration by lowering the incremental cost of producing and mailing physical copies to the Office. It also provides them with certain benefits. When the Office registers a serial issue, the effective date of registration is the date that the Office received the application, filing fee, and deposit in proper form. As discussed above, when an applicant uploads a digital copy of the deposit to the electronic registration system, the Office typically receives the application, filing fee, and deposit on the same date. By comparison, as described above, when an applicant sends physical copies to the Office the deposit may arrive long after the date that the application and filing fee were received—thereby establishing a later effective date of registration. Moreover, if an applicant uploads a complete copy through the electronic registration system, the Office will retain a digital copy of the issue for twenty years.
To be clear, copyright owners may continue to submit their deposits in a physical format if they wish to do so, and in such cases, one copy will be required instead of two.
This is a technical change to a “rule[ ] of agency . . . procedure [and] practice,”
Copyright, Preregistration and registration of claims to copyright.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Office amends 37 CFR part 202 as follows:
17 U.S.C. 408(f), 702.
(c) * * *
(2) In the case of certain works, the special provisions set forth in this clause shall apply. In any case where this clause specifies that one copy or phonorecord may be submitted, that copy or phonorecord shall represent the best edition, or the work as first published, as set forth in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, unless stated otherwise.
(i) * * *
(N) A single issue of a serial publication, for which the deposit may comply with the requirements set forth in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(B) or (c)(2)(i)(N)(
(
(
Approved by:
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending its regulations concerning its claims and appeals process governing various programs administered by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). The Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 (hereafter referred to as the AMA) amended the procedures applicable to administrative review and appeal of VA decisions on claims for benefits, creating a new, modernized review system. This amendment will sunset certain VHA regulations which are inconsistent with the AMA.
Erik Shepherd, Chief, VHA Claims and
In a document published in the
Two comments expressed general support for VHA's adoption of processes contained in the AMA, but did not suggest any changes to the rule as proposed. To the extent that one comment indicated that the full potential has not yet been met for VHA appeals, and any opportunity to speed up the process should be considered and executed, VA has implemented the AMA as generally applicable to benefits administered throughout VA, to include benefits administered by VHA. The current rulemaking only addressed current VHA regulations that are inconsistent with the AMA and the VA Claim and Appeals Modernization regulatory amendments. As the proposed rule did not attempt to delineate any VHA specific appeals process updates, we believe that this portion of the comment is outside the scope of the proposed rulemaking. VA appreciates these comments and makes no changes based on these comments.
Two comments recommended that VA open new medical schools. Because the proposed rule sought to discontinue certain legacy processes associated with VA claims, and did not address other VA processes or more specifically the concept of VA establishing medical schools, these comments are beyond the scope of the proposed rule, and we make no changes based on these comments.
One comment alleged discrimination and referred to a Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUB Zone) appeal. Without more information in the comment to link the alleged discrimination to the proposed rule, we believe a general reference to a HUB Zone appeal is beyond the scope of the proposed rule that sought to discontinue certain legacy processes associated with VA claims. We therefore make no changes based on this comment.
Lastly, one comment encouraged VA to revise § 17.133 as proposed to add U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development-VA Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) Program benefits as an enumerated benefit subject to reconsideration under the legacy administrative processes. VA's proposed rule contemplated neither expansion, contraction, nor clarification of the benefits subject to the legacy administrative processes. Instead, the preamble to the proposed rule merely stated that reconsiderations would only be available to legacy appeals as the term legacy appeal is defined in parts 3 and 19 of title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations. As the proposed rule did not attempt to define or clarify what is contemplated in the definition of legacy appeal, we believe that this comment is also outside the scope of the proposed rulemaking. VA is not making any changes based on this comment.
In a related rulemaking, RIN 2900-AP02, VA proposed changes to 38 CFR 17.276. See 83 FR 2396. RIN 2900-AP02 was finalized and published first and, as such, any changes to 38 CFR 17.276 are removed and included in RIN 2900-AP02. See 87 FR 41594. VA received no comments on the proposed changes to 38 CFR 17.276 in either rulemaking. Given that the changes proposed to 38 CFR 17.276 are now addressed by RIN 2900-AP02, any changes in the original proposed rule related to 38 CFR 17.276 are removed from this rulemaking.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. The Regulatory Impact Analysis associated with this rulemaking can be found as a supporting document at
The Secretary hereby certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). This rule only affects procedures regarding the appeals process; it does not affect the cost of filing an appeal nor any amount duly owed to a small entity. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not apply.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
The Assistance Listing numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.009—Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.039—CHAMPVA.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, Foreign relations, Government contracts, Grant programs-health, Grant programs-veterans, Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Health records, Homeless, Medical and dental schools, Medical devices, Medical research, Mental health programs, Nursing homes, Philippines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on June 17, 2022, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, we amend 38 CFR parts 17 and 70 as set forth below:
38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in specific sections.
The addition reads as follows:
(a) This section applies only to legacy claims.
(a)
The addition reads as follows:
(a) This section applies only to legacy claims.
* * * Any decision denying a benefit must be in writing and inform the claimant of VA appeal rights.
38 U.S.C. 101, 111, 111A, 501, 1701, 1714, 1720, 1728, 1782, 1783, and E.O. 11302, 31 FR 11741, 3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 578, unless otherwise noted.
The addition reads as follows:
(a) This section applies only to legacy claims.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is giving concurrent notice of a newly established system of records pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 for the “DHS/U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)-027 Customs Broker Management (CBM) System of Records” and this proposed rulemaking. In this proposed rulemaking, the Department proposes to exempt portions of the system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements.
Comments must be received on or before August 22, 2022.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number USCBP-2022-0028, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general questions please contact: Debra L. Danisek, (202) 344-1610,
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to establish a new DHS system of records titled, “DHS/U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)-027 Customs Broker Management.” The records in this system are currently covered under the “DHS/CBP-010 Persons Engaged in International Trade in Customs and Border Protection Licensed/Regulated Activities Systems of Records” (73 FR 77753, December 19, 2008), and historically under the “Treasury/CS.069 Customs Brokers File” (66 FR 52984, October 18, 2001). DHS/CBP is creating this new System of Records to distinguish the Customs Broker application, exam, license, and vetting records from the other records in “DHS/CBP-010 Persons Engaged in International Trade in Customs and Border Protection Licensed/Regulated Activities Systems of Records” (73 FR 77753, December 19, 2008). In addition, the new System of Records provides notice for a new collection and maintenance of information (
Customs Brokers are private individuals, associations, corporations, or partnerships licensed, regulated, and empowered by CBP to assist importers and exporters in meeting federal requirements governing imports and exports. Customs Brokers submit necessary information and appropriate payments to DHS/CBP on behalf of their clients and charge a fee for their service. Customs Brokers must have expertise in the entry procedures, admissibility requirements, classifications, valuation, and applicable rates of duties, taxes, and fees for imported merchandise.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 111.11, an individual is eligible to qualify for a Customs Broker license if he or she (1) is a U.S. citizen on the date of submission of the application referred to in 19 CFR 111.12(a) (OMB Control Number 1651-0034/CBP Form 3124) and is not an officer or employee of the U.S. government, (2) is the age of 21 prior to the date of submission of the application, (3) possesses good moral character, and (4) has passed the Customs Broker License Exam, by attaining a passing grade (75 percent or higher) on the examination taken within the 3-year period before submission of the application.
A partnership is eligible to qualify for a Customs Broker license if they have at least one member of the partnership who is a broker.
DHS/CBP manages the Customs Broker's license program and collects information from applicants when they register to take the Customs Broker License Exam, during the administration of the Customs Broker License Exam, when they apply for a broker's license, throughout the background investigation processes, through the triennial reporting process, and through continuing education requirements.
The Customs Broker License Exam is offered to applicants twice a year. Applicants can go to
Once an applicant has successfully passed the exam, the applicant can apply for a Customs Broker license at a CBP facility near where the applicant plans to transact business as a Broker. The Customs Broker license package requires applicants to submit additional biographic information, via CBP Form 3124 (OMB Control No. 1651-0034), and fingerprints are collected at a CBP facility by a CBP Officer and sent to the CBP Trusted Worker Program System (TWP).
DHS/CBP stores information related to Broker's licenses in the Automated Commercial Environment system (ACE) and on designated CBP servers. Fingerprints collected as part of the background investigation process are stored in the DHS Office of Biometric Identity Management (OBIM) Automatic Biometric Identification System (IDENT). In addition, some information will be stored on DHS contractors' systems to assist in the administration of the Customs Broker License Examination. Any files related to appeals will be transferred to CBP and maintained on a CBP system.
Consistent with DHS' information sharing mission, information stored in the DHS/CBP-027 Customs Broker Management system of records may be shared with other DHS components that have a need to know the information to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions. In addition, DHS/CBP may share information with appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agencies consistent with the routine uses set forth in this system of records notice.
On September 10, 2021, CBP published a non-Privacy Act Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
The fair information practice principles found in the Privacy Act underpin the statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate personally identifiable information. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. As a matter of policy, DHS extends administrative Privacy Act protections to all individuals where systems of records maintain information on U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and visitors.
The Privacy Act allows government agencies to exempt certain records from the access and amendment provisions. If an agency claims an exemption, however, it must issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to make clear to the public the reasons why a particular exemption is claimed.
DHS is claiming exemptions from certain requirements of the Privacy Act for DHS/CBP-027 Customs Broker Management System of Records. Some information in DHS/CBP-027 Customs Broker Management System of Records relates to official DHS national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions. These exemptions are needed to protect information relating to DHS activities from disclosure to subjects or others related to these activities. Specifically, the exemptions are required to preclude subjects of these activities from frustrating these processes; to avoid disclosure of activity techniques; to protect the identities and physical safety of confidential informants and law enforcement personnel; to ensure DHS' ability to obtain information from third parties and other sources; to protect the privacy of third parties; and to safeguard classified information. Disclosure of information to the subject of the inquiry could also permit the subject to avoid detection or apprehension.
In appropriate circumstances, where compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement purposes of this system and the overall law enforcement process, the applicable exemptions may be waived on a case by case basis.
A notice of system of records for DHS/CBP-027 Customs Broker Management System of Records is also published in this issue of the
Freedom of information, Privacy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS proposes to amend chapter I of title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
6 U.S.C. 101
88. The DHS/CBP-027 Customs Broker Management System of Records consists of electronic and paper records and will be used by DHS and its components. DHS/CBP Customs Broker Management System of Records is a repository of information held by DHS in connection with its several and varied missions and functions, including, but not limited to the enforcement of civil and criminal laws; investigations, inquiries, and proceedings there under; and national security and intelligence activities. DHS/CBP-027 Customs Broker Management System of Records maintains information about individuals, associations, corporations,
The Secretary of Homeland Security has exempted this system pursuant to exemption 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) of the Privacy Act, portions of this system are exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (4); (d); (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), and (e)(8); (f); and (g). Additionally, the Secretary has exempted this system pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) of the Privacy Act from subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), and (f). Exemptions from these particular subsections are justified, on a case-by-case basis to be determined at the time a request is made, for the following reasons:
(a) From subsection (c)(3) and (4) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS as well as the recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting would also permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension, which would undermine the entire investigative process.
(b) From subsection (d) (Access to Records) because access to the records contained in this system of records could inform the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS or another agency. Access to the records could permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension. Amendment of the records could interfere with ongoing investigations and law enforcement activities when weighing and evaluating all available information. Further, permitting amendment to records after an investigation has been completed could impose administrative burdens on investigators. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such information could disclose security-sensitive information that could be detrimental to homeland security.
(c) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of Information) because in the course of investigations into potential violations of federal law, the accuracy of information obtained or introduced occasionally may be unclear, or the information may not be strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is appropriate to retain all information that may aid in establishing patterns of unlawful activity.
(d) From subsection (e)(2) (Collection of Information from Individuals) because requiring that information be collected from the subject of an investigation would alert the subject to the nature or existence of the investigation, thereby interfering with that investigation and related law enforcement activities.
(e) From subsection (e)(3) (Notice to Subjects) because providing such detailed information could impede law enforcement by compromising the existence of a confidential investigation or reveal the identity of witnesses or confidential informants.
(f) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and (e)(4)(I) (Agency Requirements) and (f) (Agency Rules), because portions of this system are exempt from the individual access provisions of subsection (d) for the reasons noted above, and therefore DHS is not required to establish requirements, rules, or procedures with respect to such access. Providing notice to individuals with respect to existence of records pertaining to them in the system of records or otherwise setting up procedures pursuant to which individuals may access and view records pertaining to themselves in the system would undermine investigative efforts and reveal the identities of witnesses, and potential witnesses, and confidential informants.
(g) From subsection (e)(5) (Collection of Information) because with the collection of information for law enforcement purposes, it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete.
(h) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on Individuals) because compliance would interfere with DHS's ability to obtain, serve, and issue subpoenas, warrants, and other law enforcement mechanisms that may be filed under seal and could result in disclosure of investigative techniques, procedures, and evidence.
(i) From subsection (g)(1) (Civil Remedies) to the extent that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act.
Proposed rule.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is soliciting comments and feedback on an update to the List of Bioengineered Foods (List) as it pertains to the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (the Standard or NBFDS).
Comments must be received on or before September 20, 2022.
We invite you to submit written comments via the internet at
Paul Lewis, Director, Food Disclosure and Labeling Division, Fair Trade Practices Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Telephone (202) 720-3252, Email:
On July 29, 2016, Public Law 114-216 amended the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621
The regulations, at 7 CFR 66.6, contain the List, which currently includes: alfalfa, apple (Arctic
As stated in 7 CFR 66.7(a), AMS will review and consider updates to the List on an annual basis and will solicit recommendations regarding updates to the List through notification in the
(1) Recommendations regarding additions to and subtractions from the List may be submitted to AMS at any time or as part of the annual review process.
(2) Recommendations should be accompanied by data and other information to support the recommended action.
(3) AMS will post public recommendations on its website, along with information about other revisions to the List that the agency may be considering, including input based on consultation with the government agencies responsible for oversight of the products of biotechnology: USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Health and Human Services' Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
(4) AMS will consider whether foods proposed for inclusion on the List have been authorized for commercial production somewhere in the world, and whether the food is currently in legal commercial production for human food somewhere in the world.
(5) If AMS determines that an update to the List is appropriate following its review of all relevant information provided, AMS will modify the List.
On July 24, 2020, AMS published a Notice in the
AMS also sought public comment to determine whether additional information was publicly available regarding bioengineered versions of cowpea and rice. AMS understands that bioengineered versions of cowpea and rice are at various stages of authorization for commercial production but are not yet in legal commercial production for human food. AMS also requested comments on any other foods not mentioned in the Notice that it should consider for addition to the List.
The comment period for the Notice closed on August 24, 2020. AMS received a total of 17 comments. After reviewing the public comments, AMS is proceeding with the proposed rule to add sugarcane (Bt insect-resistant varieties) to the List and amend “squash (summer)” to “squash (summer, mosaic virus-resistant varieties).” AMS did not receive any comments on cowpea or rice and is not proposing any action related to those two crops at this time.
Table 1 summarizes the proposed addition and modification to the List.
AMS received comments that both supported and opposed adding sugarcane (Bt insect-resistant varieties) to the List.
Those in favor of adding sugarcane (Bt insect-resistant varieties) to the List generally agreed that it met the dual criteria identified at 7 CFR 66.7(a)(4) to be added to the List: (1) authorized for commercial production somewhere in the world and (2) currently in legal commercial production for human food somewhere in the world. Several commenters also noted that adding sugarcane (insect-resistant) to the List would provide consumers with more information about their food.
Commenters opposed to adding sugarcane (Bt insect-resistant varieties) to the List acknowledged that commercial production of that crop is authorized and taking place in Brazil and that such production is primarily for seedling bulk up, and not for human consumption. However, we have no evidence that seedling bulk up is the only use for the crop, and we believe sugarcane (Bt insect-resistant varieties) could be used for human food and should be included on the List. AMS requests comments with data or evidence that would support or refute the conclusion that seedling bulk up is the only current use for sugarcane (Bt insect-resistant varieties).
Another commenter suggested that sugarcane (insect-resistant) produced in Brazil is unlikely to end up in the United States. Whether a product is likely to end up in the United States is not a factor that AMS must consider under 7 CFR 66.7. The List reflects production of bioengineered foods on a global level and does not consider whether such foods are likely to end up in the United States.
Lastly, some commenters suggested that because sugar produced from sugarcane (insect-resistant) is highly refined and does not contain detectable modified genetic material, it is not a bioengineered food and should not be added to the List. As stated above, the List establishes a presumption about which foods are or may be bioengineered. Inclusion on the List does not affirmatively mean an item on the List, or a food produced from an item on the List, is a bioengineered food. Rather, being on the List establishes a presumption and requires a regulated entity to make a bioengineered food disclosure unless they maintain records, in accordance with 7 CFR 66.9, to demonstrate that
AMS has considered all the information provided to the agency related to sugarcane (insect-resistant) and believes the criteria identified in 7 CFR 66.7(a)(4) are met. Accordingly, this action proposes to update the List to include sugarcane (insect-resistant). AMS invites comments on the proposed addition of insect resistant sugarcane to the List.
Commenters were generally supportive of adding an additional modifier (virus-resistant) to the existing entry for squash (summer). One commenter noted that the additional modifier increases transparency and provides more information to consumers.
Another commenter asked that AMS consider additional specificity by further amending the entry for squash to include the specific trade name, Performance Series. As mentioned in the preamble to the final rule (83 FR 65819), AMS will, where practical, include specific trade names “to help distinguish bioengineered versions of those foods from their non-bioengineered counterparts.” The List currently includes two foods with specific trade names: Arctic
Additionally, adding “virus-resistant” to the existing description would not impact the recordkeeping burden for regulated entities. These entities may still be subject to an examination of customary or reasonable records for summer squash following a BE audit outlined in § 66.402. If regulated entities marketing summer squash or sugarcane are unable to obtain records from suppliers, they can make a disclosure.
After reviewing the public comments, AMS is proceeding with this proposed rule to amend “squash (summer)” to “squash (summer, mosaic virus-resistant varieties).” AMS invites comments on the proposed revision to summer squash on the List to specify “squash (summer, mosaic virus-resistant varieties).
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the information collection related to the NBFDS has previously been approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0315—National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard. AMS estimates that changes in recordkeeping burden due to the proposed revisions to the List would be minimal.
Generally, the records necessary to substantiate the need for a disclosure/label are customary and reasonable, and therefore maintained in the usual course of business. The same records would be required to substantiate a decision not to label under § 66.9. Limiting reporting to a specific variety of summer squash does not really reduce recordkeeping. These entities may still be subject to an examination of customary or reasonable records for summer squash following a BE audit outlined in § 66.402. It could, however, reduce the burden associated with making disclosures, since fewer labels would be required where summer squash is known not to be bioengineered for virus resistance. Data are not available to measure the change in the number of entities who would be required to comply with the revised disclosure and recordkeeping requirements associated with this proposal, given the seasonal nature of summer squash production and variations in production from year to year. AMS requests comments with data or information on market share or proportion of squash of virus-resistant varieties and the number of entities that might be impacted by this change.
AMS did not receive any substantive comments during the open comment period for the Information Collection renewal request published earlier this year.
AMS has considered the potential civil rights implications of this proposed rule on minorities, women, or 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 that are subject to these regulations.
This proposed rule offers several distinct avenues of compliance for regulated entities that can be tailored to the needs of their consumers. Applying this approach does not deny any persons or groups the benefits of the program or subject any persons or groups to discrimination. AMS's Civil Rights Impact Analysis (CRIA) will be published in the
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and 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 the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This proposed rule may impact individual members of Indian tribes that operate as food manufacturers or retailers; however, it would not have a direct effect on tribes or the relationship or distribution of power and
USDA is issuing this proposed 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 maximize net benefits, which include 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. Pursuant to 7 CFR 66.7(b), “[r]egulated entities will have 18 months following the effective date of the updated List of Bioengineered Foods to revise food labels to reflect changes to the List in accordance with the disclosure requirements of this part.” As this rule has been designated “Significant,” it has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Cost changes due to this action will be limited to the addition of sugarcane to the List because regulated entities have already incurred costs associated with the inclusion of summer squash on the List. The addition of sugarcane to the List would not increase the cost of federal enforcement. To estimate the cost of the proposed action, the Label Insight Database was used to determine the number of products that use cane sugar as an ingredient and which have no other ingredients that would otherwise require labeling of the product as bioengineered as described in the regulatory impact analysis for the final rule on page 19.
The annualized cost of adding sugarcane to the list of potentially bioengineered products would be between $500,000 and $3.5 million (annualized over 20 years using a seven percent discount rate). The rule is, therefore, not considered to be economically significant under Executive Order 12866. Even considering only the first year (where all of the costs are expected to occur), the estimated costs do not exceed the $100 million threshold for economically significant.
AMS has examined the economic implications of this proposed rule as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). If a rule has significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze regulatory options that would lessen the economic effect of the rule on small entities, consistent with statutory objectives. AMS has concluded that the proposed rule, if finalized, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed addition of sugarcane (insect-resistant) and proposed amendment of “squash (summer)” to “squash (summer, mosaic virus-resistant varieties)” to the List would directly affect three industry sectors: cane sugar manufacturers, processed food manufacturers who use cane sugar or summer squash as ingredients, and grocery or other retailers who sell raw sugarcane (insect-resistant) or summer squash.
According to the 2017 Study of U.S. Business (SUSB) from the US Census, there were 37 cane sugar manufacturers in the United States. Approximately 32 of the total cane sugar manufacturers would meet the Small Business Administration definition of small. Of the 32 small firms, 11 would also qualify as very small manufacturers under the NBFDS regulations and would be exempt from disclosure requirements. Accordingly, those 11 firms would incur no costs associated with the addition of sugarcane (insect-resistant) to the List of Bioengineered Foods. The remaining 21 small firms would not likely face significant costs as they only have one product and are likely to know where the cane for their sugar originates. At this time sugarcane (insect-resistant) is grown commercially only in Brazil. If sugarcane (insect-resistant) becomes more prevalent, cane sugar producers could potentially be required to keep records on the origin of the cane processed into sugar and could incur certification costs associated with demonstrating that the final product has no detectable rDNA. Assuming that the refinement of cane sugar, like beet sugar, would support such a certification, cane sugar producers would face minimal labeling costs.
Food manufacturers who only use cane sugar as an ingredient will need to determine the certification status of the sugar they use—assuming sugar made from sugarcane (insect-resistant) makes it into the U.S. market. Most food manufacturers will already face costs associated with confirming the ingredients of their products and the marginal cost associated with an additional ingredient is expected to be small. As with beet sugar, it is unlikely that refined cane sugar would contain traceable levels of rDNA. As a result, regulated entities may not have additional labeling costs due to the addition of sugarcane (insect-resistant) to the List as there is a means to exempt their products from disclosure.
Food manufacturers whose products contain summer squash and retailers who sell uncooked summer squash will see no change or, potentially, a slight reduction in costs as the proposal would reduce the varieties of squash that require labeling. Food manufacturers whose products contain summer squash and retailers who sell uncooked summer squash are already maintaining records in accordance with the NBFDS.
Food manufacturers who use summer squash are likely concentrated in Fruit and Vegetable Preserving and Specialty
Similarly, retailers will be primarily affected by the change in the definition of summer squash. Their costs will remain the same as they are now or be reduced slightly if they do not need to label as many products.
For these reasons, AMS is certifying that the proposal to add sugarcane (Bt insect-resistant varieties) to the List of Bioengineered Foods and limiting the varieties of squash listed as bioengineered foods to virus-resistant varieties will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. The proposed rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. There are no administrative procedures that must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.
Agricultural commodities, Food labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Agricultural Marketing Service proposes to amend 7 CFR part 66 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1621
The List of Bioengineered Foods consists of the following: Alfalfa, apple (Arctic
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways V-1, V-16, and V-290, and remove airways V-93 and V-229. This action is necessary to support the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.
Comments must be received on or before September 6, 2022.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: (800) 647-5527 or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0901; Airspace Docket No. 21-ANE-5 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
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 the 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 modify the VOR Federal airway route structure in the eastern United States to maintain the efficient flow of air traffic.
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 (FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0901; Airspace Docket No. 21-ANE-5) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0901; Airspace Docket No. 21-ANE-5.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified comment closing
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
This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend VOR Federal airways V-1, V-16, and V-290, and remove airways V-93 and V-229. This action is necessary to support the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program. The proposed route changes are described below.
Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document would be subsequently published and removed from FAA Order JO 7400.11.
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
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).
In consideration of the foregoing, 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.
From Craig, FL, via INT Craig 020° and Charleston, SC, 214° radials; Charleston; Grand Strand, SC; INT Grand Strand 031° and Kinston, NC, 214° radials; to Kinston. Excluding the airspace below 2,700 feet MSL outside the United States between STARY INT and Charleston, SC.
From Los Angeles, CA; Paradise, CA; Palm Springs, CA; Blythe, CA; Buckeye, AZ; Phoenix, AZ; INT Phoenix 155° and Stanfield, AZ, 105° radials; Tucson, AZ; San Simon, AZ; INT San Simon 119° and Columbus, NM, 277° radials; Columbus; El Paso, TX; Salt Flat, TX; Wink, TX; INT Wink 066° and Big Spring, TX, 260° radials; Big Spring; Abilene, TX; Bowie, TX; Bonham, TX; Paris, TX; Texarkana, AR; Pine Bluff, AR; Marvell, AR; to Holly Springs, MS. From Shelbyville, TN; Hinch Mountain, TN; Volunteer, TN; Holston Mountain, TN; Pulaski, VA; Roanoke, VA; Lynchburg, VA; Flat Rock, VA; to Richmond, VA. The airspace within Mexico and the airspace below 2,000 feet MSL outside the United States is excluded.
From Tar River, NC; to INT Tar River 109° radial and New Bern, NC, 042° radial.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways V-44, V-139 and V-268, and remove airways V-34, V-167, and V-308. This action supports the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.
Comments must be received on or before September 6, 2022.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: (800) 647-5527 or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0902; Airspace Docket No. 21-ANE-6 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
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 the 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 modify the VOR Federal airway route structure in the eastern United States to maintain the efficient flow of air traffic.
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 (FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0902; Airspace Docket No. 21-ANE-6) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0902; Airspace Docket No. 21-ANE-6.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of 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
This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend VOR Federal airways V-44, V-139 and V-268; and remove airways V-34, V-167, and V-308. The proposed route changes are described below.
The full descriptions of the above routes are listed in the amendments to part 71 set forth below.
Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document would be subsequently published or removed from FAA Order JO 7400.11.
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
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).
In consideration of the foregoing, 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.
From Columbia, MO; INT Columbia 131° and Foristell, MO, 262° radials; Foristell; Centralia, IL; to Samsville, IL. From Falmouth, KY; York, KY; Parkersburg, WV; Morgantown, WV; to Martinsburg, WV. From: INT Deer Park 041° and Bridgeport, CT, 133° radials; Bridgeport; INT Bridgeport 324° and Pawling, NY, 160° radials; Pawling; INT Pawling 342° and Albany, NY, 181° radials; to Albany. The airspace below 2,000 feet MSL outside the United States is excluded.
From Florence, SC, via Wilmington, NC; New Bern, NC; to INT New Bern 006° and Norfolk, VA, 209° radials.
From INT Morgantown, WV, 010° and Johnstown, PA, 260° radials; Indian Head, PA; to Hagerstown, MD.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airway V-10, and remove airways V-33, V-99, V-377, V-403, and V-405. This action supports the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.
Comments must be received on or before September 6, 2022.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: (800) 647-5527 or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0905; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-26 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
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 the 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 modify the VOR Federal airway route structure in the eastern United States to maintain the efficient flow of air traffic.
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 (FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0905; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-26) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0905; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-26.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of 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
This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend VOR Federal airway V-10, and remove airways V-33, V-99, V-377, V-403, and V-405. The proposed route changes are described below.
The full descriptions of the above routes are listed in the amendments to part 71 set forth below.
Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document would be subsequently published and removed from FAA Order JO 7400.11.
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
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).
In consideration of the foregoing, 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.
From Pueblo, CO; 18 miles, 48 miles, 60 MSL, Lamar, CO; Garden City, KS; Dodge City, KS; Hutchinson, KS; Emporia, KS; INT Emporia 063°and Napoleon, MO, 243° radials; Napoleon; Kirksville, MO; Burlington, IA; Bradford, IL; to INT Bradford 058° and Joliet, IL, 287° radials. From INT Chicago Heights, IL, 358° and Gipper, MI, 271° radials; Gipper; to Litchfield, MI.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA, the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Louisiana, through the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), on November 20, 2016. The submittal is in response to the EPA's national SIP call of June 12, 2015, concerning excess emissions during periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM). The submittal requests the removal of certain provisions identified in the 2015 SIP call from the Louisiana SIP. EPA is also proposing to determine that the removal of the substantially inadequate provisions from the SIP corrects certain deficiencies identified in the June 12, 2015 SIP call.
Comments must be received on or before August 22, 2022.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0688 at
Mr. Alan Shar, Regional Haze and SO
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.
On February 22, 2013, the EPA issued a
On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), the EPA finalized “State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction,” (80 FR 33839 June 12, 2015), hereafter referred to as the “2015 SSM SIP Action.” The 2015 SSM SIP Action clarified, restated, and updated the EPA's interpretation that SSM exemption and affirmative defense SIP provisions are inconsistent with CAA requirements. The 2015 SSM SIP Action found that certain SIP provisions in 36 states were substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and issued a SIP call to those states to submit SIP revisions to address the inadequacies. EPA established an 18-month deadline by which the affected states had to submit such SIP revisions. States were required to submit corrective revisions to their SIPs in response to the SIP calls by November 22, 2016.
EPA issued a Memorandum in October 2020 (2020 Memorandum), which stated that certain provisions governing SSM periods in SIPs could be viewed as consistent with CAA requirements.
On September 30, 2021, EPA's Deputy Administrator withdrew the 2020 Memorandum and announced EPA's return to the policy articulated in the 2015 SSM SIP Action (2021 Memorandum).
As a part of EPA's June 12, 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA made a finding that certain provisions in the Louisiana SIP are substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements because they contain exemptions from otherwise applicable SIP emission limitations, and thus
On October 20, 2016, LDEQ repealed LAC 33:III.2153(B)(1)(i), LAC 33:III.1107(A), LAC 33:III.1507(A)(1), LAC 33:III.1507(B)(1), LAC 33:III.2307(C)(1)(a) and LAC 33:III.2307(C)(2)(a) from State law. Then by letter dated November 22, 2016, LDEQ requested the removal of the aforementioned provisions from the Louisiana SIP, in response to EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action.
LAC 33:III.1507(A) and LAC 33:III.1507(B) were approved by the EPA into the Louisiana SIP on July 15, 1993 (80 FR 33975-6). These provisions apply to sulfuric acid plants not subject to the requirements in 40 CFR 60.82 and 60.83 of 40 CFR part 60, subpart H. LAC 33:III.1507(A) states that “a four-hour (continuous) start-up exemption from the SO
LAC 33:III.1107(A) was originally approved by the EPA into the Louisiana SIP on March 8, 1989 (54 FR 9795), and later codified on July 5, 2011 (76 FR 38977). LAC 33:III.1107(A) allows LDEQ to grant an exemption from the provisions of LAC 33:III.1105 (establishing a 20% opacity limit during certain flaring events) “during start-up and shutdown periods if the flaring was not the result of failure to maintain or repair equipment.” If EPA approves the removal of these repealed provisions from the SIP, sources with flaring events covered by LAC 33:III.1105 will no longer be able to use the exemption that had been provided by LAC 33:III.1107(A).
LAC 33:III.2153(B)(1)(i) was originally approved by the EPA into the Louisiana SIP on June 20, 2002 (67 FR 41840), and later codified on July 5, 2011 (76 FR 38977). LAC 33:III.2153 (limiting volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from industrial wastewater) requires “affected VOC wastewater streams” to be controlled. More specifically, LAC 33:III.2153(B)(1)(d)(i) requires vents on covers and on certain junction boxes to be “equipped with either a control device or a vapor recovery system that maintains a minimum control efficiency of 90 percent VOC removal or a VOC concentration of less than or equal to 50 parts per million by volume.” LAC 33:III.2153(B)(1)(i) provides that the requisite control device or recovery device is “not . . . required to meet the 90 percent removal efficiency or 50 parts per million volume basis concentration during periods of malfunction or maintenance on the devices for periods not to exceed 336 hours per year.” If EPA approves the removal of these repealed provisions from the SIP, sources with affected VOC wastewater streams subject to LAC 33:III.2153 will no longer be able to use the exemption that had been provided by LAC 33:III.2153(b)(1)(i).
LAC 33:III.2307(C)(1)(a) and LAC33:III.2307(C)(2)(a) were originally approved by the EPA into the Louisiana SIP on March 8, 1989 (54 FR 9795), and later codified on July 5, 2011 (76 FR 38977). LAC 33:III.2307(C) applies to nitric acid plants that are not subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart G (Standards of Performance for Nitric Acid Plants). LAC 33:III.2307(C)(1)(a) provides a four-hour start-up exemption from the NO
The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Louisiana SIP submitted by LDEQ on November 22, 2016, in response to EPA's national SIP call of June 12, 2015 concerning excess emissions during periods of SSM. We are proposing to approve the removal of LAC 33:III.1107(A), LAC 33:III.1507(A), LAC 33:III.1507(B), LAC 33:III.2153(B)(1)(i), LAC 33:III.2307(C)(1)(a), and LAC 33:III.2307(C)(2)(a) from the Louisiana SIP in accordance with section 110 of the Act. The EPA is further proposing to determine that this SIP revision corrects the deficiencies identified in the June 12, 2015 SIP call related to the above-referenced provisions. EPA is not reopening the 2015 SSM SIP Action and is only taking comment on whether the proposed SIP revision is consistent with CAA requirements and whether it address the substantial inadequacies in the specific Louisiana SIP provisions identified in the 2015 SSM SIP Action.
In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to Louisiana's regulations, as described in the Proposed Action section above. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.”
EPA reviewed demographic data, which provides an assessment of individual demographic groups of the populations living within Louisiana.
Communities in close proximity to industrial sources may be subject to disproportionate environmental impacts of excess emissions. Short- and/or long-term exposure to air pollution has been associated with a wide range of human health effects including increased respiratory symptoms, hospitalization for heart or lung diseases, and even premature death.
Under the Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 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 Act; 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Sulfur dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to determine that the Las Vegas, Nevada nonattainment area (“Las Vegas”) for the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) failed to attain by its applicable “Marginal” area attainment date of August 3, 2021. The effect of failing to attain by the attainment date is that Las Vegas will be reclassified by operation of law to “Moderate” upon the effective date of the final reclassification notice. Consequently, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) must submit state implementation plan (SIP) revisions required to satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements for Moderate areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is proposing deadlines for submission of those SIP revisions and implementation of the related control requirements. This action, if finalized as proposed, will fulfill the EPA's statutory obligation to determine whether the Las Vegas ozone nonattainment area attained the NAAQS by the attainment date.
Comments must be received on or before August 22, 2022.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0525, at
Karina O'Connor, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; By phone: (775) 434-8176 or by email at
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” means the EPA.
The CAA requires the EPA to establish primary and secondary NAAQS for certain pervasive pollutants that “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.” The primary NAAQS is designed to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, and the secondary NAAQS is designed to protect public welfare and the environment. The EPA has set NAAQS for six common air pollutants, referred to as criteria pollutants, including ozone. The NAAQS represent the air quality levels an area must meet to comply with the CAA. Ozone is a gas composed of three oxygen atoms and is created by chemical reactions between volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NO
In October 2015, the EPA strengthened the primary and secondary eight-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.075 parts per million (ppm) to 0.070 ppm (“2015 ozone NAAQS”).
Effective August 3, 2018, the EPA designated and classified the Las Vegas portion of Clark County as a “Marginal” nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA is required to determine whether areas designated nonattainment for an ozone NAAQS attained the standard by the applicable attainment date, and to take certain steps for areas that failed to attain.
The 2015 ozone NAAQS is met at an ambient monitoring site when the design value does not exceed 0.070 parts per million (ppm). For areas classified as Marginal nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the attainment date is August 3, 2021. Because the design value is based on the three most recent, complete calendar years of data, attainment must occur no later than December 31 of the year prior to the attainment date (
On November 30, 2020, the Clark County Department of Environment and Sustainability (DES) submitted an initial notification for an intended exceptional event (EE) demonstration, and on July 1, 2021, submitted EE demonstrations for 2 days in 2018 and 6 days in 2020 with exceedances of the standard. On September 2, 2021, the Clark County DES submitted additional EE demonstrations for 13 days in 2018 and for 7 days in 2020. The EPA's actions on these demonstrations affect the determinations of attainment by the attainment date for the Las Vegas area.
The data used to calculate both the 2018-2020 design values and the 2020 fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour averages can be found in the docket for this rulemaking.
Once reclassified as Moderate, NDEP must submit to the EPA the SIP revisions that satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to Moderate areas established in CAA section 182(c) and in the SIP Requirements Rule for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
The statutory authority for the actions proposed in this notice is provided by the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401
CAA section 107(d) provides that when the EPA establishes or revises a NAAQS, the agency must designate areas of the country as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable based on whether an area is not meeting (or contributing to air quality in a nearby area that is not meeting) the NAAQS, meeting the NAAQS or cannot be classified as meeting or not meeting the NAAQS, respectively. Subpart 2 of part D of title I of the CAA governs the classification, state planning, and emissions control requirements for any areas designated as nonattainment for a revised primary ozone NAAQS. In particular, CAA section 181(a)(1) requires each area designated as nonattainment for a revised ozone NAAQS to be classified at the same time as the area is designated based on the extent of the ozone problem in the area (as determined based on the area's design value). Classifications for ozone nonattainment areas range from “Marginal” to “Extreme” based on the severity of the area's air quality problem.
CAA section 182 provides the specific attainment planning and additional requirements that apply to each ozone nonattainment area based on its classification. CAA section 182, as interpreted by the EPA's implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 51.1308 through 51.1317, also establishes the timeframes by which air agencies must submit and implement SIP revisions to satisfy the applicable attainment planning elements, and the timeframes by which nonattainment areas must attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS. For reclassified areas, CAA section 182(i) provides that the Administrator may adjust applicable deadlines other than attainment dates if such adjustment is necessary or appropriate to assure consistency among the required submissions.
Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires that within 6 months following the applicable attainment date, the EPA shall determine whether an ozone nonattainment area attained the ozone standard based on the area's design value as of that date. For nonattainment areas that the EPA determines to have not timely attained, CAA section 181(a)(5) gives the EPA the discretion to grant a 1-year extension of the attainment date for qualifying areas upon application by any state. In the event an area fails to attain the ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date and is not granted a 1-year attainment date extension, CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) requires the EPA to make the determination that an ozone nonattainment area failed to attain the ozone standard by the applicable attainment date, and requires the area to be reclassified by operation of law to the higher of: (1) the next higher classification for the area, or (2) the classification applicable to the area's design value as of the determination of failure to attain.
Once an area is reclassified, the state is required to submit certain SIP revisions in accordance with its more stringent classification. The SIP revisions are intended to, among other things, demonstrate how the area will attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than August 3, 2024, the Moderate area attainment date for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. According to CAA section 182(i), a state with a reclassified ozone nonattainment area must submit the applicable attainment plan requirements “according to the schedules prescribed in connection with such requirements” in CAA section 182(b) for Moderate areas, but the EPA “may adjust applicable deadlines (other than attainment dates) to the extent such adjustment is necessary or appropriate to assure consistency among the required submissions.”
Under the EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, Appendix U, the 2015 ozone NAAQS is attained at a site when the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentration (
The EPA's determination of attainment is based upon data that have been collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database.
The EPA is proposing this action to fulfill its statutory obligation under
The EPA evaluated air quality data to determine if the Las Vegas Marginal nonattainment area attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the attainment date of August 3, 2021 and, if the area did not attain, to determine if the area is eligible for a 1-year extension of the attainment date. The area's ozone design values for 2018-2020 are shown in Table 1. Based on the certified, complete data from 2018-2020, the design value for the area is 0.074 ppm and the 2020 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour average is 0.078 ppm.
On November 30, 2020, the Clark County DES submitted an initial notification for an intended EE demonstration, and on July 1, 2021, submitted EE demonstrations for two days in 2018 and six days in 2020 with exceedances of the standard. On September 2, 2021, the Clark County DES submitted additional EE demonstrations for thirteen days in 2018 and for seven days in 2020. The EPA's actions on these demonstrations affect the determination of attainment by the attainment date for the Las Vegas area.
In order for the Las Vegas nonattainment area to have an attaining 2018-2020 design value for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the EPA would have to concur on most of the EE demonstrations that the Clark County DES submitted for 2018 and 2020. Furthermore, to qualify for an extension of the attainment date, the EPA would have to concur on most of the EE demonstrations submitted for 2020. The EPA responded to Clark County's EE Initial Notification submittal for intended EE demonstrations, dated November 20, 2020, indicating that the events described may affect a future regulatory decision.
The EPA started review of the EE packages by focusing on five of the events: June 19-20, 2018, May 6, 2020, May 9, 2020, June 22, 2020, and June 26, 2020. After reviewing the EE documentation, in a letter dated April 11, 2022, the EPA determined that Clark County DES did not adequately demonstrate that the exceedances for
The 2007 EER and 2016 EER
The EPA reviewed the Clark County DES EE demonstrations for wildfire events that occurred on June 19-20, 2018, June 22, 2020 and June 26, 2020. For all three events the EPA nonconcurred based on the conclusion that the events do not meet the requirements in the EER because the demonstrations have not sufficiently shown a clear causal relationship between the specific events and the monitored exceedances. These conclusions were based on review of the evidence presented in the demonstrations, including meteorological information, fire emission information, trajectory analysis, smoke modeling data, ground level monitoring data, and statistical modeling analysis. More information about the EPA's analysis on these EE demonstrations for wildfire events can be found in the docket for this action.
The EPA also reviewed the Clark County DES demonstrations for stratospheric ozone intrusion (SOI) events that occurred on May 6, 2020, and May 9, 2020. The EPA nonconcurred on these events based on the conclusion that the information presented in the demonstrations did not sufficiently show a clear causal relationship between the specific events and the monitored exceedances of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in the Las Vegas nonattainment area. These conclusions were based on review of the evidence presented in the demonstrations including satellite imagery and atmospheric models, trajectory analysis, skew-T diagrams, vertical ozone profiles, meteorological information, ground level monitoring data, matching day analysis, and statistical modeling analysis. The information presented in the SOI event submittals supported that SOI events had occurred, but the weight of evidence did not support the finding that ozone-rich stratospheric air was transported to the surface in the Las Vegas nonattainment area and caused the exceedances of the 2015 ozone NAAQS measured at the Las Vegas area monitors. More information about the EPA's analysis of these EE demonstrations for SOI events can be found in the docket for this action.
Based on the EPA's nonconcurrence on five exceptional event demonstrations, the 2018-2020 design value for the Las Vegas area remains above the 2015 ozone standard, at 0.074 ppm. In the 2016 revisions to the EER, “regulatory significance” was clarified to mean that the demonstrations affect the outcome of a regulatory action.
In a letter dated September 9, 2021, the Clark County DES requested an extension of the Las Vegas area Marginal area attainment date; the letter is provided in the docket for this rulemaking.
The EPA proposes to determine that the Las Vegas nonattainment area did not attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the August 3, 2021, attainment date and does not qualify for a 1-year attainment date extension because the area does not meet the two extension criteria under CAA section 181(a)(5) as interpreted by the EPA in 40 CFR 51.1307. As discussed previously, the area has a 2018-2020 design value greater than 0.070 ppm.
If we finalize our action as proposed, the Las Vegas nonattainment area will be reclassified to Moderate, the next higher classification, as provided under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A)(i) and codified at 40 CFR 51.1303. The area is required to attain the standard “as expeditiously as practicable” but no later than 6 years after the initial designation as nonattainment, which in this case would be no later than August 3, 2024. After reclassification to Moderate, if the area attains the 2015 ozone NAAQS prior to the Moderate area attainment date, the state of Nevada may seek a Clean Data Determination, in which certain attainment planning SIPs would be suspended under 40 CFR 51.1318 or a redesignation to attainment.
Marginal nonattainment areas that failed to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the attainment date will be reclassified as Moderate by operation of law upon the effective date of the final reclassification notice. Each responsible state air agency must submit SIP revisions that satisfy the general air quality planning requirements under CAA section 172(c) and specific requirements for Moderate areas under CAA section 182(b), as interpreted and described in the final SIP Requirements Rule for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
For each new Moderate ozone nonattainment area, the SIP revision requirements include: (1) an attainment demonstration (CAA section 182(b) and 40 CFR 51.1308); (2) provisions for reasonably available control measures (RACM) (CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1312(c)) and reasonable available control technology (RACT) (CAA section 182(b)(2) and 40 CFR 51.1312(a)-(b)); (3) reasonable further progress (RFP) reductions in volatile organic compounds (VOC) and/or nitrogen oxide (NO
States must provide an analysis of—and adopt all—RACM, including RACT needed for purposes of meeting RFP or timely attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The EPA interprets the RACM provision at CAA section 172(c) to require a demonstration that the state has adopted all reasonable measures (including RACT) to meet RFP requirements and to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable and thus that no additional measures that are reasonably available will advance the attainment date or contribute to RFP for the area.
The EPA has long taken the position that the statutory requirement for states to assess and adopt RACT for sources in ozone nonattainment areas classified Moderate and higher generally exists independently from the attainment planning requirements for such areas.
A Basic I/M program is required for all urbanized Moderate areas under the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The Las Vegas nonattainment area is currently operating I/M programs as part of the maintenance plan for the 1971 carbon monoxide standard for which the area had been classified as Serious nonattainment and subsequently redesignated. If we finalize our action as proposed, the Clark County DES and NDEP would need to conduct and submit a performance standard modeling analysis as well as make any necessary program revisions as part of their Moderate area SIP submissions to ensure that the I/M program is operating at or above the Basic I/M performance standard level for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The Clark County DES and NDEP may determine through the performance standard modeling analysis that the existing SIP-approved program would meet the performance standard for purposes of the 2015 ozone NAAQS without modification. In this case, the Clark County DES and NDEP could submit a SIP revision with the associated performance modeling and a written statement certifying their determination in lieu of submitting new revised regulations. The applicable requirements for Moderate ozone nonattainment areas that are required to
On August 3, 2018, when final nonattainment designations became effective for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, states responsible for areas initially classified as Moderate were required to prepare and submit SIP revisions by deadlines relative to that effective date. For those areas, the submission deadlines ranged from 2 to 3 years after the effective date of designation, depending on the SIP element required (
The EPA is proposing that the state of Nevada submit SIP revisions addressing all Moderate area requirements no later than January 1 of the 5th year after the effective date of designations,
The EPA's implementing regulations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS do not address SIP submission deadlines for reclassified areas, except for RACT SIPs. Specifically, 40 CFR 1312(a)(ii) establishes a RACT SIP submission deadline for areas classified Moderate or higher of either 24 months from the reclassification effective date or a deadline established by the Administrator in the reclassification action. In the case of the potential newly reclassified Moderate area addressed in this proposal, a RACT SIP submission deadline of 24 months after an anticipated 2023 effective date would fall in 2025. Because a 2025 deadline would exceed the applicable Moderate area maximum attainment date of August 3, 2024, we rejected a 24-month submission deadline and are instead proposing to use the Administrator's discretion under CAA section 182(i) to establish a January 1, 2023, SIP submission deadline that would apply for RACT (per 40 CFR 1312(a)(ii)) and all other required Moderate area SIP submissions. Our objective is to establish a single deadline that would not extend beyond our proposed deadline for implementing RACT and to provide for consistency among the required SIP submissions. The EPA adopted this approach previously for Marginal areas reclassified to Moderate for failure to timely attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
As mentioned previously, we are proposing that the state must provide for implementation of all RACT needed for purposes of meeting RFP or timely attaining the ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable but no later than January 1, 2023. The EPA's implementing regulations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS require that the state shall provide for implementation of such RACT as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the start of the attainment year ozone season associated with the area's new attainment deadline, or January 1 of the third year after the associated SIP submission deadline, whichever is earlier; or the deadline established by the Administrator in the final action issuing the area reclassification.
