Food Safety and Inspection Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Utilities Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Copyright Office, Library of Congress
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Final rule.
In this final rule, the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) is adding clarifying instructions to the dishwasher test procedure regarding the allowable dosing options for each type of detergent; clarifying the existing detergent reporting requirements; and adding an enforcement provision for dishwashers to specify the detergent and dosing method that DOE would use for any enforcement testing of dishwasher models certified in accordance with the currently applicable dishwasher test procedure prior to July 17, 2023 (
The effective date of this rule is August 28, 2023. The amendments will be mandatory for product testing starting January 23, 2024. The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in this rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 17, 2023.
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:
Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-5649. 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:
Dishwashers are included in the list of “covered products” for which the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(6)) DOE's test procedures for dishwashers are currently prescribed in the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) at 10 CFR 430.23(c); appendix C1 to subpart B of part 430 (“appendix C1”); and appendix C2 to subpart B of part 430 (“appendix C2”).
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as amended (“EPCA”),
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
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)), and (2) making other representations about the efficiency of those products (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). 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))
DOE is conducting this rulemaking to address a single specific issue and make minor corrections to the current test procedures that are required for certification of compliance with applicable energy conservation standards. This rulemaking does not satisfy the EPCA requirement that, at least once every 7 years, DOE review the test procedure for dishwashers. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
Appendix C1 includes provisions for determining estimated annual energy use and per-cycle water consumption, among other metrics, and is currently required to demonstrate compliance with the energy conservation standards for dishwashers prescribed at 10 CFR 430.32(f). On January 18, 2023, DOE published a final rule (“January 2023 Final Rule”) that, in addition to establishing a new appendix C2 test procedure that requires use of Cascade Complete Powder detergent, amended appendix C1 to specify that Cascade Complete Powder detergent may alternately be used for testing dishwashers in conjunction with a new detergent dosing requirement that is based on the number of place settings, among several other updates. 88 FR 3234, 3428. The effective date of amended appendix C1 was February 17, 2023, and use of the amended appendix C1 is mandatory for product testing starting July 17, 2023. Use of appendix C2 will be required to determine compliance with any amended standards for dishwashers published after January 1, 2023.
Prior to the amendments of the January 2023 Final Rule, section 2.10 of appendix C1 specified the detergent type and dosage that must be used for testing.
Previously, on July 22, 2022, DOE published a final rule that amended the certification provisions for dishwashers (“July 2022 Certification Final Rule”), among other products. 87 FR 43952. In the July 2022 Certification Final Rule, DOE noted that, given the then-currently specified Cascade with the Grease Fighting Power of Dawn detergent was no longer available on the market, DOE expected that manufacturers may need to (or already had to) switch to the Cascade Complete Powder formulation to conduct testing according to appendix C1.
In the January 2023 Final Rule, DOE amended appendix C1 to specify that Cascade Complete Powder detergent may alternately be used for testing dishwashers in conjunction with the detergent dosing requirement that is based on the number of place settings rather than wash water fill volumes, among several other updates. 88 FR 3234, 3247-3248. DOE stated in the January 2023 Final Rule that permitting the optional use of the new detergent and dosing specified in the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (“AHAM”) standard, AHAM DW-1-2020, “Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Dishwashers,” would avoid the need for manufacturers to request test procedure waivers, given the lack of availability of Cascade with the Grease Fighting Power of Dawn detergent.
In specifying the place settings-based detergent dosing requirement for Cascade Complete Powder in appendix C1 in the January 2023 Final Rule, DOE did not intend to require manufacturers who have already certified dishwashers using Cascade Complete Powder in conjunction with the water volume-based detergent dosing requirement to re-test and re-certify using the place settings-based detergent dosing requirement. To make explicit DOE's intent, on March 23, 2023, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (“March 2023 NOPR”) proposing amendments to the test procedure at appendix C1 to explicitly allow the use of Cascade Complete Powder detergent with the water-volume-based detergent dosing requirements. 88 FR 17419, 17421. In addition to the appendix C1 proposed amendments, DOE proposed to amend certification reporting instructions at 10 CFR 429.19(b)(3) to specify the applicable dates for each detergent formulation and dosing combination in the March 2023 NOPR. DOE also proposed adding a product-specific enforcement provision for dishwashers at 10 CFR 429.134(z)(2) to explicitly specify that DOE would perform any enforcement testing using the detergent dosing requirement that was used by the manufacturer for certifying compliance with the energy conservation standards. 88 FR 17419, 17421-17422.