Because January 1 of the third year after the proposed January 1, 2023 SIP submission deadline would fall on January 1, 2026, this date would exceed the applicable Moderate area maximum attainment date of August 3, 2024. The EPA's implementing regulations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS require that, for areas initially classified as Moderate or higher, a state shall provide for implementation of RACT as expeditiously as practicable but no later than January 1 of the 5th year after the effective date of designation, which corresponds with the beginning of the attainment year for initial Moderate areas (January 1, 2023).
The start of the ozone season varies among states and is either January or March for potential reclassified Moderate areas addressed in the April
The EPA requests comment on our proposal to align the SIP submission deadline and RACT implementation deadline for the Las Vegas nonattainment area, if reclassified to Moderate, and requiring that any RACT needed for meeting RFP or timely attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS be implemented as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the beginning of the applicable attainment year,
With respect to the implementation deadline for any revisions to the current I/M program that may be necessary, if Clark County DES and NDEP wish to use emissions reductions from their revised I/M program for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, they would need to have such revisions fully established and start testing as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the beginning of the applicable attainment year,
The EPA is proposing to determine that the Las Vegas nonattainment area failed to attain the 2015 ozone standard by its Marginal area attainment date of August 3, 2021, based on a 2018-2020 design value of 0.074 ppm. The EPA is also proposing to determine that the Las Vegas nonattainment area is not eligible for a one-year extension of the Marginal area attainment date because the area's 2020 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour average is 0.078 ppm. CAA section 181(b)(2) requires areas that have failed to attain by their attainment date be reclassified to the higher of (i) the next highest classification, or (ii) the classification that corresponds with the area's design value as of the time that the EPA publishes the document identifying the areas that have failed to attain by their attainment date. Accordingly, the EPA is proposing that the Las Vegas Marginal nonattainment area failed to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS by August 3, 2021, and therefore the area must be reclassified as Moderate. The EPA is further proposing that the state of Nevada must submit SIP revisions to fulfill the CAA's Moderate area requirements by January 1, 2023. The EPA is taking comment for 30 days on the determination of failure to attain and subsequent reclassification from Marginal to Moderate.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This proposed action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This rule does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA not already approved by the OMB.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments, or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, tribes, or the relationship between the national government and the states and tribes, 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.”
The Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians of the Las Vegas Indian Colony have areas of Indian country located within the Las Vegas Valley nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA has concluded that the proposed rule may have tribal implications for this
In a letter dated July 16, 2021, the EPA invited the Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians of the Las Vegas Indian Colony to consult on our evaluation and determination of whether the Las Vegas nonattainment area attained or failed to attain by its Marginal area attainment date. The EPA intends to notify the Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians of the Las Vegas Indian Colony of this proposed action and we will initiate government-to-government consultation if requested.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. Upon review, the EPA did not identify any particular facts or circumstances that would indicate this action will have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations.
Furthermore, with respect to the determinations of whether areas have attained the NAAQS by the attainment date, the EPA has no discretionary authority to address environmental justice in these determinations. The CAA directs that within 6 months following the applicable attainment date, the Administrator shall determine, based on the area's design value as of the attainment date, whether the area attained the standard by that date. CAA section 181(b)(2)(A). Except for any Severe or Extreme area, any area that the Administrator finds has not attained the standard by that date shall be reclassified by operation of law to either the next higher classification or the classification applicable to the area's design value.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Designations and classifications, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements and Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Designations and classifications, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to update the list of North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes subject to reporting under the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) to reflect the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 2022 NAICS code revision. OMB updates the NAICS codes every five years. EPA currently uses 2017 NAICS codes and is proposing to implement the 2022 codes for TRI Reporting Year 2022 (
Comments must be received on or before September 20, 2022.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2022-0387, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
You may be potentially affected by this action if you own or operate facilities that have 10 or more full-time employees or the equivalent of 20,000 employee hours per year that manufacture, process, or otherwise use toxic chemicals listed on the TRI, and that are required under section 313 of EPCRA or section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) to report annually to EPA and States or Tribes their environmental releases or other waste management quantities of covered chemicals. (A rule was published on April 19, 2012 (77 FR 23409; FRL-9660-9), requiring facilities located in Indian country to report to the appropriate tribal government official and EPA instead of to the state and EPA.)
The following list of 2017 North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Facilities included in the following NAICS manufacturing codes (corresponding to Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20 through 39): 311*, 312*, 313*, 314*, 315*, 316, 321, 322, 323*, 324, 325*, 326*, 327, 331, 332, 333, 334*, 335*, 336, 337*, 339*, 111998*, 113310, 211130* (corresponds to SIC 2819), 212324*, 212325*, 212393*, 212399*, 488390*, 511110, 511120, 511130, 511140*, 511191, 511199, 512230*, 512250*, 519130*, 541713*, 541715*, or 811490*.
(*Exceptions and/or limitations exist for these NAICS codes.)
• Facilities included in the following NAICS manufacturing codes (corresponding to SIC codes other than 20-39): 211130 (corresponds to SIC code 1321); or 212111, 212112, 212113, (corresponds to SIC code 12, Coal Mining (except 1241)); 212221, 212222, 212230, 212299 (corresponds to SIC code 10, Metal Mining (except 1011, 1081, and 1094)); or 22111*, 221121, 221122, 221330 (limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power distribution in commerce) (corresponds to SIC codes 4911, 4931, and 4939, Electric Utilities); or 424690, 425110, 425120 (limited to facilities previously classified in SIC code 5169, Chemicals and Allied Products, Not Elsewhere Classified); or 424710 (corresponds to SIC code 5171, Petroleum Bulk Terminals and Plants); or 562112 (limited to facilities primarily engaged in solvent recovery services on a contract or fee basis (previously classified under SIC code 7389, Business Services, Not Elsewhere Classified)); or 562211, 562212, 562213, 562219, 562920 (limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921
(*Exceptions and/or limitations exist for these NAICS codes.)
• Federal facilities.
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed in the
EPA is taking this action under EPCRA sections 313(g)(1) and 328, 42 U.S.C. 11023(g)(1) and 11048. In general, EPCRA section 313 requires owners and operators of covered facilities in specified SIC codes that manufacture, process, or otherwise use listed toxic chemicals in amounts above specified threshold levels to report certain facility specific information about such chemicals, including the annual releases and other waste management quantities. EPCRA section 313(g)(1) requires EPA to publish a uniform toxic chemical release form for these reporting purposes, and it also prescribes, in general terms, the types of information that must be submitted on the form. Congress also granted EPA broad rulemaking authority to allow the Agency to fully implement the statute. EPCRA section 328 authorizes EPA to “prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out this chapter.” 42 U.S.C. 11048.
In the
• June 9, 2008 (73 FR 32466; FRL-8577-1) to include the 2007 codes,
• July 18, 2013 (78 FR 42875; FRL-9825-8) (Ref. 2) to include the 2012 NAICS codes,
• December 26, 2017 (82 FR 60906; FRL-9970-02) to include the 2017 NAICS codes.
In the
NAICS codes are used by EPA's TRI program, which provides the ability to track releases and other waste management (among other information) of chemicals by a sector and/or facility basis. This detailed information is made public so that community members, industrial facilities, research organizations, and federal government can make informed decisions that impact human health and the environment. Also, comparative analysis by sector or facility can demonstrate the volume of a specific chemical released to air, water, and land. In addition, NAICS codes help provide a snapshot of pollution prevention efforts at each facility by demonstrating results of toxic emissions reductions across industry sectors.
Given OMB's revisions to the NAICS codes that became effective January 1, 2022, EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 372 to update the 2022 NAICS codes for TRI reporting. In addition, EPA is proposing to include NAICS codes in 40 CFR part 372 for facilities that are covered under TRI's SIC codes but had been inadvertently excluded in past TRI NAICS rulemakings. EPA is also proposing to update the CFR to account for the discretionary authority provision provided in EPCRA section 313(b)(2) (42 U.S.C. 11023(b)(2)).
Under this action, TRI reporting requirements would remain unchanged. However, due to the 2022 NAICS code modifications, some facilities will need to modify their reported NAICS codes as outlined in Table 1 in Unit I.D., which identifies only the revised TRI NAICS
Additionally, facilities included in the following NAICS manufacturing codes will be listed at 40 CFR 372.23 and will be subject to TRI reporting requirements (see 40 CFR part 372—[AMENDED]): 221114—Solar Electric Power Generation; 221115—Wind Electric Power Generation; 221116—Geothermal Electric Power Generation; and 221117—Biomass Electric Power Generation). In 1997, when EPA added the electric utility industry sector to the scope of the TRI, the Agency qualified the addition to include all facilities which “burn any quantity of coal or oil to generate power for distribution in commerce.” (62 FR 23834, May 1, 1997; FRL-5578-3) (Ref. 3). Further, the Agency clearly stated that this addition includes any facility classified under SIC codes 4911, 4931, or 4939 that combusts coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce. EPA clearly stated that this coverage includes a facility that burns “any quantity” of coal or oil to generate power for distribution in commerce, noting examples where a facility might burn coal or oil for purposes other than distribution in commerce and thus not fit the qualifier provided for the industry sector. (62 FR 23834, 23863) (Ref. 3).
The 2007 NAICS to 2012 NAICS revision split NAICS 221119 (a NAICS code at the time covered by TRI due to its crosswalk to SIC codes 4911, 4931, and 4939) into multiple codes (
Crosswalk tables between all 2017 NAICS codes and 2022 NAICS codes can be found on the internet at
As authorized under EPCRA section 313(b)(2), the EPA Administrator may determine that a particular facility is subject to the requirements of EPCRA section 313(a) on the basis of the toxicity of a chemical, the facility's proximity to other facilities that release the chemical or to population centers, the history of releases of the chemical at the facility, or other factors the Administrator deems appropriate. This authority has been codified previously in TRI regulations, describing the process for modifying the list of covered facilities (40 CFR 372.20(b)). EPA is proposing to also codify this discretionary authority at 40 CFR 372.22, which describes the criteria to determine whether a facility must report to TRI for a certain calendar year. This proposed edit is a conforming edit to accommodate the longstanding discretionary authority under EPCRA section 313(b)(2), and this edit would not alter the universe of EPCRA section 313 reporters or any TRI reporting requirements. This additional criteria for facilities reporting to TRI will be added to 40 CFR 372.22 (see part 372—[AMENDED]).
EPA analyzed the potential costs and benefits associated with this action and determined that since this action will not add or remove any reporting requirements, there is no net increase in respondent burden or other economic impacts to consider.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the technical person listed under
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Under the PRA, 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 OMB control numbers are displayed either by publication in the
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does
This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy and has not otherwise been designated by the Administrator of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a “significant energy action.” This action is not expected to affect energy use, energy supply or energy prices.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. As such, NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note, does not apply to this action.
In accordance with Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) and Executive Order 14008 (86 FR 7619, January 27, 2021), EPA finds that this action will not result in disproportionately high and adverse human health, environmental, climate-related, or other cumulative impacts on disadvantaged communities because this action does not establish an environmental health or safety standard.
Environmental protection, Community right-to-know, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Toxic chemicals.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 11023 and 11048.
A facility is a covered facility for a particular calendar year, and must report under 40 CFR 372.30, if the facility meets either all of the criteria in paragraphs (a) through (c), or all of the criteria in paragraphs (c) and (d), for that calendar year.
(d) The Administrator determined that applying the 42 U.S.C. 11023 requirements to the facility was warranted, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 11023(b)(2) and 40 CFR 372.20(b).
(b) NAICS codes that correspond to SIC codes 20-39.
(c) NAICS codes that correspond to SIC codes other than SIC codes 20-39.
The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by August 22, 2022. 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.
The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) is requesting a substantive change to the ARMS and Chemical Use Survey information collection request (OMB No. 0535-0218) for the 2022 ARMS Phase 2, and Vegetable Chemical Use Surveys. The change is needed to accommodate the addition of the 2022 ARMS Phase 2 and 2022 Vegetable Chemical Use questionnaires and respondent booklets.
The target commodities for the 2022 cycle are: wheat, potatoes, and vegetable chemical use. Previously the wheat data were collected on three different versions (Durum, other spring, and winter), but this year the three varieties are all included on the wheat version.
There is a decrease of 370 hours of burden in this substantive change request resulting in a new total of 106,015 hours. The decrease was due to the removal of questions from the Production Practices Report (Potatoes) that were previously requested by the USDA Office of Pest Management Policy (OPMP). The removal of questions reduced the average time per respondent from 50 to 35 minutes.
Rural Housing Service, USDA.
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Rural Housing Service (RHS) announces its' intention to request an extension of a currently approved information collection and invites comments on this information collection.
Comments on this notice must be received by September 20, 2022 to be assured of consideration.
MaryPat Daskal, Chief, Branch 1, Rural Development Innovation Center—Regulations Management Division, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 720-7853. Email
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR part 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies the following information collection that RHS is submitting to OMB as extension to an existing collection with Agency adjustment.
The Community Facilities loan program of RHS is authorized by Section 306 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926). The purpose of the Community Facilities loan program is to make loans to public entities, nonprofit corporations, and Indian tribes for the development of essential community facilities for public use in rural areas.
The Business and Industry program is authorized by Section 310 B 7 (U.S.C. 1932) (Pub. L. 92-419, August 30, 1972) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to improve, develop, or finance business, industry, and employment and improve the economic and environmental climate in rural communities. The Business and Industry programs eligible for debt settlement under this provision are limited to Business and Industry direct loans. Debt Settlement of Economic Opportunity Cooperative Loans, Claims Against Third Party Converters, Non-program loans, Rural Business Enterprise/Television Demonstration grants, Rural Development Loan Fund loans, Intermediary Relending Program loans, and Nonprofit National Corporation loans and grants, are not authorized. Under independent statutory authority, settlement under these programs is handled pursuant to the Federal Claims Collection Joint Standards, 4 CFR parts 101 through 105.
The debt settlement program provides the delinquent client with an equitable tool for the compromise, adjustment, cancellation, or charge-off of a debt owed to the Agency. The term settlement is used for convenience in referring to compromise, adjustment, cancellation, or charge off actions individually or collectively. If a debt is eligible for settlement, the debt settlement authorities are extended to the debtor. All debtors are entitled to impartial treatment and uniform consideration under this subpart. The information collected is similar to that required by a commercial lender in similar circumstances.
The information collected is similar to that required by a commercial lender in similar circumstances. Information will be collected by the field offices from borrowers, consultants, lenders, and attorneys. Failure to collect information could result in improper servicing of these loans.
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 will have practical utility.
(b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
(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 appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Arlette Mussington, Rural Development Innovation Center—Regulations Management Division, at (202) 720-7853. Email:
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.
Rural Housing Service, USDA.
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Rural Housing Service (Agency) announces its' intention to request an extension of a currently approved information collection and invites comments on this information collection.
Comments on this notice must be received by September 20, 2022 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically by the Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
Information on using
All comments will be available for public inspection online at the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
Crystal Pemberton, Management Analyst, Branch 1, Rural Development Innovation Center—Regulations Management Division, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: 202-260-8621. Email
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see, 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies the following information collection that the Agency is submitting to OMB as extension to an existing collection with Agency adjustment.
(a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) 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;
(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 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.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Crystal Pemberton, Rural Development Innovation Center—Regulations Management Division, at 202-260-8621. Email:
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.
Rural Housing Service (RHS), USDA.
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Rural Housing Service (RHS), announces its' intention to request an extension of a currently approved information collection and invites comments on this information collection.
Comments on this notice must be received by September 20, 2022 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted by the Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
MaryPat Daskal, Chief, Branch 1, Rural
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR part 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies the following information collection that Rural Housing Service is submitting to OMB as extension to an existing collection with Agency adjustment.
Form RD 410-8, “Applicant Reference Letter” is used by the Agency to obtain information about an applicant's credit history that does not appear on a credit report. The form can be used to document the applicant's ability to handle credit effectively in cases where an applicant has used nontraditional sources of credit which do not appear on a credit report. It also provides a mechanism for verifying repayment history for debts reported by the applicant on the loan application that do not appear on the credit report. This form asks only for specific, relevant information to determine the applicant's creditworthiness and to establish the applicant's history of prompt payments on debts. This information enables RHS to make better creditworthiness decisions.
(a) 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.
(b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
(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 appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Arlette Mussington, Rural Development Innovation Center—Regulations Management Division, at (202) 720-2825. Email:
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.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Nebraska Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a meeting on Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m. Central time. The purpose for the meeting is to discuss and brainstorm potential civil rights topics for their first study of the 2021-2025 term.
The meeting will take place on Tuesday, August 9, 2022, from 12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m. Central Time.
Victoria Moreno at
This meeting is available to the public through WebEx link above. If joining only via phone, callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges.
Individuals who are deaf, deafblind and hard of hearing may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Victoria Moreno at
Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (202) 809-9618. Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the New York Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold web meetings via Webex at 1:00 p.m. ET on Friday, August 19, 2022, and Friday, September 16, 2022, for the purpose of discussing their project on the child welfare system in New York.
The meetings will take place from 1:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m. ET on Friday, August 19, 2022, and Friday, September 16, 2022.
Ana Fortes, DFO, at
Committee meetings are available to the public through the conference link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Individuals who are deaf, deafblind, and hard of hearing may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference details found through registering at the web link above. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Liliana Schiller at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
On August 9, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Scott Douglas Browning (“Browning”) was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C 2778) (“AECA”). Specifically, Browning was convicted of willfully exporting and causing to be exported from the United States to the Netherlands defense articles, that is, Image Intensifier Generation 3 MX-10130, Image Intensifier Generation 3 MX-10160, Image Intensifier Generation 3 MX-11769, and the BAE Systems OASYS SkeetIR Micro Thermal Imaging Monocular 640x480, which are all designated as defense articles on the United States Munitions List, without having first obtained from the Department of State a license for such export or written authorization for such export. Browning was also placed on the Department of State's debarred list. As a result of his conviction, the Court sentenced Browning to probation, $100 assessment, and $1,854,000 restitution.
Pursuant to Section 1760(e) of the Export Control Reform Act (“ECRA”),
BIS received notice of Browning's conviction for violating Section 38 of the AECA. BIS provided notice and opportunity for Browning to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or the “Regulations”). 15 CFR 766.25.
Based upon my review of the record and consultations with BIS's Office of Exporter Services, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Browning's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of seven years from the date of Browning's conviction. The Office of Exporter Services has also decided to revoke any BIS-issued licenses in which Browning had an interest at the time of his conviction.
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
On July 22, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Ismael Gomez, Jr. (“Gomez”) was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 554(a). Specifically, Gomez was convicted of fraudulently and knowingly exporting and sending or attempting to export and send from the United States to Mexico, one thousand and ten (1,010) rounds of .223 caliber ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 554. As a result of his conviction, the Court sentenced Gomez to 46 months in prison, three years supervised release, and a $100 assessment.
Pursuant to Section 1760(e) of the Export Control Reform Act (“ECRA”),
BIS received notice of Gomez's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 554. As provided in Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or the “Regulations”), BIS provided notice and opportunity for Gomez to make a written submission to BIS. 15 CFR 766.25.
Based upon my review of the record and consultations with BIS's Office of Exporter Services, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Gomez's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Gomez's conviction. The Office of Exporter Services has also decided to revoke any BIS-issued licenses in which Gomez had an interest at the time of his conviction.
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or on behalf of the Denied
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that Sucroal S.A. (Sucroal) sold subject merchandise in the United States at prices below normal value during the July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021, period of review (POR). We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable July 22, 2022.
David Lindgren, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1671.
On July 25, 2018, Commerce published the antidumping duty (AD) order on citric acid and certain citrate salts (citric acid) from Colombia in the
The merchandise covered by this
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act. Export price has been calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act, and normal value was calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in these preliminary results to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically-filed request must be received successfully in its entirely by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised in any the written briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless otherwise extended, pursuant to 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Upon completion of the administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. If the weighted-average dumping margin for Sucroal (
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Sucroal for which the producer did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company (or companies) involved in the transaction.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for Sucroal will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore,
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On July 6, 2022, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued its final judgment in
Applicable July 16, 2022.
David Crespo, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3693.
On July 13, 2020, Commerce published its
Prolamsa appealed Commerce's
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending its
Because Prolamsa has a superseding cash deposit rate,
At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from liquidating entries that were produced and/or exported by Prolamsa and were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period September 1, 2017, through August 31, 2018. These entries will remain enjoined pursuant to the terms of the injunction during the pendency of any appeals process.
In the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or, if appealed, upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by Prolamsa in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a joint public meeting.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting involving advisory panel (AP) chairs, vice chairs, and other representatives to provide input on the draft Comprehensive Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) Control Rule Amendment.
The meeting will be held via webinar on August 10, 2022, from 9 a.m. until 12 p.m., EDT.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The ABC Control Rule Amendment considers revisions to the ABC control rule for the Dolphin Wahoo, Golden Crab, and Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plans. These revisions include changes to the structure of the control rule in how risk and uncertainty components are handled, allowance of phasing in ABC changes over multiple years, and allowance for unharvested portions of annual catch limits (ACL) to be carried over to increase ACL in the following year. The AP representatives will discuss each of these actions, providing comments and recommendations for the Council's consideration.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold public meetings of the Council including joint sessions with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Bluefish and Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Management Boards.
The meetings will be held Monday, August 8 through Thursday, August 11, 2022. For agenda details, see
This meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format, with options for both in person and webinar participation. Webinar registration details will be available on the Council's website at
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526-5255. The Council's website,
The following items are on the agenda, although agenda items may be addressed out of order (changes will be noted on the Council's website when possible.)
Committee Reports (SSC); Executive Director's Report; Organization Reports; and Liaison Reports
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c).
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to Shelley Spedden, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Request for comments on draft revised management plan.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is soliciting comments from the public regarding a proposed revision of the management plan for the He`eia National Estuarine Research Reserve. A management plan provides a framework for the direction and timing of a reserve's programs; allows reserve managers to assess a reserve's success in meeting its goals and to identify any necessary changes in direction; and is used to guide programmatic evaluations of the reserve. Plan revisions are required at least every five years. This revised plan is intended to replace the plan approved in 2016.
Comments must be received at the appropriate address (see
The draft revised management plan can be downloaded or viewed at:
You may submit comments by:
Jean Tanimoto of NOAA's Office for Coastal Management by email at
Pursuant to 15 CFR 921.33(c), a State must revise the management plan for the research reserve at least every five years. If approved by NOAA, the He`eia National Estuarine Research Reserve's revised plan will replace the plan previously approved in 2016.
A management plan outlines the reserve's strategic goals and objectives; administrative structure; programs for conducting research and monitoring, education, and training; programs that address resource protection and restoration; public access and visitor use plans; consideration for future land acquisition; and facility development.
This draft revised management plan is a minor update of the prior plan, and maintains a strong foundation that honors the past by using indigenous resource management practices to support the sustainable co-management of the He`eia estuary. Core to the plan is the
Since its designation in 2016, this reserve has supported community-led ahupua`a scale restoration in the He`eia estuary with the removal of 20 acres (80,000 square meters) of invasive mangroves and plants replacing them with native plant species; agroforestry and lo`i cultivation; produced publications on Native Hawaiian land and sea management practices; and restored the He`eia fishpond. As a newly established reserve, the reserve hired a staff team consisting of a reserve manager, research coordinator, education coordinator, coastal training program coordinator, and research technician. These staff play an important role in building community-
NOAA's Office for Coastal Management analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed approval of this draft revised management plan in accordance with section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1500 through 1508). The public is invited to comment on the draft revised management plan. NOAA will take these comments into consideration in deciding whether to approve the draft revised management plan in whole or in part.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public hybrid meeting (in-person/virtual hybrid).
The Caribbean Fishery Management Council (CFMC) will hold the 179th public hybrid meeting to address the items contained in the tentative agenda included in the
The 179th CFMC public hybrid meeting will be held on August 11, 2022, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and on August 12, 2022, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., AST.
You may join the 179th CFMC public hybrid meeting via Zoom, from a computer, tablet or smartphone by entering the following address:
In case there are problems and we cannot reconnect via Zoom, the meeting will continue using GoToMeeting.
You can join the meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
Miguel A. Rolón, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1903, telephone: (787) 398-3717.
The following items included in the tentative agenda will be discussed:
The order of business may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the completion of agenda items. The meeting will begin on August 11, 2022, at 9 a.m. AST, and will end on August 12, 2022 at 4 p.m. AST. Other than the start time on the first day of the meeting, interested parties should be aware that discussions may start earlier or later than indicated in the agenda, at the discretion of the Chair.
Simultaneous interpretation will be provided.
For simultaneous interpretation English-Spanish-English follow your Zoom screen instructions. You will be asked which language you prefer when you join the meeting.
For any additional information on this public virtual meeting, please contact Diana Martino, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918-1903, telephone: (787) 226-8849.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR Webinar VII for SEDAR Procedural Workshop 8: Fishery Independent Index Development Under Changing Survey Design.
The SEDAR Procedural Workshop 8 for Fishery Independent Index Development will consist of a series of webinars, and an in-person workshop. See
The SEDAR Procedural Workshop 8 Webinar VII will be held on August 9, 2022, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., Eastern.
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion in the webinar are as follows:
Participants will discuss data analysis for the SEDAR Procedural Workshop 8.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) Seminar Series presentation.
The Council will host a presentation on FISHstory, a pilot project developed through the Council's Citizen Science Program, on August 9, 2022 via webinar.
The webinar presentation will be held on Tuesday, August 9, 2022, from 1 p.m. until 2:30 p.m.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; phone: (843) 302-8439 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
As part of its ongoing Seminar Series, the Council will host a presentation on FISHstory, a citizen science pilot project to analyze historical photographs from the for-hire industry before many recreational data collection systems were in place. The talk will focus on describing the catch from the historical photographs, the technique used to estimate lengths of king mackerel in the photos, and lessons learned during the pilot project. A question-and-answer session will follow the presentation. Members of the public will have the opportunity to participate in the discussion. The presentation is for informational purposes only and no management actions will be taken.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
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, 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
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Education is sponsoring the information collection herein described. The Administrator of NOAA is authorized by section 4002 of the America COMPETES Act, Public Law 110-69, to establish and administer a Graduate Sciences Program and two undergraduate scholarship programs to enhance understanding of ocean, coastal, Great Lakes, and atmospheric science and stewardship by the general public and other coastal stakeholders, including underrepresented groups in ocean and atmospheric science and policy careers. In addition, NOAA's Administrator is authorized by section
The NOAA Office of Education collects, evaluates, and assesses student data and information for the purpose of selecting successful candidates for scholarships, fellowships and internships, generating internal NOAA reports, and articles to demonstrate the success of its program.
The purpose of the NOAA Educational Partnership Program with Minority Serving Institutions (EPP/MSI) is to educate, train and graduate students in NOAA mission-aligned disciplines to build a pool of candidates eligible for the future NOAA workforce. The EPP/MSI program is strongly committed to broadening the participation of Minority Serving Institutions such as Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native-Serving Institutions, and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions. The EPP/MSI program has five program components: the Undergraduate Scholarship Program (USP); the Cooperative Science Centers (CSCs); Graduate Fellowship Program (GFP); the Graduate Sciences Program (GSP); and the Environmental Entrepreneurship Program (EEP). The GSP and EEP programs are no longer actively supporting students, however alumni of those programs may provide updates to EPP/MSI of educational and career changes.
The Ernest F. Hollings Undergraduate Scholarship Program was established to increase undergraduate training in oceanic and atmospheric science, research, technology, and education and foster multidisciplinary training opportunities. In an effort to increase the diversity of candidates applying to the Hollings Scholarship, the Hollings Preparation Program (HPP) was established in 2019.
The NOAA Office of Education requires all applicants to NOAA's Undergraduate Scholarship Programs to complete an application in order to be considered. The application package requires two faculty and/or academic advisors to complete a student scholar reference form in support of the scholarship application. Undergraduate scholarship recipients are required to complete a Student Scholarship Training Record to track their time, attendance, and accomplishments during their internships. Student scholar alumni are also requested to provide information to NOAA for internal tracking purposes. This information informs NOAA whether NOAA-funded students pursue and complete post-graduate NOAA-related science degrees, are employed by NOAA or a NOAA contractor, or in fields related to NOAA's mission.
NOAA EPP/MSI CSC grant award recipients are required to update the student tracker database with the required student information in order to assess compliance with award performance measures. While supported by NOAA scholarship and internship programs, the Office of Education surveys students and mentors to gain feedback on experiences and to assess program impact. Feedback collected from surveys will be used to improve programs to ensure the highest quality experience for supported students.
In compliance with Service Equity Assessment (
The collected data supports the Office of Education's program performance measures. To measure the impact of these programs, the data collected are compared to the available data in the national education databases (
This information collection includes several changes to the type and amount of information being collected as described below:
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
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, following the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the 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. This Notice of Information Collection is for the State Digital Equity Planning Grant Program Semi-Annual Performance (Technical) Report and a Public Annual Report. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding the submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before September 20, 2022.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Teri Caswell, Broadband Program Specialist, Grants Management and Compliance, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed Teri Caswell, Broadband Program Specialist, Grants Management and Compliance, Office of internet Connectivity and Growth, National Telecommunication and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Room 4826, Washington, DC 20230, or by email to
The State Digital Equity Planning Grant Program (SDEPG), authorized by Section 60304(c) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, Public Law 117-58, 135 Stat. 429 (November 15, 2021) (Infrastructure Act or Act), provides new federal funding for grants to eligible applicants for the purpose of developing State Digital Equity Plans. Through these Plans, each State will, among other things, identify barriers to digital equity in the State and strategies for overcoming those barriers. Further, U.S. territories and possessions (other than Puerto Rico), Indian Tribes, Alaska Native entities, and Native Hawaiian organizations may also seek grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts to develop their own digital equity plans and, in the case of Tribal entities, to provide input into the digital equity plans of the States in which they are located. The purpose of SDEPG is to promote the achievement of digital equity, support digital inclusion activities, and build capacity for efforts by States relating to the adoption of broadband by residents of those States.
On May 13, 2022, NTIA published the program's Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) on internetforall.gov to describe the requirements under which it will award grants for the SDEPG.
NTIA will use the information collected from each award recipient to effectively administer and monitor the grant program to ensure the achievement of Digital Equity program purposes and account for the expenditure of federal funds to deter waste, fraud, and abuse.
Award recipients will submit financial and performance reports on a semi-annual basis for the periods ending March 31st and September 30th of each year, and an annual report no later than one year after receiving grant funds and until they have expended all funds. NTIA will collect data through electronic submission.
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.
(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 ICR. 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
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.
This action adds service(s) to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 355 E Street SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20024-3243.
Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 785-6404 or email
On 12/10/2021, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed additions to the Procurement List. This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the product(s) and service(s) and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the product(s) and service(s) listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the product(s) and service(s) to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product(s) and service(s) to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product(s) and service(s) proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following service is added to the Procurement List:
The Committee finds good cause to dispense with the 30-day delay in the effective date normally required by the Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d). This addition to the Committee's Procurement List is effectuated because of the expiration of the Defense Contract Management Agency contract. The Federal customer contacted and has worked diligently with the AbilityOne Program to fulfill this service need under the AbilityOne Program. To avoid performance disruption, and the possibility that the Defense Contract Management Agency will refer its business elsewhere, this addition must be effective on August 7, 2022, ensuring timely execution for an August 10, 2022, start date while still allowing 16 days for comment. Pursuant to its own regulation 41 CFR 51-2.4, the Committee has been in contact with one of the affected parties, the incumbent of the expiring contract, since May 2021 and determined that no severe adverse impact exists. The Committee also published a notice of proposed Procurement List addition in the
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add product(s) to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and delete a service previously furnished by such agencies.
Comments must be received on or before: August 21, 2022.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 355 E Street SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC, 20024-3243.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 785-6404 or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the product(s) and service(s) listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following product(s) are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
The following service(s) are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed renewal of a collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before September 20, 2022.
You may submit comments, identified by “OMB Control Number 3038-0067,” by any of the following methods:
• The Agency's website, at
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method. All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
Andrew Chapin, Associate Chief Counsel, Market Participants Division, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5465, email:
Under the PRA,
Section 1088 amends section 214(b) of the FACT Act—which added section 624 to the FCRA in 2003—and directs the Commission to implement the provisions of section 624 of the FCRA with respect to persons that are subject to the Commission's enforcement jurisdiction. Section 624 of the FCRA gives a consumer the right to block affiliates of an entity subject to the Commission's jurisdiction from using certain information obtained from such entity to make solicitations to that consumer (hereinafter referred to as the “affiliate marketing rules”).
Section 1088 of the CFP Act also amends section 628 of the FCRA and mandates that the Commission implement regulations requiring persons subject to the Commission's jurisdiction who possess or maintain consumer report information in connection with their business activities to properly dispose of that information (hereinafter referred to as the “disposal
In addition, Section 1088 of the CFP Act amended the FCRA by adding the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC,” together with the CFTC, the “Commissions”) to the list of federal agencies required to jointly prescribe and enforce identity theft red flags rules and guidelines and card issuer rules. Thus, the Dodd-Frank Act provides for the transfer of rulemaking responsibility and enforcement authority to the CFTC and SEC with respect to the entities under their respective jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Commissions have issued final rules and guidelines (hereinafter referred to as the “identity theft rules”)
With respect to the collection of information, the Commission invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality,usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those whoare to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology;
You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC).
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, agencies are required to publish a Notice in the
Comments must be received by September 20, 2022.
Comments and requests for copies of the subject information collection may be sent by any of the following methods:
•
•
Agency Submitting Officer: Deborah Papadopoulos, (202) 357-3979.
The agency received no comments in response to the sixty (60) day notice published in
U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC).
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, agencies are required to publish a Notice in the
Comments must be received by August 22, 2022.
Comments and requests for copies of the subject information collection may be sent by any of the following methods:
•
•
Agency Submitting Officer: Deborah Papadopoulos, (202) 357-3979.
The agency received no comments in response to the sixty (60) day notice published in
National Assessment Governing Board, Department of Education.
Notice of open and closed meetings.
This notice sets forth the agenda, time, and instructions to access or participate in the National Assessment Governing Board (hereafter referred to as Governing Board or Board) meetings scheduled for August 3-5, 2022 in Charleston, South Carolina. This notice provides information about the meetings to members of the public who may be interested in attending the meetings and/or providing written comments related to the work of the Governing Board. Notice of the meetings is required under Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
Hyatt House, 560 King Street, Charleston, South Carolina, 29403.
August 3-5, 2022.
Munira Mwalimu, Executive Officer/Designated Federal Official for the Governing Board, 800 North Capitol Street NW, Suite 825, Washington, DC 20002, telephone: (202) 357-6906, fax: (202) 357-6945, email:
The Governing Board formulates policy for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) administered by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The Governing Board's responsibilities include:
“(1) selecting the subject areas to be assessed; (2) developing appropriate student achievement levels; (3) developing assessment objectives and testing specifications that produce an assessment that is valid and reliable, and are based on relevant widely accepted professional standards; (4) developing a process for review of the assessment which includes the active participation of teachers, curriculum specialists, local school administrators, parents, and concerned members of the public; (5) designing the methodology of the assessment to ensure that assessment items are valid and reliable, in consultation with appropriate technical experts in measurement and assessment, content and subject matter, sampling, and other technical experts who engage in large scale surveys; (6) measuring student academic achievement in grades 4, 8, and 12 in the authorized academic subjects; (7) developing guidelines for reporting and disseminating results; (8) developing standards and procedures for regional and national comparisons; (9) taking appropriate actions needed to improve the form, content use, and reporting of results of an assessment; and (10) planning and executing the initial public release of NAEP reports.”
The Governing Board's standing committees will meet to conduct regularly scheduled work planned for the quarterly board meeting and any items undertaken by standing committees for consideration by the full Governing Board. (Please see committee meeting minutes for previous meetings, available at
The Nominations Committee will meet in closed session on August 3, 2022 from 11:15 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. to discuss plans for reviewing applications and conducting ratings for board vacancies for the 2022-2023 term. These discussions pertain solely to internal personnel rules and practices of an agency and information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. As such, the discussions are protected by exemptions 2 and 6 of the Government Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c).
The Executive Committee will meet in closed session on August 4, 2022 from 9:15 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. to discuss the NAEP Budget and Assessment Schedule. These discussions with NCES may impact current and future NAEP contracts and budgets and must be kept confidential to maintain the integrity of the federal acquisition process. Public disclosure of this confidential information would significantly impede implementation of the NAEP assessment program if conducted in open session. Such matters are protected by exemption 9(B) of the Government Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c).
The Assessment Development Committee will meet in closed session on August 4, 2022 from 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. to review secure NAEP assessment items. These items have not been released to the public. Public disclosure of this confidential information would significantly impede implementation of the NAEP assessment program if conducted in open session. Such matters are protected by exemption 9(B) of the Government Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c).
The plenary sessions of the Governing Board's August 2022 quarterly meeting will be held on the following dates and times:
On Thursday, August 4, 2022, the plenary session of the Governing Board meeting will meet in open session from 10:15 a.m. to 12:10 p.m. The meeting will start with Beverly Perdue, Chair of the Governing Board, welcoming members and asking for a motion to approve the August 4-5, 2022 quarterly Governing Board meeting agenda as well as the minutes from the May 12-13, 2022 quarterly Governing Board meeting. Thereafter, from 10:20 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., Charleston Mayor, John Tecklenberg, will welcome the Board, which will precede a panel discussion from South Carolina educators and legislators on the state's education standards and assessment systems.
From 12:15 p.m. to 1:45 p.m., the Board will convene in closed session to receive a briefing on the NAEP Long Term Trend results. This briefing must be held in closed session because results are not yet public. Public disclosure of secure results would impede implementation of the NAEP assessment program if conducted in open session. Such matters are protected by exemption 9(B) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c). The closed session will be followed by a 15-minute break.
The Board will reconvene in open session from 2:00 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. Lesley Muldoon, Executive Director of the Governing Board, will update members on ongoing work and Peggy Carr, Commissioner, NCES, will provide an update on NAEP activities. From 2:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., members will discuss out-of-school learning opportunities followed by general member discussion from 4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. From 4:30 p.m. to 4:45 p.m., members will hear previews of standing committee meetings that will occur on Friday, August 5, 2022. The August 4, 2022 session of the Board meeting will adjourn at 4:45 p.m.
The August 5, 2022 plenary session will begin with standing committee meetings from 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. followed by a 15-minute break. From 10:45 a.m. to 11:45 a.m., the Governing Board will hear from leaders of districts participating in the Trial Urban District Assessments (TUDA). Following a 15-minute break, the Board will meet in closed session from 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. to receive a briefing from NCES on the NAEP budget, followed by small group meetings and report out to the full Board. These sessions must be closed to the public because the budget discussions pertain to current and future NAEP contracts and must be kept confidential to maintain the integrity of the federal acquisition and budget process. Public disclosure of this confidential information would impede implementation of the NAEP assessment program if conducted in open session. Such matters are protected by exemption 9(B) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c).
The Board will reconvene in open session from 2:10 p.m. 2:45 p.m. to discuss and act on COSDAM recommendations related to the NAEP achievement level descriptor study in math and reading. From 2:45 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., the Board will discuss and act on the election of the Vice Chair, and approval of the NAEP 2022 Release Plans. From 3:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., farewell remarks will be made by departing member Tonya Matthews and any other member whose term(s) of service concludes on September 30, 2022. The August 5, 2022 session of the Governing Board meeting will adjourn at 3:30 p.m.
The quarterly board meeting and standing committee meeting agendas, along with the meeting materials, will be posted on the Governing Board's website at
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for fiscal year (FY) 2022 for CSP—National Dissemination Grants, Assistance Listing Number 84.282T. This notice relates to the approved information collection under OMB control number 1894-0006.
For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Yianni Alepohoritis, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3E227, Washington, DC 20202-5970. Telephone: (202) 453-5571. Email:
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
Through the CSP National Dissemination Grants (ALN 84.282T), the Department provides funds on a competitive basis to organizations to support the charter school sector and increase the number of high-quality charter schools available to our Nation's students by disseminating best practices regarding charter schools.
Projects that are designed to address the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, including impacts that extend beyond the duration of the pandemic itself, on the students most impacted by the pandemic, with a focus on underserved students and the educators who serve
(a) Conducting community asset mapping and needs assessments that may include an assessment of the extent to which students, including subgroups of students, have become disengaged from learning, including students not participating in in-person or remote instruction, and specific strategies for reengaging and supporting students and their families;
(b) Providing resources and supports to meet the basic, fundamental health and safety needs of students and educators;
(c) Addressing students' social, emotional, mental health, and academic needs through approaches that are inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, culture, language, and disability status; or
(d) Using evidence-based instructional approaches and supports, such as professional development, coaching, ongoing support for educators, high-quality tutoring, expanded access to rigorous coursework and content across K-12, and expanded learning time to accelerate learning for students in ways that ensure all students have the opportunity to successfully meet challenging academic content standards without contributing to tracking or remedial courses.
Projects that are designed to increase the proportion of well-prepared, diverse, and effective educators serving students, with a focus on underserved students, through building or expanding high-poverty school districts' capacity to hire, support, and retain an effective and diverse educator workforce, through providing opportunities for educators to be involved in the design and implementation of local and district wide initiatives that advance systemic changes.
Projects that are designed to take a systemic evidence-based approach to improving outcomes for underserved students in one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Conducting community needs and asset mapping to identify existing programs and initiatives that can be leveraged, and new programs and initiatives that need to be developed and implemented, to advance systemic change;
(b) Establishing cross-agency partnerships, or community-based partnerships with local nonprofit organizations, businesses, philanthropic organizations, or others, to meet family well-being needs;
(c) Identifying, documenting, and disseminating policies, strategies, and best practices on effective approaches to creating systemic change through cross-agency or community-based coordination and collaboration; or
(d) Expanding or improving parent and family engagement.
(1) In accordance with a specific State statute authorizing the granting of charters to schools, is exempt from significant State or local rules that inhibit the flexible operation and management of public schools, but not from any rules relating to the other requirements of this definition;
(2) Is created by a developer as a public school, or is adapted by a developer from an existing public school, and is operated under public supervision and direction;
(3) Operates in pursuit of a specific set of educational objectives determined by the school's developer and agreed to by the authorized public chartering agency;
(4) Provides a program of elementary or secondary education, or both;
(5) Is nonsectarian in its programs, admissions policies, employment practices, and all other operations, and is not affiliated with a sectarian school or religious institution;
(6) Does not charge tuition;
(7) Complies with the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101
(8) Is a school to which parents choose to send their children, and that—
(i) Admits students on the basis of a lottery, consistent with section 4303(c)(3)(A) of the ESEA, if more students apply for admission than can be accommodated; or
(ii) In the case of a school that has an affiliated charter school (such as a school that is part of the same network of schools), automatically enrolls students who are enrolled in the immediate prior grade level of the affiliated charter school and, for any additional student openings or student openings created through regular attrition in student enrollment in the affiliated charter school and the enrolling school, admits students on the basis of a lottery as described in paragraph (8)(i) of this definition;
(9) Agrees to comply with the same Federal and State audit requirements as do other elementary schools and secondary schools in the State, unless such State audit requirements are waived by the State;
(10) Meets all applicable Federal, State, and local health and safety requirements;
(11) Operates in accordance with State law;
(12) Has a written performance contract with the authorized public chartering agency in the State that includes a description of how student performance will be measured in charter schools pursuant to State assessments that are required of other schools and pursuant to any other assessments mutually agreeable to the authorized public chartering agency and the charter school; and
(13) May serve students in early childhood educational programs or postsecondary students. (ESEA section 4310(2))
(1) Assistance to developers during the planning, program design, and initial implementation of a charter school; and
(2) Technical assistance to operating charter schools. (ESEA section 4310(4))
(1) Shows evidence of strong academic results, which may include strong student academic growth, as determined by a State;
(2) Has no significant issues in the areas of student safety, financial and operational management, or statutory or regulatory compliance;
(3) Has demonstrated success in significantly increasing student academic achievement, including graduation rates where applicable, for all students served by the charter school; and
(4) Has demonstrated success in increasing student academic achievement, including graduation rates where applicable, for each of the subgroups of students, as defined in section 1111(c)(2) of the ESEA, except that such demonstration is not required in a case in which the number of students in a group is insufficient to yield statistically reliable information or the results would reveal personally identifiable information about an individual student. (ESEA section 4310(8))
(a) A student who is living in poverty or is served by schools with high concentrations of students living in poverty.
(b) A student of color.
(c) A student who is a member of a federally recognized Indian Tribe.
(d) An English learner.
(e) A child or student with a disability.
(f) A disconnected youth.
(g) A technologically unconnected youth.
(h) A migrant student.
(i) A student experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity.
(j) A lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, or intersex (LGBTQI+) student.
(k) A student who is in foster care.
(l) A student without documentation of immigration status.
(m) A pregnant, parenting, or caregiving student.
(n) A student impacted by the justice system, including a formerly incarcerated student.
(o) A student who is the first in their family to attend postsecondary education.
(p) A student enrolling in or seeking to enroll in postsecondary education for the first time at the age of 20 or older.
(q) A student who is working full-time while enrolled in postsecondary education.
(r) A student who is enrolled in or is seeking to enroll in postsecondary education who is eligible for a Pell Grant.
(s) An adult student in need of improving their basic skills or an adult student with limited English proficiency.
(t) A student performing significantly below grade level.
(u) A military- or veteran-connected student. (Supplemental Priorities)
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2023 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
1.
Entities that apply for this competition may apply as a partnership or consortium and, if so applying, must comply with the requirements for group applications set forth in 34 CFR 75.127-129.
2. a.
b.
c.
d.
3.
1.
2.
Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information, please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
3.
4.
Grantees may not use grant funds to acquire or finance the acquisition of a charter school facility, including through credit enhancement, direct lending, or subgrants.
Grantees may not use grant funds for general organizational operating support beyond the costs associated with this grant project.
We reference additional regulations outlining funding restrictions in the
5.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative.
6.
1.
In evaluating an application, the Secretary considers the following criteria:
(a)
The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The national significance of the proposed project (15 points); and
(2) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the needs of the target population (15 points).
(b)
The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)) (10 points);
(2) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable; (10 points);
(3) The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach to the priority or priorities established for the competition (10 points); and
(4) The mechanisms the applicant will use to broadly disseminate information on its project so as to support further development or replication (10 points).
(c)
The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan and adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan and adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks (10 points); and
(2) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project (10 points).
(d)
The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project. In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability (3 points);
(2) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator (4 points); and
(3) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel (3 points).
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
4.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
5.
(a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering results based on the program objectives through an objective process of evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);
(b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) (2 CFR 200.216);
(c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States (2 CFR 200.322); and
(d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case, the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
5.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
All grantees must submit an annual performance report with information that is responsive to these performance measures.
For technical assistance in developing effective performance measures, applicants are encouraged to review information provided by the Department's Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs). The RELs seek to build the capacity of States and school districts to incorporate data and research into education decision making. Each REL provides research support and technical assistance to its region but makes learning opportunities available to educators everywhere. For example, the REL Northeast and Islands has created the following resource on logic models:
6.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
7.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Management (OM), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension without change of a currently approved information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 22, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
IComments may also be sent to
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Frank Miller, 202-453-6631.
The Department, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notification of petition for waiver and grant of an interim waiver; request for comments.
This notification announces receipt of and publishes a petition for waiver and interim waiver from Norlake, Inc., dba Refrigerated Solutions Group (“RSG”), which seeks a waiver for specified walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer (“walk-in”) refrigeration system basic models from the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) test procedure used for determining the efficiency of walk-in refrigeration systems. DOE also gives notification of an Interim Waiver Order that requires RSG to test and rate the specified walk-in basic models in accordance with the alternate test procedure set forth in the Interim Waiver Order. DOE solicits comments, data, and information concerning RSG's petition and its suggested alternate test procedure so as to inform DOE's final decision on RSG's waiver request.
Written comments and information are requested and will be accepted on or before August 22, 2022.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
1.
2.
3.
No telefacsimiles (“faxes”) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see the
The docket web page can be found at
Ms. Julia Hegarty, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 597-6737. Email:
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC-33, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email:
DOE is publishing RSG's petition for waiver in its entirety, pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iv).
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. If this instruction is followed, 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. If you submit via postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. Faxes will not 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).
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 include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1) certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE is required to follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect the energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of covered equipment during a representative average use cycle and requires that test procedures not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) The test procedure used to determine the net capacity and annual walk-in energy factor (“AWEF”) of walk-in refrigeration systems is contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C,
Under 10 CFR 431.401, any interested person may submit a petition for waiver from DOE's test procedure requirements. DOE will grant a waiver from the test procedure requirements if DOE determines either that the basic model(s) for which the waiver was requested contains a design characteristic that prevents testing of the basic model according to the prescribed test procedures, or that the prescribed test procedures evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy or water consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 431.401(f)(2). A petitioner must include in its petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the performance of the equipment type in a manner representative of the energy and/or water consumption characteristics of the basic model. 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iii). DOE may grant the waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 431.401(f)(2).
As soon as practicable after the granting of any waiver, DOE will publish in the
The waiver process also provides that DOE may grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the underlying petition for waiver will be granted and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver. 10 CFR 431.401(e)(3). Within one year of issuance of an interim waiver, DOE will either: (i) publish in the
If the interim waiver test procedure methodology is different than the decision and order test procedure methodology, certification reports to DOE required under 10 CFR 429.12 and any representations must be based on either of the two methodologies until 180-360 days after the publication date of the decision and order, as specified by DOE in the decision and order. Thereafter, certification reports and any representations must be based on the decision and order test procedure methodology, unless otherwise specified by DOE. 10 CFR 431.401(i). When DOE amends the test procedure to address the issues presented in a waiver, the waiver will automatically terminate on the date on which use of that test procedure is required to demonstrate compliance. 10 CFR 431.401(h)(2).
On February 17, 2022, DOE received from RSG a petition for waiver and interim waiver from the test procedure for walk-in refrigeration systems set forth at 10 CFR part 431 subpart R appendix C. (RSG, No. 1, attachment 1, at pp. 1-3
DOE's current test procedure for walk-in refrigeration systems is codified in appendix C to subpart R of part 431 and incorporates by reference Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (“AHRI”) Standard 1250-2009 (
In its petition for waiver and interim waiver, RSG presents several ways in which the currently prescribed test procedure would evaluate the specified basic models in a manner so unrepresentative of their true energy consumption as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. These issues are summarized below.
First, as presented in RSG's petition, the specified basic models of walk-in refrigeration systems are single-packaged dedicated systems that contain multiple refrigeration circuits that operate using a single power feed. (RSG, No. 1, attachment 1, at p. 1) RSG claimed that the specified basic models meet the definition of a single-packaged dedicated system.
Second, RSG stated that the current test procedure requires that the unit under test be set up using a 25-foot line set.
In its request for wavier and interim wavier, RSG noted that DOE has issued test procedure waivers for single-packaged dedicated refrigeration systems using air enthalpy test methods. (RSG, No. 1, attachment 1, at p. 2) DOE granted a waiver to Store It Cold for single-packaged units on August 9, 2019. 84 FR 39286. Store It Cold petitioned for a waiver after determining that the dual instrumentation refrigerant enthalpy method specified in AHRI 1250-2009 was not providing consistent capacity measurements for its single-packaged dedicated systems. 84 FR 39286, 39287. The alternate test procedure associated with this prior waiver required that the specified single-packaged basic models shall be tested using the Indoor Air Enthalpy Method and the Outdoor Air Enthalpy Method in accordance with ASHRAE 37 (
Third, in its request for waiver and interim waiver from the DOE test procedure, RSG stated that the current tolerance requirement of 0.5 °F for the on-coil temperature in Section C3.3.3 of AHRI 1250-2009 is unrealistic.
RSG also requested an interim waiver from the existing DOE test procedure, explaining that if DOE were to deny its application for waiver and interim waiver, it would experience economic hardship in the form of lost sales and/or a significant delay in the distribution into commerce of the specified basic models.
EPCA requires that manufacturers use DOE test procedures when making representations about the energy consumption and energy consumption costs of covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) Consistency is important when making representations about the energy efficiency of covered equipment, including when demonstrating compliance with applicable DOE energy conservation standards. Pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401, and after consideration of public comments on the petition, DOE may establish in a subsequent Decision and Order an alternate test procedure for the basic models addressed by the Interim Waiver Order.
RSG seeks to use an alternate test procedure to test and rate specific walk-in single-packaged dedicated refrigeration system basic models. The alternate test procedure presented by RSG suggested the following revisions to the DOE test procedure that would:
(1) Modify test operating and test condition tolerances in AHRI 1250-2009, which the DOE test procedure references in section 3.1,
(2) Remove section 3.2.5 from the DOE test procedure, which provides additional specificity to the refrigerant line setup required in AHRI 1250-2009 section C8.3; and
(3) Create a new section 4 in the DOE test procedure that provides modifications to AHRI 1250-2009 and includes a new approach for testing multiple-circuit single-packaged dedicated systems. Specifically, RSG has suggested an alternate test procedure for testing single-packaged dedicated systems using a modified refrigerant enthalpy approach applied to multiple refrigeration circuits. (RSG, No. 1, attachment 2, at pp. 1-13).
In its request for waiver and interim waiver, RSG suggested testing single-packaged dedicated systems using either a modification of the calibrated box method described in Section C9 of AHRI 1250-2009 or the indoor air enthalpy method (as described in Section C9.1.1 of AHRI 1250-2020) as the primary test method and a new “single-package refrigerant enthalpy method” as the secondary test method. (RSG, No. 1, attachment 2, at p. 3) Specifically, RSG recommended the following approach for the new single-package refrigerant enthalpy method:
(1) Instead of using a 25-foot line set with two mass flow meters as specified in the dual instrumentation refrigerant enthalpy method (see Section C8 of AHRI 1250-2009), RSG suggested using only one mass flow meter in the liquid line between the heat exchanger and the expansion device. (RSG, No. 1, attachment 1, at p. 1)
(2) In its alternate test procedure, RSG suggested incorporating the mass flow meter with less than or equal to 5 feet of additional insulated refrigerant line (with piping matching that of the system under test) to the liquid line.
(3) The existing suction line would be undisturbed for the test.
(4) The added refrigerant charge for the 5 feet of additional liquid line and the mass flow meter would be determined using Section C3.3.3 of AHRI 1250-2009 of the current test procedure.
Before disassembling the refrigeration system to set up the refrigerant-side mass flow measurement, a preliminary test at Condition A would be conducted using only a modified calibrated box method or the indoor air enthalpy method. (RSG, No. 1, attachment 1, at p. 3) For this test, surface-mounted temperature sensors would be installed on the evaporator and condenser coils, tubing entering and leaving the compressor, and tubing entering the expansion device.
The heat balance applied to single-packaged dedicated systems using this method would involve comparison of the air-side net capacity to a net capacity determined based on the refrigerant enthalpy method capacity measurement that would include adjustment for the evaporator fan heat in addition to adjustment for the single-packaged dedicated system thermal loss. The thermal loss would be calculated similarly to the duct loss calculation of Section 7.3.3.3 of ASHRAE 37-2009, in which the heat losses associated with the insulated surface areas subject to heat transfer are summed based on their surface area, thermal resistance (which is based on known insulating material and insulation thickness), and the temperatures on either side of the surface. A test is considered valid if the refrigerant capacities determined by each method are within 6 percent of each other. This approach is generally consistent to the current DOE test procedure, which requires that the capacities determined from two tests are within 5 percent in order for the test to be considered valid.
RSG's suggestion to use the calibrated box method with a single-packaged dedicated system involves mounting the system on the calibrated box, similar to its installation on a walk-in for field use and exchanging air with the box interior to cool it. The exterior of the calibrated box would be conditioned such that the air conditions entering the single-packaged dedicated system's condenser match the targets specified in RSG's suggested revisions to Tables 3, 4, 7 and 8 of AHRI 1250-2009. DOE notes that the table revisions suggested by RSG are consistent with previous single-packaged dedicated system waivers (
In its request for waiver and interim waiver, RSG also provided instructions for extending the modified refrigerant enthalpy method of the alternate test procedure to testing multiple-circuit single-packaged dedicated systems. (RSG, No. 1, attachment 2, at p. 9) The approach involves measuring refrigerant mass flow and the enthalpy entering and leaving the evaporator for each refrigeration circuit contained in the unit. The measured mass flow and enthalpy values are used to calculate the gross refrigeration capacity for each circuit. Each circuit's gross capacity is then summed to determine the total gross capacity of the system, which would be adjusted to determine net capacity as described above for testing a single-circuit system.
DOE has reviewed RSG's application for waiver and interim waiver and the alternate test procedure requested by RSG. Based on the assertions in the petition, the DOE test procedure for walk-in cooler refrigeration systems would evaluate the subject basic models in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data.
DOE notes that its current test procedure for walk-in refrigeration systems specifies, through reference to appendix C of AHRI 1250-2009, determining the capacity of the unit under test by using either the dual instrumentation refrigerant enthalpy method (
As discussed, RSG's request for waiver and interim waiver stated that the dual instrumentation refrigerant enthalpy method is not appropriate for testing single-packaged dedicated systems because these systems are not designed to have significant additional refrigerant line added between the condenser and evaporator. RSG also stated that the single-packaged dedicated system test methods in AHRI 1250-2020 result in a significant test burden if a testing facility is not currently set up for air enthalpy testing. Therefore, in its suggested alternate test procedure, RSG presented an approach for testing single-packaged dedicated systems using the calibrated box method (Method 2 of AHRI 1250-2009) with modifications that allow a liquid refrigerant line no longer than 5 feet to be incorporated into the existing refrigerant line with a mass flow meter. The method suggested by RSG would make no changes to the vapor refrigeration line. Based on its review of proprietary data from RSG, DOE has initially determined that these changes included in the alternate test procedure recommended by RSG provide a realistic approach for using refrigerant enthalpy to determine the capacity of single-packaged dedicated systems.
The refrigerant enthalpy method does not account for thermal losses, which are specific to single-packaged dedicated systems because the evaporator, rather than being installed entirely inside the cold walk-in box, is housed in an insulated compartment that is externally exposed to warm outdoor air on several sides and to the hot condensing unit compartment on another side. To address this, RSG has adjusted the capacity determined by the new single-package refrigerant enthalpy method to account for thermal losses. Based on its review of RSG's suggested alternate test method, DOE has initially determined that these capacity adjustments result in representative measures of capacity.
In its petition for waiver, RSG specified that the new single-package refrigerant method would be considered a secondary method (
The primary test method recommended by RSG in its alternate test procedure is the calibrated box test. Although the calibrated box test is not included in the list of test methods for single-packaged dedicated systems in Table C4 of AHRI 1250-2020, DOE notes that the calibrated box method and the indoor room calorimeter method (from Table C4 of AHRI 1250-2020) are very similar, since the capacity measurement is based on the heat input into a room and the calibrated thermal transmission is achieved through use of a “box” or “room.” Similarly, the indoor air enthalpy method (from Table C4 of AHRI 1250-2020) captures the capacity actually delivered to the air that conditions the walk-in box. The alternate test methods in the test procedure waivers that DOE previously granted for certain single-packaged dedicated systems rely on the indoor room calorimeter method and the indoor air enthalpy method. Given the similarities between these methods, DOE expects that the calibrated box method will provide capacity measurements that are comparable to those obtained using the indoor air enthalpy method or the indoor room calorimeter method. Because these methods account for the thermal losses associated with single-packaged dedicated systems using direct measurement rather than duct loss calculations, DOE has initially determined that it is appropriate that the calibrated box method would be considered to be the primary test
In its recommended alternate test procedure, RSG recommended a 6 percent tolerance between the proposed calibrated box and new single-package refrigerant enthalpy methods. Based on its review of the alternate test procedure provided by RSG, DOE has initially determined that the alternate test procedure submitted by RSG in its petition for waiver and interim waiver provides representative capacity measurements that result in representative AWEF values for single-packaged dedicated systems.
DOE's current test procedure does not provide a method for testing single-packaged dedicated systems with multiple refrigeration circuits. RSG's suggested alternate test procedure would determine the gross refrigeration capacity for each circuit using the earlier described single-package refrigerant enthalpy method and summing these capacities to determine the total system capacity. Based on DOE's review of the alternate test procedure provided by RSG, DOE has initially determined that this is an appropriate and representative approach for determining the performance of multiple-circuit refrigeration systems.
As previously discussed, RSG's suggested alternate test method would modify the test operating and test condition tolerances in section 3.1 of the DOE test procedure (which references AHRI 1250-2009); remove section 3.2.5 from the DOE test procedure, which provides additional specificity to the refrigerant line setup required in AHRI 1250-2009 section C8.3; and create a new section 4 in the DOE test procedure that provides a detailed method for testing multiple-circuit single-packaged dedicated systems. After review, DOE has initially determined that it will specify an alternate test procedure that generally follows the same approach as that recommended by RSG for the interim waiver test procedure, but with one modification, as described follows.
The alternate test procedure submitted by RSG includes suggested revisions to AHRI 1250-2009. However, DOE notes that there is one inconsistency between RSG's alternate test procedure and AHRI 1250-2020. Specifically, the alternate test procedure suggested by RSG modifies Table 7 of AHRI 1250-2009 (Fixed Capacity Matched Freezer System, Condensing Unit Located Indoors) to require the condenser air entering wet-bulb temperature to be 68 °F for single-packaged dedicated systems that do not use evaporative dedicated condensing units, for which all or part of the equipment is located in the outdoor room. (RSG, No. 1, attachment 2, at p. 1) However, Table 8 of AHRI 1250-2020 requires that the condenser air entering wet-bulb temperature must be 65 °F for single-packaged dedicated systems that do not use evaporative dedicated condensing units, for which all or part of the equipment is located in the outdoor room. DOE has modified the condensing air entering wet-bulb temperature in Table 7 of RSG's recommended alternate test procedure to be 65 °F (rather than 68 °F as suggested by RSG) in order to maintain consistency with the requirements in Table 8 of AHRI 1250-2020.
DOE has initially determined that the alternate test procedure (as modified in the manner noted), appears to allow for the accurate measurement of the energy efficiency of the specified basic models, while alleviating the testing problems cited by RSG in its attempts to implement the DOE test procedure for these basic models. Consequently, DOE has determined that RSG's petition for waiver, with the modification as described in this section, likely will be granted. Furthermore, DOE has determined that it is desirable for public policy reasons to grant RSG immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver.
For the reasons stated, it is
(1) RSG must test and rate the following Norlake and Masterbilt basic models with the alternate test procedure set forth in paragraph (2).
(2) The alternate test procedure for the RSG basic models identified in paragraph (1) of this Interim Waiver Order is the test procedure for walk-in refrigeration systems prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C (“Appendix C to Subpart R”), except that multiple circuit single-packaged dedicated systems shall use: (1) either the calibrated box method or an indoor air enthalpy test as the primary test method, as detailed below; (2) the modified refrigerant enthalpy method as the secondary test method, as detailed below; (3) the net capacity from the primary and secondary test methods must agree within ±6 percent, as detailed below; and (4) reported values for the overall system shall be the summation of the gross capacities obtained from the modified refrigerant enthalpy method conducted for each refrigeration circuit included in the unit under test, as detailed below. All other requirements of appendix C to subpart R and DOE's regulations remain applicable.
3.1.1. In Table 1 of AHRI 1250-2009, Instrumentation Accuracy, refrigerant temperature measurements shall have a tolerance of ±0.5 °F for unit cooler in/out. Temperature measurements used to determine water vapor content of the air shall be accurate to within ±0.4 °F. All other temperature measurements shall be accurate to ±1.0 °F.
3.1.4. In Tables 2 through 14 of AHRI 1250-2009, the Test Condition Outdoor Wet Bulb Temperature requirement and its associated tolerance apply only to units with evaporative cooling and single-packaged dedicated systems.
3.1.6 Tables 3, 4, 7 and 8 of AHRI 1250-2009 shall be modified to read as follows:
Remove section 3.2.5.
Add a new section 4, following section 3.5
When conducting testing in accordance with AHRI 1250-2009 (incorporated by reference; see 10 CFR 431.303), the following modifications must be made.
4.1.1 Replace Section C3.1.2 of AHRI 1250-2009 with the following: Air wet-bulb and dry-bulb temperatures entering the Single-Packaged Dedicated System at its evaporator return and condenser air inlet shall be measured based on the airflow area at the point of measurement. One measuring station is required for each 2.0 ft
4.1.2 Replace Section C3.1.5 of AHRI 1250-2009 with the following: If sampling tubes are used, each tube opening may be considered a temperature measuring station provided the openings are uniformly spaced along the tube, the airflow rates entering each port are relatively uniform (±15%) and the arrangement of tubes complies with the location requirements of Section C3.1.2 of AHRI 1250-2009. Additionally, a one-time temperature traverse shall be made over the measurement surface, prior to the tests to assess the temperature variation and ensure it complies with the allowable deviation specified in Section C3.1.4 of AHRI 1250-2009. (Refer to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.1 for more information and diagrams). If sampling tubes are not used for single-packaged dedicated systems that do not use evaporative dedicated condensing units, a single air wet-bulb or RH sensor may be used. When used, this sensor shall be located at the geometric center of the largest condenser coil face and 6-12 inches from the condenser coil.
4.1.3 Replace Section 3.1.6 of AHRI 1250-2009 with the following: Refrigerant temperatures entering and leaving the evaporator section of the Single-Packaged Dedicated System shall be measured by a temperature measuring instrument placed in a thermometer well and inserted into the refrigerant stream. These wells shall be filled with non-solidifying, thermal conducting liquid or paste to ensure the temperature sensing instrument is exposed to a representative temperature. The entering temperature of the refrigerant shall be measured within six pipe diameters upstream of the expansion device. If the refrigerant tube outer diameter is less than
4.2.1 Replace Section C3.3.1 of AHRI 1250-2009 with the following: With the equipment operating at the desired test conditions, the temperature and pressure of the refrigerant leaving the unit cooler, entering the expansion device, and entering and leaving the compressor shall be measured. For cases where the calibrated box method or indoor air enthalpy method is also conducted, data used to calculate capacity according to the single-package refrigerant enthalpy method and the additional method shall be collected over the same intervals.
4.2.2 Replace Section C3.3.3 of AHRI 1250-2009 with the following: For Single-Packaged Dedicated Systems tested using either the calibrated box method or the indoor air enthalpy method as the primary measurement and the single-package refrigerant enthalpy method as the secondary method, a preliminary test for Rating Condition A using the primary method is required prior to setting up the refrigerant enthalpy method measurements. In preparation for this preliminary test, temperature sensors shall be attached to the equipment's evaporator and condenser coils. The sensors shall be located at points that are not affected by vapor superheat or liquid subcooling. Placement near the midpoint of the coil, at a return bend, is recommended. The preliminary test shall be conducted with the requirement that the temperatures of the on-coil sensors be included with the regularly recorded data. After the preliminary test is completed, the refrigerant shall be removed from the equipment, and the refrigerant enthalpy measurement setup shall be completed. The equipment shall be evacuated and recharged with refrigerant. The test shall then be repeated. Once steady-state operation is achieved, refrigerant shall be added or removed until, as compared to the average values from the preliminary test, the following conditions are achieved: (1) each on-coil temperature sensor indicates a reading that is within ±1.0 °F, (2) the temperatures of the refrigerant entering and leaving the compressor are within ±4.0 °F, and (3) the refrigerant temperature entering the expansion device is within ±1.0 °F. Once these conditions have been achieved over an interval of at least ten minutes, refrigerant charging equipment
4.2.3 When conducting the refrigerant enthalpy method for a Single-Packaged Dedicated System, the length of the added liquid line conducting refrigerant out of the system, to the flow meter, and back into the system shall be no more than 5 feet. No such modification to the suction line shall be made.
Disregard Section C5 of AHRI 1250-2009 and instead test according to the following method:
4.3.1 The Refrigeration Capacity for Single-Packaged Dedicated Systems shall be determined using either the Calibrated Box method or the Indoor Air Enthalpy method as a primary test method and the Single-Package Refrigerant Enthalpy method as the secondary test method.
4.3.1.1 Single-Package Refrigerant Enthalpy method shall determine gross refrigeration capacity by measuring the enthalpy change and the mass flow rate of the refrigerant using a single set of measurements.
4.3.1.2 Calibrated Box method shall determine net refrigeration capacity by measuring the heat input to the calibrated box, including thermal transfer through the calibrated box walls.
4.3.2 Indoor Air Enthalpy method shall determine net refrigeration capacity of Single-Packaged Dedicated System and input power in accordance with ASHRAE 37-2009, Figure C4 of AHRI 1250-2020, and the following modifications.
4.3.2.1 Net refrigeration capacity is determined by measuring airflow rate and the dry-bub temperature and water vapor content of the air that enters and leaves the coil.
4.3.2.2 Air enthalpies shall be determined in accordance with ANSI/ASHRAE 41.6. Entering air is to be sufficiently dry as to not produce frost on the evaporator coil. Therefore, only sensible capacity measured by dry bulb change shall be used to calculate capacity.
4.3.3 Testing Sequence. The primary test method shall be used to measure the capacity for Rating Condition A prior to set-up of the Single-Package Refrigerant Enthalpy Measurement. After set-up of the Refrigerant Enthalpy method, the Net Capacity shall be measured using both the primary test method and the Refrigerant Enthalpy method. The Net Capacity measurement using the Refrigerant Enthalpy method shall be within 6 percent of the net capacity measurement using the primary method.
If a capacity balance within tolerance is not initially achieved, take steps to reduce the thermal losses of the Single-Packaged Dedicated System evaporator compartment by sealing air gaps and potentially adding more external insulation. If using the Calibrated Box method as the primary method, achieving a capacity balance may require conducting the calibration with calibrated box insulation material at the same average temperature as during capacity measurement, or using multiple calibrations conducted at different average insulation material temperatures and using these data to construct a correlation for the calibration coefficient, K
4.3.4 The refrigerant enthalpy method Net Capacity shall be calculated from the Gross Capacity Measurement as follows.
The Net Capacity to be used in AWEF calculations shall be the net capacity measured using the primary method.
4.3.5 Upon the completion of the Rating Condition A steady state test, an off-cycle evaporator fan power test shall be conducted to measure the evaporator fan power consumption during a compressor-off period in accordance with Section C10 of AHRI 1250-2009.
4.3.6 Upon the completion of the Rating Condition A steady state test for walk-in freezer systems, a mandatory defrost test shall be conducted to establish the energy input for a defrost cycle.
4.3.7 Upon the completion of the Rating Condition A steady state test, off-cycle evaporator fan power test, and defrost test (for walk-in freezer systems), the Rating Condition B and C steady state tests shall be conducted. Capacity balance as described in Section C9.2 of AHRI 1250-2020 for Rating Condition A is not required for Rating Conditions B and C.
Disregard Section C6 of AHRI 1250-2009 and instead test according to the following method:
4.4.1 For single-packaged dedicated systems, test chamber requirements shall be as follows:
a. For the calibrated box method, follow ASHRAE 16-2016, Section 6.1 for calibrated type calorimeters excluding water and water energy inputs for the indoor-side compartment.
b. For the indoor air enthalpy method, follow ASHRAE 37-2009.
4.5.1 General Description. In this method, capacity is determined from the refrigerant enthalpy change and flow rate. Enthalpy changes are determined from measurements of entering and leaving pressures and temperatures of the refrigerant, and the flow rate is determined by a suitable flow meter in the liquid line. This method shall not be used for tests in which the refrigerant liquid leaving the flow meter is subcooled less than 3.0 °F or for tests in which any instantaneous measurement of the superheat of the vapor leaving the evaporator coil is less than 5.0 °F. Supplementary cooling may be artificially provided for the liquid line to ensure enough subcooling when making measurements to establish the capacity balance for Rating Condition A, however, no official measurements used to calculate AWEF may be made while providing such supplementary cooling.
4.5.2 Measurements. Refer to Section 4.1 of this appendix and Section C3 of AHRI 1250-2009 for requirements of air-side and refrigerant-side measurements.
4.5.3 Test Setup and Procedure. Refer to Section 4.4 of this appendix, Section C7 of AHRI 1250-2009, and Figure C3 of this section for specific test setup. The lengths of the added liquid line shall be a maximum of 5 feet.
4.5.4 Data to be Measured and Recorded. Refer to “Refrigerant Enthalpy Method” in Table C2 in Section C7.2 of AHRI 1250-2009 for the required data that need to measured and recorded, except as follows.
4.5.4.1 Water vapor content of air entering the unit cooler (evaporator) and condensing unit may be measured using a wet bulb temperature measurement or a relative humidity sensor, but both are not required.
4.5.4.2 Wet bulb temperature of air leaving the unit cooler (evaporator) and condensing unit need not be measured.
4.5.4.3 Required refrigerant pressure measurement includes only subcooled liquid entering the expansion valve and superheated vapor exiting the unit cooler (evaporator).
4.5.4.4 Only one refrigerant mass flow measurement is required.
4.5.4.5 Measurement of Refrigerant oil flow rate and oil/refrigerant mass ratio are not required.
4.5.5 Refrigeration Capacity Calculation.
4.5.5.1 The refrigerant-side gross capacity is calculated by
4.5.5.2 Measurement of Capacity for a Single-Packaged Dedicated System with Multiple Refrigeration Circuits.
For a Single-Packaged Dedicated System with multiple refrigeration circuits, apply the refrigerant enthalpy method separately for each circuit and sum the separately measured gross refrigeration capacities.
4.6.1 Measurements. Refer to Section 4.1 of this section and Section C3 of AHRI 1250-2009 for requirements of air-side and refrigerant-side measurements.
4.6.2 Apparatus setup for Calibrated Box Calibration and Test. Refer to Section 4.4 of this section, Section C7 of AHRI 1250-2009, and Figure C4 of this section for specific test setup.
4.6.2.1 The calibrated box shall be installed in a temperature-controlled enclosure in which the temperature can be maintained at a constant level. When using the calibrated box method for Single-Packaged Dedicated Systems, the enclosure air temperature shall be maintained such that the condenser air entering conditions are as specified for the test.
4.6.2.2 The temperature-controlled enclosure shall be of a size that will provide clearances of not less than 18 inches on all sides, top and bottom, except that clearance of any one surface may be reduced to not less than 5.5 inches.
4.6.2.3 The heat leakage of the calibrated box shall be noted in the test report.
4.6.2.4 Refrigerant lines within the calibrated box shall be well insulated to avoid appreciable heat loss or gain.
4.6.2.5 Instruments for measuring the temperature around the outside of the calibrated box to represent the enclosure temperature T
One of the following two approaches shall be used for the box external temperature measurement. Box calibration and system capacity measurement shall both be done using the same one of these approaches.
4.6.2.5.1 Air temperature sensors. Each temperature sensor shall be at a distance of 6 inches from the calibrated box. If the clearance from a surface of the box (allowed for one surface only) is less than 12 inches, the temperature measuring instruments shall be located midway between the outer wall of the calibrated box and the adjacent surface.
4.6.2.5.2 Surface temperature sensors. Surface temperature sensors shall be mounted on the calibrated box surfaces to represent the enclosure temperature, T
Additional surface temperature sensors may be used to measure external hot spots during refrigeration system testing. If this is done, two temperature sensors shall be used to measure the average temperature of the calibrated box surface covered by the condensing section—they shall be centered on equal-area rectangles comprising the covered calibrated box surface whose common sides span the short dimension of this surface. Additional surface temperature sensors may be used to measure box surfaces on which warm condenser discharge air impinges. A pattern of square surfaces, with each surface measuring one foot square, shall be mapped out to represent the hot spot upon which the warm condenser air impinges. One temperature sensor shall be used to measure surface temperature at the center of each square (see Figure C5 of this section). A drawing showing this pattern and identifying the surface temperature sensors shall be provided in the test report. The average surface temperature of the overall calibrated box outer surface during testing shall be calculated as follows.
4.6.2.6 Heating means inside the calibrated box shall be shielded or installed in a manner to avoid radiation to the Single-Packaged Dedicated System, the temperature measuring instruments, and to the walls of the box. The heating means shall be constructed to avoid stratification of temperature, and suitable means shall be provided for distributing the temperature uniformly.
4.6.2.7 The average air dry-bulb temperature in the calibrated box during Single-Packaged Dedicated System tests and calibrated box heat leakage tests shall be the average of eight temperatures measured at the corners of the box at a distance of 2 inches to 4 inches from the walls. The instruments shall be shielded from any cold or warm surfaces except that they shall not be shielded from the adjacent walls of the box. The Single-Packaged Dedicated System under test shall be mounted such that the temperature instruments are not in the direct air stream from the discharge of the Single-Packaged Dedicated System.
4.6.3 Calibration of the Calibrated Box. Calibration of the Calibrated Box shall occur prior to installation of the Single-Packaged Dedicated System. This shall be done either (a) prior to cutting the opening needed to install the Single-Packaged Dedicated System, or (b) with an insulating panel with the same thickness and thermal resistance as the box wall installed in the opening intended for the Single-Packaged Dedicated System installation. Care shall be taken to avoid thermal shorts in the location of the opening either during calibration or during subsequent installation of the Single-Packaged Dedicated System. A calibration test shall be made for air movements comparable to those expected for Single-Packaged Dedicated System capacity measurement,
4.6.3.1 The heat input shall be adjusted to maintain an average box temperature not less than 25.0 °F above the test enclosure temperature.
4.6.3.2 The average dry-bulb temperature inside the calibrated box shall not vary more than 1.0 °F over the course of the calibration test.
4.6.3.3 A calibration test shall be the average of eleven consecutive hourly
4.6.3.4 The box temperature shall be the average of all readings after a steady-state temperature condition has been reached.
4.6.3.5 The calibrated box has reached a steady-state temperature condition when:
4.6.3.5.1 The average box temperature is not less than 25.0 °F above the test enclosure temperature.
4.6.3.5.2 Temperature variations do not exceed 5.0 °F between temperature measuring stations.
4.6.3.5.3 Temperatures do not vary by more than 2.0 °F at any one temperature-measuring station.
4.6.4 Data to be Measured and Recorded. Refer to Table C2 in Section C7.2 of AHRI 1250-2020 for the required data that need to measured and recorded.
4.6.5 Refrigeration Capacity Calculation.
4.6.5.1 The heat leakage coefficient of the calibrated box is calculated by
4.6.5.2 For each Dry Rating Condition, calculate the Net Capacity by using the following:
(3)
(4) This Interim Waiver Order shall remain in effect according to the provisions of 10 CFR 431.401(h).
(5) This Interim Waiver Order is issued on the condition that the statements and representations provided by RSG are valid. If RSG makes any modifications to the controls or configurations of a basic model subject to this Interim Waiver Order, such modifications will render the waiver invalid with respect to that basic model, and RSG will either be required to use the current Federal test method or submit a new application for a test procedure waiver. DOE may rescind or modify this waiver at any time if it determines the factual basis underlying the petition for the Interim Waiver Order is incorrect, upon a determination that the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of a basic model's true energy consumption characteristics, or for other appropriate reasons. 10 CFR 431.401(k)(1). Likewise, RSG may request that DOE rescind or modify the Interim Waiver Order if RSG discovers an error in the information provided to DOE as part of its petition, determines that the interim waiver is no longer needed, or for other appropriate reasons. 10 CFR 431.401(k)(2).
(6) Issuance of this Interim Waiver Order does not release RSG from the applicable requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429.
DOE makes decisions on waivers and interim waivers for only those basic models specifically set out in the petition, not future models that may be manufactured by the petitioner. RSG may submit a new or amended petition for waiver and request for grant of interim waiver, as appropriate, for additional basic models of single-packaged dedicated systems with multiple refrigeration circuits. Alternatively, if appropriate, RSG may request that DOE extend the scope of a waiver or an interim waiver to include additional basic models employing the same technology as the basic model(s) set forth in the original petition consistent with 10 CFR 431.401(g).
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 18, 2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Norlake, Inc., dba Refrigerated Solutions Group (RSG), respectfully requests a test procedure waiver and interim waiver pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401 with regards to 10 CFR 431 Appendix C of subpart R Uniform Test Method for the Measurement of Net Capacity and AWEF of Walk-In Cooler and Walk-In Freezer Refrigeration Systems. This request is for newly proposed test procedures for Walk-In Single Packaged Dedicated Refrigeration Systems.
The reasons for the test procedure amendments are to account for the following;
1. Testing multiple compressors and refrigeration circuits incorporated into a single system.
2. Modifying the use of the 25′ line set as these are single packaged dedicated systems not intended to be used with a line set.
These systems meet the DOE definition of a Single-Packaged Dedicated System (single packaged assembly that includes one or more compressors, a condenser, a means for forced circulation of refrigerated air, and elements by which heat is transferred from air to refrigerant, without any element external to the system imposing resistance to flow of the refrigerated air.). Appendix C to Subpart R of Part 431 states that this equipment is to be evaluated using the test procedure set forth in AHRI 1250-2009 with certain modifications provided in the CFR. Neither 1250 nor the CFR address the prospect of multiple refrigeration circuits in one single-packaged system. Therefore, we request a waiver to cover the procedure for testing systems with multiple refrigeration circuits.
These systems incorporate multiple refrigeration circuits and operate on a single power feed. Each refrigeration circuit has its own compressor, expansion device, condenser, and evaporator circuits and may share condenser and evaporator fans and a single system controller. RSG is requesting a procedural waiver that allows for testing each refrigeration circuit under the same procedure as described in the CFR, but conduct the test simultaneously on each refrigeration circuit with duplicate monitoring of pressures, temperatures, and mass flow for each circuit. The power consumption of the total system will be collected. To determine the system AWEF, follow the procedures in the attached Alternate Procedure document. We feel this is keeping with the intent of the CFR while accounting for design characteristics of a multi-circuit system.
With respect to the CFR and the reference of a 25′ line set (C9.2) and section C3.3.3 referencing refrigerant charge, since one piece single-packaged systems are not intended to be remotely split via a line set, we request that the requirement for the 25′ line set (C8.3 or 9.2) for this type of product be replaced with simply adding a mass flow meter to the liquid line between the heat exchanger and the expansion device. The existing suction line would not be disturbed for the test. The mass flow meter would be added with minimal additional liquid line (5 foot total maximum insulated with line size matching that supplied with the system) consistent with C3.4. The added refrigerant charge to account for the added liquid line extensions to and from the mass flow meter,
The detailed alternate test procedures are in the attached Alternate Test Procedure document.
Additionally, we recognize that the DOE has previously issued waivers for single package refrigeration systems to use the alternate energy determination methods specified in AHRI 1250-2020 for single packaged systems, specifically air enthalpy methods (amongst others). Our lab is currently not set up to use this test method and the third-party agencies that we have contacted have replied that they are not able to conduct this test method at this time. We have conducted extensive testing using the method noted above and believe that it mirrors the intent of AHRI 1250-2009 and CFR modifications. Requiring alternate test methods from AHRI 1250-2020 will place an undue burden both financially and time wise on RSG. We suggest the above alternative as a viable test method that mirrors the current test method described in the CFR and yields representative real life energy use/efficiency for the systems. Also going forward, the DOE could have alternate test methods for single packaged refrigeration systems that lend themselves to the current test method and not mandate this type of system to test methods that would require added expenses for test labs not currently set up for alternate test methods specified in AHRI 1250-2020.
The basic models that this interm waiver and waiver would apply to are as follows, branded Norlake and Masterbilt;
CPB050PC-S-0, CPB075PC-S-0, CPB100PC-S-0, CPF050PC-S-0, CPF075PC-S-0, CPF100PC-S-0, CPF150PC-S-4 and CPF200PC-S-4.
Other manufactures of this class of equipment include but may not be limited to Heatcraft, Kolpak and Turbo-Air.
Conclusion
With the above noted information RSG requests that the DOE issue an Interim waiver and waiver to allow this modified energy efficiency test method as an alternate to the existing methods to account for single packaged walk-in refrigeration system construction. Failure to grant this request would have an economic hardship due to loss of revenue from sales of this product and/or significantly delay the release of the product to the market. Should the DOE require any additional information to move this forward we would be available and pleased to discuss.
The alternate test procedure for the RSG basic models shall be tested using the test procedure for walk-in cooler refrigeration systems prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C, except as detailed below. All other requirements of 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C, and DOE's regulations remain applicable.
Modification to 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix C:
3.1.1. In Table 1, Instrumentation Accuracy, refrigerant temperature measurements shall have a tolerance of ±0.5 F for unit cooler in/out. Temperature measurements used to determine water vapor content of the air shall be accurate to within ±0.4 F, ±1.0 F for all other temperature measurements.
3.1.4. In Tables 2 through 14, the Test Condition Outdoor Wet Bulb Temperature requirement and its associated tolerance apply only to units with evaporative cooling and single-packaged dedicated systems.
3.1.6. Tables 3, 4, 7, and 8 shall be modified to read as follows:
C5.1.1 Single-Package Refrigerant Enthalpy method shall determine gross refrigeration capacity by measuring the enthalpy change and the mass flow rate of the refrigerant using a single set of measurements.
C5.1.2 Calibrated Box method shall determine net refrigeration capacity by measuring the heat input to the calibrated box, including thermal transfer through the calibrated box walls.
C5.1.3 Indoor Air Enthalpy method shall determine net refrigeration capacity of Single-package System and input power in accordance with ASHRAE 37-2009, Figure C4, and the following modifications.
C5.1.3.1 Net refrigeration capacity is determined by measuring airflow rate and the dry-bub temperature and water vapor content of the air that enters and leaves the coil. Air enthalpies shall be determined in accordance with ANSI ASHRAE 41.6. Entering air is to be sufficiently dry as to not produce frost on the Evaporator coil. Therefore, only sensible capacity measured by dry bulb change shall be used to calculate capacity.
C5.1.4 Testing Sequence. The primary test method shall be used to measure the capacity for Rating Condition A prior to set-up of the Single-Package Refrigerant Enthalpy Measurement. After set-up of the Refrigerant Enthalpy method, the Net Capacity shall be measured using both the primary test method and the Refrigerant Enthalpy method. The Net Capacity measurement using the Refrigerant Enthalpy method shall be within 6 percent of the net capacity measurement using the primary method.
If a capacity balance within tolerance is not initially achieved, take steps to reduce the thermal losses of the single-package system evaporator compartment by sealing air gaps and potentially adding more external insulation. If using the Calibrated Box method as the primary method, achieving a capacity balance may require conducting the calibration with calibrated box insulation material at the same average temperature as during capacity measurement, or using multiple calibrations conducted at different average insulation material temperatures and using these data to construct a correlation for the calibration coefficient K
C5.1.5 The refrigerant enthalpy method Net Capacity shall be calculated from the Gross Capacity Measurement as follows.
C9.2.1.5.1 Air temperature sensors.
Each temperature sensor shall be at a distance of 6 inches from the calibrated box. If the clearance from a surface of the box (allowed for one surface only) is less than 12 inches, the temperature measuring instruments shall be located midway between the outer wall of the calibrated box and the adjacent surface.
C9.2.1.5.2 Surface temperature sensors.
Surface temperature sensors shall be mounted on the calibrated box surfaces to represent the enclosure temperature T
Additional surface temperature sensors may be used to measure external hot spots during refrigeration system testing. If this is done, two temperature sensors shall be used to measure the average temperature of the calibrated box surface covered by the condensing section—they shall be located centered on equal-area rectangles comprising the covered calibrated box surface whose common sides span the short dimension of this surface. Additional surface temperature sensors may be use to measure box surfaces on which warm condenser discharge air impinges. A pattern of square surfaces measuring one foot square shall be mapped out to represent the hot spot upon which the warm condenser air impinges. One temperature sensor shall be used to measure surface temperature at the center of each square (see Figure C5). A drawing showing this pattern and identifying the surface temperature sensors shall be provided in the test report. The average surface temperature of the overall calibrated box outer surface during testing shall be calculated as follows.
Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Paducah. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Thursday, August 18, 2022; 5:30 p.m.-7 p.m.
The meeting will be held, strictly following COVID-19 precautionary measures, at: West Kentucky Community and Technical College, Emerging Technology Building, Room 109, 5100 Alben Barkley Drive, Paducah, Kentucky 42001.
Eric Roberts, Board Support Manager, by Phone: (270) 554-3004 or Email:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collections, FERC-555 (Preservation of Records for Public Utilities and Licensees, Natural Gas Companies, and Oil Pipeline Companies).
Comments on the collections of information are due September 20, 2022.
You may submit your comments (identified by Docket No. IC22-21-000) on FERC-555 by one of the following methods:
Electronic filing through
•
• For those unable to file electronically, comments may be filed by USPS mail or by hand (Including Courier) Delivery:
○
○
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
The regulations for preservation of records at 18 CFR parts 125, 225, and 356 establish retention periods and other requirements for applicable records. These requirements apply to the public utilities, licensees, natural gas companies, and oil pipeline companies that are subject to the Commission's jurisdiction. Regulated entities use these records as the basis for required rate filings and reports to the Commission. The Commission's audit staff will use the records during compliance reviews, and the Commission's enforcement staff will use the information during investigations. In addition, the Commission's staff may use the records for special analyses on subjects such as jurisdictional entities' responses to extreme weather events.
On January 8, 1999 the Commission issued AI99-2-000, an Accounting Issuance providing guidance on records storage media.
Comments
Take notice that on July 8, 2022 WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (WBI Energy) filed a prior notice request for authorization, in accordance with 18 CFR Sections 157.205, 157.208, and 157.210 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations and WBI Energy's blanket certificate issued in Docket Nos. CP82-487-000 for authorization to construct and operate natural gas pipeline facilities in Phillips and Valley Counties, Montana and abandon in place 1,965 feet of natural gas mainline. The estimated cost of the project will be about $10 million.
Specifically, WBI Energy proposes to construct and operate approximately 17.2 miles of 4-inch diameter natural gas mainline facilities to connect two sections of WBI Energy's existing Line Section 8 that are not physically connected and abandon in place 1,965 feet of 6-inch diameter natural gas mainline, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open for public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Any questions concerning this application should be directed to Lori Myerchin, Director, Regulatory Affairs and Transportation Services—WBI Energy Transmission Inc., P.O. Box 5601, Bismarck, North Dakota 58506-5601 Phone (701) 530-1563 Email:
Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 16, 2022. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under the NGA,
Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section 157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,
Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
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
All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before September 16, 2022. 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.
There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP22-488-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket number CP22-488-000.
To mail via USPS, use the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
To mail via any other courier, use the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail or email (with a link to the document) at: Lori Myerchin, Director, Regulatory Affairs and Transportation Services—WBI Energy Transmission Inc., P.O. Box 5601, Bismarck, North Dakota 58506-5601 Email:
Any subsequent submissions by an intervenor must be served on the applicant and all other parties to the proceeding. Contact information for parties can be downloaded from the service list at the eService link on FERC Online.
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
On July 14, 2022, Little Falls Hydroelectric Associates, LP, submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a copy of its application for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification filed with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (New York DEC), in conjunction with the above captioned project. Pursuant to 40 CFR 121.6 and section [4.34(b)(5), 5.23(b), 153.4, or 157.22] of the Commission's regulations,
Date of Receipt of the Certification Request: July 14, 2022.
Reasonable Period of Time to Act on the Certification Request: July 14, 2023.
If New York DEC fails or refuses to act on the water quality certification request on or before the above date, then the agency certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).
On June 6, 2022, Rye Bailey Hydroelectric, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of hydropower at the existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) R.D. Bailey Dam located on the Guyandotte River in Mingo and Wyoming Counties, West Virginia. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed R.D. Bailey Hydroelectric Project would consist of the following: (1) a new 40-foot-wide, 60-foot-long powerhouse to be located downstream of the Corps dam along the northern bank; (2) a new concrete bifurcation chamber at the end of an existing conduit to divide flows between the stilling basin and the powerhouse; (3) a new 15-foot-diameter penstock approximately 50 feet long; (4) two turbine-generator units with a total generating capacity of 8 megawatts; (5) a new 100-foot-wide by 400-foot-long tailrace; (6) a new substation with a step-up transformer; (7) a new 2.5-mile-long, 46-kilovolt transmission line; and (8) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an estimated annual generation of 30,000 megawatt-hours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's website at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene 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 July 15, 2022, pursuant to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 35.28(e), Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC), submitted a Petition for Declaratory Order and revisions to its non-jurisdictional Open Access Transmission Tariff to be effective 10/1/2022.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Petitioner.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
As first announced in the Commission's May 23, 2022 Notice
The meeting will be open to the public for listening and observing and on the record. In light of the current Center for Disease Control guidance for San Diego County where community levels are high for the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)
Discussions at the meeting may involve issues raised in proceedings that are currently pending before the Commission. These proceedings include, but are not limited to:
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
More information about the Task Force, including frequently asked questions, is available here:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit the below listed information collection requests (ICR) 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 below. These are proposed extensions of the currently approved ICRs. 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.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 20, 2022.
Submit your comments, referencing the Docket ID numbers provided for each item in the text, online using
The EPA's policy is that all relevant 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.
Mr. Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and Programs Division, (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0833; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
(29)
(30)
(31)
(32)
(33)
(34)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed NPDES general permit issuance.
The Regional Administrator of Region 6 proposes to reissue the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit No. GMG290000 for existing and new sources and new dischargers in the Offshore Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category, located in and discharging to the Outer Continental Shelf offshore of Louisiana and Texas. The discharge of produced water to that portion of the Outer Continental Shelf from Offshore Subcategory facilities located in the territorial seas of Louisiana and Texas is also authorized by this permit.
This draft permit proposes to retain, with certain modifications, the limitations and conditions of the existing 2017 issued permit (2017 permit). The 2017 permit limitations conform with the Oil and Gas Offshore Subcategory Guidelines and contain additional requirements to assess impacts from the discharge of produced water to the marine environment, as required by section 403(c) of the Clean Water Act. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intends to use the reissued permit to regulate oil and gas extraction facilities located in the Outer Continental Shelf of the Western Gulf of Mexico,
Comments must be submitted in writing to EPA on or before September 20, 2022.
To obtain hard copies of these documents or any other information in the administrative record, please contact Ms. Evelyn Rosborough using the contact information provided below.
•
•
•
• We encourage the public to submit comments via
• Please submit your comments within the specified time period cited in the
• Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit to EPA's docket or email any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (
Public meetings and hearings on the proposed permit will be held during the comment period approximately 30 to 45 days after the date of this notice. Times, places and instructions for virtual participation will be announced online at the EPA Public Notices pages for Texas and Louisiana at
The following item was released by the Commission on July 13, 2022 and deleted from the list of items scheduled for consideration at the Thursday, July 14, 2022, Open Meeting. This item was previously listed in the Commission's Sunshine Notice on Thursday, July 7, 2022.