DOE received comments in response to the March 2023 NOPR from the interested parties listed in Table I.1.
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.
In the March 2023 NOPR, DOE noted that it was deviating from the provision in section 8(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (“the Process Rule”), regarding the early assessment process in a test procedure rulemaking. 88 FR 17419, 17421. Section 8(a) of the Process Rule states that DOE will follow an early assessment process similar to DOE's consideration of amended energy conservation standards and publish a notice in the
AHAM commented that it supported the deviation from section 8(a) of the Process Rule, as the circumstances provided in the March 2023 NOPR justify the deviation. (AHAM, No. 3 at p. 2)
As discussed in the March 2023 NOPR, DOE is conducting this rulemaking to address a single specific issue rather than comply with the 7-year lookback requirement prescribed by EPCA. 88 FR 17419, 17421. Furthermore, this proposal seeks to prevent manufacturers from needing to re-test and re-certify certain existing models after July 17, 2023. For these reasons, DOE finds it necessary and appropriate to deviate from the provision in the Process Rule regarding the early assessment process.
AHAM commented that it appreciated DOE's swift guidance and test procedure change to improve repeatability and reproducibility of the test procedure and reduce undue testing burden on manufacturers. AHAM also urged DOE to publish a final rule as quickly as possible. (AHAM, No. 3 at p. 3)
DOE appreciates AHAM's comments. DOE's intention with this final rule is to improve the clarity of the amended appendix C1 and reduce burden to manufacturers. Further, DOE has worked to move swiftly with this rulemaking so that this final rule could be published prior to the July 17, 2023, mandatory compliance date of the amended appendix C1 established by January 2023 Final Rule.
Hodgson opposed DOE's proposal, stating that consumer demand and transparent labeling of energy and water consumption would be sufficient to drive efficiency without further rulemaking. (Hodgson, No. 2 at p. 1)
In response to Hodgson, the March 2023 NOPR did not propose any changes with respect to the energy conservation standards applicable to dishwashers. As supported by AHAM's comment describing the results of its testing, the amendments proposed in the March 2023 NOPR would not be expected to change the measured energy and water use of dishwashers.
While the July 2022 Certification Final Rule amended the dishwasher certification provisions to require that manufacturers indicate whether Cascade Complete Powder detergent was used in lieu of Cascade with the Grease Fighting Power of Dawn to conduct testing according to appendix C1 (87 FR 43952, 43969-43970), it did not explicitly permit the use of Cascade Complete Powder detergent formulation with the water volume-based dosage requirements for units certified before July 17, 2023 (
Therefore, in the March 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed to amend section 2.5 of appendix C1 to explicitly allow the use of Cascade Complete Powder detergent with either the dosage requirements based on fill water volumes or based on number of place settings. 88 FR 17419, 17421. DOE's proposal in the March 2023 NOPR sought to clarify the current test procedure and prevent the need for manufacturers that have used, or intend to use until July 17, 2023, Cascade Complete Powder detergent with dosing based on fill water volumes rather than number of place settings to re-test and re-certify.
DOE requested feedback on its proposal to amend appendix C1 to explicitly allow the use of Cascade Complete Powder detergent with either the dosage requirements based on fill water volumes, or the dosage requirements based on number of place settings until July 17, 2023.
AHAM commented that it supports DOE's proposal to amend appendix C1 to explicitly allow the use of Cascade Complete Powder detergent with either the dosage requirements based on fill water volumes or based on number of place settings. AHAM commented that while the version of appendix C1 prior to the January 2023 Final Rule allows the use of Cascade with the Grease Fighting Power of Dawn detergent only with the fill water volume-based dosing method, manufacturers are predominantly using the Cascade Complete Powder detergent. AHAM commented that DOE's proposal in the March 2023 NOPR would add clarity to the test procedure and would eliminate unnecessary test burden from requiring manufacturers to re-test models using the Cascade Complete Powder detergent with the detergent dosing based on number of place settings. (AHAM, No. 3 at p. 2) AHAM noted the burden reduction is especially important in light of the significant cumulative regulatory burden associated with DOE's proposed energy conservation standards for several products under AHAM's scope that impact dishwasher manufacturers. (AHAM, No. 3 at p. 3)
DOE appreciates AHAMs comments and notes that DOE did not intend to require manufacturers who have already certified dishwashers using the new Cascade Complete Powder in conjunction with the water volume-based detergent dosing requirement to re-test and re-certify using the place settings-based detergent dosing requirement.