The meeting will be webcast with open captioning at:
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before August 22, 2022.
Comments should be sent to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) go to the web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”
In 2015, the Commission released the Second Report and Order and Third Notice of Further Proposed Rulemaking, WC Docket No. 12-375, 30 FCC Rcd 12763, (
In 2021, the Commission released the Third Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
The 2021 rules necessitated further changes to the instructions and annual reporting and certification templates in order to simplify compliance with a reduce the burden of this data collection. On December 15, 2021, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) issued a Public Notice, WC 12-375, DA 21-1583 (WCB Dec. 15, 2021), seeking comment on its proposed revisions to the instructions and template for the Annual Reports and Certifications submitted by ICS providers. After considering the comments and replies submitted in response to the Public Notice, the Bureau released an Order on June 24, 2022 revising the instructions, reporting template, and certification form for the annual reports submitted by ICS providers. The reporting template consists of a Word document (Word template) and Excel spreadsheets (Excel template).
Under the Bureau's Order, ICS providers must continue to submit all reports using the electronic template provided by the Commission, and to provide the data in a machine-readable, manipulatable format. The reporting requirements cover the general categories proposed in the Public Notice. These categories include the submission of information on facilities served; interstate, intrastate, and international ICS rates; ancillary service charges; site commissions; and disability access, among other matters. The Bureau adopted reporting requirements for interstate, international, and intrastate ICS rates as proposed, with minor revisions. Further, the Bureau adopted the reporting requirements for ancillary service charges assessed by ICS providers as proposed, with certain revisions. In addition, the Bureau adopted the reporting requirements as proposed concerning site commissions, with minor revisions. The Bureau also revised the instructions and reporting template to match these revisions, and to more precisely target the information to be reported in connection with providers' disability access services. The revised Word and Excel templates (collectively, FCC Form 2301(a)) and certification form (FCC Form 2301(b)) will be submitted for approval by the Office of Management and Budget.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, as part of its obligations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of the existing information collections described below (OMB Control No. 3064-0046, -0118 and -0191).
Comments must be submitted on or before September 20, 2022.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Manny Cabeza, Regulatory Counsel, 202-898-3767,
1.
2.
3.
Thursday, July 28, 2022, at 10:00 a.m.
For those attending the meeting in person, current Covid-19 safety protocols for visitors, which are based on the CDC Covid-19 community level in Washington, DC, will be updated on the commission's contact page by the Monday before the meeting. See the contact page at
This meeting will be open to the public, subject to the above-referenced guidance regarding the Covid-19 community level and corresponding health and safety procedures. To access the meeting virtually, go to the commission's website
Judith Ingram, Press Officer. Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Individuals who plan to attend in person and who require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Laura E. Sinram, Acting Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
Notice of a new system of records.
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) Center for Conflict Resolution Education (CCRE) and the Division of Agency Initiatives (DAI) use this system to process conference attendee and participant registration. FMCS hosts, co-hosts, sponsors, or co-sponsors conferences designed to meet the real-world challenges of labor management relations, conflict resolution, mediation, and arbitration. FMCS uses additional vendors to register attendees and participants and to promote conferences. FMCS uses GovDelivery Communications Cloud to promote events and Cvent Event Solutions (Cvent) to register attendees and participants for conferences.
This system of records will be effective without further notice on August 22, 2022 unless otherwise revised pursuant to comments received. Comments must be received on or before August 22, 2022.
You may send comments, identified by FMCS-00012, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Kimberly Warren, Digital Media Strategist, at
To further promote the use of mediation, conflict resolution, and labor relations management in accordance with FMCS's mission, FMCS sponsors and co-sponsors conferences. These conferences educate and train members of the public and private sectors. GovDelivery is a web-based email subscription management application, provided by Granicus, that allows members of the public to subscribe to get information from the FMCS via email. Subscribers can choose from numerous subscriptions offered by FMCS, including, but not limited to, press releases, training opportunities, and event-related notifications. Attendees and participants may subscribe via a secure web page, to receive FMCS emails through a signup page on
Cvent, an on-line registration system, can handle conference registration and speaker information and allow attendees to register online for any FMCS events. Major functions of this system include RSVP/Decline status, schedule setting, and outgoing messages from FMCS to attendees.
FMCS Conference System—FMCS-00012.
FMCS, 250 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20427.
Greg Raelson, Director of Congressional and Public Affairs, email
29 U.S.C. 172; 29 U.S.C. 173 (e); and 29 CFR 1403.
The purpose of the system is for collecting, processing, and maintaining participant's or attendee's basic contact information for FMCS conferences. The basic information is required to determine the participant's or attendee's region or geographical location and to have adequate preparation for the conference. This information is also used to assess the best allocation of FMCS resources. The system gives a detailed structure of the conference including the conference program, keynote sessions, list of invited speakers with their background information, timetables for the conference meetings, venues of the conference, conference sponsors, and conference fees. The system is made up of interrelated components to perform to task, for example a computer system and IT system (multiple computers joined by a network). The system also includes GovDelivery which handles digital subscription management and deliver opt-in email and other messaging to FMCS audiences. Audiences include, but are not limited to, citizens who are interested in receiving news and updates from the FMCS, seek to register for FMCS events and conferences, and who opt to receive targeted communications or specific topics related to conflict management. Cvent is also a component of the FMCS Conference system.
The categories of individuals in this system include: the public (as attendees or participants), conference speakers, and Federal employees who register on the FMCS website for participation in selected training workshops, webinars, training sessions, and conference sessions hosted by FMCS.
The categories of records maintained in the system include:
(1) List of conference programs, including event location, time, date, conference events and agendas;
(2) Information pertaining to registration including names, registration fees, conference description, and professional affiliation;
(3) Attendee's information or participant information including first name, last name, email address, title, office, employer/organization, address, room #/mail code, city, state, zip/postal code, country, and telephone and fax number; and
(4) Information concerning the basis for and supporting documentation regarding the conference.
The information pertaining to this system is primarily collected via website from individuals requesting to register for an event sponsored by FMCS. The sources of information include attendees, speakers, exhibitors, officials, education professionals, FMCS employees, and guests.
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 or information contained in this system may be disclosed to authorized entities, as is determined to be relevant and necessary, outside the FMCS as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
(a) To disclose pertinent information to the appropriate Federal, State, or local agency responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing a statute, rule regulation or order where the record, either alone or in conjunction with other information creates an indication of a violation or potential violation of civil or criminal laws or regulations.
(b) To disclose information to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for use in its records management inspections; to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) for oversight purposes; to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to obtain that department's advice regarding disclosure obligations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); or to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to obtain that office's advice regarding obligations under the Privacy Act.
(c) To disclose information to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or the General Services Administration in records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
(d) To a former employee of the Agency for purposes of responding to an official inquiry by a federal, state, or local government entity or professional licensing authority, in accordance with applicable Agency regulations; or facilitating communications with a former employee that may be necessary for personnel-related or other official purposes where the Agency requires information and/or consultation assistance from the former employee regarding a matter within that person's former area of responsibility.
(e) To disclose information to contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, detailees, and other non-Government employees performing or working on a contract, service, or other assignment for the Federal Government when necessary to accompany an agency function related to this system of records.
(f) To officials of labor organizations recognized under 5 U.S.C. Chapter 71 upon receipt of a formal request and in accordance with the conditions of 5 U.S.C. 7114 when relevant and necessary to their duties of exclusive representation concerning personnel policies, practices, and matters affecting working conditions.
(g) To disclose information to a Member of Congress or a congressional office in response to an inquiry made on behalf of, and at the request of, an individual who is the subject of the record.
(h) In an appropriate proceeding before a court, grand jury, or administrative or adjudicative body or official, when FMCS or other Agency representing FMCS determines the records are 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.
(i) To the Department of Justice, including Offices of the U.S. Attorneys; another Federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body; another party in litigation before a court, adjudicative, or administrative body; or to a court, adjudicative, or administrative body. Such disclosure is permitted only when it is relevant and necessary to the litigation or proceeding, and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:
(1) FMCS, or any component thereof;
(2) Any employee or former employee of FMCS in their official capacity;
(3) Any employee or former employee of FMCS in their capacity where the Department of Justice or FMCS has agreed to represent the employee;
(4) The United States, a Federal agency, or another party in litigation before a court, adjudicative, or administrative body, upon the FMCS General Counsel's approval, pursuant to 5 CFR part 295 or otherwise.
(j) To any federal agency, organization, or person for the purposes of performing audit or oversight operations related to the operation of this system of records as authorized by law, but only information necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
(k) To disclose information to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (1) FMCS suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) FMCS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, FMCS (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 FMCS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(l) To disclose information to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when FMCS determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
(m) To disclose to professional affiliations, licensing entities, and employers to verify attendance and course completion.
(n) To disclose, in a limited capacity, to vendor(s) to provide requested accommodations associated with conference attendance or participation.
These records are maintained in electronic form only accessible to authorized personnel. Electronic records are stored on the agency's internal servers with restricted access to only authorized personnel and designated officials as determined by agency officials. Cvent and GovDelivery are hosted subscription systems, and all records are maintained by the hosting company.
The records are retrieved by the name or other programming identifier assigned to an individual in the electronic database system. Records may also be retrieved by the title of the conference and entity associated with the attendee's or participant's registration.
All records are retained and disposed of in accordance with General Records Schedule 6.4, issued by the National Archives and Records Administration, and FMCS. Records are destroyed when three years old or when they are no longer needed for business use.
Regarding the Conference system, on premises there is a NetApp Network attached Windows File System shared folder with permissions set to only allow those with designated access by membership thru a Windows Azure group membership. Group access and modification is controlled by IT which uses a privileged administrator account. Array is physically located in a locked computer room with limited badge access. Cvent and GovDelivery are remote hosted subscription systems accessed by username/password maintained by the host company and created by the user of the systems. FMCS administrators maintain accounts/access and content for the hosted spaces. Cvent and GovDelivery are both FedRAMP authorized vendors and use government accepted procedures for keeping data safe.
Attendees and participants may access the GovDelivery system via links placed on client web pages or in system-generated emails. GovDelivery subscribers have access to their own personal data in the system. Cvent registrants may access their personal data through their registration confirmation or by contacting FMCS. Individuals must provide the following information for their records to be located and identified: (1) Full name, (2) Address, and (3) A reasonably identifying description of the record content requested. Requests can be submitted via
See 29 CFR 1410.6, Requests for correction or amendment of records, on how to contest the content of any records. Privacy Act requests to amend or correct records may be submitted to the Privacy Office at
See 29 CFR 1410.3(a), Individual access requests.
None.
None.
Office of Government Ethics (OGE).
Notice of request for agency and public comments.
After this first round notice and public comment period, the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) intends to submit modified versions of the 12 OGE model certificates and model documents for qualified trusts to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments by the public and the agencies on this proposed extension are invited and must be received on or before September 20, 2022.
Comments may be submitted to OGE by any of the following methods:
Jennifer Matis at the U.S. Office of Government Ethics; telephone: 202-482-9216; TTY: 800-877-8339; Email:
In order to ensure that all applicable requirements are met, OGE is the sponsoring agency for 12 model certificates and model trust documents for qualified blind and diversified trusts. See 5 CFR 2634.402(e)(3), 2634.402(f)(3), 2634.404(e) through (g), 2634.405(d)(2), 2634.407(a); 2634.408(b)(1) through (3), 2634.408(d)(4), 2634.409, and 2634.414. The various model certificates and model trust documents are used by settlors, trustees, and other fiduciaries in establishing and administering these qualified trusts. OGE plans to submit these model certificates and model trust documents (described in detail in the table below) to OMB for renewed approval pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
The 12 model documents, along with their burden estimates, are as follows:
These estimates are based on the amount of time imposed on professional trust administrators or private representatives. OGE notes that only one set of the various model trust provisions (items (B) through (H)) will be prepared for a single qualified trust, and only prior to the establishment of that qualified trust. Likewise, other model documents listed above are used in connection with establishing the qualified trust (items (I), (J), and (K)). The remaining model documents are used after the trust's creation (items (A) and (L)). Accordingly, OGE notes that the majority of the time burden for any given trust is imposed during the creation of the trust.
At the present time, there are no active qualified trusts in the executive branch. However, OGE anticipates possible limited use of these model documents during the forthcoming three-year period. OGE estimates that there may be an average of one individual per year who initiates a qualified trust using these model documents during calendar years 2023 through 2025. OGE has accordingly estimated the average annual number of respondents to be two, which represents one respondent establishing a qualified trust and one respondent maintaining a previously established qualified trust. Based on the above, OGE estimates an average annual time burden during the next three years of 120 hours. Using an estimated rate of $300 per hour for the services of a professional trust administrator or private representative, the estimated annual cost burden is $36,000.
Under OMB's implementing regulations for the Paperwork Reduction Act, any recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirement contained in a rule of general applicability is deemed to involve ten or more persons. See 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4)(i). Therefore, OGE intends to submit, after this first round notice and comment period, all 12 qualified trust model certificates and model documents described above (all of which are included under OMB paperwork control number 3209-0007) for a three-year extension of approval. At that time, OGE will publish a second notice in the
OGE is committed to making ethics records publicly available to the extent possible. The communications documents and the confidentiality agreements (items (A), (I) and (J) on the table above), once completed, will not be available to the public because they contain sensitive, confidential information. The other completed certificates and documents (except for any trust provisions that relate to the testamentary disposition of trust assets) are retained and made publicly available based upon a proper request under section 105 of the EIGA until the periods for retention of all other reports (usually the OGE Form 278 Public Financial Disclosure Reports) of the individual establishing the trust have lapsed (generally six years after the filing of the last report). See 5 U.S.C. app. 105; 5 CFR 2634.603(g)(2). The information collected with these model trust certificates and model trust documents is part of the OGE/GOVT-1 Governmentwide Privacy Act system of records.
In seeking an extension of approval, OGE is proposing several nonsubstantive changes to the 12 qualified trust certificates and model documents.
First, OGE proposes updating the dates in Document A (Blind Trust Communications) to make them more contemporary.
Second, OGE proposes replacing “OGE” and “the Office” with “the U.S. Office of Government Ethics” to make references to the agency consistent with that of the actual model trust language.
Third, OGE proposes replacing references to the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 as “the Ethics Act” with “the Act” in order to maintain consistency.
Fourth, OGE proposes fixing a typo by removing the period (.) following the “NW” in OGE's address.
Specifically, OGE seeks public comment on the following:
• Do the model qualified blind trusts provide sufficient direction to establish a trust under the Qualified Trust Program? If not, what provisions could be clearer or what language should be changed?
• Do the model qualified diversified trusts provide sufficient direction to establish a trust under the Qualified Trust Program? If not, what provisions could be clearer or what language should be changed?
• Do the Additional Trust Documents provide sufficient information for individuals to comply with the logistical requirements (
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “National Syndromic Surveillance Program (NSSP)” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on May 6, 2022, to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received one comment related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Syndromic surveillance uses syndromic data and statistical tools to detect, monitor, and characterize unusual activity for further public health investigation or response. Syndromic data include electronic extracts of electronic health records (EHRs) from patient encounter data from emergency departments, urgent care, ambulatory care, and inpatient healthcare settings, as well as laboratory data. Though these data are being captured for different purposes, they are monitored in near real-time as potential indicators of an event, a disease, or an outbreak of public health significance. On the national level, these data are used to improve nationwide situational awareness and enhance responsiveness to hazardous events and disease outbreaks to protect America's health, safety, and security.
The BioSense Program was created by congressional mandate as part of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 and was launched by the CDC in 2003. The BioSense Program has since been expanded into the National Syndromic Surveillance Program (NSSP) which promotes and advances development of a syndromic surveillance system for the timely exchange of syndromic data.
CDC requests a three-year approval for a Revision for NSSP (OMB Control No. 0920-0824, Exp. 7/31/2022). This Revision includes a request for approval to continue to receive onboarding data from state, local and territorial public health departments about healthcare facilities in their jurisdiction; registration data needed to allow users access to the BioSense Platform tools and services; and data sharing permissions so that state, local and territorial health departments can share data with other state, local and territorial health departments and CDC.
NSSP features the BioSense Platform and a collaborative Community of Practice. The BioSense Platform is a secure integrated electronic health information system that CDC provides, primarily for use by state, local and territorial public health departments. It includes standardized analytic tools and processes that enable users to rapidly collect, evaluate, share, and store syndromic surveillance data. NSSP promotes a Community of Practice in which participants collaborate to advance the science and practice of syndromic surveillance. Health departments use the BioSense Platform to receive healthcare data from facilities in their jurisdiction, conduct syndromic surveillance, and share the data with other jurisdictions and CDC.
The BioSense Platform provides the ability to analyze healthcare encounter data from EHRs, as well as laboratory data. All EHR and laboratory data reside in a cloud-enabled, web-based platform that has Authorization to Operate from CDC. The BioSense Platform sits in the secure, private Government Cloud which is used as a storage and processing mechanism, as opposed to on-site servers at CDC. This environment provides users with easily managed on-demand access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources such as networks, servers, software, tools, storage, and services, with limited need for additional IT support. Each site (
NSSP has three different types of information collection:
(1) Collection of onboarding data about healthcare facilities needed for state, local, and territorial public health departments to submit EHR data to the BioSense Platform;
(2) Collection of registration data needed to allow users access to the BioSense Platform tools and services; and
(3) Collection of data sharing permissions so that state, local, and territorial health departments can share data with other state, local, and territorial health departments and CDC.
Healthcare data shared with CDC can include: EHR data received by state and local public health departments from facilities including hospital emergency departments and inpatient settings, urgent care, and ambulatory care; mortality data from state and local vital statistics offices; laboratory tests ordered and their results from a national private sector laboratory company; and EHR data from the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) Disaster Medical Assistance Teams (DMATs). Respondents include state, local, and territorial public health departments. The only burden incurred by the health departments are for submitting onboarding data about facilities to CDC, submitting registration data about users to CDC, and setting up data sharing permissions with CDC. The estimated annual burden is 671 hours. There are no costs to respondents other than their time to participate.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled Population-based Surveillance of Outcomes, Needs, and Well-being of Children and Adolescents with Congenital Heart Defects to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on February 14, 2022 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received five comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Population-based Surveillance of Outcomes, Needs, and Well-being of Children and Adolescents with Congenital Heart Defects—New—National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (NCBDDD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Congenital heart defects (CHD) are the most common type of structural birth defects, affecting approximately one in 110 live-born children. Due to advances in survival, there are approximately one million children with CHD in the United States. With vast declines in mortality from pediatric heart disease over the past 30 years, it is vital to evaluate health, social, educational, and quality of life outcomes beyond infancy and early childhood. However, existing U.S. population-based data are lacking on these outcomes among those born with CHD and the changes that may occur with time and age. U.S. data is needed to provide insight into the public health questions that remain for this population and to develop services and allocate resources to improve long-term health and well-being.
For this project, we will use data from U.S. birth defect surveillance systems, or population-based studies derived from them, to identify a population-based sample of children and adolescents two to 17 years of age born with CHD. Parents and caregivers of these individuals will serve as respondents for the CHSTRONG-KIDS survey. The CHSTRONG-KIDS survey will be administered at three sites. One site will be Atlanta, Georgia, where CDC
Survey questions inquire about the child's cardiac and other healthcare utilization,barriers to health care, quality of life, social and educational outcomes, and transition of care from childhood to adulthoodas well asneeds andexperiencesof thecaregivers. The information collected from this population-based survey will be used to inform current knowledge, allocate resources, develop services, and, ultimately, improve long-term health of children and adolescents born with CHD and their caregivers.
OMB approval is requested for three years. During this period, we estimate receiving completed surveys from a total of 7,667 caregivers of children and adolescents with CHD, which equates to 2,556 respondents per year. To generate sufficient sample size, accounting for non-response, we intend to sample 100% of eligible CHD cases identified through select birth defect surveillance systems. The survey takes approximately 20 minutes to complete, and includes skip patterns so that parents or caregivers are only asked age-relevant questions about their child to minimize burden per response. CDC estimates an annual total burden of 852 hours. Survey participation is voluntary and there are no costs to participants other than their time.
Notice.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is seeking nominations for membership on the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee (CLIAC). CLIAC, consisting of 20 members including the Chair, represents a diverse membership across laboratory specialties, professional roles (laboratory management, technical specialists, physicians, nurses) and practice settings (academic, clinical, public health), and includes a consumer representative.
Nominations for membership on CLIAC must be received no later than September 30, 2022. Packages received after this time will not be considered for the current membership cycle.
All nominations should be emailed to
Heather Stang, MS, CLIAC Management Specialist, Deputy Chief, Quality and Safety Systems Branch, Division of Laboratory Systems, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, Office of Public Health Scientific Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop V24-3, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027; Telephone (404) 498-2769; Email:
Nominations are being sought for individuals who have the expertise and qualifications necessary to contribute to the accomplishment of the Committee's objectives. Nominees will be selected based on expertise in the fields of microbiology (including bacteriology, mycobacteriology, mycology, parasitology, and virology), immunology (including histocompatibility), chemistry, hematology, pathology (including histopathology and cytology), or genetic testing (including cytogenetics); from representatives in the fields of medical technology, bioinformatics, public health, and clinical practice; and from consumer representatives. Federal employees will not be considered for membership. Members may be invited to serve for up to four-year terms.
The selection of members is based on candidates' qualifications to contribute to accomplishing CLIAC objectives (
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) policy stipulates that committee membership be balanced in terms of points of view represented and the Committee's function. Appointments shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, HIV status, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status. Nominees must be U.S. citizens and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Current participation on federal workgroups or prior experience serving on a federal advisory committee does not disqualify a candidate; however, HHS policy is to avoid excessive individual service on advisory committees and multiple committee memberships. Committee members are Special Government Employees, requiring the filing of financial disclosure reports at the beginning and annually during their terms. CDC reviews potential candidates for CLIAC membership each year and provides a slate of nominees for consideration to the Secretary of HHS for final selection. HHS notifies selected candidates of their appointment near the start of the term in July or as soon as the HHS selection process is completed. Note that the need for different expertise varies from year to year, and a candidate who is not selected in one year may be reconsidered in a subsequent year. Candidates should submit the following items:
Current curriculum vitae, including complete contact information (telephone numbers, mailing address, email address)
At least one letter of recommendation from person(s) not employed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Candidates may submit a letter(s) from current HHS employees if they wish, but at least one letter must be submitted by a person not employed by an HHS agency (
Nominations may be submitted by the candidate or by the person/organization recommending the candidate.
The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Generic Clearance for CDC/ATSDR Formative Research and Tool Development. This information collection request is designed to allow CDC to conduct formative research information collection activities used to inform aspects of surveillance, communications, health promotion, and research project development.
Written comments must be received on or before September 20, 2022.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2022-0088 by either of the following methods:
•
• Mail: Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H21-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H21-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; Telephone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who respond, including through the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology;
5. Assess information costs.
Generic Clearance for CDC/ATSDR Formative Research and Tool Development (OMB Control No. 0920-1154, Exp. 1/31/2023)—Extension—Office of Science (OS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) requests approval for an Extension of a Generic Clearance for CDC/ATSDR Formative Research and Tool Development. This information collection request is designed to allow CDC to conduct formative research information collection activities used to inform many aspects of surveillance, communications, health promotion, and research project development at CDC. Formative research is the basis for developing effective strategies including communication channels, for influencing behavior change. It helps researchers identify and understand the characteristics, interests, behaviors and needs of target populations that influence their decisions and actions.
Formative research is integral in developing programs, as well as improving existing and ongoing programs. Formative research looks at the community in which a public health intervention is being or will be implemented and helps the project staff understand the interests, attributes and needs of different populations and persons in that community. Formative research occurs before a program is designed and implemented, or while a program is being conducted.
At CDC, formative research is necessary for developing new programs or adapting programs that deal with the complexity of behaviors, social context, cultural identities, and health care that underlie the epidemiology of diseases and conditions in the U.S. CDC conducts formative research to develop public-sensitive communication messages and user-friendly tools prior to developing or recommending interventions, or care. Sometimes these
Products from these formative research studies will be used for prevention of disease. Findings from these studies may also be presented as evidence to disease-specific National Advisory Committees, to support revisions to recommended prevention and intervention methods, as well as new recommendations.
Much of CDC's health communication takes place within campaigns that have fairly lengthy planning periods and/or timeframes that accommodate the standard federal process for approving data collections. Short-term qualitative interviewing and cognitive research techniques have previously proven invaluable in the development of scientifically valid and population-appropriate methods, interventions, and instruments.
This request includes studies investigating the utility and acceptability of proposed sampling and recruitment methods, intervention contents and delivery, questionnaire domains, individual questions, and interactions with project staff or electronic data collection equipment. These activities will also provide information about how respondents answer questions and ways in which question response bias and error can be reduced.
This request also includes collection of information from public health programs to assess needs related to initiation of a new program activity or expansion or changes in scope or implementation of existing program activities to adapt them to current needs. The information collected will be used to advise programs and provide capacity-building assistance tailored to identify needs.
Overall, these development activities are intended to provide information that will increase the success of the surveillance or research projects through increasing response rates and decreasing response error, thereby decreasing future data collection burden to the public. The studies that will be covered under this request will include one or more of the following investigational modalities: (1) structured and qualitative interviewing for surveillance, research, interventions and material development; (2) cognitive interviewing for development of specific data collection instruments; (3) methodological research; (4) usability testing of technology-based instruments and materials; (5) field testing of new methodologies and materials; (6) investigation of mental models for health decision-making to inform health communication messages; and (7) organizational needs assessments to support development of capacity. Respondents who will participate in individual and group interviews (qualitative, cognitive, and computer assisted development activities) are selected purposively from those who respond to recruitment advertisements.
In addition to utilizing advertisements for recruitment, respondents who will participate in research on survey methods may be selected purposively or systematically from within an ongoing surveillance or research project. Participation of respondents is voluntary. CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 20,000 annual burden hours. There is no cost to participants other than their time to participate.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
The CDC, National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Classifications and Public Health Data Standards Staff, announces the following meeting of the ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance (C&M) Committee. This meeting is open to the public, limited only by the number of audio lines available. Online registration is not required.
The meeting will be held on September 13, 2022, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., EDT, and September 14, 2022, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., EDT.
This is a virtual meeting. Information will be provided on each of the respective web pages when it becomes available. For CDC, NCHS:
Traci Ramirez, Medical Systems Specialist, CDC, NCHS, 3311 Toledo Road, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782-2064; Telephone: (301) 458-4454; Email:
* Requestor intends to submit a new technology add-on payment (NTAP) application for FY 2024.
** Request is for an April 1, 2023, implementation date, and the requestor intends to submit an NTAP application for FY 2024 consideration.
Presentations for procedure code requests are conducted by both the requestor and CMS during the C&M Committee meeting. Discussion from the requestor generally focuses on the clinical issues for the procedure or technology, followed by the proposed coding options from a CMS analyst. Topics presented may also include requests for new procedure codes that relate to a new technology add-on payment (NTAP) policy request.
CMS is continuing to modify the approach for presenting the new NTAP-related ICD-10-PCS procedure code requests that involve the administration of a therapeutic agent for the September 13-14, 2022, ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting. Consistent with the requirements of section 1886(d)(5)(K)(iii) of the Social Security Act, applicants submitted requests to create a unique procedure code to describe the administration of a therapeutic agent, such as the option to create a new code in Section X within the ICD-10-PCS procedure code classification. CMS will initially display only those meeting materials associated with the NTAP-related ICD-10-PCS procedure code requests that involve the administration of a therapeutic agent on the CMS website in early August 2022 at:
The two NTAP-related ICD-10-PCS procedure code requests that involve the administration of a therapeutic agent are:
These topics will not be presented during the September 13-14, 2022, meeting. CMS will solicit public comments regarding any clinical questions or coding options included for these two procedure code topics in advance of the meeting continuing through the end of the respective public comment periods. Members of the public should send any questions or comments to the CMS mailbox at:
CMS intends to post a question-and-answer document in advance of the meeting to address any clinical or coding questions that members of the public may have submitted. Following the conclusion of the meeting, CMS will post an updated question-and-answer document to address any additional clinical or coding questions that members of the public may have submitted during the meeting that CMS was not able to address or that were submitted after the meeting.
The NTAP-related ICD-10-PCS procedure code requests that do not involve the administration of a therapeutic agent and all non-NTAP-related procedure code requests will continue to be presented during the virtual meeting on September 13, 2022, consistent with the standard meeting process.
CMS will make all meeting materials and related documents available at:
The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “National Quitline Data Warehouse (NQDW)” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on July 7, 2021 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received three comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Quitline Data Warehouse (NQDW) (OMB Control No. 0920-0856, Exp. 10/31/2022)—Revision—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Since 2010, the National Quitline Data Warehouse (NQDW) has collected a core set of information from the 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico regarding what services telephone quitlines offer to tobacco users as well as the number and type of tobacco users who receive services from telephone quitlines. The data collection was modified in 2015 to collect data from the Asian Smokers' Quitline (ASQ) in addition to the other 53 states/territories that provide data and included five new questions to the NQDW Intake Questionnaire to help CDC and states tailor quitline services to the needs of its callers. Additionally, collection of the NQDW Services Survey was changed from quarterly to semiannually in 2019.
The NQDW provides data on the general smoking population who contact their state quitlines, but also allows for collections of information about key subgroups of tobacco users who contact state quitlines to better support cessation services. Data is collected on tobacco users who received service from state telephone quitlines from all funded U.S. states, territories, and the Asian Smokers' Quitline (ASQ) through the NQDW Intake Questionnaire. The NQDW Seven-Month Follow-up Questionnaire is administered to tobacco users who received services from the ASQ only. Data on the quitline call volume, number of tobacco users served, and the services offered by state quitlines will be provided by state health department personnel who manage the quitline, or their designee, such as contracted quitline service providers, using the NQDW Quitline Services Survey. Data collected from the NQDW is analyzed with simple descriptive data tabulations, and trends are currently reported online through the CDC State Tobacco Activities Tracking and Evaluation (STATE) System website. More complex statistical analyses, including multivariate regression techniques will be utilized to assess quitline outcomes such as quitline reach, service utilization, how callers reported hearing about the quitline, and the effectiveness of quitline promotions and the CDC Tips From Former Smokers national tobacco education media campaigns on state quitline call volume and tobacco users receiving services from state quitlines. CDC uses the information collected by the NQDW for ongoing monitoring, reporting, and evaluation related to state quitlines. Select data from the NQDW are reported online through the CDC's STATE System website (
CDC requests OMB approval to continue the NQDW information collection for three years. Fifty states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico continue to receive funding to participate. This Revision reflects inclusion of additional measures, including those related to e-cigarette use and online quitline services, that reflect the impact of new technologies. Adding these measures to the NQDW survey instruments will impose minimal additional burden on states but will substantially improve the utility of the NQDW data to identify use of state quitlines by key tobacco use populations and through modalities other than telephone calls.
Participation in the Caller Intake and Follow-Up Interviews is voluntary for quitline callers. The estimated burden is 10 minutes for a complete intake call conducted with an individual who calls on their own behalf. The estimated burden is one minute for a caller who requests information for someone else, as these callers complete only a subset of questions on the Intake Questionnaire.
As a condition of funding (CDC-RFA-DP20-2001), the 54 cooperative agreement awardees are required to submit NQDW intake data quarterly, and services survey data semiannually. CDC recognizes that awardees incur additional burden for preparing and transmitting summary files with their de-identified caller intake and follow-up data. This burden is acknowledged in the instructions for transmitting the electronic data files. There is a net decrease in burden hours, primarily due to decreases in the overall number of telephone calls to the quitlines, which is estimated to be only partially offset by the use of other quitline modalities.
CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 68,089 annual burden hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled School-Based Active Surveillance (SBAS) of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) Among Schoolchildren: Phase-2 of the National Roll-Out. This project will expand on the work from the pilot phase and increase the number of local schools, school districts, states and subsequently school nurses involved in active surveillance of chronic conditions, including ME/CFS, using an electronic data collection platform.
CDC must receive written comments on or before September 20, 2022.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2022-0089 by either of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H21-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; Telephone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
School-Based Active Surveillance (SBAS) of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Among Schoolchildren: Phase-2 of the National Roll-Out—New—National Center for Emerging Zoonotic and Infectious Disease (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), a complex, chronic, debilitating multi-system disease, affects an estimated 836,000 to 2.5 million persons in the United States. However, about 90% of people with ME/CFS have not received an official diagnosis from a healthcare professional. ME/CFS affects up to two in 100 children and adolescents, which often goes undiagnosed by healthcare professionals.
Data on chronic conditions among schoolchildren, such as asthma, has been collected over the years, but there has been little to no emphasis on ME/CFS in the United States. Chronic conditions among school-aged children likely account for a high proportion of chronic school absenteeism and school withdrawal. Conducting active surveillance among students using school nurses could expedite the diagnosis and management of children who present with symptoms commonly seen in ME/CFS. This involves educating school nurses about ME/CFS and its related syndromes, how to best approach parents and guardians when suggesting the diagnosis, and how to
National active surveillance in schools for ME/CFS coupled with education of school nurses about ME/CFS could help improve measuring the burden of ME/CFS in children and provide insights for future plans to improve healthcare in children suffering from ME/CFS and other chronic health conditions. In the next phase of this project, we will expand the active surveillance project beyond the pilot schools to include additional schools in the pilot states as well as in other states. In this national rollout, school nurses will continue to receive education on data collection and ME/CFS as well as technical assistance and training on using the electronic data collection reporting platform.
CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 631 annual burden hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Enhanced Surveillance of Persons with Early and Late HIV Diagnosis. This project collects information from people who were recently diagnosed with HIV at early (stage 0) or late diagnosis (stage 3) to understand barriers to HIV prevention and testing services to contributing to transmission.
CDC must receive written comments on or before September 20, 2022.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2022-0087 by either of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H21-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; Telephone: 404-639-7118; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Enhanced Surveillance of Persons with Early and Late HIV Diagnosis—New—National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
National HIV Surveillance System (NHSS) data indicate that 37,968 adolescents and adults received an HIV diagnosis in the United States and dependent areas in 2018. During 2015-2019, the overall rate of annual diagnoses decreased only slightly, from 12.4 to 11.1 per 100,000. Although not every jurisdiction reports complete laboratory data needed to identify stage of infection, data from most jurisdictions show that many of these cases were classified as Stage 0 (7.9%) or Stage 3 (20.2%) infection (
The NHSS classifies HIV infections as Stage 0 if the first positive HIV test was within six months of a negative HIV test. Persons who received a diagnosis at Stage 0 (
The federal initiative “Ending the HIV Epidemic in the U.S.” (EHE), prioritizes the provision of HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), syringe services programs, treatment as prevention efforts, and other proven interventions—as part of the Prevent pillar to prevent new HIV infections of the EHE initiative.
HIV infections are classified as Stage 3 (AIDS) by the presence of an AIDS-defining opportunistic infection or by the lowest CD4 lymphocyte test result. Persons with Stage 3 infection at the time of their initial HIV diagnosis (
Given the continued occurrence of HIV infections in the United States, the barriers and gaps associated with low uptake of HIV testing and prevention services must be addressed to reduce new infections and facilitate timely diagnosis and treatment. Therefore, CDC is sponsoring this data collection to improve understanding of barriers and gaps associated with new infection and late diagnosis in the era of multiple testing modalities and prevention options such as PrEP. These enhanced surveillance activities will identify actionable missed opportunities for early diagnosis and prevention, thus informing allocation of resources, development and prioritization of interventions, and evidence-based local and national decisions to improve HIV testing and address prevention gaps.
CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 3167 annual burden hours. There are no costs to respondents other than their time to participate.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Field Testing of Spanish-language Toolbox Talks for Spanish-speaking Construction Workers. The project will evaluate Spanish-language toolbox talks with Spanish-speaking construction workers to assess the effectiveness of toolbox talks as an OSH training tool with this audience.
CDC must receive written comments on or before September 20, 2022.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2022-0086 by either of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H21-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; Telephone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Field Testing of Spanish-language Toolbox Talks for Spanish-speaking Construction Workers—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Construction is one of the most dangerous industry sectors in which to be employed. There are approximately 1.8 million Spanish-speaking workers employed in construction, and Latino workers are injured and killed at rates 2-3 times higher than non-Latino construction workers. Among the challenges to meeting the occupational safety and health (OSH) needs of the construction industry is the large number of small businesses, with approximately 90% of small construction contractors employing 20 or fewer workers. Over 40% of Spanish-speaking construction workers work for businesses employing 10 or fewer workers. Latino workers are more likely to be employed in small establishments, and these small establishments have a higher risk of fatal injuries. In 2010 alone, 56.3% of construction deaths occurred in establishments with fewer than 20 employees. From 2003-2008, small establishments with 1-10 employees reported an average of 47% work-related deaths among Latino workers, while employing 44% of the Latino construction workers. These small construction contractors have limited resources to apply to OSH training needs.
Toolbox talks are brief (approximately 5-10 minutes) OSH instructional sessions held on the worksite or at the contractor's office. Requiring minimal resources, toolbox talks may provide an ideal OSH training format for small construction contractors and have been successfully disseminated throughout the construction industry. However, evaluations of their effectiveness have been limited, the results of which suggest increased knowledge, positive safety attitude change, and increased intentions to apply recommended safe work practices among English-speaking workers. Building on this initial work, the purpose of this study is to evaluate a subset of Spanish language toolbox talks as an OSH training tool for Spanish-speaking construction workers, and to assess whether the addition of a narrative scenario and discussion questions increases training effectiveness.
Data will be collected at the work site for four weeks, using a total of four toolbox talks. The data collection will occur prior to presentation of the first toolbox talk and following presentation of the final toolbox talk of the project. The data collection instrument will consist of items that will include basic demographics, safety knowledge related to the content of the selected toolbox talks, safety culture, and attitudes toward safety.
CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 333 annual burden hours. There are no costs to respondents other than their time to participate.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces a virtual meeting of the Advisory Panel on Hospital Outpatient Payment (the Panel) for Calendar Year 2022. The purpose of the Panel is to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services concerning the clinical integrity of the Ambulatory Payment Classification groups and their associated weights, which are major elements of the Medicare Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) and the Ambulatory Surgical Center (ASC) payment system; and supervision of hospital outpatient therapeutic services. The advice provided by the Panel will be considered as we prepare the annual update for the OPPS.
Presentations and comment letters that are not received by the due date and time will be considered late or incomplete and will not be included on the agenda.
Presentations and comment letters may not be revised once they are submitted. If a presentation or comment letter requires changes, a new submittal must be submitted by August 05, 2022.
Nicole Marcos, Designated Federal Official (DFO) by email at:
Press inquiries are handled through the CMS Press Office at (202) 690-6145.
The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) is required by section 1833(t)(9)(A) of the Social Security Act (the Act) and is allowed by section 222 of the Public Health Service Act to consult with an expert outside panel, such as the Advisory Panel on Hospital Outpatient Payment (the Panel), regarding the clinical integrity of the Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC) groups and relative payment weights. The Panel is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), to set forth standards for the formation and use of advisory panels. We consider the technical advice provided by the Panel as we prepare the proposed and final rules to update the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) for the following calendar year (CY).
The Panel presently consists of members and a Chair named below.
The agenda for the August 22, 2022 through August 23, 2022 virtual Panel meeting will provide for discussion and comment on the following topics as designated in the Panel's Charter:
• Addressing whether procedures within an APC group are similar both clinically and in terms of resource use.
• Reconfiguring APCs.
• Evaluating APC group weights.
• Reviewing packaging the cost of items and services, including drugs and devices, into procedures and services, including the methodology for packaging and the impact of packaging the cost of those items and services on APC group structure and payment.
• Removing procedures from the inpatient only list for payment under the OPPS.
• Using claims and cost report data for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) determination of APC group costs.
• Addressing other technical issues concerning APC group structure.
• Evaluating the required level of supervision for hospital outpatient services.
• OPPS APC rates for covered Ambulatory Surgical Center (ASC) procedures.
The Agenda will be posted on the CMS website at:
The actual meeting hours and days will be posted in the agenda. As information and updates regarding this webinar and listen-only teleconference, including the agenda, become available, they will be posted to our website at:
The subject matter of any presentation and comment letter must be within the scope of the Panel as designated in the Charter. Any presentations or comments outside of the scope of the Panel will be returned or requested for amendment. Unrelated topics include, but are not limited to: the conversion factor; charge compression; revisions to the cost report; pass-through payments; correct coding; new technology applications (including supporting information/documentation); provider payment adjustments; supervision of hospital outpatient diagnostic services; and the types of practitioners that are permitted to supervise hospital outpatient services. The Panel may not recommend that services be designated as nonsurgical extended duration therapeutic services. Presentations or comment letters that address OPPS APC rates as they relate to covered ASC procedures are within the scope of the Panel; however, ASC payment rates, ASC payment indicators, the ASC covered procedures list, or other ASC payment system matters will be considered out of scope. The Panel may use data collected or developed by entities and organizations other than the Department of Health and Human Services or CMS in conducting its review. We recommend organizations submit data for CMS staff and the Panel's review. All presentations are limited to 5 minutes, regardless of the number of individuals or organizations represented by a single presentation. Presenters may use their 5 minutes to represent either one or more agenda items.
For this meeting, we are aiming to have all presentations and comment letters available on our website. Materials on our website must be Section 508 compliant to ensure access to federal employees and members of the public with and without disabilities. Presenters and commenters should reference the guidance on making documents section 508 compliant as they draft their submissions, and, whenever possible, submit their presentations and comment letters in a 508 compliant form. The section 508 guidance is available at:
We will review presentations and comment letters for section 508 compliance and place compliant materials on our website. As resources permit, we will also convert non-compliant submissions to section 508-compliant forms and offer assistance to submitters who are making their submissions section 508-compliant. All section 508-compliant presentations and comment letters will be made available on the CMS website. If difficulties are encountered accessing the materials, contact the Designated Federal Official (DFO) in the
In addition to formal presentations (limited to 5 minutes total per presentation), there will be an opportunity during the meeting for public comments as time permits (limited to 1 minute for each individual and a total of 3 minutes per organization).
The Panel's recommendations at any Panel meeting generally are not final until they have been reviewed and approved by the Panel on the last day of the meeting, before the final adjournment. These recommendations will be posted on the CMS website after the meeting.
The Panel Charter provides that the Panel shall meet up to 3 times annually. We consider the technical advice provided by the Panel as we prepare the proposed and final rules to update the OPPS for the following CY. The Panel shall consist of a chair and up to 15 members who are full-time employees of hospitals, hospital systems, or other Medicare providers that are subject to the OPPS. The
The Panel may also include a representative of a provider with ASC expertise, who shall advise CMS only on OPPS APC rates, as appropriate, impacting ASC covered procedures within the context and purview of the panel's scope. The Secretary or a designee selects the Panel membership based upon either self nominations or nominations submitted by Medicare providers and other interested organizations of candidates determined to have the required expertise. For supervision deliberations, the Panel may include members that represent the interests of Critical Access Hospitals, who advise CMS only regarding the level of supervision for hospital outpatient therapeutic services. New appointments are made in a manner that ensures a balanced membership under the Federal Advisory Committee Act guidelines. The Secretary rechartered the Panel in 2020 for a 2-year period effective through November 20, 2022. The current charter is available on the CMS website at:
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Vanessa Garcia, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for
OCS, Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Request for public comments.
OCS is requesting a three-year extension of the semi-annual reporting format for CED grant recipients, the Performance Progress Report (PPR), which collects information regarding the outcomes and management of CED projects (OMB #0970-0386, expiration February 28, 2023). There are minor changes requested to the form to provide clarity to users completing the form.
You can obtain copies of the proposed collection of information and submit comments by emailing
The PPR will continue to be administered to all active grant recipients of the CED program. Grant recipients will be required to use this reporting tool for their semi-annual reports to be submitted twice a year. Through a previous renewal, the current PPR replaced both the annual questionnaire and other semi-annual reporting formats, which resulted in an overall reduction in burden for the grant recipients, significantly improved the quality of the data collected by OCS, and allowed grant recipients to become accustomed to this format. OCS seeks to renew this PPR to continue to collect quality data from grant recipients. To ensure the burden on grant recipients is not increased, but that the information collected demonstrates the full impact of the program, OCS has conducted an in-depth review of the forms and requests minor changes to the PPR to provide clarity to users filling out the form.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Real-Time Oncology Review (RTOR).” The purpose of this guidance is to provide recommendations to applicants on the process for submission of selected new drug applications (NDAs) and biologics license applications (BLAs) with oncology indications for review under RTOR.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by September 20, 2022 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time 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.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
R. Angelo De Claro, Oncology Center of Excellence, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 2173, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-4415; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-7911.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Real-Time Oncology Review.” The purpose of this guidance is to provide recommendations to applicants on the process for submission of selected NDAs and BLAs with oncology indications for review under RTOR.
The FDA Oncology Center of Excellence, in collaboration with the Office of Oncologic Diseases, commenced the RTOR program in February 2018 to facilitate earlier submission of topline results (
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Real-Time Oncology Review.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not required for this guidance. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 have been approved under OMB control
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is withdrawing approval of three new drug applications (NDAs) from multiple holders of those NDAs. The basis for the withdrawal is that these NDA holders have repeatedly failed to file required annual reports for the identified NDAs.
Approval is withdrawn as of July 22, 2022.
Kimberly Lehrfeld, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6226, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3137,
The holder of an approved application to market a new drug for human use is required to submit annual reports to FDA concerning its approved application in accordance with § 314.81 (21 CFR 314.81).
In the
FDA finds that the holders of the NDAs listed in table 1 have repeatedly failed to submit reports required by § 314.81. In addition, under § 314.200, FDA finds that the holders of the NDAs have waived any contentions concerning the legal status of the drug products. Therefore, under these findings, approval of the NDAs listed in table 1 and all amendments and supplements thereto is hereby withdrawn as of July 22, 2022.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by August 22, 2022.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to
Rachel Showalter, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 240-994-7399,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection supports the FDA's “Manufactured Food Regulatory Program Standards” (2019) (
The goal of the MFRPS is to implement a nationally integrated, risk-based, food safety system focused on protecting public health. The MFRPS establish a uniform basis for measuring and improving the performance of prevention, intervention, and response activities of manufactured food regulatory programs in the United States. The development and implementation of the standards will help Federal and State programs better direct their regulatory activities toward reducing foodborne illness. For more information, and to access the program standards, we invite you to visit our website at:
FDA recommends that a State program enrolled in the MFRPS use the worksheets and forms contained in the standards; however, alternate forms that are equivalent may be used. The State program maintains documentation (guidance, procedures, documents, and forms) required by the 10 standards, which must be current and fit for use. In the first year of implementing the program standards, the State program conducts a baseline self-assessment of the documentation to determine if it meets the elements of each standard. The State program must participate in additional verification audits in subsequent years. After 5 years, FDA will conduct a comprehensive program audit of the documentation. As part of the program audit, the auditor reviews the records and supporting documents required by the criteria in each standard to determine if the self-assessment and improvement plan accurately reflect the State program's level of conformance with each of the standards. If the State program fails to meet all program elements and documentation requirements of a standard, it develops a strategic plan which includes the following: (1) the individual element of documentation requirement of the standard that was not met, (2) improvements needed to meet the program element or documentation requirement of the standard, and (3) projected completion dates for each task.
In the
Subsequent to the publication of the 60-day notice, in collaboration with the State Governments, FDA completed a revision of the program standards. In an effort to improve program effectiveness, understanding and clarity, changes include those to program definitions, inspection procedures, appendices and assessment worksheets that may be used by the States who have adopted the MFRPS. A copy of the revised program standards is available in the docket.
The revised program standards are the result of external collaboration and coordination between FDA and the Association of Food and Drug Officials Manufactured Food Regulatory Program Alliance and the Partnership for Food Protection Governing Council. We consider any formal comments received on the previous edition of the program standards and feedback obtained from our collaboration with the States.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
We have adjusted the number of respondents to the information collection to reflect the enrollment of an additional State since our last evaluation.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for TAUVID and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before September 20, 2022. The
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.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug or biologic product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: a testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product, TAUVID (flortaucipir F-18). TAUVID is indicated for positron emission tomography imaging of the brain to estimate the density and distribution of aggregated tau neurofibrillary tangles in adult patients with cognitive impairment who are being evaluated for Alzheimer's disease. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for TAUVID (U.S. Patent No. 8,932,557) from Eli Lilly and Company, and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated December 14, 2020, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of TAUVID represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for TAUVID is 3,067 days. Of this time, 2,825 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 242 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,102 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by August 22, 2022.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to
Rachel Showalter, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 240-994-7399,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Section 904(a)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 387d(a)(4)) requires each tobacco product manufacturer or importer, or agent thereof, to submit all documents developed after June 22, 2009, “that relate to health, toxicological, behavioral, or physiologic effects of current or future tobacco products, their constituents (including smoke
The guidance document entitled “Health Document Submission Requirements for Tobacco Products (Revised)” (2017) (
FDA is planning revisions to the guidance to reflect that the deemed tobacco product compliance period has passed. Additional revisions include clarifying and editorial changes to promote a better understanding of FDA's interpretation of the “health, toxicological, behavioral, or physiologic” phrase, examples of health, toxicological, behavioral, or physiologic effects documents, and minor updates to the metadata list.
FDA has been collecting the information submitted pursuant to section 904(a)(4) of the FD&C Act through a facilitative electronic form and through a paper form (Form FDA 3743) for those individuals who choose not to use the electronic method. On both forms, FDA is requesting the following information from firms that have not already reported or still have documents to report:
You may access the electronic form and paper form on our website, at
FDA issued a final rule to deem products meeting the statutory definition of “tobacco product” to be subject to the FD&C Act on May 10, 2016 (81 FR 28973), which became effective on August 8, 2016. The FD&C Act provides FDA authority to regulate cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco (RYO), smokeless tobacco, and any other tobacco products that the Agency by regulation deems to be subject to the law. This final rule extended the Agency's “tobacco product” authorities to all other categories of products that meet the statutory definition of “tobacco product” in the FD&C Act, except accessories of such deemed tobacco products.
For tobacco products subject to the deeming rule, FDA understands “current or future tobacco products” to refer to products commercially distributed on or after August 8, 2016, or products in any stage of research or development at any time after August 8, 2016, including experimental products and developmental products intended for introduction into the market for consumer use. For cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, RYO, and smokeless tobacco, FDA understands “current or future tobacco products” to refer to products commercially distributed on or after June 23, 2009, or products in any stage of research or development at any time after June 23, 2009, including experimental products and developmental products intended for introduction into the market for consumer use.
In the guidance on this collection, FDA indicated our intent to enforce the requirement at this time with respect to all such health documents relating to the deemed tobacco products, so long as a specified set of documents, those developed between June 23, 2009, and December 31, 2009, were submitted by February 8, 2017, or in the case of small-scale deemed tobacco product manufacturers (small-scale manufacturers), by November 8, 2017 (81 FR 28973 at 29008 and 29009). Additionally, FDA extended the compliance deadlines by an additional 6 months for small-scale manufacturers in the areas impacted by natural disasters to May 8, 2018. Thereafter, FDA's compliance plan requested
After publication of the 60-day notice however, on March 15, 2022, President Biden signed H.R. 2471—the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022. As a result, the FD&C Act now includes specific language that makes clear that FDA has the authority to regulate tobacco products containing nicotine from any source, which includes synthetic. On April 14, 2022, firms engaged in the manufacture, preparation, compounding, or processing of tobacco products containing non-tobacco nicotine products (NTN) must therefore provide health documents.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The number of documents received each year since the original collection period has fallen to less than 5 percent of what was received in the original collection period. FDA expects this is because documents created within the specified period should have already been submitted. The Agency bases this estimate on the total number of tobacco firms it is aware of and its experience with document production and the number of additional documents that have been reported each year since the original estimate of the reporting burden.
FDA estimates that a tobacco health document submission as required by section 904(a)(4) of the FD&C Act, will take approximately 50 hours per submission based on FDA experience. To derive the number of respondents for this provision, FDA assumes that very few manufacturers or importers, or agents thereof, would have health documents to submit. We anticipate documents will be submitted on an annual basis for a total of 10 respondents. FDA estimates the annual reporting burden for these respondents to be 1,600 hours.
As mentioned previously in this document, with the new authority provided to FDA, firms engaged in the manufacture, preparation, compounding, or processing of tobacco products containing NTN must provide health documents. Although these firms are unlikely to have health documents created within the specified period, we are estimating for this extension that we will receive 100 new NTN respondents who will be required to provide a declaration to such effect via Form 3743, which is expected to take 2 hours, for a total 200 burden hours.
Based on a review of the information collection of our current OMB approval, we have increased the burden by 200 hours.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the issuance of Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) (the Authorizations) for certain medical devices related to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency. FDA has issued the Authorizations listed in this document under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). These Authorizations contain, among other things, conditions on the emergency use of the authorized products. The Authorizations follow the February 4, 2020, determination by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) that there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of U.S. citizens living abroad and that involves the virus that causes COVID-19, and the subsequent declarations on February 4, 2020, March 2, 2020, and March 24, 2020, that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of in vitro diagnostics for detection and/or diagnosis of the virus that causes COVID-19, personal respiratory protective devices, and medical devices, including alternative products used as medical devices, respectively, subject to the terms of any authorization issued under the FD&C Act. These Authorizations, which include an explanation of the reasons for issuance, are listed in this document, and can be accessed on FDA's website from the links indicated.
These Authorizations are effective on their date of issuance.
Submit written requests for single copies of an EUA to the Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4338, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request or include a Fax number to which the Authorization may be sent. See the
Jennifer J. Ross, Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4332, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-8510 (this is not a toll-free number).
Section 564 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3) allows FDA to strengthen the public health protections against biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents. Among other things, section 564 of the FD&C Act allows FDA to authorize the use of an unapproved medical product or an unapproved use of an approved medical product in certain situations. With this EUA authority, FDA can help ensure that medical countermeasures may be used in emergencies to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents when there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.
Section 564(b)(1) of the FD&C Act provides that, before an EUA may be issued, the Secretary of HHS must declare that circumstances exist justifying the authorization based on one of the following grounds: (1) a determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; (2) a determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to U.S. military forces, including personnel operating under the authority of title 10 or title 50 of the U.S. Code, of attack with (A) a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; or (B) an agent or agents that may cause, or are otherwise associated with, an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to U.S. military forces;
Once the Secretary of HHS has declared that circumstances exist justifying an authorization under section 564 of the FD&C Act, FDA may authorize the emergency use of a drug, device, or biological product if the Agency concludes that the statutory criteria are satisfied. Under section 564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act, FDA is required to publish in the
An electronic version of this document and the full text of the Authorizations are available on the internet and can be accessed from
Having concluded that the criteria for the issuance of the following Authorizations under section 564(c) of the FD&C Act are met, FDA has authorized the emergency use of the following products for diagnosing, treating, or preventing COVID-19 subject to the terms of each Authorization. The Authorizations in their entirety, including any authorized fact sheets and other written materials, can be accessed from the FDA web page entitled “Emergency Use Authorization,” available at
FDA is hereby announcing the following Authorizations for molecular diagnostic and antigen tests for COVID-19, excluding multianalyte tests:
• Fluidigm Corporation's Advanta Dx COVID-19 EASE Assay, issued February 7, 2022;
• Uh-Oh Labs Inc.'s UOL COVID-19 Test, issued February 8, 2022;
• Oceanit Foundry LLC's ASSURE-100 Rapid COVID-19 Test, issued February 28, 2022;
• Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Inc.'s ADVIA Centaur SARS-CoV-2 Antigen (CoV2Ag), issued March 11, 2022;
• Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Inc.'s Atellica IM SARS-CoV-2 Antigen (CoV2Ag), issued March 11, 2022;
• Minute Molecular Diagnostics, Inc.'s DASH SARS-CoV-2/S Test, issued March 15, 2022;
• PHASE Scientific International, Ltd.'s INDICAID COVID-19 Rapid Antigen At-Home Test, issued March 16, 2022;
• Helix OpCo LLC's (dba Helix) Helix SARS-CoV-2 Test, issued March 17, 2022;
• Quest Diagnostics Nichols Institute's Quest RC COVID-19 PCR DTC, issued March 21, 2022;
• Quest Diagnostics Nichols Institute's Quest PF COVID-19 PCR DTC, issued March 21, 2022;
• Quest Diagnostics Nichols Institute's Quest COVID-19 PCR DTC, issued March 21, 2022;
• DC Department of Health's Test Yourself DC At-Home COVID-19 Collection Kit, issued April 6, 2022;
• OSANG LLC's OHC COVID-19 Antigen Self Test, issued April 6, 2022;
• Xiamen Boson Biotech Co., Ltd.'s Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test Card, issued April 6, 2022;
• UCSD BCG EXCITE Lab's UCSD EXCITE COVID-19 EL Test, issued April 7, 2022;
• MicroGEM U.S., Inc.'s MicroGEM Sal6830 SARS-CoV-2 Saliva Test, issued April 14, 2022;
• LGC, Biosearch Technologies's Biosearch Technologies SARS-CoV-2 ultra-high-throughput End-Point RT-PCR Test, issued April 26, 2022;
• Abbott Diagnostics Scarborough, Inc.'s ID NOW COVID-19 2.0, issued May 6, 2022;
• Cepheid's Xpert Xpress CoV-2
• Nexus Medical Labs, LLC.'s Nexus High Throughput SARS-CoV-2 Assay, issued May 17, 2022;
• DxLab Inc.'s DxLab COVID-19 Test, issued June 1, 2022;
• Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.'s cobas SARS-CoV-2 Duo for use on the cobas 6800/8800 Systems (cobas SARS-CoV-2 Duo), issued June 14, 2022;
FDA is hereby announcing the following Authorizations for serology tests:
• LG Chem, Ltd.'s
• LG Chem, Ltd.'s
FDA is hereby announcing the following Authorizations for multianalyte in vitro diagnostics:
• Cleveland Clinic Robert J. Tomsich Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute's SelfCheck cobas SARS-CoV-2 + Flu Assay, issued April 11, 2022;
• OPTI Medical Systems, Inc.'s OPTI SARS-CoV-2/Influenza A/B RT-PCR Test (Version 1 and Version 2), issued April 21, 2022;
• Laboratory Corporation of America's (Labcorp's) Labcorp Seasonal Respiratory Virus RT-PCR DTC Test, issued May 16, 2022;
• Laboratory Corporation of America's (Labcorp's) Labcorp Seasonal Respiratory Virus RT-PCR Test, issued May 17, 2022;
FDA is hereby announcing the following Authorization for a SARS-CoV-2 genotyping test:
• Laboratory Corporation of America's (Labcorp's) Labcorp VirSeq SARS-CoV-2 NGS Test, issued June 10, 2022.
FDA is hereby announcing the following Authorization for a SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test that analyzes breath samples:
• InspectIR Systems LLC's InspectIR COVID-19 Breathalyzer, issued April 14, 2022;
FDA is hereby announcing the following Authorizations for other medical devices:
• Quest Diagnostics Nichols Institute's Quest COVID-19 PCR Test Home Collection Kit, issued March 21, 2022;
• Audere's HealthPulse@home Fusion, issue April 26, 2022.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of new Privacy Act system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) proposes to establish a new DHS system of records titled, “DHS/CBP-027 Customs Broker Management (CBM).” The records in this system are currently covered under the “DHS/CBP-010 Persons Engaged in International Trade in Customs and Border Protection Licensed/Regulated Activities Systems of Records” and historically under the “Treasury/CS.069 Customs Brokers File”. DHS/CBP is creating this new System of Records Notice (SORN) to distinguish the Customs Broker application and exam, license, and vetting records from the other records in “DHS/CBP-010 Persons Engaged in International Trade in Customs and Border Protection Licensed/Regulated Activities Systems of Records”. This newly established system will be included in DHS's inventory of record systems.
Submit comments on or before August 22, 2022. This new system will be effective upon publication. New or modified routine uses will be effective August 22, 2022.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number USCBP-2022-0027 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general questions, please contact: Debra L. Danisek, (202) 344-1610,
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to establish a new DHS system of records titled, “DHS/U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)-027 Customs Broker Management.” The records in this system are currently covered under the “DHS/CBP-010 Persons Engaged in International Trade in Customs and Border Protection Licensed/Regulated Activities Systems of Records” (73 FR 77753, December 19, 2008) and historically under the “Treasury/CS.069 Customs Brokers File” (66 FR 52984, October 18, 2001). DHS/CBP is creating this new System of Records Notice to distinguish the Customs Broker application, exam, license, and vetting records from the other records in “DHS/CBP-010 Persons Engaged in International Trade in Customs and Border Protection Licensed/Regulated Activities Systems of Records” (73 FR 77753, December 19, 2008). In addition, CBP provides notice for a new collection and maintenance of information (
Customs Brokers are private individuals, associations, corporations, or partnerships licensed, regulated, and empowered by CBP to assist importers and exporters in meeting federal requirements governing imports and exports. Customs Brokers submit necessary information and appropriate payments to DHS/CBP on behalf of their clients and charge a fee for their service. Customs Brokers must have expertise in the entry procedures, admissibility requirements, classifications, valuation, and applicable rates of duties, taxes, and fees for imported merchandise.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 111.11, an individual is eligible to qualify for a Customs Broker license if he or she (1) is a U.S. citizen on the date of submission of the application referred to in 19 CFR 111.12(a) (OMB Control Number 1651-0034/CBP Form 3124) and is not an officer or employee of the U.S. government, (2) is the age of 21 prior to the date of submission of the application, (3) possesses good moral character, and (4) has passed the Customs Broker License Exam, by attaining a passing grade (75 percent or higher) on the examination taken within the 3-year period before submission of the application.
A partnership is eligible to qualify for a Customs Broker license if they have at
DHS/CBP manages the Customs Broker's license program and collects information from applicants when they register to take the Customs Broker License Exam, during the administration of the Customs Broker License Exam, when they apply for a broker's license, throughout the background investigation processes, through the triennial reporting process, and through continuing education requirements.
The Customs Broker License Exam is offered to applicants twice a year. Applicants can go to
Once an applicant has successfully passed the exam, the applicant can apply for a Customs Broker license at a CBP facility near where the applicant plans to transact business as a Broker. The Customs Broker license package requires applicants to submit additional biographic information, via CBP Form 3124 (OMB Control No. 1651-0034), and fingerprints are collected at a CBP facility by a CBP Officer and sent to the CBP Trusted Worker Program System (TWP).
DHS/CBP stores information related to Broker's licenses in the Automated Commercial Environment system (ACE) and on designated CBP servers. Fingerprints collected as part of the background investigation process are stored in the DHS Office of Biometric Identity Management (OBIM) Automatic Biometric Identification System (IDENT). In addition, some information will be stored on DHS contractors' systems to assist in the administration of the Customs Broker License Examination. Any files related to appeals will be transferred to CBP and maintained on a CBP system.
Consistent with DHS' information sharing mission, information stored in the DHS/CBP-027 Customs Broker Management system of records may be shared with other DHS components that have a need to know the information to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions. In addition, DHS/CBP may share information with appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agencies consistent with the routine uses set forth in this system of records notice.
On September 10, 2021, CBP published a non-Privacy Act Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Furthermore, DHS is issuing a concurrent Privacy Act Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to exempt this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act elsewhere in the
This newly established system will be included in DHS's inventory of record systems.
The fair information practice principles found in the Privacy Act underpin the statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Additionally, the Judicial Redress Act (JRA) provides covered persons with a statutory right to make requests for access and amendment to covered records, as defined by the Judicial Redress Act, along with judicial review for denials of such requests. In addition, the Judicial Redress Act prohibits disclosures of covered records, except as otherwise permitted by the Privacy Act.
Below is the description of the DHS/CBP-027 Customs Broker Management System of Records.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DHS has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)-027 Customs Broker Management System of Records.
Unclassified.
Records are maintained at CBP Headquarters in Washington, DC, and field offices. CBP maintains records in the Automated Commercial Environment system, as well as other applications that support Customs Broker License Examination and program management. Audio and video recordings of remotely proctored exams, images of examinees, images of examinees' identification documents, and broker exam results are stored on vendor servers. Any files that are subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
Director, Commercial Operations, Revenue and Entry, Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20229.
19 U.S.C. 1641 and 19 CFR 111; and 31 U.S.C. 7701(c).
DHS/CBP maintains information about individuals to determine (1) an individual's suitability for acquiring a Customs Broker license, whether that individual is representing him or herself or affiliated with an association, corporation, or partnership, and (2) determine whether a licensed Customs Broker continues to meet the eligibility requirements to maintain that Customs Broker license.
Categories of individuals in the system include:
1. Individuals applying for, issued, or denied a Customs Broker license, whether individually or as part of an organization, including individuals who register for and attempt the Customs Broker License Examination;
2. Individuals working for, or applying to work for, a licensed customs broker, association, corporation, or partnership; and
3. Any other individuals relevant to CBP's determination of the granting and maintenance of a Customs Broker license.
DHS/CBP collects the following information from individuals registering for the Customs Broker License Examination through the eCBP portal (OMB Control No. 1651-0034):
• Individual's Name (First, Last) (Middle initial is optional);
• Residence Address and Mailing Address (Street, City, State, Zip Code);
• Email Address;
• Primary Phone Number;
• Port of Affiliation;
• Date of Birth;
• Social Security number (SSN); and
• American Disabilities Act request for a Reasonable Accommodation.
CBP also assigns four Unique Identifying Numbers (UID) to the examinee after they register on eCBP:
• ACE ID;
• Exam ID;
• Receipt Number; and
•
DHS/CBP collects the following information from individuals through vendor servers during the Customs Broker License Examination:
• Video recording and photo capture of examinee's face at the Customs Broker License Exam check-in process;
• Images of examinees;
• Images of examinees identification documents;
• Video/audio recording of examinees while testing; and
• Broker exam results.
Individuals who have passed the Customs Broker License Exam and are now applying for Customs Brokers License via the CBP 3124 Form (OMB Control No. 1651-0034) and through the Trusted Worker Program System, provide CBP with these additional data elements:
• Type of license applying for (individual, association, corporation, or partnership);
• Has the applicant ever applied for a Customs Broker License? (yes or no);
• Has the applicant (or any Officer, Member, or Principal) ever had a license suspended, refused, revoked, or cancelled? (yes or no);
• Is this applicant (or any Officer, Member, or Principal) an Officer or Employee of the United States? (yes or no);
• Place of Birth (City and State);
• Tax Identification Number (TIN), or Employer Identification Number (EIN);
• U.S. Citizenship (natural-born or naturalized, and date and place);
• Criminal History;
• Financial History (Bankruptcy of personal or business finances for which you had oversight);
• Proposed type of Customs Business (Individual, Association, Corporation, Partnership or Employee);
• Employment and Character References (References Names, Phone Numbers, Addresses);
• Any correspondence (
• Fingerprints.
DHS/CBP collects the following information from associations, corporations, or partnerships through the Customs Brokers License application, CBP 3124 Form (OMB Control No. 1651-0034):
○ Date associations, corporation, or partnership was organized;
○ State where organized;
○ Attachments:
○ Copies of articles of incorporation or association; or
○ Evidence of the partnership (copies of articles of agreement or affidavit signed by all partners.
○ Names, Addresses, Titles, and Dates of Birth of all Officers of the Association or Corporation, and all Principals who have a controlling interest, who hold individual customs brokers licenses and give the general nature of duties of each, or if a partnership, the names and addresses of members who hold such licenses.
○ Names, Addresses, Titles, and Dates of Birth of all Officers and Principals (including corporations, trusts, and/or other organizations) who have a controlling interest, and partners who do not hold customs brokers licenses.
CBP collects these additional data elements on the Triennial Status Report:
• Broker License Number to identify the correct license for which the report is being filed;
• Payment Information;
○ Fee Amount;
○ Payer Name; and
○ Payer Email Address.
• Employee list for all employees of a Customs Broker, including:
○ Name (First, Last);
○ Social Security Number;
○ Date of Birth;
○ Place of Birth; and
○ Home Address (Street, City, State, Zip Code).
• Proof of continuing education requirement.
Additionally, CBP periodically collects the following information from the CBP licensed brokers, associations, corporations, or partnerships:
• Requests for written approval to employ individual brokerage employees who have been convicted of a felony.
Records from Customs Broker License Examination applicants are obtained from the eCBP portal online registration at
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 or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DHS as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
A. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), including the U.S. Attorneys Offices, or other federal agencies conducting litigation or proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body, when it is relevant or necessary to the litigation and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:
1. DHS or any component thereof;
2. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her official capacity;
3. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her individual capacity, only when DOJ or DHS has agreed to represent the employee; or
4. The United States or any agency thereof.
B. To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
C. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or General Services Administration pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. secs. 2904 and 2906.
D. To an agency or organization 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.
E. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) DHS suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) DHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, DHS (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 DHS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
F. To another federal agency or federal entity, when DHS determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
G. To an appropriate federal, state, tribal, local, international, or foreign law enforcement agency or other appropriate authority charged with investigating or prosecuting a violation or enforcing or implementing a law, rule, regulation, or order, when a record, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, which includes criminal, civil, or regulatory violations and such disclosure is proper and consistent with the official duties of the person making the disclosure.
H. To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for DHS, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to DHS officers and employees.
I. To appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign governmental agencies or multilateral governmental organizations responsible for investigating or prosecuting the violations of, or for enforcing or implementing, a statute, rule, regulation, order, license, or treaty where DHS determines that the information would assist in the enforcement of civil or criminal laws.
J. To an appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, foreign, or international agency, if the information is relevant and necessary to a requesting agency's decision concerning the hiring or retention of an individual, or issuance of a security clearance, license, contract, grant, or other benefit, or if the information is relevant and necessary to a DHS decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant or other benefit and disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the person making the request.
K. 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 or in connection with criminal law proceedings.
L. To third parties, such as credit bureaus, during the course of a law enforcement investigation or background check to the extent necessary to obtain information pertinent to the investigation, provided disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the officer making the disclosure.
M. To the news media and the public, with the approval of the Chief Privacy Officer in consultation with counsel, when there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information or when disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of DHS or is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of DHS's officers, employees, or individuals covered by the system, except to the extent it is determined that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
DHS/CBP stores biographic records related to Broker Management in the Automated Commercial Environment, or within a CBP server. DHS/CBP stores biometric records related to Broker Management in IDENT. Audio recordings, video recordings, images of examinees, images of examinees identification documents, and broker exam results are stored on a vendor-owned server. Any files related to appeals will be transferred to CBP and maintained on a CBP system.
DHS/CBP may retrieve records by individual's name (first, last, or middle initial), organization name, Social Security number, tax identification number, employer identification number, date of birth, port or port number, email address, phone number, payment receipt number, project area request type (
In accordance with NARA-approved agency disposition authority, “Licensing Records” DAA-0568-2017-0006-0003, DHS/CBP retains biographic records in the Automated Commercial Environment system for six years from date that the license is terminated or the death of the licensee, as applicable, including the background check records uncovered as a result of the fingerprints used in the background check. CBP does not retain the actual fingerprints; however, CBP sends the fingerprints to OBIM and they are stored for 75 years or when no longer needed for legal or business purposes, whichever is later. The audio and video recordings, images of examinees, images of examinees identification documents, and broker exam results captured during the Customs Broker Licensing Exam process will be retained in accordance with the NARA-approved agency disposition authority, “Customhouse Broker's Examination Records” DAA-0568-2017-0006-0002, for three years and six months after exam and final appeal is concluded, whichever is applicable. CBP has proposed a new records schedule of 120 days after cutoff or final review, whichever is later for the audio and video recordings, images of examinees, images of examinees' identification documents, and broker exam results data collected and stored by the vendor. Any files subject to any FOIA or Privacy Act request will be transferred to CBP and maintained on a CBP system.
DHS/CBP safeguards records in this system according to applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DHS automated systems security and access policies. DHS/CBP has imposed strict controls to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. Access to the computer system containing the records in this system is limited to those individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances or permissions.
DHS/CBP will consider individual requests to determine whether information may be released. Thus, individuals seeking access to and notification of any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request in writing to the Chief Privacy Officer and CBP's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officer, whose contact information can be found at
When an individual is seeking records about themself from this system of records or any other Departmental system of records, the individual's request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 6 CFR part 5. The individual must first verify their identity, meaning that the individual must provide their full name, current address, and date and place of birth. The individual must sign the request, and the individual's signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. An individual may obtain more information about this process at
• Explain why they believe the Department would have information being requested;
• Identify which component(s) of the Department they believe may have the information;
• Specify when the individual believes the records would have been created; and
• Provide any other information that will help Freedom of Information Act staff determine which DHS component agency may have responsive records.
If the request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, the request must include an authorization from the individual whose record is being requested, authorizing the release to the requester.
Without the above information, the component(s) may not be able to conduct an effective search, and the individual's request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.
Additionally, individuals seeking access to and notification of any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request in writing to the Broker Management Branch through the
For records covered by the Privacy Act or covered Judicial Redress Act records, individuals may make a request for amendment or correction of a record of the Department about the individual by writing directly to the Department component that maintains the record, unless the record is not subject to amendment or correction. The request should identify each particular record in question, state the amendment or correction desired, and state why the individual believes that the record is not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete. The individual may submit any documentation that would be helpful. If the individual believes that the same record is in more than one system of records, the request should state that and be addressed to each component that maintains a system of records containing the record. Regardless of whether the Privacy Act or Judicial Redress Act applies, individuals who believe that records in CBP's system include incorrect or inaccurate information may direct inquiries to the Broker Management Branch via email through the
See “Record Access Procedures” above.
The Secretary of Homeland Security has exempted this system pursuant to exemption 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) of the Privacy Act, portions of this system are exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (4); (d); (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), and (e)(8); (f); and (g). Additionally, the Secretary has exempted this system pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) of the Privacy Act from subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), and (f).
None.
Office of Chief Human Capitol Officer, Privacy Office, HUD.
Notice of a rescindment of a system of record.
The Single Family Insurance System—Claims Subsystem (CLAIMS) is operated to process single family insurance claims against defaulted loans the Federal Housing Administration insures. Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is issuing a public notice of its intent to rescind the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Finance and Budget, Federal Housing Administration, Single Family Post Insurance Division Privacy Act system of record,
This System of Records rescindment is effective upon publication, July 22, 2022. The specific date for when this system ceased to be a Privacy Act System of Records is July 27, 2021.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title by one of the following methods:
LaDonne White, The Privacy Office; 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 10139; Washington, DC 20410-0001; telephone number 202-708-3054 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals who are hearing- or speech-impaired may access this telephone number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).
The Single Family Insurance System—Claims Subsystem (CLAIMS) was evaluated and identified for rescindment from the Finance and Budget Office of Housing Single Family Post Insurance Division Privacy Act systems of records inventory. The CLAIMS SORN was filed pursuant to the Department's Title II Claims Insurance Benefits Program. CLAIMS receives, edits, controls, monitors, and authorizes payment for all Single Family mortgage insurance claims benefits to FHA approved Mortgagees for loans HUD insures. The latest SORN for CLAIMS was published in the
HSNG.SF/HWAA.02, Single Family Insurance System—Claims Subsystem (CLAIMS).
HSNG.SF/HWAA.02: 79 FR 10827 (February 26, 2014).
HUD/SFH-02: 72 FR 65348 (November 20, 2007).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments and information.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of an application from KB Home Orlando, LLC (applicant) for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act. The applicant requests the ITP to take the federally listed sand skink and blue-tailed mole skink incidental to the construction and operation of a residential development in Polk County, Florida. We request public comment on the application, which includes the applicant's proposed habitat conservation plan (HCP), and on the Service's preliminary determination that this HCP qualifies as “low effect,” categorically excluded under the National Environmental Policy Act. To make this determination, we used our environmental action statement and low-effect screening form, both of which are also available for public review.
We must receive your written comments on or before August 22, 2022.
•
•
Alfredo Begazo, by U.S. mail (see
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service, announce receipt of an application from KB Home Orlando, LLC for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a 5-year ITP to take skinks via the conversion of approximately 2.85 acres (ac) of occupied nesting, foraging, and sheltering skink habitat incidental to the construction of a residential development on a 15.6-ac parcel in Section 31, Township 28 South, Range 26 East, Polk County, Florida. The applicant proposes to mitigate for take of the skinks by purchasing credits equivalent to 5.7 ac of skink-occupied habitat from a Service-approved conservation bank. The Service would require the applicant to purchase the credits prior to engaging in any phase of the project.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made available to the public. While you may request that we withhold your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The Service has made a preliminary determination that the applicant's project—including the construction of single-family homes, paved roads, green areas, storm water ponds, and associated infrastructure (
The Service will evaluate the application and the comments to determine whether to issue the requested permit. We will also conduct an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA to evaluate the effects of the proposed take. After considering the preceding and other matters, we will determine whether the permit issuance criteria of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA have been met. If met, the Service will issue ITP number PER0042857 to the KB Home Orlando, LLC.
The Service provides this notice under section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), are developing a proposed barred owl management strategy (management strategy) to address the threat of the nonnative, invasive barred owl (
We will accept online or hardcopy comments. Comments submitted online at
We will hold a virtual public meeting during the scoping period. To provide for the attendance of interested parties across the three-State area without requiring travel to an in-person meeting, and to protect the public from potential spread of the COVID-19 virus, the public meeting will be held virtually on July 28, 2022, from 6 to 8 p.m. Pacific time.
•
•
For additional information about submitting comments, see Public Scoping Process under
Robin Bown, by telephone at 503-231-6923, or by email at
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), are developing a proposed barred owl management strategy (management strategy) to address the threat the nonnative invasive barred owl poses to two native owl subspecies in the West, the northern spotted owl (
Barred owls are native to eastern North America. They began to expand their range around 1900, concurrent with European settlement and facilitated by the subsequent human-caused changes to the Great Plains and northern boreal forest. Barred owls arrived in the Pacific Northwest in the early 1970s, establishing populations in northern Washington in the early 1980s. They continue to spread southward in the Cascades and coastal mountains, building dense populations behind the invasion front.
The barred owl is slightly larger in size than the native spotted owl of the western forests. While barred owls prefer the same older, structurally diverse forest type selected by spotted owls, barred owls will utilize a wider range of forested habitat types than spotted owls, including wooded urban areas and large tracts of second-growth forests. In addition, barred owls are generalist predators, eating a much wider variety of prey items than the specialist spotted owls. Barred owls consume the same nocturnal arboreal rodents that are the focus of the spotted owls' diet, and also consume numerous other species, including other mammals, amphibians, insects, crayfish, and mollusks. Because of their larger size, adaptability to a wide variety of forested habitats, and ability to eat a wide variety of prey, barred owls occur in denser populations, outcompeting and excluding spotted owls from the latter's preferred habitats.
By 2004, we identified competition from the invasive barred owl as a primary threat to northern spotted owl populations (USFWS 2004). The 2011 Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2011) recommended that we manage to reduce the negative effects of barred owls on northern spotted owls (Recovery Action 30) (USFWS 2011). Based on the recent demographic analysis, northern spotted owl populations in the northern half of the species' range have dropped by over 75 percent in two decades and continue to decline at greater than 5 percent per year (Franklin et al. 2021). Without management of barred owls, extirpation of northern spotted owls from major portions of their historic range is likely in the near future.
In recent years, barred owls have penetrated into the range of the California spotted owl in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, although their population remains low and scattered at this time (Wood et al. 2020). While barred owls have not substantially impacted California spotted owls to date, the history of the invasion and impacts on northern spotted owls supports the assumption that, unless the barred owl populations can be managed, barred owls will continue to invade southward until barred owls threaten the California spotted owl.
In 2013, we initiated the Barred Owl Removal Experiment (Removal Experiment), implementing Recovery Action 29 for the northern spotted owl (USFWS 2011) to investigate the effect of barred owl removal on spotted owl population dynamics. The Removal Experiment, conducted in four study areas in Washington, Oregon, and California, used paired treatment areas (barred owl removal) and control areas (no barred owl removal), in order to test whether barred owl removal could reverse declining spotted owl population trends in study areas with differing environmental conditions. The removal of barred owls had a strong, positive effect on survival of spotted owls and a weaker, though still positive, effect on spotted owl dispersal and recruitment (Wiens et al. 2021). In the treatment areas where barred owls were removed, spotted owl populations stabilized. In paired control areas without barred owl removal, spotted owl populations continued to decline at 12 percent per year after 3 to 6 years of removal. The Removal Experiment demonstrated that barred owl removal can be an effective method for the conservation of spotted owls.
Using information from the recently completed Removal Experiment and other applicable studies and research findings, the USFWS is developing a proposed management strategy designed to reduce barred owl populations to improve the survival and recovery of northern spotted owls and to prevent declines in California spotted owls resulting from barred owl competition.
Implementation of a management strategy would involve take of barred owls. The barred owl is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 U.S.C. 793
The purpose of this action is to reduce barred owl populations to improve the survival and recovery of northern spotted owls and to prevent declines in California spotted owls from barred owl competition. Relative to northern spotted owls, the purpose is to stop or slow spotted owl population declines from barred owls within selected treatment areas in the short term and increase spotted owl populations in the intermediate term. Relative to the California spotted owl, the purpose is to limit the invasion of barred owls into the range of the subspecies and respond quickly to reduce barred owl populations that may become established.
The need for this action is to reduce the population of invasive barred owls within the range of northern and California spotted owls. Competition from the invasive barred owl is a
California spotted owls face a similar risk from barred owl competition as barred owl populations continue to expand southward. While California spotted owls have not yet experienced substantial declines as a result of barred owl competition, the southward invasion of the barred owl has reached their range, and future impacts to California spotted owl populations are expected to be inevitable without barred owl management. Invasive species are very difficult to remove once established. Therefore, the management strategy needs to focus on limiting the invasion of barred owls into the California spotted owl range. If barred owl populations do become established, the management strategy needs to provide for early intervention to prevent adverse effects of barred owls on California spotted owl populations.
The proposed action is to finalize and implement a management strategy, including any necessary MBTA take authorization, to reduce barred owl populations to improve the survival and recovery of northern spotted owls and prevent declines in California spotted owls from barred owl competition. The management strategy will identify high-priority areas for barred owl management at both regional and local scales and for both the short and intermediate term. The scope and scale of barred owl management in each region or physiographic province would vary based on the current condition of the barred and spotted owl populations, availability of access, ownership patterns, and risk factors such as wildfire. The USFWS will evaluate all methods for removing barred owls from management areas, including lethal removal, which has been shown to be effective in situations where a rapid response is crucial.
The USFWS will prepare a draft EIS (DEIS) that will include a reasonable range of alternatives, which may include, but are not limited to, variations in the identification of high priority management sites, areas of concern, and specific mapped areas; protocols for the selection of management areas; and methods for managing barred owls in selected areas. All action alternatives will include monitoring of spotted and barred owls on management areas, and an adaptive management component to provide for minor modifications as new information becomes available.
Additionally, a No Action Alternative will be evaluated. Under the No Action Alternative, a management strategy would not be selected, and no MBTA take authorization would be provided to implement the management strategy. The No Action Alternative, if selected, would not preclude the USFWS or other entities from seeking to undertake barred owl management, including lethal removal. Any such management, if it required take of barred owls, would also require MBTA take authorization. The USFWS would evaluate such proposals on a case-by-case basis, including evaluation under NEPA as appropriate to the circumstances.
The DEIS will identify and describe the effects of the proposed Federal action on the human environment that are reasonably foreseeable, including direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. This includes effects that occur at the same time and place as the proposed action or alternatives and effects that are later in time or farther removed in distance from the proposed action or alternatives. Based on previous analyses related to the Barred Owl Removal Experiment (USFWS 2013), the anticipated impacts may include, but are not limited to, beneficial and adverse impacts to spotted owls, barred owls, other biological resources, land use, recreation and visitor use, historical and cultural resources, and socioeconomics. Beneficial impacts to spotted owls and localized adverse impacts to barred owls are expected, as these are the focus of the management strategy. Beneficial impacts to other biological resources, specifically to species that are prey for, or competitors with, barred owls may occur in localized areas where barred owl populations are reduced. Minimal localized, beneficial, and/or adverse impacts to recreation and visitor use, and to historical and cultural resources, may occur in areas where barred owl populations are reduced. Impacts to land use and socioeconomics may occur through application of applicable law, including local and State regulations. These and other impacts of the proposed action and alternatives will be analyzed in the DEIS (see 40 U.S.C. 4332; 40 CFR 1508.1(g) and 1502.16). The analysis will consider the adequacy of each alternative to meet the purpose and need, in light of the expected effects and other best available information.
Anticipated permits, consultations, or other authorizations related to implementation of the management strategy and issuance of MBTA take authorization may include, but may not be limited to:
• ESA Section 7 consultation;
• State take permits;
• Government-to-government consultations with Tribes; and
• Consultation regarding effects of the action pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act.
Following scoping, the USFWS will prepare the DEIS and publish a notice of availability and request for public comments on the DEIS in the
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the EIS.
A public scoping meeting will be conducted online. See
Persons needing reasonable accommodations in order to participate in the virtual public scoping meeting should contact the USFWS's Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see
We request written comments on the proposed action, including comments concerning the appropriate scope of the analysis and identification of relevant information, studies, and analyses, from the public; affected Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments, agencies, and offices; the scientific community; industry; or any other interested party. We will consider these comments in developing the DEIS. Specifically, we seek comments on:
1. Biological information, analysis and relevant data concerning the spotted owl, barred owl, and their interactions;
2. Components of the barred owl strategy, including but not limited to:
a. Criteria and approaches for selecting management areas;
b. Locations where barred owl management should be focused or where management should be avoided; and
c. Specific techniques for removal of barred owls or reduction in barred owl populations;
3. Potential effects that the proposed action could have on endangered or threatened species, and their associated ecological communities or habitats;
4. Potential effects that the proposed action could have on other species and their habitats;
5. Potential effects that the proposed action could have on other aspects of the human environment, including ecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, environmental justice, or health effects;
6. The presence of historic and cultural properties—including archaeological sites, buildings, and structures; historic events; sacred and traditional areas; and other historic preservation concerns—in the proposed permit area, which are required to be considered in project planning by the National Historic Preservation Act;
7. Possible reasonable alternatives to meet the purpose and need that USFWS should consider,
8. Information on other current or planned activities in the range of the northern and California spotted owls that may interact with, or impact, spotted and barred owls, including any connected actions that are closely related to the proposed action; and
9. Other information relevant to the proposed management strategy and MBTA take authorization, and its impacts on the human environment.
You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed in
The USFWS is the lead agency for the NEPA process. The following agencies are cooperating agencies in the NEPA process: U.S. Forest Service (Regions 5 and 6), Bureau of Land Management (Oregon), National Park Service (Interior Regions 8, 9, 10, 12), the Hoh Tribe, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Oregon Department of Forestry, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The USFWS welcomes inquiries from other Federal, State, or Tribal agencies potentially interested in being a cooperating agency for the NEPA process.
The decision maker is the USFWS Regional Director of the Pacific Region. The decision to be made is whether to implement a management strategy and authorize the take of barred owls under the MBTA to implement the selected management strategy as needed, or to select the No Action Alternative and not implement a management strategy and associated MBTA take authorization.
We provide this notice in accordance with the NEPA regulations found at 40 CFR 1501.9(d).
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), and Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs (AS-IA) are proposing to renew eleven (11) information collections. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 1076-0136, 1076-0157, 1076-0161, 1076-0167, 1076-0174, 1076-0180, 1076-0181, 1076-0186, 1076-0191, 1076-0192, and 1076-0193.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 20, 2022.
Send your comments on the information collection request (ICR) by mail to Steven Mullen, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Regulatory Affairs and Collaborative Action—Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1001 Indian School Road NW, Suite 229, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104; or by email to
Steven Mullen, Information Collection Clearance Officer, by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
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 the ICR. 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.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The authority for these ICR actions is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The plats of survey of lands described in this notice are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Alaska State Office, Anchorage, Alaska. The surveys, which were executed at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and BLM, are necessary for the management of these lands.
The BLM must receive protests by August 22, 2022.
You may buy a copy of the plats from the BLM Alaska Public Information Center, 222 W 7th Avenue, Mailstop 13, Anchorage, AK 99513. Please use this address when filing written protests. You may also view the plats at the BLM Alaska Public Information Center, Fitzgerald Federal Building, 222 W 7th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska, at no cost.
Thomas O'Toole, Chief, Branch of Cadastral Survey, Alaska State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 222 W 7th Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99513; 907-271-4231;
The lands surveyed are:
Memorandum of cancellation of survey plat of U.S. Survey No. 10239, Officially Filed June 8, 1990, located in T. 13 S., R. 5 W., dated March 25, 2022.
T 13 S., R. 5 W., Memorandum of suspension of survey plat Officially Filed October 24, 1991, dated June 7, 2022.
T. 17 S., R. 5 W., Memorandum of cancellation of survey plat Officially Filed October 24, 1991, dated July 13, 2022.
A person or party who wishes to protest one or more plats of survey identified above must file a written notice of protest with the State Director for the BLM in Alaska. The protest may be filed by mailing to BLM State Director, Alaska State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 222 W 7th Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99513 or by delivering it in person to BLM Alaska Public Information Center, Fitzgerald Federal Building, 222 W 7th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska. The notice of protest must identify the plat(s) of survey that the person or party wishes to protest. You must file the notice of protest before the scheduled date of official filing for the plat(s) of survey being protested. The BLM will not consider any notice of protest filed after the scheduled date of official filing. A notice of protest is considered filed on the date it is received by the State Director for the BLM in Alaska during regular business hours; if received after regular business hours, a notice of protest will be considered filed the next business day. A written statement of reasons in support of a protest, if not filed with the notice of protest, must be filed with the State Director for the BLM in Alaska within 30 calendar days after the notice of protest is filed.
If a notice of protest against a plat of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing, the official filing of the plat of survey identified in the notice of protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat of survey will not be officially filed until the dismissal or resolution of all protests of the plat.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in a notice of protest or statement of reasons, you should be aware that the documents you submit, including your personally identifiable information, may be made publicly available in their entirety at any time. While you can ask the BLM to withhold your personally identifiable information from public review, we
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Public land order.
This order extends the duration of the withdrawal created by Public Land Order (PLO) No. 7533 for an additional 20-year period. PLO No. 7533 withdrew 1,265 acres of National Forest System lands in the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest from location and entry under the United States mining laws for a period of 20 years to protect the Holden Mine Reclamation Project. Under that project, the United States Forest Service is remediating the release of hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, including undertaking infrastructure improvements and capital investments. A
This PLO takes effect on August 6, 2022.
Luke Poff, Realty Specialist, at telephone (503) 808-6001, by email at
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 7-1-1 (TTY, TDD, or Tele Braille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
The purpose for which the withdrawal was first made requires an extension in order to continue protecting the Holden Mine Reclamation Project and the capital investments associated with it.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714, it is ordered as follows:
PLO No. 7533 (67 FR 50894), as corrected (86 FR 59422), incorporated herein by reference, which withdrew 1,285 acres of National Forest System lands from location and entry under the United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. chapter 2) to protect the Holden Mine Reclamation Project, is hereby extended for an additional 20-year period.
This withdrawal will expire 20 years from the effective date of this order unless, as a result of a review conducted prior to the expiration date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Secretary determines that the withdrawal shall be further extended.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces the availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Nevada Vanadium Company (NVV) Gibellini Mine Project, in Eureka County, Nevada, and requests the public review and provide comments on the Draft EIS.
All comments must be received by September 6, 2022. The BLM will announce the date of a public meeting on the Draft EIS at least 15 days in advance of the meeting on the BLM National ePlanning website
The Draft EIS is available for review on the BLM ePlanning project website at
Written comments related to the proposed NVV Gibellini Mine Project, in Eureka County, Nevada, may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Scott Distel, Project Manager, telephone: (775) 635-4093; address: 50 Bastian Road, Battle Mountain, Nevada 89820; email:
The BLM's purpose for the action is to respond to NVV's proposal as described in the proposed Plan of Operations and to analyze the environmental effects associated with the proponent's Proposed Action and alternatives to the Proposed Action. The BLM's need for the action is established by the BLM's responsibilities under FLPMA and the BLM Surface Management Regulations at 43 CFR part 3809 to respond to a proposed Plan of Operations and ensure that operations prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands.
Under the
The
The
Under the
The final EIS is tentatively scheduled for Fall of 2022 with a Record of Decision in early 2023.
On July 14, 2020, a notice of intent to prepare an EIS was published in the
This notice of availability initiates the draft EIS review process. A public meeting to discuss the draft EIS will be held via virtual platform. An announcement regarding when and how to access the virtual meeting will be posted on the BLM's project website.
Public review of the draft EIS provides an opportunity for meaningful collaborative public engagement and allows the public to provide substantive comments, such as identification of factual errors, data gaps, relevant methods, or scientific studies. The BLM will respond to substantive comments by making appropriate revisions to the EIS or explaining why a comment did not warrant a change.
The BLM has and will continue to use and coordinate the draft EIS review process to help fulfill the public involvement requirements under the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108) as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). The information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed action will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources.
The BLM has and will continue to conduct government-to-government consultation with Indian Tribes in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Agencies will give due consideration to Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and treaty rights and potential impacts to cultural resources.
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.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on June 16, 2022, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Velodyne Lidar USA, Inc., of San Jose, California. A supplement to the complaint was filed on July 1, 2022. The complaint as supplemented alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain rotating 3-D LiDAR devices, components thereof, and sensing systems containing the same by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,969,558 (“the '558 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 9,983,297 (“the '297 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-4, 6, and 8-25 of the '558 patent and claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 12-13, and 16 of the '297 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “rotating 3-D LiDAR devices, components thereof (circuit boards with laser emitters and/or photosensitive detectors, a rotatable frame or structure for mounting such circuit boards, motor for providing rotation for the laser emitters and photosensitive detectors, circuitry for controlling operation of the LiDAR, and an orientation detector for the LiDAR), and sensing systems with 3-D scanning capabilities containing the same (autonomous vehicles, advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), robotics, industrial automation solutions, and intelligent infrastructure solutions, with 3-D scanning capabilities)”;
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the complainant of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the Administrative Law Judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, is submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The Department of Justice encourages public comment and will accept input until September 20, 2022.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Gerry Lynn Brovey, Supervisory Information Liaison Specialist, FBI, CJIS, Resources Management Section, Administrative Unit, Module C-2, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia, 26306; phone: 304-625-4320 or email
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
➢ Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Division, including whether the information will have practical utility;
➢ 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;
➢ Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
➢ Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Robert Houser, Assistant Director, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (the Department), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) is soliciting comments on the proposed extension of the information collection requests (ICRs) contained in the documents described below. A copy of the ICRs may be obtained by contacting the office listed in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office shown in the
James Butikofer, Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room N-5718, Washington, DC 20210, or
This notice requests public comment on the Department's request for extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of ICRs contained in the rules and prohibited transaction exemptions described below. The Department is not proposing any changes to the existing ICRs at this time. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid OMB control number. A summary of the ICRs and the burden estimates follows:
This class exemption allows employee benefit plans to purchase securities that may aid the issuer of the securities to reduce or retire indebtedness to a party in interest. Without the relief provided by the class exemption, a standard type of financial/business transaction between financial service providers and employee benefit plans would be barred under ERISA's prohibited transaction provisions.