AHAM additionally commented that while conducting round-robin testing for AHAM's performance test procedure, AHAM members collected data that showed test results for measured energy consumption between the two detergent dosage methods were comparable. AHAM commented that its members also do not expect that there will be a difference in measured efficiency based on the detergent dosing method and that its members do not believe the dosing method would impact product performance, despite the use of potentially less detergent under the new dosing method.
DOE appreciates the additional data provided by AHAM and observes that the data suggest that the water volume-based dosing method and the place settings-based dosing method produce generally comparable results for machine energy consumption. DOE notes, however, that AHAM's comment does not specify which detergent was used for testing nor does it provide the measured water consumption or water heating energy. Therefore, DOE cannot draw conclusions on the rated energy and water consumption of dishwashers from the data provided.
AHAM also commented that there was a minor error in the amended appendix C1. Specifically, AHAM commented that in section 2.5 of appendix C1, there are references to sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 for the detergent dosing amount determination, but these sections should instead reference sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2. (AHAM, No. 3 at p. 3)
Regarding AHAM's comment that section 2.5 of appendix C1 as amended by the January 2023 Final Rule improperly references sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.2, DOE notes that the amendments proposed to section 2.5 in the March 2023 NOPR would correct these references as indicated by AHAM in its comment.
For the reasons discussed in the March 2023 NOPR, and in consideration of comments received by AHAM, DOE is finalizing amendments to appendix C1 as proposed to explicitly allow, until July 17, 2023, the use of Cascade Complete Powder detergent with either the dosage requirements based on fill water volumes, or the dosage requirements based on number of place settings.
In conjunction with the proposed amendment to appendix C1 as described, DOE proposed in the March 2023 NOPR to specify the applicable dates for each detergent formulation and dosing combination through instructions specified in the certification reporting provisions at 10 CFR 429.19(b)(3). 88 FR 17419, 17421. Specifically, DOE proposed to amend 10 CFR 429.19 to specify in a new paragraph (b)(3)(vi)(A) that before July 17, 2023, Cascade Complete Powder detergent may be used as the basis for certification in conjunction with either detergent dosing method (
DOE further proposed to specify in a new paragraph (b)(3)(vi)(B) to 10 CFR 429.19 that beginning July 17, 2023, Cascade Complete Powder detergent may be used as the basis for certification of newly certified basic models only in conjunction with the detergent dosing method based on number of place settings, and Cascade with the Grease Fighting Power of Dawn detergent may be used as the basis for certification only in conjunction with the detergent dosing method based on fill water volumes. DOE also proposed to clarify that manufacturers may maintain basic model certifications made prior to July 17, 2023. 88 FR 17419, 17422.
DOE sought feedback on its proposal to add two subsections to the certification reporting provisions that specify the date when each detergent formulation and dosage method is applicable.
DOE did not receive any comments on this specific topic. For the reasons discussed, DOE is finalizing its proposal from the March 2023 NOPR regarding certification reporting provisions for dishwashers.
In the March 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed adding a product-specific enforcement provision for dishwashers at 10 CFR 429.134(z)(2), explicitly specifying that DOE would perform any enforcement testing using the detergent dosing requirement that was used by the manufacturer for certifying compliance with the energy conservation standards. 88 FR 17419, 17422. This proposal sought to provide greater certainty regarding how DOE would conduct any enforcement testing for any dishwashers certified prior to July 17, 2023, using the Cascade Complete Powder detergent, as implicitly permitted by the July 2022 Certification Final Rule. In the March 2023 NOPR, DOE noted that it may request any information relevant to determining compliance per the requirements specified at 10 CFR 429.106(b), and the proposal to request detergent dosage information for the purposes of conducting enforcement testing would be consistent with that requirement.
DOE did not receive specific comments on this topic. For the reasons discussed, DOE is finalizing its proposal, consistent with the March 2023 NOPR, to add a product-specific enforcement requirement for dishwashers to specify that DOE would perform any enforcement testing using the detergent dosing requirement that was used by the manufacturer to certify compliance with the applicable energy conservation standards.