In order to take advantage of the relief provided by this class exemption, employee benefit plans must comply with all of the applicable conditions of the exemption, including the requirement to keep records regarding transactions covered by the exemption that are sufficient to establish that the conditions of the exemption have been met. The records must be maintained for a period of at least six years from a covered transaction and must be made unconditionally available at their customary location for examination
The Department has the authority to request such records from time to time in the course of performing investigations; however, the primary purpose of the recordkeeping condition of the exemption is to ensure access to pertinent records by participants, fiduciaries and contributing employers and thereby enable oversight of compliance with section 408(a)(3) of ERISA, which requires that the Department ensure the protection of participant rights in granting exemptive relief. The Department has received approval from OMB for this ICR under OMB Control No. 1210-0064. The current approval is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2023.
To initiate adjudicatory proceedings, an entity is required to file a petition for a determination under Section 3(40) of ERISA with an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The petition must identify the parties, describe the basis on which the petition is being filed and the plan in question, provide evidence that the plan satisfies the criteria to be a plan, and include affidavits as to both the competency of the affiant to testify and the facts that allegedly establish the plan as being established under or pursuant to agreements that the Secretary finds to be a collective bargaining agreement.
This collection of information is used by the Department in connection with proceedings to determine whether a plan or other arrangement is established or maintained pursuant to one or more agreements that which the Secretary finds to be a collective bargaining agreement under Section 3(40) of ERISA. The Department has received approval from OMB for this ICR under OMB Control No. 1210-0119. The current approval is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2023.
The Department has issued regulations implementing the Notice Requirements of Section 606 of ERISA (regulations) because the provision of timely and adequate notifications regarding COBRA rights and responsibilities is critical to a qualified beneficiary's ability to obtain health continuation coverage. In addition, in the Department's view, regulatory guidance was necessary to establish clearer standards for administering and processing COBRA notices.
Under the regulatory guidelines, plan administrators are required to distribute notices: a general notice to be distributed to all participants in group health plans subject to COBRA; an employer notice that must be completed by the employer upon the occurrence of a qualifying event; a notice and election form to be sent to a participant upon the occurrence of a qualifying event that might cause the participant to lose group health coverage; an employee notice that may be completed by a qualified beneficiary upon the occurrence of certain qualifying events such as divorce or disability; and, two other notices, one of early termination and the other a notice of unavailability. Also included in the ICR are two model notices that the Department believes will help reduce costs for service providers in preparing and delivering notices to comply with the regulations.
The provision of timely and adequate notifications is critical for the effective exercise of COBRA rights. Failure on the part of a plan administrator to meet notice requirements might result in a qualified beneficiary's losing out on continuation coverage, assessment of fines on a plan administrator, or other adverse consequences. The Department has received approval from OMB for this ICR under OMB Control No. 1210-0123. The current approval is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2023.
On October 7, 2008, the Department issued final regulations regarding cross-trading policies and procedures (73 FR 58450). The regulation provides that the policies and procedures for cross-trading under the new statutory exemption must: (1) be written in a manner calculated to be understood by the plan fiduciary authorizing cross-trading, (2) be sufficiently detailed to facilitate a periodic review of all cross-trades by a compliance officer designated by the investment manager and a determination by the compliance officer that the cross-trades comply with the investment manager's written cross-trading policies and procedures, (3) include, at a minimum: (a) a statement of general policy which describes the criteria that will be applied by the investment manager in determining that execution of a securities transaction as a cross-trade will be beneficial to both parties to the transaction; (b) a description of how the investment manager will determine the price at which the securities are cross-traded, in a manner that is consistent with 17 CFR 270.17a-7(b) and SEC interpretations thereunder, including the identity of sources used to establish the price; (c) a description of how the investment manager's policies and procedures will mitigate any potentially conflicting division of loyalties and responsibilities to the parties involved in any cross-trade transaction; (d) a requirement that the investment manager allocate cross-trades among accounts participating in the cross-trading program in an objective and equitable manner and a description of the policies and procedures that will be used; (e) the identity of the compliance officer responsible for reviewing the investment manager's compliance with 408(b)(19) of ERISA and its written cross-trading policies and procedures and the compliance officer's qualifications for this position; (f) the steps to be performed by the compliance officer during its periodic review of the investment manager's purchases and sales of securities to ensure compliance with the written cross-trading policies and procedures; and (g) a description of the procedures by which the compliance officer will determine whether the requirements of section 408(b)(19) of ERISA are met.
The statutory exemption requires, as a condition to exemptive relief, that an investment manager's policies and procedures regarding cross-trading be provided in advance to the fiduciary of any plan that is considering agreeing to allow its assets to be managed under the investment manager's cross-trading program. The investment manager is also required, under the statutory exemption, to designate a compliance officer responsible for periodically reviewing the investment manager's cross-trading program to ensure compliance with the investment manager's cross-trading written policies and procedures. The statutory exemption requires the compliance officer to issue an annual report to each plan fiduciary describing the steps performed during the course of the review, the level of compliance, and any specific instances of noncompliance. The exemption does not require any reporting or filing with the Federal government
The information will be used by the plan fiduciary to assess the initial and continued appropriateness of investing plan assets subject to a cross-trading program. The information will enable the plan fiduciary to fulfill its fiduciary duties under the plan and to protect plan assets on behalf of plan participants and beneficiaries. The Department has received approval from OMB for this ICR under OMB Control No. 1210-0130. The current approval is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2023.
ERISA section 701(f)(3)(B)(i)(II) requires the Department of Labor to provide employers with model language for the Employer CHIP Notices to enable them to timely comply with this requirement, which is referred as the “Model Employer CHIP Notice.” The model language is required to include information on how an employee may contact the State in which the employee resides for additional information regarding potential opportunities for premium assistance, including how to apply for such assistance.
The Department has received approval from OMB for this ICR under OMB Control No. 1210-0137. The current approval is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2023.
PTE 96-23 contains requirements for written guidelines between an INHAM and a property manager that an INHAM has retained to act on its behalf. Because it is a customary business practice for agreements related to the investment of plan assets or transactions relating to the leasing of space to be described in writing, no burden was estimated for this provision. The information collection requirements included in this paperwork package for which there is a burden estimate consist of the requirements that the INHAM develop written policies and procedures designed to assure compliance with the conditions of the exemption and have an independent auditor conduct an annual INHAM exemption audit and issue an audit report to each plan.
The written policies and procedures will be used by an independent auditor to determine the INHAM's compliance with the exemption. An independent auditor will conduct an annual exemption audit and make a determination whether the INHAM is in compliance with the written policies and procedures and the objective requirements of the exemption. These information collections are designed to safeguard participants and beneficiaries in plans managed by INHAMS that are involved in transactions covered by the exemption. The exemption does not require any reporting or filing with the Federal government. The Department has received approval from OMB for this ICR under OMB Control No. 1210-0145. The current approval is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2023.
Without the class exemption an open-end mutual fund could not sell shares to or purchase shares from a plan when the fiduciary with respect to the plan is also the investment advisor for the mutual fund. Such purchases and sales may serve the interest of the plans, provided that procedures designed to protect the interests of participants and beneficiaries from potential abuse are built into the transactions. Therefore, the exemption requires disclosure of any redemption fees in the current prospectus and the disclosure and approval of investment advisory and other fees by a second fiduciary so that the plan fiduciary can make informed judgments with respect to the prudence of the transactions. In the case of changes to the fee structure, the exemption requires that the second fiduciary be notified of the fee changes and approve in writing the continued purchase, sale, an investment in the shares of the mutual fund. The Department has received approval from OMB for this ICR under OMB Control No. 1210-0049. The current approval is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2023.
The information collection requirements that are conditions of Part V of the exemption include written policies and procedures and audit requirements for QPAM-sponsored plans. The written policies and procedures will be used by an independent auditor to determine the QPAM's compliance with the conditions of the exemption. An independent auditor will conduct an annual exemption audit and make a determination whether the QPAM is in compliance with the written policies and procedures and that the conditions of the exemption have been met. These information collections are designed to safeguard participants and beneficiaries in plans that are involved in transactions covered by the exemption. The exemption does not require any reporting or filing with the Federal government. The Department has received approval from OMB for this ICR under OMB Control No. 1210-0128. The current approval is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2023.
The information collection requirements included in the claims procedure regulation ensure that participants and beneficiaries (claimants) receive adequate information regarding the plan's claims procedures and the plan's handling of specific benefit claims. The Department has received approval from OMB for this ICR under OMB Control No. 1210-0053. The current approval is scheduled to expire on April 30, 2023.
The disclosure requirement incorporated within this class exemption is intended to protect the rights of plan participants and beneficiaries by putting them on notice of the plan's intention to sell insurance or annuity contracts under which they are insured, and by giving them the right of first refusal to purchase such contracts. Without this disclosure requirement, the Department, which may only grant an exemption if it can find that participants and beneficiaries are protected, would be unable to effectively enforce the terms of the class exemption and ensure user compliance. The Department has received approval from OMB for this ICR under OMB Control No. 1210-0063. The current approval is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2023.
Section 18B of the FLSA generally provides that, in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor, an applicable employer must provide each employee at the time of hiring, a written notice: (1) Informing the employee of the existence of Exchanges including a description of the services provided by the Exchanges, and the manner in which the employee may contact Exchanges to request assistance; (2) If the employer plan's share of the total allowed costs of benefits provided under the plan is less than 60 percent of such costs, then the employee may be eligible for a premium tax credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) if the employee purchases a qualified health plan through an Exchange; and (3) If the employee purchases a qualified health plan through an Exchange, the employee may lose the employer contribution (if any) to any health benefits plan offered by the employer and that all or a portion of such contribution may be excludable from income for Federal income tax purposes. The Department has received approval from OMB for this ICR under OMB Control No. 1210-0149. The current approval is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2023.
The Department is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the ICR for OMB approval of the information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Employment and Training Administration (ETA)-
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before August 22, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) if the information will be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (4) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (5) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Mara Blumenthal by telephone at 202-693-8538, or by email at
Section 303(a)(6) of the Social Security Act authorizes this information collection. Eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits requires applicants demonstrate attachment to the labor force. This requirement of labor force attachment is generally measured through the amount of past wages earned. The data in the ETA 218, Benefit Rights and Experience Report, include numbers of individuals who were and were not monetarily eligible, those who were eligible for the maximum benefits, those who were eligible based on classification by potential duration categories, and those who were exhausting their full entitlement as classified by actual duration categories. DOL uses these data to conduct solvency studies, cost estimating and modeling, and in assessment of state benefit formulas. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Employment and Training Administration (ETA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before August 22, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) if the information will be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (4) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (5) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Mara Blumenthal by telephone at 202-693-8538, or by email at
Section 236(a)(2)(D) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (Act), requires the Secretary to establish procedures for the distribution of funds remaining after the initial distribution under Section 236(a)(2)(B)(i). Section 241 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, requires the Secretary of Labor to certify to the Secretary of the Treasury amounts necessary for each cooperating state to provide services and make payments under the Act. As such, states may request reserve funds to cover the costs of training, job search allowances and relocation allowances, employment and case management services, and state administration of these benefits before DOL issues the final distribution of state allocations. Reserve funds are distributed to states in accordance with 20 CFR 618.920 on an as-needed basis in response to requests to provide monies to those states that experience large, unexpected layoffs, or otherwise have financial needs that are not met by their initial allocation. These funds are requested using the Form ETA-9117. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Employment and Training Administration (ETA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before August 22, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) if the information will be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (4) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (5) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Mara Blumenthal by telephone at 202-693-8538, or by email at
Sections 8521-8523 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code authorize this information collection. State Workforce Agencies (SWAs) administer the Unemployment Compensation for Ex-servicemembers (UCX) program in accordance with the same terms and provisions of the paying State's unemployment insurance laws, which apply to unemployed claimants who worked in the private sector. SWAs must be able to obtain certain information (wage and separation data) about each claimant filing claims for UCX benefits in order to determine their eligibility for benefits. DOL has prescribed a form to enable SWAs to obtain this necessary information from the Military Branches. Form ETA-843 is essential to the UCX claims process, and the frequency of use varies depending upon the circumstances involved. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
Office of Management and Budget.
Notice.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) publishes the names of the members selected to serve on its Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board (PRB). This notice supersedes all previous notices of the PRB membership.
Sarah Whittle Spooner, Assistant Director for Management and Operations, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, 202-395-4665.
Section 4314(c) of Title 5, U.S.C. requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of
The persons named below have been selected to serve on OMB's PRB.
Institute of Museum and Library Services; National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Submission for OMB review, request for comments, collection of information.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services announces that the following information collection has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. This notice proposes a new three-year clearance of the IMLS-administered State Library Administrative Agency (SLAA) Survey for FY 2022—FY 2024. A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be sent within 30 days of publication of this Notice to
OMB is particularly interested in comments that help the agency to:
• 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;
• 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;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
Marisa Pelczar, Ph.D., Program Analyst, Office of Research and Evaluation, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 955 L'Enfant Plaza North SW, Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20024-2135. Dr. Pelczar can be reached by telephone at 202-653-4647 or by email at
The Institute of Museum and Library Services is the primary source of federal support for the nation's libraries and museums. We advance, support, and empower America's museums, libraries, and related organizations through grant making, research, and policy development. To learn more, visit
Pursuant to Public Law 107-279, the State Library Administrative Agency (SLAA) Survey collects biennial descriptive data on the universe of SLAAs in the United States. SLAAs are the official agencies of each state charged by state law with the extension and development of public library services throughout the state. (20 U.S.C. Chapter 72, § 9122). This survey aims to provide state and federal policymakers with information about SLAAs, including their governance, allied operations, developmental services to libraries and library systems, support of electronic information networks and resources, number and types of outlets, and direct services to the public. Because the FY 2022 collection will not begin until early 2023, we are carrying over the documentation and estimated burden associated with the FY 2020 data. This action is to request a new three-year clearance of the State Library Administrative Agency (SLAA) Survey for FY 2022-FY 2024.
The 60-day Notice was published in the
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
National Science Foundation.
Notice.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to establish this collection. In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are providing opportunity for public comment on this action. After obtaining and considering public comment, NSF will prepare the submission requesting Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance of this collection for no longer than 3 years.
Written comments on this notice must be received by September 20, 2022 to be assured consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. Send comments to address below.
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; telephone (703) 292-7556; or send email to
The NSF Polar Media Program Application Form will collect information from media groups interested in participating in the program in response to an official yearly media call (example of a previous media call:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Environmental impact statement; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing its final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), NUREG-2237, “Environmental Impact Statement for the Holtec International's License Application for a Consolidated Interim Storage Fancily for Spent Nuclear Fuel in Lea County, New Mexico.” Holtec International (Holtec) has requested a license to construct and operate a consolidated interim storage facility (CISF) for spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC) waste, along with a small quantity of mixed oxide (MOX) fuel. The proposed CISF would be located in southeast New Mexico at a site located approximately halfway between the cities of Carlsbad and Hobbs. The proposed action is the issuance of an NRC license authorizing a CISF to store up to 8,680 metric tons of uranium (MTUs) [9,568 short tons] of SNF in 500 canisters for a license period of 40 years.
The FEIS referenced in this document is available on July 13, 2022.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0052 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available
•
•
•
•
•
Jill S. Caverly, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-7674, email:
In accordance with section 51.118 of title 10 of the
The NRC is issuing the FEIS for an application from Holtec requesting a license to authorize construction and operation of a CISF for SNF at a site located approximately halfway between Carlsbad and Hobbs, New Mexico. The proposed CISF project would be built and operated on approximately 421 hectares (ha) [1,040 acres (ac)] of land in Lea County, New Mexico. The storage and operations area, which is a smaller land area within the full property boundary, would include 134 ha [330 ac] of disturbed land. The proposed project area is approximately 51 kilometers (km) [32 miles (mi)] east of Carlsbad, New Mexico, and 54 km [34 mi] west of Hobbs, New Mexico. The proposed action is the issuance of an NRC license authorizing a CISF to store up to 8,680 MTUs [9,568 short tons] of SNF in 500 canisters for a period of 40 years.
The FEIS is being issued as part of the NRC's process to decide whether to issue a license to Holtec pursuant to 10 CFR part 72. In this FEIS, the NRC staff has assessed the potential environmental impacts to construct and operate the proposed CISF. The NRC staff assessed the impacts of the proposed action and the No-Action alternative on land use; transportation; geology and soils; water resources; ecological resources; air quality; noise; historical and cultural resources; visual and scenic resources; socioeconomics; environmental justice, public and occupational health, and waste management. Additionally, the FEIS analyzes and compares the benefits and costs of the proposed action and the No-Action alternative. In preparing this FEIS, the NRC staff also considered, evaluated, and addressed the public comments received on the draft EIS. Appendix D of the FEIS summarizes the public comments received and the NRC's responses.
After comparing the impacts of the proposed action to those of the No-Action alternative, the NRC staff, in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR part 51, recommends the proposed action, subject to the determinations in the staff's safety review of the application. This recommendation is based on (i) the Holtec license application, which includes an environmental report and supplemental documents, and Holtec's responses to the NRC staff's requests for additional information; (ii) the NRC staff's consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, local agencies, and input from other stakeholders, including members of the public; (iii) the NRC staff's independent review; and (iv) the NRC staff's assessments provided in the FEIS.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
NUREG; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing NUREG-1757, Volume 2, Revision 2, “Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance, Characterization, Survey, and Determination of Radiological Criteria.” NUREG-1757 has been revised to address lessons learned and experience gained from review of license termination plans, decommissioning plans, and final status surveys for licensees undergoing license termination since the last revision to the document in September 2006. This NUREG is intended for use by applicants, licensees, and the NRC staff.
NUREG-1757, Volume 2, Revision 2 is available on July 22, 2022.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2020-0192 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Cynthia Barr, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-4015; email:
NUREG-1757, Volume 2, Revision 2 “Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance, Characterization, Survey, and Determination of Radiological Criteria” (ML22194A859) was revised to address lessons learned and experience gained from review of license termination plans, decommissioning plans, and final status surveys for licensees undergoing license termination. The NUREG was updated to include new guidance related to dose modeling, as low as reasonably achievable criteria, surface water and groundwater characterization, use of engineered barriers, and radiological surveys (
Following issuance of NUREG-1757, Volume 2, Revision 2, NRC staff intends to develop interim staff guidance to address issues raised during the public comment period related to: (i) subsurface investigations; and guidance or communications related to (ii) discrete radioactive particles. NRC staff held two subsurface investigations workshops on July 14-15, 2021, and May 11, 2022, to support the development of interim staff guidance. A public workshop to support development of guidance or communications on discrete radioactive particles is planned for November 3, 2022. Additional details regarding the November 3, 2022, workshop, will be forthcoming.
The regulatory analysis for Revision 2 of NUREG-1757, “Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance,” Volume 2, “Characterization, Survey, and Determination of Radiological Criteria” is available in ADAMS under ML21347A957.
Draft NUREG-1757, Volume 2, Revision 2 “Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance, Characterization, Survey, and Determination of Radiological Criteria” was published in the
NUREG-1757, Volume 2, Revision 2, is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act. The Congressional Review Act Summary is available in ADAMS under ML21349B406.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, NRC Form 664, “General Licensee Registration.”
Submit comments by August 22, 2022. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
David C. Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2021-0180 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, NRC Form 664, “General Licensee Registration.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, “Rules of General Applicability to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct Material.”
Submit comments by September 20, 2022. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
David C. Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2022-0026 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to the Commission's regulations,
This proceeding concerns a license transfer application involving (1) the renewed facility operating license for the Palisades Nuclear Plant (Palisades) and the general license for the Palisades Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI); and (2) the facility operating license for Big Rock Point and the general license for the Big Rock Point ISFSI. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Entergy Nuclear Palisades, LLC, Holtec International, and Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC (HDI) seek NRC consent to the indirect transfer of control of the licenses to Holtec International and to the transfer of operating authority to HDI to conduct licensed activities at the sites. They also seek NRC approval of conforming administrative license amendments to reflect the requested transfers.
In CLI-22-08, the Commission stated,
The administrative judge who will serve as Presiding Officer is: Paul S. Ryerson, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, 10 CFR 2.302.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 2613(a), Usage of Data Feeds, to disclose that the Exchange will utilize direct data feeds from MEMX LLC (“MEMX”) when performing order handling, order execution, routing, and related compliance processes for equity securities.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Exchange Rule 2613 identifies the data feeds that the Exchange utilizes for the handling, execution, and routing of orders in equity securities on the Exchange's equity trading platform (“MIAX Pearl Equities”), as well as for surveillance necessary to monitor compliance with applicable securities laws and Exchange Rules. The Exchange currently utilizes MEMX market data from the Consolidated Quotation System (“CQS”)/UTP Quotation Data Feed (“UQDF”) for these purposes on MIAX Pearl Equities. The Exchange intends to begin to utilize MEMX's direct feeds in place of market data from the CQS/UQDF. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 2613(a) to reflect that the Exchange will utilize MEMX's direct feeds in place of market data from the CQS/UQDF when performing order handling, order execution, routing, and related compliance processes for equity securities on MIAX Pearl Equities. The Exchange does not currently utilize a secondary source for data from MEMX. Once it begins to utilize direct feeds for data from MEMX, the Exchange will also begin to utilize CQS/UQDF as a secondary source of data from MEMX on MIAX Pearl Equities.
Due to the technological changes associated with this proposed change, the Exchange will issue a trading alert publicly announcing the implementation date of this proposed rule change. The Exchange anticipates that the implementation date will be in either the third or fourth quarter of 2022.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The proposal to update Exchange Rule 2613(a) to reflect that the Exchange will utilize MEMX's direct feeds in place of market data from the CQS/UQDF on MIAX Pearl Equities will continue to provide market participants with insight and transparency into which data feeds the Exchange utilizes when performing order handling, order execution, routing, and related compliance processes for equity securities. The Exchange's proposal to utilize MEMX's direct feeds promotes just and equitable principles of trade because it will allow the Exchange to receive market data directly from MEMX, thereby potentially enhancing the performance of its order handling, order execution, routing, and related compliance processes for equity securities. The proposed rule changes also remove impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and protects investors and the public interest because it will continue to ensure that Exchange Rule 2613(a) accurately reflects the Exchange's sources of market data it utilizes for each other equities exchange and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.'s Alternative Display Facility.
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. To the contrary, the Exchange believes the proposal would enhance competition by enhancing transparency and enabling market participants to better assess the quality of MIAX Pearl Equities' execution and routing services by continuing to provide market participants with insight and transparency into which data feeds the Exchange utilizes when performing order handling, order execution, routing, and related compliance processes for equity securities. The Exchange also believes the proposal would enhance competition because it will potentially enhance the performance of its order handling and execution of orders in equity securities by receiving market data directly from MEMX. Lastly, the proposed rule change will not impact competition between market participants because it will affect all market participants equally.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to extend the current pilot program related to Rule 7.10-E (Clearly Erroneous Executions) to the close of business on October 20, 2022. 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.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the current pilot program related to Rule 7.10-E (Clearly Erroneous Executions) to the close of business on October 20, 2022. The pilot program is currently due to expire on July 20, 2022.
On September 10, 2010, the Commission approved, on a pilot basis, changes to Rule 7.10-E that, among other things: (i) provided for uniform treatment of clearly erroneous execution reviews in multi-stock events involving twenty or more securities; and (ii) reduced the ability of the Exchange to deviate from the objective standards set forth in the rule.
These changes were originally scheduled to operate for a pilot period to coincide with the pilot period for the Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility (the “Limit Up-Limit Down Plan” or “LULD Plan”),
The Exchange now proposes to amend Rule 7.10-E to extend the pilot's effectiveness for a further three months until the close of business on October 20, 2022 while the Commission considers a proposal to make the pilot program permanent that has been filed by Cboe BZX.
The Exchange does not propose any additional changes to Rule 7.10-E. Extending the effectiveness of Rule 7.10-E for an additional three months will provide the Exchange and other self-regulatory organizations additional time to consider whether further amendments to the clearly erroneous execution rules are appropriate.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal would ensure the continued, uninterrupted operation of harmonized clearly erroneous execution rules across the U.S. equities markets while the Exchange and other self-regulatory organizations consider whether further amendments to these rules are appropriate. The Exchange understands that the other national securities exchanges and FINRA will also file similar proposals to extend their respective clearly erroneous execution pilot programs. Thus, the proposed rule change will help to ensure consistency across market centers without implicating any competitive issues.
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
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
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.
On April 7, 2022, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
Section 102.01B, Footnote (E) of the of the Listed Company Manual (the “Manual”) provides that, in certain cases, a company that has not previously had its common equity securities registered under the Exchange Act may wish to list its common equity securities on the Exchange at the time of effectiveness of a registration statement
The Exchange has proposed to modify the Price Range Limitation to provide that a Direct Listing Auction for a Primary Direct Floor Listing may be conducted if the Auction Price is outside of the price range established by the company in its effective registration statement (the Issuer Price Range) but is either (i) at or above the price that is 20% below the lowest price or at or below the price that is 20% above the highest price of the Issuer Price Range
The Exchange states its belief that, while many companies are interested in alternatives to the traditional initial public offering (“IPO”), companies and their advisors may be reluctant to use the Primary Direct Floor Listing under current Exchange rules because of concerns about the Price Range Limitation.
The Exchange states that, under current Exchange Rules, the DMM would not conduct a Direct Listing Auction for a security subject to a Primary Direct Floor Listing if the Auction Price determined is above the highest price of the price range established by the issuer in its effective registration statement.
The Exchange has proposed to modify the Price Range Limitation such that a Direct Listing Auction for a Primary Direct Floor Listing could proceed even if the Auction Price is outside of the Issuer Price Range, provided all other necessary conditions are met, if the Auction Price would not be more than 20% below the lowest price or more than 20% above the highest price of the Issuer Price Range and the company has, in its effective registration statement, specified the quantity of shares registered, as permitted by Securities Act Rule 457.
The Exchange proposes that when the Auction Price is either (i) outside of the Issuer Price Range but not more than 20% above or below such price range, or (ii) greater than 20% above the highest price of the Issuer Price Range, the Direct Listing Auction would not proceed unless the company has publicly disclosed and certified to the Exchange that (i) the company does not expect that such offering price would materially change the company's previous disclosure in its effective registration statement; (ii) the price range in the preliminary prospectus included in the effective registration statement is a bona fide price range in accordance with Item 501(b)(3) of Regulation S-K; and (iii) the company's registration statement contains a sensitivity analysis explaining how the company's plans would change if the actual proceeds from the offering differ from the amount assumed in the price range established by the issuer in its effective registration statement.
The Exchange states its belief that the additional requirements to permit a Direct Listing Auction to take place at an Auction Price that is outside of the Issuer Price Range (whether it is at or within the Primary Direct Floor Listing Auction Price Range or above the highest price of such price range), as proposed, would provide sufficient disclosures to allow investors to evaluate whether to participate in the Direct Listing Auction for a Primary Direct Floor Listing, including the opportunity to see how changes in share price may impact the company's disclosures.
The Exchange states that it believes its proposal with respect to the Price Range Limitation for a Primary Direct Floor Listing is consistent with Securities Act Rule 430A and staff guidance, which, according to the Exchange, generally allow a company to price a public offering 20% outside of the disclosed price range without regard to the materiality of the changes to the disclosure contained in the company's registration statement.
The Exchange states that given that, as proposed, there may be a Primary Direct Floor Listing that could price outside of the price range of the company's effective registration statement and that there may be no upper limit above which the Direct Listing Auction could not proceed, the Exchange proposes “to support price discovery transparency by providing readily available, real time pricing information to investors.”
The Exchange further proposes to distribute, at least one business day prior to the commencement of trading of a security listing in connection with a Primary Direct Floor Listing, a regulatory bulletin that describes any special characteristics of the offering and the Exchange rules that apply to the pricing of a Primary Direct Floor Listing.
The Exchange states that these member organization requirements are intended to remind members of their obligations to “know their customers” and would also serve to increase transparency regarding the pricing mechanisms applicable to a Primary Direct Floor Listing and help provide investors with sufficient price discovery information.
The Exchange also proposes to amend certain aspects of the Manual. Specifically, Section 102.01B, Footnote (E) of the Manual currently provides that, with respect to a Primary Direct Floor Listing, the Exchange will deem a company to have met the applicable aggregate market value of publicly-held shares requirement
The Exchange states that, to effect the changes to the Price Range Limitation and facilitate the possibility of a Direct Listing Auction for a Primary Direct Floor Listing pricing up to 20% below the disclosed price range, the Exchange proposes to modify Section 102.01B, Footnote (E) of the Manual to provide that the Exchange would calculate the market value of such company's shares using a price per share equal to the lowest price of the disclosed price range, minus an amount equal to 20% of the highest price included in such price range, which would be referred to as the “Primary Direct Floor Listing Minimum Price.”
The Exchange states that, to implement the changes to the Price Range Limitation described above, the
The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 7.31(c)(1)(D)(ii) to provide that the limit price of an IDO Order would be equal to the lowest price of the Primary Direct Floor Listing Auction Price Range and to redefine the “Primary Direct Floor Listing Auction Price Range” as 20% below the lowest price and 20% above the highest price of the price range established by the issuer in its effective registration statement.
Currently, Rule 7.35A(d)(2)(A)(v) provides that, for a security that is a Primary Direct Floor Listing, the Indication Reference Price will be the lowest price of the Primary Direct Floor Listing Auction Price Range.
Currently, Rule 7.35A(g)(2) specifies the circumstances under which a DMM may not conduct a Direct Listing Auction for a Primary Direct Floor Listing.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.35A(g)(2)(B) to provide that, when the Auction Price is either (i) at or within the Primary Direct Floor Listing Price Range but outside of the Issuer Price Range, or (ii) above the highest price of the Primary Direct Floor Listing Auction Price Range, the Direct Listing Auction could proceed if the issuer has previously certified to the Exchange and publicly disclosed that: (a) the issuer does not expect that the Auction Price would materially change its previous disclosure in its effective registration statement (proposed Rule 7.35A(g)(2)(B)(i)(a)); (b) the price range in the preliminary prospectus included in the effective registration statement is a bona fide price range in accordance with Item 501(b)(3) of Regulation S-K (proposed Rule 7.35A(g)(2)(B)(i)(b)); and (c) the registration statement contains a sensitivity analysis explaining how the issuer's plans would change if the actual proceeds from the offering differ from the amount assumed in the price range established by the issuer in its effective registration statement (proposed Rule 7.35A(g)(2)(B)(i)(c)).
The Exchange states that proposed Rule 7.35A(g)(2)(B)(ii) would further provide that, when the Auction Price determined by the DMM is at or within the Primary Direct Floor Listing Auction Price Range but outside of the Issuer Price Range or is above the highest price of the Primary Direct Floor Listing Auction Price Range, the issuer would be required to confirm to the Exchange that no additional disclosures are required under the federal securities laws based on such price.
The Exchange states that proposed Rule 7.35A(g)(2)(C)(i) would reflect the requirement set forth in current Rule 7.35A(g)(2)(B) that the DMM may not conduct a Direct Listing Auction for a Primary Direct Floor Listing if there is insufficient buy interest to satisfy both the IDO Order and all better-priced sell orders in full.
The Exchange states that proposed Rule 7.35A(g)(2)(C)(ii) would provide that the DMM would not proceed with a Direct Listing Auction for a Primary Direct Floor Listing until it has been notified by the Exchange that the additional conditions set forth in new Commentary .20 to Rule 7.35A have been satisfied.
Finally, the Exchange states that proposed Rule 7.35A(g)(2)(C)(iii) would provide that the DMM would not conduct a Direct Listing Auction for a Primary Direct Floor Listing if the Auction Price is outside of the Issuer Price Range and the issuer has not satisfied the conditions set forth in proposed Rules 7.35A(g)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act to determine whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act, the Commission is providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration. The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional analysis and input concerning the proposed rule change's consistency with the Exchange Act and, in particular, with Section 6(b)(5)
The Commission has consistently recognized the importance of national securities exchange listing standards. Among other things, such listing standards help ensure that exchange-listed companies will have sufficient public float, investor base, and trading interest to provide the depth and liquidity necessary to promote fair and orderly markets.
The Exchange is proposing to modify the rules concerning the opening transaction on the first day of trading for a Primary Direct Floor Listing so that the opening transaction is not constrained by the Price Range Limitation, which limits the price of the opening transaction to the price range disclosed in the issuer's effective registration statement. Instead, the proposal would allow the opening transaction to proceed, provided other requirements are satisfied, either (i) at or above the price that is 20% below the lowest price or at or below the price that is 20% above the highest price of the disclosed price range or (ii) above the price that is 20% above the highest price of the disclosed price range.
Specifically, under the proposal, to execute at a price outside of the disclosed price range, the issuer has to certify to the Exchange and publicly disclose that: (i) it does not expect that the Auction Price would materially change the issuer's previous disclosure in its effective registration statement; (ii) the price range in the preliminary prospectus included in the effective registration statement is a bona fide price range in accordance with Item 501(b)(3) of Regulation S-K; and (iii) such registration statement contains a sensitivity analysis explaining how the issuer's plans would change if the actual proceeds from the offering differ from the amount assumed in the disclosed price range.
In support of its proposal, the Exchange states that allowing an auction to be conducted when the Auction Price is not within the disclosed price range would, among other things, protect investors and the public interest because the proposed approach “is similar to the pricing of an IPO, where the issuer is permitted to price outside of the price range disclosed in its effective registration statement.”
We have concerns about whether the Exchange has met its burden to demonstrate that its proposal to expand the conditions under which Primary Direct Floor Listings are permitted
While the Exchange has indicated that the proposal is intended to treat like cases alike with respect to pricing flexibility, it has not addressed certain differences between listings that would occur under this proposed rule change and firm commitment underwritten initial public offerings on the Exchange that may affect investor protection, including the lack of a named underwriter,
In a firm commitment underwritten initial public offering, issuers often adjust the price range disclosed in their registration statements prior to effectiveness in light of pricing feedback received from market analysts and potential investors. These revisions to the disclosed price range may provide valuable information to potential investors as to the issuer's valuation. If, under the proposal, the opening auction can proceed at any price above the disclosed price range, and up to 20% below the low end of the disclosed price range, it is not clear whether issuers pursuing Primary Direct Floor Listings would make similar revisions to the disclosed price range based on investor or market analyst sentiment, and whether the absence of any such corrective price signaling would detrimentally affect investors.
In the absence of a named underwriter in a direct listing where the opening price is executed outside of the disclosed price range, there may not be an adequate assurance that a party who may meet the definition of underwriter will review the information disclosed in the registration statement and take the steps necessary to claim a “due diligence” defense. To assert such a defense, a party must establish that, after reasonable investigation, the party had reasonable ground to believe and did believe, at the time the registration statement became effective, that the statements therein were true and that there was no omission to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading.
The Exchange's proposed expansion of its rules permitting Primary Direct Floor Listings could potentially result in increased regulatory arbitrage, if and to the extent that issuers and intermediaries, including financial advisors, are not subject to equivalent liability standards in the direct listings context as they would be in traditional firm commitment underwritten initial public offerings. Any ability of issuers or intermediaries to minimize potential liability through choosing a direct listing over other methods to become listed on the Exchange could be inconsistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act.
Although financial advisors may, depending on the facts and circumstances, be held liable as statutory underwriters, absent greater clarity as to a financial advisor's status as a statutory underwriter in listings that would occur under this proposed rule change, investors would have no way to know whether financial advisors named as assisting with the direct listing would face Section 11 liability for the disclosure in the registration statement. Investors also may assume that financial advisors would incur equivalent liability, without any assurance that such is the case. Some legal observers have raised concerns that, without clarity on whether financial advisors would be held liable as statutory underwriters, any due diligence may not be as robust as that
There are a number of additional questions relating to investor protection and Securities Act liability that merit examination in connection with our consideration of whether the Exchange has met its burden to demonstrate its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act. It is not clear what role a financial advisor would perform, in relation to price range disclosures, in a direct listing where the offering can price outside of the disclosed price range. Would additional transparency into the functions performed by financial advisors in a direct listing where the offering can price outside of the disclosed price range be necessary for investors to determine how much reliance to place on issuer disclosures?
Would any tracing concerns be exacerbated, thus raising investor protection concerns, in the context of direct listings where the offering can price outside of the disclosed price range?
The Commission also has concerns about the potential effect of the proposed rules on the usefulness of price range disclosure provided to investors in Securities Act registration statements.
Additionally, it is not clear whether the proposed changes would result in the Exchange using the minimum price at which the opening auction could occur as the per share price for purposes of evaluating whether the issuer satisfies the applicable market value of publicly-held shares requirement. The Exchange proposes to amend Section 102.01B, Footnote (E) of the Manual to provide that the Exchange would calculate the market value of publicly-held shares using a price per share equal to the lowest price of the price range established by the issuer in its registration statement “minus an amount equal to 20% of the highest price included in such price range.”
Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.35A(d)(2)(A)(v) to provide that the Exchange will disseminate, free of charge, the Indication Reference Price on a public website. As proposed, the Indication Reference Price for a security that is a Primary Direct Floor Listing would be the price that is 20% below the lowest price of the disclosed price range, and as such would be fixed during the course of the auction process. When certain conditions are met, the DMM publishes pre-opening indications that include the price range within which the auction price is anticipated to occur. As proposed, the DMM's pre-opening indications would continue to be published via the SIP and proprietary data feeds, all of which charge subscription fees. Would providing pricing information during the course of the auction process only through pre-opening indications via data feeds that charge subscription fees be consistent with “providing readily available, real time pricing information to investors”?
Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the “burden to demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the self-regulatory organization [`SRO'] that proposed the rule change.”
For these reasons, the Commission believes it is appropriate to institute proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written view of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Exchange Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved by August 12, 2022. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by August 26, 2022.
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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to extend the current pilot program related to Rule 7.10 (Clearly Erroneous Executions) to the close of business on October 20, 2022. 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the current pilot program related to Rule 7.10 (Clearly Erroneous Executions) to the close of business on October 20, 2022. The pilot program is currently due to expire on July 20, 2022.
On September 10, 2010, the Commission approved, on a pilot basis, changes to Rule 128 (Clearly Erroneous Executions) that, among other things: (i) provided for uniform treatment of clearly erroneous execution reviews in multi-stock events involving twenty or more securities; and (ii) reduced the ability of the Exchange to deviate from the objective standards set forth in the rule.
These changes were originally scheduled to operate for a pilot period to coincide with the pilot period for the Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility (the “Limit Up-Limit Down Plan” or “LULD Plan”),
The Exchange now proposes to amend Rule 7.10 to extend the pilot program's effectiveness for a further three months until the close of business on October 20, 2022 while the Commission considers a proposal to make the pilot program permanent that has been filed by Cboe BZX.
The Exchange does not propose any additional changes to Rule 7.10. Extending the effectiveness of Rule 7.10 for an additional three months will provide the Exchange and other self-regulatory organizations additional time to consider whether further amendments to the clearly erroneous execution rules are appropriate.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal would ensure the continued, uninterrupted operation of harmonized clearly erroneous execution rules across the U.S. equities markets while the Exchange and other self-regulatory organizations consider whether further amendments to these rules are appropriate. The Exchange understands that the other national securities exchanges and FINRA will also file similar proposals to extend their respective clearly erroneous execution pilot programs. Thus, the proposed rule change will help to ensure consistency across market centers without implicating any competitive issues.
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
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
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.
4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 27, 2022.
The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the following topics:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.
For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to extend the current pilot program related to Rule 7.10 (Clearly Erroneous Executions) to the close of business on October 20, 2022. 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.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the current pilot program related to Rule 7.10 (Clearly Erroneous Executions) to the close of business on October 20, 2022. The pilot program is currently due to expire on July 20, 2022.
On September 10, 2010, the Commission approved, on a pilot basis, changes to Rule 11.19 (Clearly Erroneous Executions) that, among other things: (i) provided for uniform treatment of clearly erroneous execution reviews in multi-stock events involving twenty or more securities; and (ii) reduced the ability of the Exchange to deviate from the objective standards set forth in the rule.
These changes were originally scheduled to operate for a pilot period to coincide with the pilot period for the Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility (the “Limit Up-Limit Down Plan” or “LULD Plan”),
The Exchange now proposes to amend Rule 7.10 to extend the pilot's effectiveness for a further three months to the close of business on October 20, 2022 while the Commission considers a proposal to make the pilot program permanent that has been filed by Cboe BZX.
The Exchange does not propose any additional changes to Rule 7.10. Extending the effectiveness of Rule 7.10 for an additional three months will provide the Exchange and other self-regulatory organizations additional time to consider whether further amendments to the clearly erroneous execution rules are appropriate.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal would ensure the continued, uninterrupted operation of harmonized clearly erroneous execution rules across the U.S. equities markets while the Exchange and other self-regulatory organizations consider whether further amendments to these rules are appropriate. The Exchange understands that the other national securities exchanges and FINRA will also file similar proposals to extend their respective clearly erroneous execution pilot programs. Thus, the proposed rule change will help to ensure consistency across market centers without implicating any competitive issues.
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
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to extend the current pilot program related to Rule 7.10E (Clearly Erroneous Executions) to the close of business on October 20, 2022. 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.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the current pilot program related to Rule 7.10E (Clearly Erroneous Executions) to the close of business on October 20, 2022. The pilot program is currently due to expire on July 20, 2022.
On September 10, 2010, the Commission approved, on a pilot basis, changes to Rule 7.10E that, among other things: (i) provided for uniform treatment of clearly erroneous execution reviews in multi-stock events involving twenty or more securities; and (ii) reduced the ability of the Exchange to deviate from the objective standards set forth in the rule.
These changes were originally scheduled to operate for a pilot period
The Exchange now proposes to amend Rule 7.10E to extend the pilot's effectiveness for a further three months until the close of business on October 20, 2022 while the Commission considers a proposal to make the pilot program permanent that has been filed by Cboe BZX.
The Exchange does not propose any additional changes to Rule 7.10E. Extending the effectiveness of Rule 7.10E for an additional three months will provide the Exchange and other self-regulatory organizations additional time to consider whether further amendments to the clearly erroneous execution rules are appropriate.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal would ensure the continued, uninterrupted operation of harmonized clearly erroneous execution rules across the U.S. equities markets while the Exchange and other self-regulatory organizations consider whether further amendments to these rules are appropriate. The Exchange understands that the other national securities exchanges and FINRA will also file similar proposals to extend their respective clearly erroneous execution pilot programs. Thus, the proposed rule change will help to ensure consistency across market centers without implicating any competitive issues.
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
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
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.
Notice of the upcoming United States-Chile Environmental Affairs Council and Joint Commission for Environmental Cooperation meetings and request for comments; invitation to public session.
The Department of State and the Office of the United States Trade Representative are providing notice that the parties to the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement (FTA) intend to hold the ninth meeting of the Environmental Affairs Council (Council) established under Chapter 19 of the FTA, as well as the seventh meeting of the United States-Chile Joint Commission for Environmental Cooperation (Commission) established under the United States-Chile Environmental Cooperation Agreement (ECA), on August 22, 2022. The Council will review implementation of Chapter 19 (Environment) of the FTA, and the Commission will review implementation of the ECA.
During the Council and Commission meetings, Members will discuss the progress made in implementing Chapter 19 obligations and the impacts of environmental cooperation. The Commission will also explore opportunities for collaboration under Environmental Cooperation Work Program for 2021-2024. More information on the Council and Commission is included below under
All interested persons are invited to attend the Council and Commission joint public session in person beginning at 10 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time on August 23, 2022, in Washington, DC. There will also be a link provided for those that would like to participate virtually. Attendees will have the opportunity to ask questions and discuss implementation of Chapter 19 and the ECA with Council and Commission Members and environmental cooperation implementers. At the public session, the Council will receive input from the public on current environmental issues and ideas for future cooperation. The Department of State and Office of the United States Trade Representative invite written comments or suggestions regarding topics to be discussed at the meeting. In preparing comments, we encourage submitters to refer to Chapter 19 of the FTA and the ECA (available at
The public session of the Council and Commission will be held on August 23, 2022, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon Eastern Daylight Time. Please contact Neal Morris and Tia Potskhverashvili for the location of this meeting and connection information for virtual participation. We request RSVPs and any written comments no later than August 15, 2022, in order to facilitate consideration.
Written comments or suggestions should be submitted to both:
(1) Neal Morris, U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Office of Environmental Quality, by email at
(2) Tia Potskhverashvili, Office of the United States Trade Representative, Office of Environment and Natural Resources, by email at
In your RSVP, please include your full name and affiliation.
If you have access to the internet, you can view and comment on this notice by going to:
Neal Morris, (202) 550-6348,
The United States and Chile negotiated the United States-Chile FTA and United States-Chile ECA in concert, signing the FTA on June 6, 2003, in Miami, USA and the ECA on June 17, 2003, in Santiago, Chile. Article 19.3 of the FTA establishes an Environment Affairs Council (Council). The Council discusses implementation of Chapter 19 of the FTA, and its meetings include a public session. The Joint Commission on Environmental Cooperation (Commission) was established in Article II of the ECA. The Commission evaluates cooperative activities under the ECA, recommends options for improving cooperation, and establishes work programs that reflect national priorities and that identify the scope and focus of environmental cooperation activities. Commission meetings also include a public session.
The Council and Commission last met in September 2018 in Santiago, Chile. The Council reviewed the implementation of the Environment Chapter of the FTA. The Commission approved the 2018-2020 Work Program, which built on previous successes and identified activities to achieve the long-term goals of: (1) strengthening effective implementation and enforcement of environmental laws and regulations; (2) encouraging development and adoption of sound environmental practices and technologies, particularly in business enterprises; (3) promoting sustainable development and management of environmental resources, including wild fauna and flora, protected wild areas, and other ecologically important ecosystems; and (4) encouraging civil society participation in the environmental decision-making process and environmental education.
If you would like to attend the public session, please notify Neal Morris and Tia Potskhverashvili at the email addresses listed above under the heading
• Chapter 19 of the FTA and
• the ECA.
These documents are available at:
On January 11, 2022, notice was published on page 1470 of the
Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
TGS Cedar Port Railroad LLC (TGSC), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption pursuant to 49 CFR 1150.31 to operate on track extending approximately 1.28 miles from a connection with the Cedar Bayou Industrial Lead at milepost 5.22 in Chambers County, Tex. (a line owned by Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) and operated over by UP and BNSF Railway Company (BNSF)) to milepost 6.5 (as measured from the southern end of the Cedar Bayou Industrial Lead) (the Line).
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in
According to the verified notice, the Line is owned by TGSC's affiliate, TGS Cedar Port Partners LP (TGSLP), also a noncarrier, is currently operated as private industrial track by TGSC's parent company, Trans-Global Solutions, Inc. (TGSI), and connects to ancillary track within the TGS Cedar Port Industrial Park (the Park). TGSC states it has reached an agreement with TGSLP pursuant to which TGSC will acquire the right to conduct railroad common carrier service on the Line on or after the effective date of the exemption. TGSC also states that this service, including on the ancillary track within the Park, will constitute the entirety of TGSC's railroad operations,
TGSC certifies that its projected annual revenue will exceed $5 million but that the proposed transaction will not result in TGSC becoming a Class I or Class II rail carrier. TSGC states advance notice under 49 CFR 1150.32(e) is not required because there are currently no common carrier operations on the Line. TGSC also states the proposed transaction will not contractually limit its ability to interchange traffic with any third-party connecting carrier.
The transaction may be consummated on or after August 6, 2022, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice was filed).