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), and amended by E.O. 14094, “Modernizing Regulatory Review,” 88 FR 21879 (April 11, 2023), 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
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to OIRA for review. This does not constitute a significant 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
This final rule amends appendix C1 to remove uncertainty about dishwashers that may be currently certified under appendix C1 as it appeared prior to the January 2023 Final Rule using Cascade Complete Powder detergent (as permitted by the July 2022 Certification Final Rule), and to prevent such dishwashers from having to be re-tested and re-certified after the July 17, 2023, required use date of appendix C1 as amended by the January 2023 Final Rule. These amendments do not affect the scope or substance of the currently applicable or amended test procedure for dishwashers.
Accordingly, DOE concludes that the cost effects accruing from the final rule would not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,” and that the preparation of a FRFA is not warranted. DOE has submitted a certification 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 dishwashers must certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. To certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their products according to the DOE test procedures, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including dishwashers. (
DOE is not amending the certification or reporting requirements for dishwashers in this final rule, rather it is clarifying the certification requirements.
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 is adding explicit enumeration of currently allowable testing options to the test procedure, certification reporting instructions, and a product-specific enforcement provision that would specify how DOE would conduct any enforcement testing of certain dishwasher models. 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 each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which are available at
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any 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.
The following standard was previously approved for incorporation by reference into the provisions where they appear in this rulemaking and no change to the standard is being made: AHAM DW-1-2020.
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule prior to 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,
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 19, 2023, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 430 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.
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(vi) Indication of whether Cascade Complete Powder or Cascade with the Grease Fighting Power of Dawn was used as the detergent formulation. When certifying dishwashers, other than water re-use dishwashers, according to appendix C1 to subpart B of part 430 of this chapter:
(A) Before July 17, 2023, Cascade Complete Powder detergent may be used as the basis for certification in conjunction with the detergent dosing methods specified in either section 2.5.2.1.1 or section 2.5.2.1.2 of appendix C1 to subpart B of part 430. Cascade with the Grease Fighting Power of Dawn detergent may be used as the basis for certification only in conjunction with the detergent dosing specified in section 2.5.2.1.1 of appendix C1.
(B) Beginning July 17, 2023, Cascade Complete Powder detergent may be used as the basis for certification of newly certified basic models only in conjunction with the detergent dosing method specified in section 2.5.2.1.2 of appendix C1 to subpart B of part 430. Cascade with the Grease Fighting Power of Dawn detergent may be used as the basis for certification only in conjunction with the detergent dosing specified in section 2.5.2.1.1 of appendix C1. Manufacturers may maintain existing basic model certifications made prior to July 17, 2023, consistent with the provisions of paragraph (b)(3)(vi)(A) of this chapter.
(z) * * *
(2)
42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Before January 23, 2024, manufacturers must use the results of testing under this appendix as codified on August 28, 2023, or February 17, 2023, to determine compliance with the relevant standard from § 430.32(f)(1) as it appeared in the January 1, 2023, edition of 10 CFR parts 200-499. Beginning January 23, 2024, manufacturers must use the results of testing under this appendix to determine compliance with the relevant standard from § 430.32(f)(1) as it appeared in the January 1, 2023, edition of 10 CFR parts 200-499. Manufacturers must use the results of testing under appendix C2 to this subpart to determine compliance with any amended standards for dishwashers provided in 10 CFR 430.32(f)(1) that are published after January 1, 2023. Any representations related to energy or water consumption of dishwashers must be made in accordance with the appropriate appendix that applies (
2.5
2.5.1
2.5.2
2.5.2.1
If Cascade with the Grease Fighting Power of Dawn detergent is used, the detergent dosing specified in section 2.5.2.1.1 of this appendix must be used.
If Cascade Complete Powder detergent is used, consult the introductory note to this appendix regarding use of the detergent dosing specified in either section 2.5.2.1.1 or section 2.5.2.1.2 of this appendix.
2.5.2.1.1
For dishwashers that do not have a direct water line, V
2.5.2.1.2
2.5.2.2
2.5.3
Prewash and main wash detergent must be placed as specified in sections 2.10 and 2.10.1 of AHAM DW-1-2020. For any dishwasher that does not have a main wash detergent compartment and the manufacturer does not recommend a location to place the main wash detergent, place the main wash detergent directly into the dishwasher chamber.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends United States Area Navigation (RNAV) route T-226 in the vicinity of Central, AK, in support of a large and comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of Alaska.