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than July 29, 2022 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36627, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board either via e-filing on the Board's website or in writing addressed to 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on TGSC's representative, Robert A. Wimbish, Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 800, Chicago, IL 60606-3208.
According to TGSC, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic preservation reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.8(b).
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Mai T. Dinh, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Trans-Global Solutions Inc. (TGSI), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2) to continue in control TGS Cedar Port Railroad LLC (TGSC), a noncarrier controlled by TGSI, upon TGSC's becoming a Class III rail carrier. According to the verified notice, the proposed transaction will allow TGSI to continue to exercise common control of TGSC and one other rail carrier, Austin Area Terminal Railroad, Inc. (AATR).
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in
The verified notice states that TGSI controls AATR, a Class III railroad that retains operating authority on certain rail lines in and around Austin, Tex.
TGSI represents that: (1) the rail line to be operated by TGSC would not connect with the tracks over which AATR retains operating authority; (2) the control transaction is not part of a series of anticipated transactions that would result in such a connection; and (3) the transaction does not involve a Class I rail carrier. The proposed transaction is therefore exempt from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323 pursuant to 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2).
The transaction may be consummated on or after August 6, 2022, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice was filed).
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. However, 49 U.S.C. 11326(c) does not provide for labor protection for transactions under 49 U.S.C. 11324 and 11325 that involve only Class III rail carriers. Because this transaction involves Class III rail carriers only, the Board, under the statute, may not impose labor protective conditions for this transaction.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than July 29, 2022 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36628, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board either via e-filing on the Board's website or in writing addressed to 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on TGSI's representative, Robert A. Wimbish, Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 800, Chicago, IL 60606-3208.
According to TGSI, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.8(b).
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Mai T. Dinh, Director, Office of Proceedings.
TGS Cedar Port Railroad LLC (TGSC), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption pursuant to 49 CFR 1150.31 to operate on track extending approximately 1.28 miles from a connection with the Cedar Bayou Industrial Lead at milepost 5.22 in Chambers County, Tex. (a line owned by Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) and operated over by UP and BNSF Railway Company (BNSF)) to milepost 6.5 (as measured from the southern end of the Cedar Bayou Industrial Lead) (the Line).
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of
According to the verified notice, the Line is owned by TGSC's affiliate, TGS Cedar Port Partners LP (TGSLP), also a noncarrier, is currently operated as private industrial track by TGSC's parent company, Trans-Global Solutions, Inc. (TGSI), and connects to ancillary track within the TGS Cedar Port Industrial Park (the Park). TGSC states it has reached an agreement with TGSLP pursuant to which TGSC will acquire the right to conduct railroad common carrier service on the Line on or after the effective date of the exemption. TGSC also states that this service, including on the ancillary track within the Park, will constitute the entirety of TGSC's railroad operations, and as such, that the Board has jurisdiction over the proposed common carrier service under
TGSC certifies that its projected annual revenue will exceed $5 million but that the proposed transaction will not result in TGSC becoming a Class I or Class II rail carrier. TSGC states advance notice under 49 CFR 1150.32(e) is not required because there are currently no common carrier operations on the Line. TGSC also states the proposed transaction will not contractually limit its ability to interchange traffic with any third-party connecting carrier.
The transaction may be consummated on or after August 6, 2022, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice was filed).
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than July 29, 2022 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36627, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board either via e-filing on the Board's website or in writing addressed to 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on TGSC's representative, Robert A. Wimbish, Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 800, Chicago, IL 60606-3208.
According to TGSC, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic preservation reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.8(b).
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Mai T. Dinh, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR) has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7) for acquisition of overhead trackage rights over 3.1 miles of rail line leased by Union County Industrial Railroad Company (UCIR) and owned by West Shore Railroad Corporation between NSR milepost BR 246.9, near Milton, Pa., and UCIR milepost 172.62, near New Columbia, Pa. (the Line).
NSR and UCIR have entered into a written trackage rights agreement that grants NSR overhead trackage rights over the Line, allowing NSR to serve the Clemens Food Group Facility, or its successor or assignee.
The transaction may be consummated on or after August 5, 2022, the effective date of the exemption.
As a condition to this exemption, any employees affected by the acquisition of the trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in
If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than July 29, 2022 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36614, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board via e-filing on the Board's website or in writing addressed to 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on NSR's representative, William A. Mullins, Baker & Miller PLLC, 2401 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20037.
According to NSR, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic preservation reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.8(b).
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Mai T. Dinh, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Trans-Global Solutions Inc. (TGSI), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2) to continue in control TGS Cedar Port Railroad LLC (TGSC), a noncarrier controlled by TGSI, upon TGSC's becoming a Class III rail carrier. According to the verified notice, the proposed transaction will allow TGSI to continue to exercise common control of TGSC and one other rail carrier, Austin Area Terminal Railroad, Inc. (AATR).
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in
The verified notice states that TGSI controls AATR, a Class III railroad that retains operating authority on certain
TGSI represents that: (1) the rail line to be operated by TGSC would not connect with the tracks over which AATR retains operating authority; (2) the control transaction is not part of a series of anticipated transactions that would result in such a connection; and (3) the transaction does not involve a Class I rail carrier. The proposed transaction is therefore exempt from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323 pursuant to 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2).
The transaction may be consummated on or after August 6, 2022, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice was filed).
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. However, 49 U.S.C. 11326(c) does not provide for labor protection for transactions under 49 U.S.C. 11324 and 11325 that involve only Class III rail carriers. Because this transaction involves Class III rail carriers only, the Board, under the statute, may not impose labor protective conditions for this transaction.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than July 29, 2022 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36628, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board either via e-filing on the Board's website or in writing addressed to 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on TGSI's representative, Robert A. Wimbish, Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 800, Chicago, IL 60606-3208.
According to TGSI, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.8(b).
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Mai T. Dinh, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to issue coastwise endorsement eligibility determinations for foreign-built vessels which will carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. A request for such a determination has been received by MARAD. By this notice, MARAD seeks comments from interested parties as to any effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before August 22, 2022.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2022-0141 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
James Mead, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-459, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5723, Email
As described in the application, the intended service of the vessel ADVENTURE is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD 2022-0141 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit the information you claim to be confidential commercial information by email to
In the event MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) invites public comments on our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. A
Comments must be submitted on or before August 22, 2022.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. DOT-MARAD-2022-0131 through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
All comments received will be posted without change to
A copy of the notice may be viewed online at
Katrina McRae, Vessel Transfer Specialist, Office of Sealift Support, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, 20590, (202) 366-3198,
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to issue coastwise endorsement eligibility determinations for foreign-built vessels which will carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. A request for such a determination has been received by MARAD. By this notice, MARAD seeks comments from interested parties as to any effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before August 22, 2022.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2022-0143 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
James Mead, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-459, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5723, Email
As described in the application, the intended service of the vessel ODYSSEY is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD 2022-0143 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit the information you claim to be confidential commercial information by email to
In the event MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to issue coastwise endorsement eligibility determinations for foreign-built vessels which will carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. A request for such a determination has been received by MARAD. By this notice, MARAD seeks comments from interested parties as to any effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before August 22, 2022.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2022-0135 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
James Mead, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-459, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5723, Email
As described in the application, the intended service of the vessel RAPSCALLION is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD 2022-0135 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit the information you claim to be confidential commercial information by email to
In the event MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to issue coastwise endorsement eligibility determinations for foreign-built vessels which will carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. A request for such a determination has been received by MARAD. By this notice, MARAD seeks comments from interested parties as to any effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before August 22, 2022.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2022-0140 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
James Mead, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-459, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5723, Email
As described in the application, the intended service of the vessel ISLAND TEMPUS is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD 2022-0140 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit the information you claim to be confidential commercial information by email to
In the event MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to issue coastwise endorsement eligibility determinations for foreign-built vessels which will carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. A request for such a determination has been received by MARAD. By this notice, MARAD seeks comments from interested parties as to any effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before August 22, 2022.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2022-0138 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
James Mead, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-459, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5723, Email
As described in the application, the intended service of the vessel MORDIDITA is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD 2022-0138 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit the information you claim to be confidential commercial information by email to
In the event MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to issue coastwise endorsement eligibility determinations for foreign-built vessels which will carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. A request for such a determination has been received by MARAD. By this
Submit comments on or before August 22, 2022.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2022-0134 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
James Mead, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-459, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5723, Email
As described in the application, the intended service of the vessel FELICITA is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD 2022-0134 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit the information you claim to be confidential commercial information by email to
In the event MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to issue coastwise endorsement eligibility determinations for foreign-built vessels which will carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. A request for such a determination has been received by MARAD. By this notice, MARAD seeks comments from interested parties as to any effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders
Submit comments on or before August 22, 2022.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2022-0139 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
James Mead, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-459, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5723, Email
As described in the application, the intended service of the vessel VOYAGER is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD 2022-0139 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit the information you claim to be confidential commercial information by email to
In the event MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to issue coastwise endorsement eligibility determinations for foreign-built vessels which will carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. A request for such a determination has been received by MARAD. By this notice, MARAD seeks comments from interested parties as to any effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before August 22, 2022.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2022-0136 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
James Mead, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-459, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5723, Email
As described in the application, the intended service of the vessel DISTRACTION is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD 2022-0136 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit the information you claim to be confidential commercial information by email to
In the event MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to issue coastwise endorsement eligibility determinations for foreign-built vessels which will carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. A request for such a determination has been received by MARAD. By this notice, MARAD seeks comments from interested parties as to any effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before August 22, 2022.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2022-0142 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
James Mead, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-459, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5723, Email
As described in the application, the intended service of the vessel DOUBLE V is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD 2022-0142 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit the information you claim to be confidential commercial information by email to
In the event MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to issue coastwise endorsement eligibility determinations for foreign-built vessels which will carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. A request for such a determination has been received by MARAD. By this notice, MARAD seeks comments from interested parties as to any effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before August 22, 2022.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2022-0137 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
James Mead, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-459, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5723, Email
As described in the application, the intended service of the vessel MAXIM is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD 2022-0137 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit the information you claim to be confidential commercial information by email to
In the event MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to issue coastwise endorsement eligibility determinations for foreign-built vessels which will carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. A request for such a determination has been received by MARAD. By this notice, MARAD seeks comments from interested parties as to any effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before August 22, 2022.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2022-0133 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
James Mead, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-459, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5723, Email
As described in the application, the intended service of the vessel TANTARA is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD 2022-0133 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit the information you claim to be confidential commercial information by email to
In the event MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to issue coastwise endorsement eligibility determinations for foreign-built vessels which will carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. A request for such a determination has been received by MARAD. By this notice, MARAD seeks comments from interested parties as to any effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before August 22, 2022.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2022-0132 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
James Mead, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-459, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5723, Email
As described in the application, the intended service of the vessel EROS is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD 2022-0132 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit the information you claim to be confidential commercial information by email to
In the event MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See Supplementary Information section for effective date(s).
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 SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On July 6, 2022, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
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 continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning the application for approval of prototype or employer sponsored individual retirement account.
Written comments should be received on or before September 20, 2022 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
Requests for additional information or copies of the form should be directed to Kerry Dennis at (202) 317-5751, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all 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 if their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax
Departmental Offices, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before August 22, 2022 to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Melody Braswell by emailing
44 U.S.C. 3501
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
No changes have been made to this form. The respondent burden has increased due to the estimated number of receivables averaged over the past 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
By direction of the Secretary:
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Final rule.
The U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE” or the “Department”) is publishing a final rule to amend the certification provisions for ceiling fan light kits, general service incandescent lamps, incandescent reflector lamps, ceiling fans, consumer furnaces and boilers, consumer water heaters, dishwashers, commercial clothes washers, battery chargers, and dedicated-purpose pool pumps. DOE is amending the certification and reporting provisions for these products and equipment to ensure reporting is consistent with currently applicable energy conservation standards and to ensure that DOE has the information necessary to determine the appropriate classification of products for the application of standards.
The effective date of this rule is August 22, 2022. The final rule changes will be mandatory for the annual certification reports submitted for products and equipment beginning February 17, 2023. The incorporation of certain publications in this rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register on December 17, 2012, and September 6, 2017.
The docket, which includes
A link to the docket web page can be found at
For further information on how to review the docket contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
Mr. Lucas Adin, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-5904. Email:
Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2588. Email:
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) the establishment of 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 under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)), and (2) making other representations about the efficiency of those 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 comply with any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
EPCA authorizes DOE to enforce compliance with the energy and water conservation standards established for covered products and equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6299-6305; 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)-(b)) DOE has promulgated enforcement regulations that include reporting requirements for covered products and equipment including CFLKs, GSILs, IRLs, ceiling fans, consumer furnaces and boilers, consumer water heaters, dishwashers, CCWs, battery chargers, and DPPPs. See title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 429. The certification regulations ensure that DOE has the information it needs to assess whether regulated products and equipment sold in the United States comply with the statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to each covered product and equipment type.
DOE's certification regulations are a mechanism that DOE uses to help ensure compliance with its regulations by collecting information about the energy and water use characteristics of covered products and covered equipment sold in the United States. Manufacturers of all covered products and covered equipment must submit a certification report before a basic model is distributed in commerce and annually thereafter. If a basic model is modified in a manner that increases the basic model's energy or water consumption or decreases its efficiency such that the certified rating is no longer supported by test data, the basic model must be re-rated and certified as a new basic model. Additionally, manufacturers must report when production of a basic model has ceased and is no longer offered for sale as part of the next annual certification report following such cessation. DOE requires the manufacturer of any covered product or covered equipment to establish, maintain, and retain the records of certification reports, of the underlying test data for all certification testing, and of any other testing conducted to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR part 429, 10 CFR part 430, and/or 10 CFR part 431 until two years after notifying DOE that a model has been discontinued. 10 CFR 429.71. Certification reports provide DOE and consumers with comprehensive, up-to-date efficiency information and support effective enforcement.
To ensure that all covered products and covered equipment distributed in the United States comply with DOE's energy and water conservation standards and reporting requirements, DOE has promulgated certification, compliance, and enforcement regulations in 10 CFR part 429. On March 7, 2011, the Department published in the
On August 6, 2021, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) that proposed to amend the certification and reporting requirements for the products and equipment that are the subjects of this final rule to ensure that DOE has the information necessary to determine the appropriate classification of products for the application of standards. 86 FR 43120 (“August 2021 Certification NOPR”). DOE received comments in response to the August 2021 Certification NOPR from the interested parties listed in Table II.1.
DOE received an additional comment submission unrelated to the substance of the August 2021 Certification NOPR that is not addressed in this final rule.
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.
The following sections provides the relevant background for the products and equipment that are subject to this final rule.
CFLKs are “covered products” for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6291(50), 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(16)(A)(ii), 42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(2)-(5)) DOE's energy conservation standards for CFLKs are currently prescribed at 10 CFR 430.32(s). Test procedures for CFLKs are currently prescribed at 10 CFR 430.23; 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix V, “Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Ceiling Fan Light Kits With Pin-Based Sockets for Fluorescent Lamps” (“appendix V”); and 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix V1, “Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Ceiling Fan Light Kits Packaged With Other Fluorescent Lamps (not Compact Fluorescent Lamps or General Service Fluorescent Lamps), Packaged With Other SSL Lamps (not Integrated LED Lamps), or With Integrated SSL Circuitry” (“appendix V1”). The sampling requirements for determining represented values based on the results of testing of CFLKs are found at 10 CFR 429.33(a). The information that must be included in certification reports and submitted to DOE for CFLKs is found at 10 CFR 429.33(b).
CFLKs manufactured on or after January 1, 2007, and prior to January 21, 2020, must be packaged with lamps to fill all sockets, with additional standards applicable based on the type of lamp sockets. 10 CFR 430.32(s)(3)-(5). Lamps packaged with CFLKs with medium screw base sockets must meet efficacy standards, while medium screw base compact fluorescent lamps (“CFLs”) must additionally meet standards for lumen maintenance, rapid cycle stress, and lifetime. 10 CFR 432.32(s)(3). CFLKs with pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps must use an electronic ballast and the lamp-ballast platform must meet efficacy standards. 10 CFR 432.32(s)(4). CFLKs with other than medium screw base or pin-based sockets must not be capable of operating with lamps that total more than 190 watts. 10 CFR 432.32(s)(5). The standards at 10 CFR 430.32(s)(3)-(5) are referred to collectively in this document as the “January 1, 2007 standards.”
On December 24, 2015, DOE published a final rule (“December 2015 CFLK TP Final Rule”) making two key updates to its CFLK test procedure. 80 FR 80209. First, DOE updated the CFLK test procedure to require that representations of efficacy, including certifications of compliance with CFLK standards, be made according to the corresponding DOE lamp test procedures, where they exist (
DOE published a final rule on January 6, 2016, amending energy conservation standards (“ECS”) for CFLKs (“January 2016 CFLK ECS Final Rule”). 81 FR 580. In that final rule, DOE established amended standards based on the efficacy of the lamps (with additional requirements for medium base CFLs and pin-based fluorescent lamps) packaged with the CFLK, except where the lamps are not designed to be consumer replaceable from the CFLK (
Neither the December 2015 CFLK TP Final Rule nor the January 2016 CFLK ECS Final Rule amended the reporting requirements for CFLKs to reflect the updated metrics from the test procedure and amended standards. The reporting requirements at 10 CFR 429.33 continue to require manufacturers to report based on the January 1, 2007 standards, including information that is no longer relevant. This inconsistency between the reporting requirements and the January 21, 2020 standards may lead to confusion regarding which standards are applicable as well as the reporting of unnecessary information. In the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE proposed to update the reporting requirements to address the January 21, 2020, standards and remove the reporting requirements for the January 1, 2007 standards. 86 FR 43120, 43122.
GSILs and IRLs are “covered products” for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(14)) DOE's existing test procedures for general service fluorescent lamps (“GSFLs”), IRLs, and GSILs appear at title 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix R, “Uniform Test Method for Measuring Average Lamp Efficacy (“LE”), Color Rendering Index (“CRI”), and Correlated Color Temperature (“CCT”) of Electric Lamps” (“appendix R”).
DOE test procedures for GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs are codified in appendix R and the associated sampling and reporting requirements are codified in 10 CFR 429.27. DOE standards for GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs are codified respectively at 10 CFR 430.32(n)(1), (2), (4), (6), and (7) and (x).
On July 6, 2009, DOE published a final rule amending the test procedures for GSFLs, IRLs, and GSILs. 74 FR 31829. These amendments consisted largely of: (1) referencing the most current versions of several lighting industry test standards incorporated by reference; (2) adopting certain technical changes and clarifications; and (3) expanding the test procedures to accommodate new classes of lamps to which coverage was extended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-140). 74 FR 31829, 31832-31833. The final rule also addressed the then recently established statutory requirement to expand test procedures to incorporate a measure of standby mode and off mode energy consumption and determined that, because these modes of energy consumption were not applicable to the lamps, an expansion of the test procedures was not necessary.
DOE most recently amended the test procedures for GSFLs and GSILs in a final rule published on January 27, 2012. 77 FR 4203. DOE updated several references to the industry test standards referenced in DOE's test procedures and established a lamp lifetime test method for GSILs. 77 FR 4203, 4205-4208. In that final rule, DOE determined amendments to the existing test procedure for IRLs were not necessary.
On June 3, 2021, DOE published a NOPR that proposed amendments to the test procedures for GSFL, IRLs, and GSILs. 86 FR 29888 (“June 2021 Lighting TP NOPR”). In the June 2021 Lighting TP NOPR, DOE proposed to update to the latest versions of the referenced industry test standards; clarify definitions, test conditions and methods; clarify test frequency and inclusion of cathode power in measurements for GSFLs; provide a test method for measuring the CRI of GSILs and IRLs and for measuring lifetime of IRLs; allow manufacturers to make voluntary (optional) representations of GSFLs at high frequency settings; and align sampling and certification reporting requirements with proposed test procedure terminology and with the Federal Trade Commission's labeling program. 86 FR 29888, 29891-29892.
On May 9, 2022, DOE published a final rule amending the definitions of GSIL and general service lamp (“GSL”) by bringing certain categories of lamps that had been excluded by statute from the definition of GSIL within the definitions of GSIL and GSL. The rule also expanded the definition of GSL to include IRLs. 87 FR 27461 (“May 2022 Definition Final Rule”). On May 9, 2022, DOE also published a final rule implementing a statutory backstop requirement applicable to GSLs, which prohibits the sale of any GSL that is less than 45 lumens per watt (lm/W). 87 FR 27439.
In the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE proposed to revise the reporting requirements to reflect the current energy conservation standards for GSILs and IRLs and include other characteristics in the certification report needed to determine the applicable product classes. 86 FR 43120, 43123.
Ceiling fans are “covered products” for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6291(49), 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(16)(A)(i) and (B), 42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(1) and (6)(C)) DOE's existing test procedure for ceiling fans appears at 10 CFR 430.23 and appendix U of 10 CFR part 430 subpart B, “Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Ceiling Fans” (“appendix U”). Sampling and reporting requirements for ceiling fans are set forth at 10 CFR 429.32. DOE's existing energy conservation standards for ceiling fans are located in 10 CFR 430.32(s).
On July 25, 2016, DOE published a final rule that amended the test procedures for ceiling fans at appendix U. 81 FR 48620 (“July 2016 Ceiling Fan TP Final Rule”). On January 19, 2017, DOE established energy conservation standards for ceiling fans, expressed as the minimum allowable efficiency in terms of cubic feet per minute per watt (“CFM/W”), as a function of ceiling fan diameter in inches. These standards are applicable to all ceiling fans manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on and after January 21, 2020. 82 FR 6826, 6827 (“January 2017 Ceiling Fan ECS Final Rule”).
On December 27, 2020, the Energy Act of 2020 (Pub. L. 116-260) was signed into law, which, among other things, amended performance standards for large-diameter ceiling fans (“LDCFs”).
On May 27, 2021, DOE published a final rule to amend the current regulations for LDCFs, corresponding to the provisions in the Energy Act of 2020. 86 FR 28469 (“May 2021 Technical Amendment”). The May 2021 Technical Amendment also implemented conforming amendments to the ceiling fan test procedure to ensure consistency with the Energy Act of 2020.
In the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE proposed to amend the ceiling fan reporting requirements to reflect the amended energy conservation standards adopted in the January 2017 Ceiling Fan ECS final rule and to amend the updated performance standards for LDCFs as established in the Energy Act of 2020. 86 FR 43120, 43123.
Consumer furnaces and boilers are included in the list of “covered products” for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures.
The DOE test procedure for consumer furnaces and boilers at appendix N is used to determine the annual fuel utilization efficiency (“AFUE”), which, for gas-fired and oil-fired furnaces and
On December 19, 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA 2007”), Public Law 110-140, was signed into law. EISA 2007 amended EPCA so as to revise the AFUE requirements and establish design requirements for most consumer boiler product classes, and required compliance with the amended standards beginning on September 1, 2012. (42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(3)) For gas-fired hot water boilers, oil-fired hot water boilers, and electric hot water boilers, EISA 2007 requires that residential boilers have an automatic means for adjusting water temperature.
On October 20, 2010, DOE published a final rule in the
On June 27, 2011, DOE published a direct final rule (“DFR”) in the
DOE completed the most recent rulemaking cycle to amend the standards for consumer boilers by publishing a final rule in the
In the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE proposed to require certification and reporting of standby mode and off mode energy consumption for certain product classes, consistent with the energy conservation standards for standby mode and off mode energy consumption adopted in the June 2011 Multi-Product ECS DFR and the January 2016 Boilers ECS Final Rule. 86 FR 43120, 43124. DOE also proposed to require certification of the type of ignition system for all gas-fired consumer boilers consistent with the prescriptive design requirement set forth in EISA 2007 and subsequently codified by DOE in the July 2008 Technical Amendment, which applies to all gas-fired consumer boilers.
Consumer water heaters 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)(4)) DOE's energy conservation standards and test procedures for consumer water heaters are currently prescribed at 10 CFR 430.32(d) and 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix E, respectively.
The Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015 (“EEIA 2015”), Public Law 114-11, was enacted on April 30, 2015. EEIA 2015 amended EPCA, in relevant part, by adding definitions for “grid-enabled water heater” and “activation lock” at 42 U.S.C. 6295(e)(6)(A). These products are intended for use as part of an electric thermal storage or demand response program. Among the criteria
In the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE proposed to require each manufacturer to report annual shipments of their grid-enabled water heaters and to treat the annual shipments of grid-enabled water heaters as confidential business information. 86 FR 43120, 43125.
Dishwashers are included in the list of “covered products” for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend test procedures and energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(6)) DOE's test procedures for dishwashers are currently prescribed at 10 CFR 430.23(c) and appendix C1 to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 (“appendix C1”). DOE's energy conservation standards for dishwashers are currently prescribed at 10 CFR 430.32(f).
DOE most recently amended its dishwasher test procedures in a final rule published October 31, 2012, which established appendix C1. 77 FR 65942, 65947. Appendix C1 is currently required to demonstrate compliance with the energy conservation standards prescribed at 10 CFR 430.32(f). The current version of the DOE test procedure includes provisions for determining estimated annual energy use and per-cycle water consumption, among other metrics. 10 CFR 430.23(c).
In the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE proposed adding a certification reporting requirement to ensure that any assessment or enforcement testing pursuant to 10 CFR 429.104 and 10 CFR 429.110, respectively, would be performed using the same detergent used by the manufacturer for certifying compliance with the energy conservation standards. 86 FR 43120, 43125.
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 consumer (residential) clothes washers (“RCWs”). (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(8)) DOE's test procedures for CCWs are currently prescribed at 10 CFR 431.154 and reference DOE's test procedure for RCWs currently prescribed at appendix J2 to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 (“appendix J2”).
DOE amended its CCW test procedures in a final rule published December 3, 2014. 79 FR 71624 (“December 2014 CCW TP Final Rule”). The December 2014 CCW TP Final Rule amended 10 CFR 431.152 to provide definitions for integrated water factor (“IWF”) and modified energy factor value calculated using appendix J2 (“MEF
DOE further amended its test procedures for both RCWs and CCWs in a final rule published June 1, 2022 (“June 2022 RCW/CCW TP Final Rule”). 87 FR 33316. The June 2022 RCW/CCW TP Final Rule amended appendix J2 to further 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. 87 FR 33316, 33319. The June 2022 RCW/CCW TP Final Rule also established a new test procedure at appendix J to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 (“appendix J”), which includes changes to the test cycles and load sizes required for testing as well as updates to certain test conditions and usage factors, among other changes.
In a final rule published on December 15, 2014, DOE amended the energy conservation standards and water standards for CCWs. 79 FR 74492 (“December 2014 CCW ECS Final Rule”). Compliance with the standards established in the December 2014 CCW ECS Final Rule was required beginning January 1, 2018. 79 FR 74492, 74493.
In the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE proposed to require reporting model characteristics used for determining applicable standards and for conducting product-specific enforcement provisions for clothes washers (which includes CCWs), and to specify rounding instructions for each newly reported value. 86 FR 43120, 43125.
Battery chargers are “covered products” for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)) DOE's energy conservation standards for battery chargers are currently prescribed at 10 CFR 430.32(z). The test procedures for battery chargers are currently prescribed at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Y, “Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Battery Chargers” (“appendix Y”). The sampling and reporting requirements for battery chargers are set forth in 10 CFR 429.39.
On May 20, 2016, DOE published a final rule that established the test procedure for battery chargers at appendix Y. 81 FR 31827. In that final rule, DOE updated the battery selection criteria for multi-voltage, multi-capacity battery chargers; harmonized the instrumentation resolution and uncertainty requirements with the second edition of the International
On June 13, 2016, DOE established the current energy conservation standards for battery chargers, expressed as the maximum allowable unit energy consumption (“kWh/yr”) as a function of battery energy and voltage. 81 FR 38266.
Consistent with these prior regulatory amendments affecting battery chargers, DOE proposed to establish an annual filing date by which manufacturers would be required to submit the required certification information to DOE in the August 2021 Certification NOPR. 86 FR 43120, 43125-43126.
DPPPs are a subset of pumps, which 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)(A)) DOE's test procedures for DPPPs are currently prescribed at 10 CFR 431.464(b) and DOE's energy conservation standards for DPPPs are prescribed at 10 CFR 431.465(f)-(h). The certification and reporting requirements for DPPPs are set forth in 10 CFR 429.59(b)(2)(iv) and (v) and (b)(3)(iv).
DOE's test procedure for determining DPPP energy efficiency was established in a final rule published on August 7, 2017. 82 FR 36858 (“August 2017 DPPP TP Final Rule”). The test procedure reflects the consensus of the Appliance Standards Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (“ASRAC”) negotiated rulemaking working group for DPPPs. (Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0008, Nos. 51 and 82) The August 2017 DPPP TP Final Rule also included certification and enforcement provisions for DPPPs. 82 FR 36858, 36907-36913.
In the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE proposed to clarify the certification reporting requirements for DPPPs in 10 CFR 429.59(b)(2)(iv) and (b)(3)(iv), in order to resolve potential confusion as to the scope of these provisions. 86 FR 43120, 43126.
In this final rule, DOE is updating the certification reporting requirements as follows:
(1) Align the CFLK certification reporting requirements at 10 CFR 429.33 with the CFLK energy conservation standards relating to: (a) efficacy for light sources in CFLKs; (b) lumen maintenance, lifetime, and rapid cycle stress testing for medium screw base CFLs in CFLKs; (c) electronic ballasts for pin-based fluorescent lamps in CFLKs; (d) test sample size; and (e) kind of lamp.
(2) Include rated voltage and lamp diameter for IRLs and initial lumen output for GSILs in certification reports to determine applicable energy conservation standards under the GSIL and IRL certification reporting requirements at 10 CFR 429.27. Additionally, for IRLs, include CRI in certification reports.
(3) Align the ceiling fan certification reporting requirements at 10 CFR 429.32 with existing energy conservation standards established in the January 2017 Ceiling Fan ECS Final Rule and the Energy Act of 2020. Additionally, specify rounding requirements for CFM/W and CFEI. Also, add a reporting requirement for standby power consumption for small-diameter ceiling fans.
(4) Align the consumer furnace and boiler certification reporting requirements at 10 CFR 429.18 with the existing energy conservation standards by requiring reporting of standby mode and off mode energy consumption for classes with existing standby mode and off mode energy conservation standards, and specify explicitly that the requirement for certifying the type of ignition system applies to all gas-fired boilers.
(5) Add certification provisions at 10 CFR 429.17 to require water heater manufacturers to report the number of annual shipments of grid-enabled water heaters.
(6) Add certification provisions at 10 CFR 429.19 to require dishwasher manufacturers to indicate use of a new detergent formulation that replaces the detergent formulation currently specified, which has been discontinued.
(7) Add certification provisions at 10 CFR 429.46 to require CCW manufacturers to report model characteristics used for determining applicable standards and for conducting product-specific enforcement provisions; and specify rounding instructions for these reported values.
(8) Establish an annual filing date in 10 CFR 429.12, by which manufacturers of battery chargers are required to submit the required certification information to DOE.
(9) Clarify the certification reporting requirements in 10 CFR 429.59 for DPPPs.
The adopted amendments are summarized in Table II.2 and compared to the reporting requirements prior to the amendment, and the reason for the adopted change is included as well.
DOE is not amending the test procedures or energy conservation standards for CFLKs, GSILs, IRLs, ceiling fans, consumer furnaces and boilers, consumer water heaters, dishwashers, CCWs, battery chargers, or DPPPs in this final rule.
The effective date for the amended certification requirements adopted in this final rule is 30 days after publication of this document in the
Certification of compliance to DOE is a mechanism that helps manufacturers understand their obligations for distributing models of covered products and equipment that are subject to energy conservation standards. Certification reports include characteristics of covered products or equipment used to determine which standard applies to a given basic model, and they also help DOE identify models and/or regulated entities that may not be in compliance with the applicable regulations.
As discussed in section I.B of this document, DOE proposed amendments to the certification and reporting requirements for certain products and equipment in the August 2021 Certification NOPR. 86 FR 43120, 43126-43127. DOE received a number of comments in response to the 2021 Certification NOPR, which are listed in section II, and are summarized in more detail in the following section. DOE also received comments regarding the proposals in the August 2021 Certification NOPR generally.
The Joint Commenters commented in favor of the proposed changes to the reporting requirements, agreeing with DOE's assessment that these updated requirements will ensure that certification reports reflect the information needed to determine compliance. The Joint Commenters also encouraged DOE to revise reporting requirements in a timely manner, noting that some of the proposed changes to requirements included in the August 2021 Certification NOPR were being proposed many years after the associated energy conservation standards went into effect. (Joint Commenters, No. 165, pp. 1-2)
Similarly, AHAM expressed support for the proposed reporting requirements, stating that the updated requirements would ensure consistency across product types. AHAM also commented that the updates would ensure consistency between testing to support certification and testing in support of DOE's enforcement efforts. (AHAM, No. 167, pp. 1-2)
AMCA commented generally that manufacturers should be allowed to report conservative ratings, which may be less than the calculated value determined using test data. (AMCA, No. 159, p. 2)
For the products and equipment addressed in this final rule, DOE has identified areas in which the current certification reporting requirements in 10 CFR part 429 are not consistent with the information required to verify whether the information provided is consistent with the certifier's statement of compliance with current energy conservation standards. DOE is amending the certification and reporting provisions for these products and equipment, as discussed in the following sections and generally as proposed in the August 2021 Certification NOPR, to ensure reporting that is consistent with currently applicable energy conservation standards and to ensure DOE has the information necessary to determine the appropriate classification of products for the application of standards. In addition to the specific amendments in the following sections, DOE is also adopting minor amendments to ensure consistency among terms used throughout DOE's certification and reporting provisions.
Regarding AMCA's comment that manufacturers should be allowed to report conservative ratings, in a prior rulemaking on certification, compliance, and enforcement, DOE explained that manufacturers may rate models conservatively, meaning the tested performance of the model(s) must be at least as good as the certified rating, after applying the appropriate product-specific sampling plan as set forth in 10 CFR part 429, subpart B. 76 FR 12422, 12429 (March 7, 2011). DOE clarified the use of conservative ratings within the discussion of the concept of “basic model” and noted that the sampling plans are designed to create conservative ratings, which ensures energy performance for consumers that is the same or better than the certified efficiency rating.
This final rule applies to CFLKs, which are products designed to provide light from a ceiling fan and can be either: (1) integral, such that the equipment is attached to the ceiling fan prior to the time of retail sale; or (2) attachable, such that at the time of retail sale the equipment is not physically attached to the ceiling fan, but may be included inside the ceiling fan packaging at the time of sale or sold separately for subsequent attachment to the fan. 10 CFR 430.2; 42 U.S.C. 6291(50). In the December 2015 CFLK TP Final Rule, DOE revised its interpretation of the CFLK definition to state that the requirement for a CFLK to be “designed to provide light” includes all light sources in a CFLK, including accent lighting. 80 FR 80209, 80214.
Under the existing requirements in 10 CFR 429.33(b)(2), manufacturers must report: (1) system efficacy and rated wattage for CFLKs with medium screw base lamps; (2) system efficacy, rated wattage, and lamp length for CFLKs with pin-based fluorescent lamps; and (3) rated wattage and number of individual sockets for CFLKs with any other socket type. The existing reporting requirements also require a declaration that CFLKs with any other socket type (
In the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE noted that the reporting requirements at 10 CFR 429.33 continue to require manufacturers to report based on the January 1, 2007 standards, including information that is no longer relevant. 86 FR 43120, 43122. DOE added that this inconsistency between the reporting requirements and the January 21, 2020, standards may lead to confusion regarding which standards are applicable as well as the reporting of unnecessary information.
ALA commented that it was aware of CFLKs manufactured prior to January 21, 2020, that are still being distributed in commerce and recommended that DOE retain the legacy compliance submission templates for these products. (ALA, No. 160, p. 2) Given that CFLKs manufactured prior to January 21, 2020, are still being
The January 21, 2020, standards require that all lamps and integrated SSL packaged with CFLKs meet certain efficacy standards based on the lumens of the lamp. 10 CFR 430.32(s)(6). To reflect the January 21, 2020 standards, DOE proposed in the August 2021 Certification NOPR to require manufacturers to identify, in a certification report, each basic model of lamp or integrated SSL circuitry packaged with the CFLK basic model and to provide the corresponding lumen output in lumens and the efficacy in lumens per watt (“lm/W”) for each lamp/SSL basic model. 86 FR 43120, 43128. The inclusion of basic model number, associated lumen output, and efficacy in the certification report would provide the necessary data to determine whether the basic model of the lamp in the CFLK complies with the January 21, 2020, standards requiring a minimum efficacy based on the lumens of the lamp.
Additionally, the current test procedures and reporting requirements for various lighting products do not all use the same terms for lumen output and efficacy (
Both the January 1, 2007 standards and January 21, 2020 standards include, for medium screw base CFLs packaged with a CFLK, minimum requirements for lumen maintenance at 1,000 hours, lumen maintenance at 40 percent of lifetime, lifetime, and the number of units in the tested sample that must pass the rapid cycle stress test. 10 CFR 430.32(s)(3)(i) and (s)(6)(i). Currently, the reporting requirements do not reflect these requirements for CFLs packaged with CFLKs.
In the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE proposed to add reporting requirements for CFLKs packaged with a medium screw base CFL that would enable manufacturers to certify compliance with the January 21, 2020 standards. 86 FR 43120, 43128. Specifically, for CFLKs packaged with a medium screw base CFL, DOE proposed to require reporting of the following information for each basic model of CFL: lumen maintenance at 1,000 hours and lumen maintenance at 40 percent of lifetime in percentages; lifetime in hours; and the number of CFL units that pass rapid cycle stress testing.
DOE did not receive any comments on reporting lumen maintenance at 1,000 hours and at 40 percent of lifetime, lifetime, and the rapid cycle stress test results for medium screw base CFLs in CFLKs. In addition, DOE did not receive any comments on allowing estimates for lumen maintenance at 40 percent of lifetime, lifetime, and the rapid cycle stress test result.
For the reasons discussed here and in the August 2021 Certification NOPR, in this final rule, DOE is adopting these requirements as proposed in the August 2021 Certification NOPR.
The January 21, 2020, standards continue to require that CFLKs with pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps use an electronic ballast. 10 CFR 430.32(s)(6)(ii). The current certification reporting requirements require for CFLKs with any socket type other than medium screw base or pin base a declaration that the basic model meets the applicable EPCA design requirement
The January 21, 2020, standards also continue to require that, for all lamp types, the CFLK be packaged with lamps to fill all of the sockets. 10 CFR 430.32(s)(6). In the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE proposed to require a declaration that the CFLK is packaged with lamps sufficient to fill all of the lamp sockets. 86 FR 43120, 43128. The declaration would provide DOE with data indicating whether the manufacturers have addressed the requirement in the January 21, 2020, standard that for all lamp types the CFLK is packaged with lamps to fill all of the sockets.
DOE did not receive any comments on requiring a declaration that pin-based fluorescent lamps in CFLKs have an electronic ballast. In addition, DOE did not receive any comments on requiring a declaration that the CFLK are packaged with lamps sufficient to fill all sockets.
In the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE proposed that these two declarations would be included in the certification report as public information. 86 FR 43120, 43128. Public information is made available to consumers in DOE's Compliance Certification Database (“CCD”)
In the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE also proposed certain certification reporting requirements for CFLKs to provide further specificity as to what is required to be reported. 86 FR 43120, 43129. Specifically, DOE proposed adding language in 10 CFR 429.33(b) stating that manufacturers must provide the brand, basic model number, and other additional lamp-specific information for each basic model of lamp included in the basic model of CFLK under test.
In the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE also proposed requiring that manufacturers provide the test sample size and kind of lamp for each basic model of a lamp and/or each basic model of integrated SSL circuitry packaged with a basic model of CFLK. 86 FR 43120, 43129. Because pin-based socket fluorescent lamps and medium-based socket CFLs in CFLKs are lamp types subject to additional standards, the lamp type of the basic model of lamp in the CFLK is necessary to determine the product class applicable to the basic model of CFLK.
Additionally, DOE proposed requiring that manufacturers provide, if applicable, a declaration that each basic model of lamp packaged with the basic model of CFLK was tested by a laboratory accredited as required under 10 CFR 430.25.
DOE received comments from both TIC and ALA regarding the proposed declaration that lamps packaged with CFLKs were tested by an accredited laboratory as required under 10 CFR 430.25. TIC proposed re-wording the description of the proposed requirement to state that “lamps packaged with CFLKs were tested by a laboratory accredited by an accreditation body that is a signatory to the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (“ILAC”) Mutual Recognition Arrangement (“MRA”) as required under 10 CFR 430.25.” (TIC, No. 161, p. 1) DOE notes that the wording recommended by TIC is consistent with the regulatory language of 10 CFR 430.25, and therefore that DOE's proposal to reference “a laboratory accredited as required under § 430.25” is consistent with TIC's recommendation.
ALA expressed support for DOE's efforts to harmonize efficiency reporting data to reflect the current standards for CFLKs, but also requested that DOE affirm that the requirements identified in 10 CFR 430.25 allow for manufacturers to conduct their own testing, and that reporting from accredited manufacturer-owned labs will be allowed. (ALA, No. 160, p. 2) DOE notes that 10 CFR 430.25 specifically provides that “A manufacturer's or importer's own laboratory, if accredited, may conduct the applicable testing.” DOE finds this existing language sufficiently explicit on the matter of ALA's request and, therefore, is not revising 10 CFR 430.25 as part of this final rule.
In the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE proposed rounding requirements for the certification reporting requirements proposed in the same document. 86 FR 43120, 43129. DOE proposed that lumen output be rounded to three significant digits; lumen maintenance at 1,000 hours and at 40 percent of lifetime be rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent; and lifetime be rounded to the nearest whole hour.
DOE did not receive any comments in response to the proposed rounding requirements and is adopting them as proposed in the August 2021 Certification NOPR.
As discussed, in the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE proposed aligning CFLK certification reporting requirements with the energy conservation standard requirements applicable to CFLKs manufactured on and after January 21, 2020. 86 FR 43120, 43129.
For CFLKs with sockets for medium screw base lamps, manufacturers currently report two values (
In the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that these amendments would not impose additional costs for manufacturers because manufacturers of CFLKs are already submitting certification reports to DOE and should have readily available the information that DOE proposed to collect.
ALA stated that complying with the proposed reporting obligations would require a significant effort by industry to modernize the certification process. ALA added, however, that adopting these revised reporting requirements would not be overly burdensome for manufacturers. (ALA, No. 160, p. 1) DOE did not receive any other comments regarding the certification reporting costs of the proposed CFLK amendments, and ALA did not provide any data indicating increased costs to manufacturers related to reporting. Further, ALA did not provide any data or more specific information about how the additional required certification data would require a significant effort to modernize the certification process. The reporting of the additional values would be accomplished using the existing on-line data templates in DOE's Compliance and Certification Management System (“CCMS”). Further, the additional values are measurements and calculations required under the current DOE test procedure, and therefore should be available to the manufacturers. Based on the preceding discussion and the discussion in the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE makes a final determination that these amendments would not cause any measurable change in reporting burden or hours as compared to what CFLK manufacturers are currently doing today.
This final rule applies to GSILs and IRLs. DOE defines GSILs as a standard incandescent or halogen type lamp intended for general service applications; has a medium screw base; has a lumen range between 310-2600 lumens or, in the case of a modified spectrum lamp, between 232-1,950 lumens; and is capable of being operated at a voltage range at least partially within 110-130 volts. 10 CFR 430.2. The GSIL definition does not include certain lamp types (see 10 CFR 430.2). DOE defines IRLs as any lamp in which light is produced by a filament heated to incandescence by an electric current; contains an inner reflective coating on the outer bulb to direct the light; is not colored; is not designed for rough or vibration service applications; is not an R20 short lamp; has an R, PAR, ER, BR, BPAR,
Under the existing requirements in 10 CFR 429.27(b)(2)(ii) for IRLs, manufacturers must report: (1) the testing laboratory's ILAC accreditation body's identification number or other approved identification assigned by the ILAC accreditation body; (2) production dates of the units tested; (3) the 12-month average lamp efficacy in lumens per watt (lm/W); and (4) lamp wattage (W).
For IRLs (as well as GSFLs), DOE also specifies at 10 CFR 429.12(e)(2) that prior to or concurrent with the distribution of a new basic model, each manufacturer shall submit an initial certification report listing the basic model number, lamp wattage, and date of first manufacture (
In the June 2021 Lighting TP NOPR, DOE proposed to include a test method for determining CRI of IRLs. 86 FR 29888, 29902. To verify whether the information provided is consistent with the certifier's statement of compliance with standards, DOE proposed in the August 2021 Certification NOPR to require the reporting of CRI for IRLs. 86 FR 43120, 43129. Additionally, for IRLs, DOE proposed to require the reporting of rated voltage and lamp diameter.
In the June 2021 Lighting TP NOPR, DOE also proposed to remove the current requirement at 10 CFR 429.27(a)(2)(i), applicable to IRLs, that the sampling plan must include a minimum of three lamps selected from each month of production for a minimum of 7 out of a 12-month period. 86 FR 29888, 29905. Additionally, DOE proposed to remove the requirement in 10 CFR 429.12(e)(2) to submit an initial certification report prior to or concurrent with the distribution of a new basic model for IRLs (as well as GSFLs).
In its comments on the August 2021 Certification NOPR, NEMA opposed the adoption of the proposed requirement to report CRI for IRLs, asserting that it is inconsistent with EISA 2007, which prescribes CRI reporting requirements for GSLs but not IRLs. (NEMA, No. 164, p. 1) NEMA otherwise expressed general support for the GSIL and IRL reporting requirements proposed in the August 2021 Certification NOPR.
DOE disagrees with NEMA's assertion that IRLs are not subject to a CRI requirement. EISA 2007 established a CRI requirement for IRLs. Specifically, section 321(a)(3)(A)(ii) of EISA 2007 established CRI requirements for lamps that are intended for general service or general illumination application (whether incandescent or not); have a medium screw base or any other screw base not defined in ANSI C81.61-2006; are capable of operating at a voltage at least partially within the range of 110 to 130 volts; and are manufactured or imported after December 31, 2011. As previously discussed, the recently published May 2022 Definition Final Rule expanded the definition of GSL to include IRLs because DOE concluded that IRLs are used in general lighting applications. 82 FR 27461, 27467, 27481. Because IRLs are intended for general service application, have a medium screw base, and a voltage between 110 to 130 volts, they meet the criteria of section 321(a)(3)(A)(ii) of EISA 2007 and are subject to the CRI requirement.
DOE did not receive any other comments on requiring the reporting of CRI to certify compliance with the existing energy conservation standards for IRLs, nor did DOE receive any comments on requiring the reporting of lamp diameter and rated voltage to help determine the applicable energy conservation standard for IRLs.
For the reasons discussed here and in the August 2021 Certification NOPR, in this final rule, DOE is adopting the reporting requirements for IRLs as proposed in the August 2021 Certification NOPR. As described, these reporting requirements apply only to annual filing certification reporting. If the amendment proposed in the June 2021 Lighting TP NOPR to remove the requirement for IRLs to submit an initial certification report is not adopted, DOE will consider adding these additional reporting requirements to the initial certification reporting requirements in a future separate rulemaking.
Under the existing requirements in 10 CFR 429.27(b)(2)(iii) for GSILs, manufacturers must report: (1) the testing laboratory's ILAC accreditation body's identification number or other approved identification assigned by the ILAC accreditation body; (2) production dates of the units tested; (3) the 12-month average maximum rate wattage in watts (“W”); (4) the 12-month average minimum rated lifetime (hours); and (5) the 12-month average CRI.
In the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE proposed to require the reporting of initial lumen output for GSILs because this value is needed to evaluate whether a basic model meets the appropriate energy conservation standard requirements (
As discussed, in the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE proposed to align IRL certification reporting requirements with the existing energy conservation standard requirements. 86 FR 43120, 43128. Additionally, DOE proposed to include reporting requirements for GSILs and IRLs that will help DOE determine applicable energy conservation standards for these products.
For IRLs, manufacturers currently certify four values (
In the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that these amendments would not impose additional costs for manufacturers because manufacturers of IRLs and GSILs are already submitting certification reports to DOE. 86 FR 43120, 43130. Manufacturers should have readily available the information that DOE proposed to require as part of this rulemaking because such information is necessary to determine applicable energy conservation standards or to meet existing statutory requirements. DOE stated in the August 2021 Certification NOPR that it did not believe that the revised reporting requirements would cause any measurable change in reporting burden or hours as compared to what manufacturers of IRLs and GSILs are currently doing today.
NEMA commented that there are several DOE proceedings that may apply to or otherwise impact GSILs and IRLs. NEMA urged DOE to align the requirements and implementation dates for these proceedings to minimize unnecessary burden on those directly impacted by these regulations. (NEMA, No. 164, p. 2)
For the reasons discussed in the prior paragraphs and in the August 2021 Certification NOPR, in this final rule, DOE is adopting the reporting requirements for GSILs and IRLs as proposed. Compliance with these amended reporting requirements is not required until 210 days after publication of this final rule. The reporting of the additional values will be through the existing on-line CCMS process using data templates maintained by DOE, and the additional values reflect an existing requirement (
EPCA defines “ceiling fan” as “a nonportable device that is suspended from a ceiling for circulating air via the rotation of fan blades.” (42 U.S.C. 6291(49)) DOE codified the statutory definition in 10 CFR 430.2. In the July 2016 Ceiling Fan TP Final Rule, DOE stated that the test procedure applies to any product meeting this definition, including fans designed for applications where large airflow volume may be needed and highly decorative fans. 81 FR 48620, 48622. DOE stated, however, that the ceiling fan test procedure does not apply to the following fans: belt-driven ceiling fans, centrifugal ceiling fans, oscillating ceiling fans, and ceiling fans whose blades' plane of rotation cannot be within 45 degrees of horizontal.
Relevant to this final rule, DOE defines “small-diameter ceiling fan” in section 1.17 of appendix U as a ceiling fan that is less than or equal to seven feet in diameter. DOE defines a “large-diameter ceiling fan” in section 1.11 of appendix U as a ceiling fan that is greater than seven feet in diameter.
The current requirements for certification reports for ceiling fans correspond to the design requirements specified in EPCA. (
In the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE proposed maintaining the required declaration that the manufacturer has incorporated the applicable design requirements as a public reporting requirement codified at 10 CFR 429.32(b)(2). 86 FR 43120, 43131. Similar to the declarations applicable to CFLKs discussed in section III.A.2.c of this document, DOE notes that in the case of this declaration for ceiling fans, every valid certification must include a positive declaration (
In the September 2019 Ceiling Fan TP NOPR, DOE proposed to update the reporting requirements for ceiling fans to include product-specific information that would be required to certify compliance with the amended energy conservation standards established in January 2017 Ceiling Fan ECS Final Rule. 84 FR 51440, 51450. DOE did not finalize the proposed requirements from the September 2019 Ceiling Fan TP NOPR and revisited the certification and rounding requirements with a new proposal in the August 2021 Certification NOPR. 86 FR 43120, 43130-43131.
Product-specific information is necessary to determine the product class and minimum allowable ceiling fan efficiency required to certify compliance with current energy conservation standards. For small-diameter ceiling fans, the product class (
Accordingly, DOE proposed in the August 2021 Certification NOPR to require that certification reports include the following public product-specific information for each ceiling fan basic model: (1) blade span in inches; (2) ceiling fan efficiency in CFM/W; and (3) a declaration of whether the fan is a multi-head ceiling fan. 86 FR 43120, 43130.
For each ceiling fan basic model, DOE also proposed to require additional product-specific information, including: (1) blade edge thickness (in), airflow (CFM) at high speed, and blade RPM at high speed; and (2) for low-speed small-diameter (“LSSD”) ceiling fans, the distance (in) between the ceiling and the lowest point on the fan blades.
Further, DOE proposed in the August 2021 Certification NOPR to require reporting of standby power consumption (in watts) for small-diameter ceiling fans.
ALA generally supported DOE's efforts to harmonize efficiency reporting data to reflect the current standards as it would provide much needed clarity. (ALA, No. 160, p. 1) DOE received no other comments in response to its proposed amendments to the requirements for small-diameter ceiling fans. For the reasons discussed here, and in the August 2021 Certification NOPR, in this final rule, DOE is adopting these amendments as proposed in the August 2021 Certification NOPR.
As discussed, the distinction between small-diameter and large-diameter ceiling fans is based on blade span. The Energy Act of 2020 required that LDCFs must meet two separate standards based on the CFEI metric, with one standard based on operation of the fan at high speed and a second standard based on operation of the fan at 40 percent speed or the nearest speed that is not less than 40 percent speed. (
In response to the August 2021 Certification NOPR, AMCA supported the proposed reporting requirements for large-diameter fans. AMCA also proposed that two additional reporting requirements be added—airflow (CFM) at high speed and airflow (CFM) at 40 percent speed or the nearest speed that is not less than 40 percent speed. (AMCA, No. 159, p. 2) AMCA stated that requiring manufacturers to document CFEI and any two of the three parameters will help prevent cheating because with any three values (CFEI and two others), the fourth value can be calculated with certainty. Further, AMCA noted that adding the two additional values to DOE's proposed filing requirements would not impose an additional burden on manufacturers because they are taken from the test laboratory report.
Although airflow in CFM is measured by the test procedure and is required for calculating CFEI (
In this final rule, for the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs and the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE is adopting the revised reporting requirements for LDCFs as proposed in the August 2021 Certification NOPR.
In the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE proposed amendments to 10 CFR 429.32 to specify that represented values are to be determined consistent with the test procedures in appendix U and to specify rounding requirements for represented values. 86 FR 43120, 43131. DOE proposed that manufacturers round any represented
ALA commented in support of the small-diameter ceiling fan rounding requirements as proposed in the August 2021 Certification NOPR, and stated that the proposed requirements would align with the Federal Trade Commission's labeling rounding requirements. (ALA, No. 160, p. 1-2) AMCA expressed support for the proposed rounding of CFEI values to the nearest hundredth. (AMCA, No. 159, p. 2)
In this final rule, for the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs and the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE is adopting the rounding requirements as proposed in the August 2021 Certification NOPR.
As discussed, in the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE proposed to align ceiling fan certification reporting requirements with the energy conservation standard requirements applicable to ceiling fans manufactured on and after January 21, 2020, and with the May 2021 Technical Amendment. 86 FR 43120, 43131.
For all ceiling fans, manufacturers currently report two fields (
In the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that these amendments would not impose additional costs for manufacturers because manufacturers of ceiling fans are already submitting certification reports to DOE and should have readily available the information that DOE proposed to collect.
ALA generally commented that while manufacturers spend considerable time preparing for and certifying their products, adjusting to the additional information requested in the proposal should not be overly burdensome for manufacturers. (ALA, No. 160 at p. 1) Otherwise, DOE did not receive any comments on the certification and reporting costs of the amended reporting requirements for ceiling fans. Based on the preceding discussion and the discussion in the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE makes a final determination that these amendments would not cause any measurable change in reporting burden or hours for ceiling fan manufacturers.
EPCA defines the term “furnace” to mean a product which utilizes only single-phase electric current, or single-phase electric current or direct current (DC current) in conjunction with natural gas, propane, or home heating oil, and which: (1) is designed to be the principal heating source for the living space of a residence; (2) is not contained within the same cabinet with a central air conditioner whose rated cooling capacity is above 65,000 British thermal units per hour (Btu/h); (3) is an electric central furnace, electric boiler, forced-air central furnace, gravity central furnace, or low pressure steam or hot water boiler; and (4) has a heat input rate of less than 300,000 Btu/h for electric boilers and low pressure steam or hot water boilers and less than 225,000 Btu/h for forced-air central furnaces, gravity central furnaces, and electric central furnaces. (42 U.S.C. 6291(23)) DOE has codified this definition at 10 CFR 430.2, where it also defines “electric central furnace,” “electric boiler,” “forced-air central furnace,” “gravity central furnace,” and “low pressure steam or hot water boiler”.
The changes discussed in this section apply to non-weatherized oil-fired furnaces, electric furnaces, and consumer boilers meeting the definitions in 10 CFR 430.2, as presented in the preceding paragraph.
Under the existing requirements in 10 CFR 429.18(b), consumer (residential) furnace and boiler manufacturers must report the AFUE in percent and the input capacity in British thermal units per hour (“Btu/h”) in their certification reports. In addition, for cast-iron sectional boilers, manufacturers must include the type of ignition system for gas-fired steam and hot water boilers and a declaration of whether certification is based on linear interpolation or testing. For hot water boilers, manufacturers must also include a declaration that the manufacturer has incorporated the applicable design requirements. For multi-position furnaces, the AFUE reported for each basic model must be based on testing in the least-efficient configuration, but manufacturers may also optionally report and make representations of additional AFUE values based on testing in other configurations. 10 CFR 429.18(b).
In the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE proposed to modify some of the reporting requirements and add new requirements to better align with the existing standards and aid in determining which energy conservation standards apply to a given basic model for non-weatherized oil-fired consumer furnaces (including mobile home furnaces), electric consumer furnaces, and consumer boilers. 86 FR 43120, 43131. The specific changes are discussed in more detail in the following sections.
In addition to the applicable AFUE standards, DOE prescribes separate standards for standby mode and off mode power consumption (designated as P
Additionally, manufacturers of consumer furnaces and consumer boilers may use identical controls and electrical components across various models and/or product lines with different characteristics (
Bradford White expressed support for the proposed standby mode and off mode reporting requirements for consumer furnaces and boilers. (Bradford White, No. 163, p. 1)
AHRI also supported the proposed standby mode and off mode energy consumption reporting requirements for furnaces. (AHRI, No. 166, p. 2) For boilers, however, AHRI asserted that there is no reason that compliance of standby mode and off mode power would require more than simply a declaration of compliance. AHRI stated that these modes consume very little power relative to the power consumed by the boiler as a whole, and that they are not given much consideration or weight by consumers. (
DOE notes that regardless of whether consumers consider standby mode and off mode power, these values are necessary for DOE to determine whether certified models comply with the standby mode and off mode standards for these products specified at 10 CFR 430.32(e)(1)(iii) and (e)(2)(iii)(B). Furthermore, requiring the values themselves rather than a statement of compliance is consistent with the approach used by DOE for other covered product types, and such information should be readily available, as it was needed to determination compliance with the applicable standard.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed here and in the August 2021 Certification NOPR, in this final rule, DOE is adopting reporting requirements for standby mode and off mode power consumption for boilers and furnaces as proposed in the August 2021 Certification NOPR.
Regarding AHRI's comments in relation to the standby mode and off mode power consumption standards, consideration of any changes to energy conservation standards is outside of the scope of this rulemaking. However, the Department nonetheless points out that under 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg), EPCA mandates that DOE account for standby mode and off mode energy consumption for any final rule for energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, so removal of those standards is not possible.
The energy conservation standards for consumer boilers prohibit the use of constant-burning pilots for gas-fired hot water boilers and gas-fired steam boilers. 10 CFR 430.32(e)(2)(iii). Currently, manufacturers are required to certify the type of ignition system only for cast iron sectional gas-fired hot water and steam boilers. 10 CFR 429.18(b)(2)(ii). “Cast iron sectional” refers to the construction of the boiler heat exchanger, which is composed of cast iron sections. The prohibition of constant-burning pilot ignition systems is not limited to only consumer boilers with cast iron sectional heat exchangers, but rather is applicable to all gas-fired hot water boilers and gas-fired steam boilers, including those with heat exchangers made from other materials (
In addition, 10 CFR 429.18(b)(3) requires that for hot water boilers, the manufacturer include in its certification report a declaration that the manufacturer has incorporated the applicable design requirements. As discussed, the standards for gas-fired steam boilers also include a design requirement that use of a constant-burning pilot ignition is not permitted. Therefore, DOE proposed to update the reporting requirements in 10 CFR 429.18(b)(3) to require that manufacturers of gas-fired steam boilers also include a declaration in the certification report that the basic model meets the design requirement criterion.
In response to the August 2021 Certification NOPR, AHRI commented that the proposed expansion of reported ignition system type to include other gas-fired boilers would not be overly problematic. AHRI stated, however, that if DOE's intent was to ensure that standing pilots are not used, that including ignition systems in the declaration of compliance in 10 CFR 429.18(b)(3) would be a better solution. (AHRI, No. 166, p. 1)
DOE agrees with AHRI that including ignition systems in the declaration of compliance, as opposed to requiring manufacturers to specify the type of ignition system, is sufficient for determining compliance. As such, in this final rule, DOE is modifying the declaration of compliance in 10 CFR 429.18(b)(3) to include all boilers for which a design requirement applies. DOE is adding at 10 CFR 429.18(b)(3) a requirement that manufacturers of gas-fired boilers declare that the subject basic models do not incorporate a constant-burning pilot and that manufacturers of hot water boilers report whether the basic model is equipped with tankless domestic water heating coils (and if not, a declaration that the subject basic models include an automatic means for adjusting the water temperature). For gas-fired hot water boilers, both requirements apply, and thus, manufacturers will be required to separately declare compliance with both requirements. These changes will allow DOE to verify that boiler models subject to design requirements comply with those requirements. In addition, DOE is removing the existing requirement for
In the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE proposed rounding requirements for the certification reporting requirements for standby mode and off mode energy consumption. Specifically, DOE proposed to require that values for standby mode and off mode energy consumption be rounded to the nearest 0.1 watts. 86 FR 43120, 43132.
In addition, the represented value of AFUE currently must be truncated to one-tenth of a percentage point. 10 CFR 429.18(a)(2)(vii). DOE proposed to modify this requirement to state that AFUE must be rounded to the nearest one-tenth of a percentage point. This change would treat consumer furnaces and boilers in a manner consistent with other types of covered products and equipment, for which represented values are generally required to be rounded rather than truncated. As discussed in the August 2021 Certification NOPR, this change could only increase the represented AFUE value, and as such, manufacturers would have an option of whether to re-rate the AFUE of existing models that would be impacted by this change. 86 FR 43120, 43132.
AHRI expressed support for the proposed AFUE rounding requirements. (AHRI, No. 166, p. 2) Bradford White likewise expressed support for the proposed AFUE, standby mode energy consumption, and off mode energy consumption rounding requirements, stating that these proposed requirements align with current industry standards. (Bradford White, No. 163, p. 2)
For the reasons discussed here and in the August 2021 Certification NOPR, in this final rule, DOE is adopting the rounding requirements as proposed in the August 2021 Certification NOPR.
As discussed, in the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE proposed to align consumer furnace and boiler certification reporting requirements with the existing energy conservation standard requirements. 86 FR 43120, 43132.
For non-weatherized oil-fired consumer furnaces (including mobile home furnaces), electric consumer furnaces, and consumer boilers, the proposed changes would require manufacturers to report two additional values (
Manufacturers of consumer furnaces and boilers are currently required to certify various items to DOE, depending on the product class and applicable standards, which can include AFUE, input rate, type of ignition system, and whether applicable design requirements are incorporated. Because manufacturers of these products are already submitting certification reports to DOE and should have readily available the information that DOE proposed to collect as part of the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE stated in the August 2021 Certification NOPR that it did not believe the revised reporting requirements would cause any appreciable change in reporting burden or hours as compared to what consumer furnace and boiler manufacturers do currently. Additionally, because the proposed AFUE rounding requirement would only increase represented AFUE values, manufacturers may choose to maintain current AFUE ratings; therefore, DOE tentatively determined that it did not expect any cost associated with this proposal.
The only product class for which no certification reporting is currently required is electric steam boilers, as there is no AFUE standard or design requirement for this class. As proposed in the August 2021 Certification NOPR, there are now standby mode and off mode standards for electric steam boilers, so the addition of reporting requirements for P
DOE did not receive any comments regarding the certification reporting costs of the proposed amendments for consumer boilers and furnaces.
Based on the preceding discussion and the discussion in the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE makes a final determination that these amendments would not cause any measurable change in reporting burden or hours for manufacturers of consumer furnaces and boilers other than electric steam boilers. For electric steam boilers, the new reporting requirements established by this final rule will require new certification reporting for electric steam boiler manufacturers. Costs associated with the new reporting requirements for electric steam boilers are discussed in section IV.C.3 of this document.
As discussed in section I.B.5 of this document, DOE defines a “grid-enabled water heater” at 10 CFR 430.2, consistent with EPCA's definition at 42 U.S.C. 6295(e)(6)(A)(ii), to mean an electric resistance water heater that has a rated storage tank volume of more than 75 gallons, is manufactured on or after April 16, 2015, is equipped at the point of manufacture with an activation lock, and bears a permanent label applied by the manufacturer that is made of material not adversely affected by water, is attached by means of a non-water-soluble adhesive, and advises purchasers and end-users of the intended and appropriate use of the product as part of an electric thermal storage or demand response program.
Currently, for grid-enabled consumer water heater basic models, manufacturers are required to report the uniform energy factor (“UEF”), the rated storage volume in gallons, the first-hour rating in gallons, the recovery efficiency in percent, a declaration that the model is a grid-enabled water heater, whether it is equipped at the point of manufacture with an activation lock, and whether it bears a permanent label applied by the manufacturer that advises purchasers and end-users of the intended and appropriate use of the product. 10 CFR 429.17(b)(2)(iii).
EPCA, as amended, requires manufacturers to report the quantity of grid-enabled water heaters that the manufacturer ships each year and requires DOE to keep the shipment data reported by manufacturers as confidential business information.
AHRI and Bradford White expressed support for the proposed reporting requirement for the number of annual shipments of grid-enabled consumer water heaters, as well as the proposal that this information be reported separately from the information that is currently required under 10 CFR 429.17(b). (AHRI, No. 166, p. 2; Bradford White, No. 163, p. 1) The Joint Commenters commented that EPCA directs DOE to require reporting of both shipment and activation numbers for grid-enabled water heaters, and they urged DOE to begin requiring utilities and other demand response and thermal storage program operators to begin reporting the annual activation numbers. (Joint Commenters, No. 165, pp. 1-2)
Regarding the comment from the Joint Commenters, DOE notes that it already collects the quantity of activations from utilities and other demand response and thermal storage program operators, as required by EPCA, through the Energy Information Administration's forms EIA-861 and EIA-861S.
For the reasons discussed here and in the August 2021 Certification NOPR, in this final rule, DOE is adopting the reporting requirements for grid-enabled water heaters as proposed in the August 2021 Certification NOPR.
As discussed in the August 2021 Certification NOPR, the addition of reporting requirements for annual shipments of grid-enabled consumer water heaters would newly require manufacturers to report this information. 86 FR 43120, 43132.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding the certification reporting costs of the proposed amendments for grid-enabled water heaters.
Costs associated with these new reporting requirements for grid-enabled water heaters are discussed in section IV.C.3 of this document.
DOE defines dishwashers as cabinet-like appliances which with the aid of water and detergent, wash, rinse, and dries (when a drying process is included) dishware, glassware, eating utensils, and most cooking utensils by chemical, mechanical and/or electrical means and discharge to the plumbing drainage system. 10 CFR 430.2.
Under the existing requirements in 10 CFR 429.19(b)(2), a certification report must include the following public product-specific information: the estimated annual energy use in kilowatt hours per year (kWh/yr) and the water consumption in gallons per cycle. In addition, a certification report must include the following additional product-specific information: the capacity in number of place settings as specified in industry standard ANSI/Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (“AHAM”) DW-1-2010 (“ANSI/AHAM DW-1-2010”); presence of a soil sensor (if yes, the number of cycles required to reach calibration); the water inlet temperature used for testing in degrees Fahrenheit (°F); the cycle selected for energy testing and whether that cycle is soil-sensing; the options selected for the energy test; and presence of a built-in water softening system (if yes, the energy use in kilowatt-hours and the water use in gallons required for each regeneration of the water softening system, the number of regeneration cycles per year, and data and calculations used to derive these values). 10 CFR 429.19(b)(3).
In conducting testing according to DOE's test procedure, section 2.10 of appendix C1 specifies using Cascade with the Grease Fighting Power of Dawn powder as the detergent formulation, at half the quantity specified according to Section 4.1 of ANSI/AHAM DW-1-2010. During AHAM task group meetings in 2020 to establish an updated version of the industry standard, in which DOE participated, AHAM informed DOE that Cascade with the Grease Fighting Power of Dawn has been discontinued and has been replaced with Cascade Complete. AHAM has updated its industry standard to specify the use of Cascade Complete for testing.
DOE seeks to ensure that any assessment or enforcement testing conducted pursuant to 10 CFR 429.104 and 10 CFR 429.110, respectively, would be performed using the same detergent used by the manufacturer for certifying compliance with the applicable energy conservation standard. In the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE proposed to require that manufacturers indicate in the certification report whether Cascade Complete powder was used as the detergent formulation in lieu of Cascade with the Grease Fighting Power of Dawn. 86 FR 43120, 43133. DOE proposed to add this requirement to the list of additional product-specific information specified at 10 CFR 429.19(b)(3).
DOE also proposed to reorganize the requirements specified at 10 CFR 429.19(b)(3) as a numbered list for easier readability.
AHAM commented in support of the proposed dishwasher certification requirement, stating that this requirement will ensure that any assessment and enforcement testing can be accurate and conducted with the same detergent used by the
For the reasons discussed here and in the August 2021 Certification NOPR, in this final rule, DOE is adopting the amended reporting requirements for dishwashers as proposed in the August 2021 Certification NOPR.
In the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE had tentatively determined that the proposed additional reporting requirement would not impose additional costs for manufacturers because manufacturers of dishwashers are already submitting certification reports to DOE and should have readily available the information that DOE would be requiring (
DOE did not receive any comments on the certification and reporting costs associated with the proposed reporting requirement for dishwashers. In this final rule, DOE makes a final determination that these amendments would not cause any measurable change in reporting burden or hours for dishwasher manufacturers.
DOE defines “commercial clothes washer” to mean a soft-mounted front-loading or soft-mounted top-loading clothes washer that: (1) has a clothes container compartment that for horizontal-axis clothes washers is not more than 3.5 cubic feet (“cu ft”), and for vertical-axis clothes washers is not more than 4.0 cu ft; and (2) is designed for use in 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 other commercial applications. 10 CFR 431.152; 42 U.S.C. 6311(21).
Under the existing requirements in 10 CFR 429.46(b), a CCW certification report must include the following public information: the modified energy factor (MEF
Accordingly, DOE proposed in the August 2021 Certification NOPR to remove the reporting requirements currently specified at 10 CFR 429.46(b)(2)(i) for models tested using appendix J1. 86 FR 43120, 43134. DOE also proposed to update the term “water factor” in the test sampling plan for CCW at 10 CFR 429.46(a)(2)(i) to “integrated water factor” to match the current metric used as the basis for standards.
AHAM commented in support of the removal of the outdated appendix J1 requirements. (AHAM, No. 167, p. 2)
For the reasons discussed here and in the August 2021 Certification NOPR, in this final rule, DOE is removing the appendix J1 reporting requirements as proposed in the August 2021 Certification NOPR.
In addition, DOE proposed to amend the CCW certification reporting requirements by adding to the list of reported values the clothes container capacity (in cubic feet), the type of loading (top-loading or front-loading), and the corrected remaining moisture content (“RMC”) value (expressed as a percentage). 86 FR 43120, 43134. DOE also proposed rounding instructions for each newly reported value.
In general, AHAM requested DOE provide sufficient lead-time for any adopted amendments to the reporting requirements. (AHAM, No. 167, p. 2) As discussed, compliance with the amended reporting requirements is not required until 210 days after publication of this final rule. The specific reporting requirements are discussed in the following paragraphs.
DOE's definition of “commercial clothes washer” at 10 CFR 431.152, which is consistent with the EPCA definition (
DOE also proposed accompanying sampling provisions for determining the reported values for capacity.
AHAM stated that it did not oppose the proposal to require reporting clothes container capacity given that capacity is an element of determining whether clothes washers meet the definition of a “commercial clothes washer” and is important to the calculation of MEF and IWF. (AHAM, No. 167, pp. 2-3)
For the reasons discussed here and in the August 2021 Certification NOPR, in this final rule, DOE is adopting the amendments regarding container capacity as proposed in the August 2021 Certification NOPR.
DOE has established equipment classes for CCWs defined by axis of loading (
AHAM stated that it did not oppose the proposal to require reporting of loading axis. (AHAM, No. 167, p. 3)
For the reasons discussed here and in the August 2021 Certification NOPR, in this final rule, DOE is adopting this amendment as proposed in the August 2021 Certification NOPR.
DOE specifies product-specific enforcement provisions for “clothes washers”, which includes both RCWs and CCWs. 10 CFR 429.134(c). Specifically, 10 CFR 429.134(c)(1), as amended by the June 2022 RCW/CCW TP Final Rule, specifies provisions for the determination of remaining moisture content (“RMC”).
The application of this product-specific enforcement provision for clothes washers requires a certified value of “corrected” RMC
DOE also proposed accompanying sampling provisions for determining the reported values for corrected RMC.
AHAM stated that it did not oppose the proposal to require reporting corrected remaining moisture content and the proposed sampling provisions. (AHAM, No. 167, p. 3)
For the reasons discussed here and in the August 2021 Certification NOPR, in this final rule, DOE is adopting these amendments as proposed in the August 2021 Certification NOPR.
In the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE proposed to specify at new § 429.46(c) that clothes container capacity must be rounded to the nearest 0.1 cubic feet (“cu ft”), and that corrected RMC must be rounded to the nearest 0.1 percentage point. 86 FR 43120, 43134. These rounding instructions are consistent with the existing rounding instructions for RCWs specified at 10 CFR 429.20(c).
AHAM stated that it did not oppose the proposed rounding requirements. (AHAM, No. 167, p. 3)
For the reasons discussed here and in the August 2021 Certification NOPR, in this final rule, DOE is adopting the rounding instructions as proposed in the August 2021 Certification NOPR.
In the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE proposed adding three additional reported values for CCWs (
In the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE had tentatively determined that the amendment would not impose additional costs for manufacturers because manufacturers of CCWs are already submitting certification reports to DOE and should have readily available the information that DOE is proposing to collect as part of this rulemaking. In particular, the clothes container capacity and corrected RMC values are already measured as part of the test procedure and are required for calculating the MEF
DOE did not receive any comments on the certification and reporting costs associated with the proposed reporting requirements for CCWs. In this final rule, DOE makes a final determination that these amendments to the reporting requirements for CCW would not cause any measurable change in reporting burden or hours for CCW manufacturers.
This final rule applies to battery chargers, which DOE defines as a device that charges batteries for consumer products, including battery chargers embedded in other consumer products. 10 CFR 430.2.
Under the existing requirements in 10 CFR 429.39(b), a certification report must include the following public product-specific information for all battery chargers other than uninterruptable power supplies: nameplate battery voltage of the test battery in volts (V), nameplate battery charge capacity of the test battery in ampere-hours (Ah), nameplate battery energy capacity of the test battery in watt-hours (Wh), maintenance mode power (P
In addition, a certification report must include the following additional product-specific information for all battery chargers other than uninterruptible power supplies: the manufacturer and model of the test battery, and the manufacturer and model, when applicable, of the external power supply. 10 CFR 429.39(b)(3).
Certification reports must also include the following product-specific information for all uninterruptible
DOE notes that 10 CFR 429.12(a) states that basic models of covered products require annual filings on or before the dates provided in 10 CFR 429.12(d), but paragraph (d) does not specifically list an annual filing date for battery chargers. In light of this omission, DOE proposed in the August 2021 Certification NOPR to explicitly specify in 10 CFR 429.12(d) that battery chargers be recertified annually on or before September 1. 86 FR 43120, 43135.
DOE received one comment regarding the proposed annual filing date for battery chargers. AHAM commented that the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (“ASRAC”) recommended that DOE eliminate annual reporting requirements,
DOE is maintaining the annual reporting requirement for battery chargers with the amendments adopted in this final rule. The annual reporting requirement is consistent with the requirements for all other DOE covered products. For the reasons discussed in this final rule and in the August 2021 Certification NOPR, in this final rule, DOE is adopting the amendments to the reporting requirements for battery chargers as proposed.
In the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE proposed no changes to the reported information required for battery chargers. DOE only proposed to specify the annual date by which manufacturers must submit annual certification filings to DOE. 86 FR 43120, 43135. DOE had tentatively determined that the amendment would not impose additional costs for manufacturers because manufacturers of battery chargers are already submitting certification reports to DOE. The requirement adopted in this final rule specifies that the annual reporting must be submitted on or before September 1. Specifying the annual date by which reports must be filed will not change the content or frequency of the report, and therefore DOE has determined that the amendment to the reporting requirements for battery chargers would not cause any measurable change in reporting burden or hours for CCW manufacturers.
This final rule applies to DPPPs, which by DOE's definition includes self-priming pool filter pumps, non-self-priming pool filter pumps, waterfall pumps, pressure cleaner booster pumps, integral sand-filter pool pumps, integral-cartridge filter pool pumps, storable electric spa pumps, and rigid electric spa pumps. 10 CFR 431.462.
Certification report requirements are specified in 10 CFR 429.59(b)(2)(iv) and (b)(3)(iv) for DPPPs subject to the test methods prescribed in § 431.464(b). However, in 10 CFR 429.12, certification is only required for covered equipment subject to an applicable energy conservation standard. Certain DPPPs that are subject to the test method, specifically waterfall pumps and polyphase self-priming pool filter pumps, are not subject to an energy conservation standard. Therefore, in the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE proposed to clarify the reporting requirements by removing the language in 10 CFR 429.59(b)(2)(iv) and (b)(3)(iv) that references the test method (as well as a reference to waterfall pumps). 86 FR 43120, 43135.
In addition, DOE proposed to amend the same provisions to specify that they do not apply to integral cartridge-filter and sand filter pool pumps.
DOE received one comment in response to the proposal to clarify the certification requirement for certain models of DPPPs. NSF suggested revising the reference to the industry standard incorporated by reference. NSF stated that the reporting requirement should reference NSF/ANSI/CAN 50-2020, “Equipment and Chemicals for Swimming Pools, Spas, Hot Tubs and Other Recreational Water Facilities” and the correct Annex reference is now Normative Annex 3, Section N-3.3. (NSF, No. 168, p.1) DOE notes that this is the more recent version of the material incorporated by reference at 10 CFR 431.463 (NSF/ANSI 50-2015, “Equipment for Swimming Pools, Spas, Hot Tubs and Other Recreational Water Facilities”, Annex C—Test methods for the evaluation of centrifugal pumps,” Section C.3, “self-priming capability”). Since this rulemaking is limited to certification, DOE is not incorporating the newer material by reference as part of this final rule. DOE will consider this new standard during the next rulemaking process for DPPPs.
DOE did not receive any other comments on its proposal to clarify the certification requirements for certain models of DPPPs and is finalizing them as proposed in the August 2021 Certification NOPR.
In the August 2021 Certification NOPR, DOE proposed to clarify the existing certification requirements for DPPPs. 86 FR 43120, 43135. DOE did not receive any comments regarding the impact of the proposed amendment. DOE has determined that the amendment would not impose additional costs or burden for manufacturers.
DOE will revise the reporting templates 180 days prior to the compliance date for the amended certification requirements adopted in this rule. The specific templates that must be used for certifying compliance of covered products and equipment to DOE are available for download at
The effective date for the adopted reporting requirement amendments will be 30 days after publication of this final rule in the
Executive Order (“E.O.”) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) in the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, this final regulatory action is consistent with these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to OIRA for review. OIRA has determined that this final regulatory action does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
DOE has concluded that the removal of outdated reporting requirements and the addition of new reporting requirements as adopted in this final rule will not impose additional costs for manufacturers of CFLKs, GSILs and IRLs, ceiling fans, consumer furnaces and boilers (except electric steam boilers), dishwashers, CCWs, battery chargers, and DPPPs for the reasons discussed in section III of this document. For these products and equipment, DOE has determined that the amendments will not impose additional costs for manufacturers because manufacturers are already submitting certification reports to DOE and should have readily available the information that DOE is requiring as part of this rulemaking, and for DPPPs, the proposed amendments clarify the existing reporting requirements. Consequently, for these types of covered products and equipment, the changes in this final rule are not expected to have a significant economic impact on related entities regardless of size.
However, for electric steam boilers, no certification is currently required. This final rule is amending 10 CFR 429.18 to include a requirement to certify the standby mode and off mode energy consumption for electric steam boilers. This amendment aligns the certification requirements with the existing energy conservation standard requirements 10 CFR 430.32(e)(1)(iii) introductory text and (e)(2)(iii)(B). For electric steam boiler manufacturers that are not already certifying, the new certification requirements would result in additional paperwork costs. Likewise, for grid-enabled water heaters, this final rule is adding reporting requirements to align with the requirements of EPCA. EPCA, as amended, requires manufacturers to report the quantity of grid-enabled water heaters that the manufacturer ships each year and requires DOE to keep the shipment data reported by manufacturers as confidential business information. (42 U.S.C. 6295(e)(6)(C)(i)-(iii)) Therefore, grid-enabled water heater manufacturers will incur additional paperwork costs.
The Small Business Administration (“SBA”) considers a business entity to be a small business, if, together with its affiliates, it employs less than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121. The size standards and codes are established by the 2017 North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”).
Electric steam boiler manufacturers are classified under NAICS code 333414, “Heating Equipment (except Warm Air Furnaces) Manufacturing.” The SBA sets a threshold of 500 employees or fewer for an entity to be considered as a small business in this category. DOE used available public information to identify potential small manufacturers. DOE reviewed manufacturer literature to create a list of companies that import or otherwise manufacture the electric steam boilers covered by this rulemaking. Using these sources, DOE identified five manufacturers of electric steam boilers. Three of these five manufacturers are small businesses. DOE estimates that the increased certification burden will result in 35 hours per manufacturer to develop the required certification reports. Therefore, based on a fully burdened labor rate of $100 per hour, the estimated total annual cost to manufacturers would be $3,500 per manufacturer.
Grid-enabled water heater manufacturers are classified under NAICS code 335220, “Major Household Appliance Manufacturing.” The SBA sets a threshold of 1,500 employees or fewer for an entity to be considered as a small business in this category. DOE used available public information to identify potential small manufacturers. DOE accessed the CCD
DOE reviewed this final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February 19, 2003. On the basis of the foregoing, DOE concludes that the impacts of the amendments to DOE's certification regulations adopted in this final rule will not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Accordingly, DOE has not prepared an FRFA for this final rule. DOE will transmit this certification of no significant impact on a substantial number of small entities and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
Manufacturers of CFLKs, GSILs, IRLs, ceiling fans, consumer furnaces and boilers (except for electric steam boilers), consumer water heaters, dishwashers, CCWs, battery chargers, and DPPPs 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's current reporting requirements are approved under OMB Control Number 1910-1400.
DOE is amending the reporting requirements for CFLKs, GSILs, IRLs, ceiling fans, consumer furnaces and boilers, consumer water heaters, dishwashers, CCWs, battery chargers, and DPPPs, and has sent a revised information collection request to OMB under the existing Control Number 1910-1400. The revisions will just reflect the changes proposed in this rulemaking as an amendment to the existing information collection.
DOE is requiring that respondents submit electronic forms using DOE's online CCMS. DOE's CCMS is publicly accessible at
The following are DOE estimates of the total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden imposed on manufacturers of CFLKs, GSILs, IRLs, ceiling fans, consumer furnaces and boilers, consumer water heaters, dishwashers, CCWs, battery chargers, and DPPPs subject to the amended certification reporting requirements adopted in this final rule. These estimates take into account the time necessary to develop any additional testing documentation, maintain any additional documentation supporting the development of the certified rating for each basic model, complete any additional certification, and submit any additional required documents to DOE electronically.
DOE has determined that these amendments will not impose additional costs for manufacturers of CFLKs, GSILs, IRLs, ceiling fans, dishwashers, CCWs, battery chargers, most consumer furnaces and boilers, and most consumer water heaters, because manufacturers of these products or equipment are already submitting certification reports to DOE and should have readily available the information that DOE is requiring as part of this rulemaking. DOE has also determined that these amendments will not impose additional costs for manufacturers of DPPPs because the adopted language only clarifies the existing certification requirements.
DOE's amendments for the reporting requirements for electric steam boilers will require new certification reporting for electric steam boilers manufacturers and importers. DOE estimates there are five manufacturers of electric steam boilers that would have to submit annual certification reports to DOE for those products based on the adopted reporting requirements. The following section estimates the burden for these five electric steam boiler manufacturers.
For grid-enabled consumer water heaters, DOE is adding reporting requirements to 10 CFR 429.17 that will require manufacturers and importers to report the total number of grid-enabled water heaters shipped each year in accordance with the requirement in EPCA. The following are DOE estimates of the total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden imposed on manufacturers of grid-enabled consumer water heaters subject to the reporting provisions in this final rule. These estimates take into account the time necessary to develop testing documentation, maintain all the documentation supporting the development of the certified rating for each basic model, complete the certification, and submit all required documents to DOE electronically.
DOE has concluded that the removal of outdated reporting requirements and the addition of reporting requirements as adopted in this final rule will not impose additional costs for manufacturers of CFLKs, GSILs, IRLs, ceiling fans, most consumer furnaces and boilers, dishwashers, CCWs, battery chargers, and DPPPs (see sections III.A.3, III.B.3, III.C.3, III.D.3, III.F.3, III.G.3, III.H.3, and III.I.3 of this document for a more complete discussion). Furthermore, DOE has concluded that there are five electric
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 final rule, DOE establishes amended certification and reporting requirements for CFLKs, GSILs and IRLs, ceiling fans, consumer furnaces and boilers (except electric steam boilers), dishwashers, CCWs, battery chargers, and DPPPs. 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 (August 4, 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 examined this final rule and determined that it 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. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this final 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, this final 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 regulatory action resulting 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
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 final rule will 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 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation will not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
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
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 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 significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
This regulatory action 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 modifications to the certification reporting requirements for CFLKs, GSILs, IRLs, ceiling fans, consumer furnaces and boilers, consumer water heaters, dishwashers, CCWs, battery chargers, and DPPPs adopted in this final rule do not incorporate testing methods contained in any commercial standards.
The Director of the Federal Register previously approved the following standards from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (“AHAM”) and the American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) for incorporation by reference into §§ 429.19 and 429.59: ANSI/AHAM DW-1-2010, “Household Electric Dishwashers”, and NSF International (NSF)/ANSI 50-2015, “Equipment For Swimming Pools, Spas, Hot Tubs and Other Recreational Water Facilities,” Annex C—“Test methods for the evaluation of centrifugal pumps,” Section C.3, “self-priming capability.”
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 14, 2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy 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
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends part 429 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.
(d)
Prior to February 17, 2023, certification reports must be submitted as required either in this section or 10 CFR 429.17 as it appears in the 10 CFR parts 200 through 499 edition revised as of January 1, 2022. On or after February 17, 2023, certification reports must be submitted as required in this section.
(c)
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Prior to February 17, 2023, certification reports must be submitted as required either in this section or 10 CFR 429.18 as it appears in the 10 CFR parts 200 through 499 edition revised as of January 1, 2022. On or after February 17, 2023, certification reports must be submitted as required in this section.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(vii) The represented value of annual fuel utilization efficiency must be rounded to the nearest one-tenth of a percentage point. The represented values of standby mode power and off mode power must be rounded to the nearest one-tenth of a watt.
(b) * * *
(2) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall include the following public product-specific information:
(i) For consumer furnaces and boilers: The annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE) in percent (%) and the input capacity in British thermal units per hour (Btu/h).
(ii) For non-weatherized oil-fired furnaces (including mobile home furnaces), electric furnaces, and boilers: The standby mode power consumption (P
(3) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall include the following additional product-specific information:
(i) For cast-iron sectional boilers: A declaration of whether certification is based on linear interpolation or testing.
(ii) For gas-fired hot water boilers and gas-fired steam boilers: A declaration that the manufacturer has not incorporated a constant-burning pilot.
(iii) For gas-fired hot water boilers, oil-fired hot water boilers, and electric hot water boilers: Whether the boiler is equipped with tankless domestic water heating coils, and if not, a declaration that the manufacturer has incorporated an automatic means for adjusting water temperature).
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Prior to February 17, 2023, certification reports must be submitted as required either in this section or 10 CFR 429.19 as it appears in the 10 CFR parts 200 through 499 edition revised as of January 1, 2022. On or after February 17, 2023, certification reports must be submitted as required in this section.
(b) * * *
(2) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall include the following public product-specific information: The estimated annual energy use in kilowatt hours per year (kWh/yr), the water consumption in gallons per cycle, and the capacity in number of place settings as specified in ANSI/AHAM DW-1-2010 (incorporated by reference, see § 429.4).
(3) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall include the following additional product-specific information:
(i) The presence of a soil sensor, and if yes, the number of cycles required to reach calibration;
(ii) The water inlet temperature used for testing in degrees Fahrenheit (°F);
(iii) The cycle selected for the energy test and whether that cycle is soil-sensing;
(iv) The options selected for the energy test;
(v) Presence of a built-in water softening system, and if yes, the energy use in kilowatt-hours and the water use in gallons required for each regeneration of the water softening system, the number of regeneration cycles per year, and data and calculations used to derive these values; and
(vi) Indication of whether Cascade Complete powder was used as the detergent formulation in lieu of Cascade with the Grease Fighting Power of Dawn powder.
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Prior to February 17, 2023, certification reports must be submitted as required either in this section or 10 CFR 429.27 as it appears in the 10 CFR parts 200 through 499 edition revised as of January 1, 2022. On or after February 17, 2023, certification reports must be submitted as required in this section.
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) For incandescent reflector lamps: The testing laboratory's International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) accreditation body's identification number or other approved identification assigned by the ILAC accreditation body, production dates of the units tested, the 12-month average lamp efficacy in lumens per watt (lm/W), lamp wattage (W), rated voltage (V), diameter in inches, and CRI.
(iii) For general service incandescent lamps: The testing laboratory's ILAC accreditation body's identification number or other approved identification assigned by the ILAC accreditation body, production dates of the units tested, the 12-month average maximum rate wattage in watts (W), the 12-month average minimum rated lifetime (hours), the 12-month average CRI, and initial lumen output in lumens (lm).
The revision and additions read as follows:
Prior to February 17, 2023, certification reports must be submitted as required either in this section or 10 CFR 429.32 as it appears in the 10 CFR parts 200 through 499 edition revised as of January 1, 2022. On or after February 17, 2023, certification reports must be submitted as required in this section.
(b)
(2) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall include the following public product-specific information:
(i) For all ceiling fans: Blade span (in), and the number of speed control settings.
(ii) For small-diameter ceiling fans: A declaration of whether the ceiling fan is a multi-head ceiling fan, and the ceiling fan efficiency (CFM/W).
(iii) For large-diameter ceiling fans: Ceiling fan energy index (CFEI) for high speed, and 40 percent speed or the nearest speed that is not less than 40 percent speed.
(3) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall include the following additional product-specific information:
(i) For all ceiling fans: A declaration that the manufacturer has incorporated the applicable design requirements.
(ii) For small-diameter ceiling fans: Standby power, blade edge thickness (in), airflow (CFM) at high speed, and blade revolutions per minute (RPM) at high speed.
(iii) For low-speed small-diameter ceiling fans: The distance (in) between the ceiling and the lowest point on the fan blades (in both hugger and standard configurations for multi-mount fans).
(c)
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Prior to February 17, 2023, certification reports must be submitted as required either in this section or 10 CFR 429.33 as it appears in the 10 CFR parts 200 through 499 edition revised as of January 1, 2022. On or after February 17, 2023, certification reports must be submitted as required in this section.
(b)
(2) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall include the following public product-specific information:
(i) For ceiling fan light kits manufactured prior to January 1, 2020:
(A) For ceiling fan light kits with sockets for medium screw base lamps: The rated wattage in watts (W) and the system's efficacy in lumens per watt (lm/W).
(B) For ceiling fan light kits with pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps: The rated wattage in watts (W), the system's efficacy in lumens per watt (lm/W), and the length of the lamp in inches (in).
(C) For ceiling fan light kits with any other socket type: The rated wattage in watts (W) and the number of individual sockets.
(ii) For ceiling fan light kits manufactured on or after January 1, 2020:
(A) For each basic model of lamp and/or each basic model of integrated solid-state lighting (SSL) circuitry packaged with the ceiling fan light kit, the brand, basic model number, test sample size, kind of lamp (
(B) For each lamp basic model identified in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section that is a compact fluorescent lamp with a medium screw base, the lumen maintenance at 40 percent of lifetime in percent (%) (and whether the value is estimated), the lumen maintenance at 1,000 hours in percent (%), the lifetime in hours (h) (and whether the value is estimated), and the sample size for rapid cycle stress testing and results in number of units passed (and whether the value is
(3) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall include the following additional product-specific information:
(i) For ceiling fan light kits with any other socket type manufactured prior to January 1, 2020, a declaration that the basic model meets the applicable design requirement, and the features that have been incorporated into the ceiling fan light kit to meet the applicable design requirement (
(ii) For ceiling fan light kits manufactured on or after January 1, 2020:
(A) A declaration that the ceiling fan light kit is packaged with lamps sufficient to fill all of the lamp sockets;
(B) For each basic model of lamp and/or each basic model of integrated SSL circuitry packaged with the ceiling fan light kit, a declaration that, where applicable, the lamp basic model was tested by a laboratory accredited as required under § 430.25 of this chapter; and
(C) For ceiling fan light kits with pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps, a declaration that each ballast for such lamps is an electronic ballast.
(c)
(2) Round lumen output to three significant digits.
(3) Round lumen maintenance at 1,000 hours to the nearest tenth of a percent.
(4) Round lumen maintenance at 40 percent of lifetime to the nearest tenth of a percent.
(5) Round lifetime to the nearest whole hour.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Prior to February 17, 2023, certification reports must be submitted as required either in this section or 10 CFR 429.46 as it appears in the 10 CFR parts 200 through 499 edition revised as of January 1, 2022. On or after February 17, 2023, certification reports must be submitted as required in this section.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Any represented value of the integrated water factor 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:
(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.
(4) The corrected remaining moisture content (RMC) of a basic model reported in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall be the mean of the final RMC value measured for all tested units of the basic model.
(b) * * *
(2) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall include the following public product-specific information:
(i) The modified energy factor (MEF
(ii) The integrated water factor (IWF), in gallons per cycle per cubic feet (gal/cycle/cu ft);
(iii) The clothes container capacity, in cubic feet (cu ft);
(iv) The type of loading (top-loading or front-loading); and
(v) The corrected RMC (expressed as a percentage).
(c)
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Prior to February 17, 2023, certification reports must be submitted as required either in this section or 10 CFR 429.59 as it appears in the 10 CFR parts 200 through 499 edition revised as of January 1, 2022. On or after February 17, 2023, certification reports must be submitted as required in this section.
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) For a dedicated-purpose pool pump (other than an integral cartridge-filter or sand-filter pool pump): weighted energy factor (WEF) in kilogallons per kilowatt-hour (kgal/kWh); rated hydraulic horsepower in horsepower (hp); the speed configuration for which the pump is being rated (
(3) * * *
(iv) For a dedicated-purpose pool pump (other than an integral cartridge-filter or sand-filter pool pump): Calculated driver power input and flow rate at each load point i (P
(i)
(1)
(2)