Effective date 0901 UTC, October 5, 2023. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Steven Roff, 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 expands the availability of RNAV in Alaska and improves the efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System (NAS) by lessening the dependency on ground-based navigation.
The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2022-0197 in the
The commenter supported the FAA's Next Generation Transportation System (NextGen) NAS transition efforts and the proposal to remove the waypoints (WP) not required for T-226 in the affected areas in the State of Alaska. The commenter offered that the FAA's actions were beneficial to improving compliance results, creating a better safety culture, and preventing accidents along the air routes. The commentor closed with support for the FAA's approval of the proposed action.
United States Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11 Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.
This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending RNAV route T-226 in the vicinity of Central, AK, in support of a large comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of Alaska. The amendment is described below.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
The FAA has determined that this airspace action of amending RNAV route T-226 in the vicinity of Central, AK, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Canadian Area Navigation (RNAV) route T-719, in the vicinity of Sitka, AK. This action is in support of a large and comprehensive RNAV T-route modernization project for the state of Alaska.
Effective date 0901 UTC, October 5, 2023. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
A copy of the NPRM, all comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Steven Roff, 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
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA 2022-0429 in the
The NPRM published in the
Canadian Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph 6013 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.
This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by establishing RNAV route, T-719, in the vicinity of Sitka, AK, in support of a large and comprehensive T-Route modernization project in the state of Alaska. This action extends Canadian RNAV route T-719 into United States airspace. The RNAV T-route action is described below.
The EEVER, AK, Fix replaces the CFQBR computer navigation fix located along the Sandspit, Canada (YZP), VOR/distance measuring equipment (DME) 312° radial and the United States (U.S.)/Canada border.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action of establishing Canadian RNAV route T-719, near Sitka, AK whereby T-719 extends between the EEVER, AK, Fix, and the Biorka Island, AK, (BKA) VORTAC and replaces the CFQBR computer navigation fix located along the Sandspit, Canada (YZP), VOR/DME 312° radial and the U.S./Canada border, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends RNAV route T-277 in the vicinity of Point Lay, AK, due to the planned decommissioning of the Point Lay, AK (PIZ), Nondirectional Radio Beacon (NDB). The Point Lay, AK, NDB will be decommissioned as part of a large and comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of Alaska.
Effective date 0901 UTC, October 5, 2023. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Steven Roff, 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 expand the availability of RNAV in Alaska and improve the efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System (NAS) by lessoning the dependency on ground-based navigation.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA 2022-0430 in the
The FAA is transitioning the NAS away from Low-Frequency NDB-based navigational airways, including the area around the Point Lay, AK (PIZ), NDB. PIZ is planned for decommissioning in the fall of 2024. The colored airways associated with PIZ are B-2, G-16, and G-18. On December 2, 2022, the FAA published a final rule in the
United States Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022 and effective September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.
This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending RNAV route T-277 in the vicinity of Point Lay, AK in support of a large and comprehensive T-route modernization project in the state of Alaska. The route amendment replaces the Point Lay, AK, NDB with the JODGU waypoint. The RNAV T-route amendment action is described below.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action of establishing RNAV route T-277, in the vicinity of Point Lay, AK qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p.389.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends United States Area Navigation (RNAV) route T-282 in the vicinity of Ruby, AK, in support of a large and comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of Alaska.
Effective date 0901 UTC, October 5, 2023. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Steven Roff, 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 expands the availability of RNAV in Alaska and improves the efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System by lessening the dependency on ground-based navigation.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Docket No. FAA-2022-0221 in the
In the NPRM, the VENCE, AK, and ROSII, AK, route points were each
Additionally, the FAA omitted the existing AKTIE, AK, WP from the route description of the NPRM's proposal section; however, the AKTIE, AK, WP was included in the route description in the NPRM's proposed amendment section. This action includes the existing AKTIE, AK, WP in the route description as it becomes a turn point in the amended T-282.
United States Area Navigation routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.
This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending RNAV route T-282 in the vicinity of Ruby, AK, in support of a large and comprehensive T-route modernization project in the state of Alaska. The amendment is described below.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under 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 rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this airspace action of amending RNAV route T-282 in the vicinity of Ruby, AK, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action is an administrative change to rename the location of restricted areas R-6602A, R-6602B, and R-6602C, Fort Pickett, VA, and to update the using agency description to reflect the change. This action partially implements recommendations of the Commission on the Naming of Items (Naming Commission) of the Department of Defense (DoD) as established by section 370 of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
Effective date 9:01 a.m. UTC, October 5, 2023.
A copy of this final rule, and all background material may 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 updates the information in the airspace descriptions of restricted areas R-6602A, R-6602B, and R-6602C.
The FY 2021 NDAA directed the DoD to establish a commission relating to assigning, modifying, or removing of names, symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia to assets of the DoD that commemorate the Confederate States of America or any person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America.
This action amends 14 CFR part 73 by updating the airspace titles and using agency descriptions for restricted areas R-6602A, R-6602B, and R-6602C by removing the name “Fort Pickett, VA” and replacing it with “Fort Barfoot, VA”. This action consists of administrative name changes only and does not affect the boundaries, altitudes, time of designation, or activities conducted in the airspace. Therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under 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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action of making administrative name changes to the geographic locations of restricted areas R-6602A, R-6602B, and R-6602C, which do not alter the boundaries, altitudes, or time of designation, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 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.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Final rule.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is amending its regulations to allow the transfer of electronic prescriptions for schedules II-V controlled substances between registered retail pharmacies for initial filling, upon request from the patient, on a one-time basis. This amendment specifies the procedure that must be followed and the information that must be documented when transferring such electronic controlled substance prescriptions between DEA-registered retail pharmacies.
This rule is effective August 28, 2023.
Scott A. Brinks, Regulatory Drafting and Policy Support Section, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (571) 776-3882.
On November 19, 2021, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to permit the transfer of electronic prescriptions for controlled substances (EPCS) in schedules II-V between registered retail pharmacies for initial filling on a one-time basis only.
The final rule amends DEA regulations to explicitly state that an electronic prescription for a controlled substance in schedule II-V may be transferred between retail pharmacies for initial filling on a one-time basis only, upon request from the patient, and clarifies that any authorized refills included on a prescription for a schedule III, IV, or V controlled substance are transferred with the original prescription. The final rule requires that: the transfer must be communicated directly between two licensed pharmacists; the prescription must remain in its electronic form; and the contents of the prescription required by 21 CFR part 1306 must be unaltered during the transmission. The final rule also stipulates that the transfer of EPCS for initial dispensing is permissible only if allowable under existing State or other applicable law.
In addition, the final rule describes the information that must be recorded to document transfer of EPCS between pharmacies for initial dispensing. It also clarifies that, in lieu of manual data entry, the transferring and/or receiving pharmacy's prescription processing software may, if capable, capture the required information from the electronic prescription and automatically populate the corresponding data fields to document the transfer. The transferring and/or receiving pharmacist, as applicable, must ensure that the populated information is complete and accurate. The electronic records documenting EPCS transfers must be maintained by both pharmacies for two years from the date of the transfer. The existing requirements for all prescriptions, as outlined in 21 CFR part 1306, Prescriptions, and the requirements for prescribing and pharmacy applications, as outlined in 21 CFR part 1311, Requirements for Electronic Orders and Prescriptions, remain unchanged in this final rule.
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) grants the Attorney General the authority to promulgate and enforce any rules, regulations, and procedures that he may deem necessary and appropriate for the efficient executions of his functions under subchapter I (Control and Enforcement) of the CSA.
DEA is revising its regulations to state that, upon request from the patient, a registered retail pharmacy may transfer an electronic controlled substance prescription in schedules II-V to another registered retail pharmacy for initial filling. This final rule specifies the procedures that retail pharmacies must follow and the information that must be documented when transferring EPCS. DEA believes that allowing the electronic transfer of controlled substance prescriptions will decrease the potential for duplicate prescriptions and thus reduce the opportunity for diversion or misuse.
The CSA and its implementing regulations specify the requirements for issuing and filling prescriptions for controlled substances. DEA regulations permit a pharmacist to dispense a controlled substance prescription in schedule II only pursuant to a written prescription (including an electronic prescription), except in limited emergency situations, when dispensing pursuant to an oral prescription is permitted.
The CSA does not address the transfer of paper or electronic prescriptions for controlled substances in any schedule between pharmacies for initial filling. DEA regulations address the transfer of controlled substance prescriptions (schedules III-V) between pharmacies for refill dispensing, but not for initial dispensing.
Unlike paper prescriptions which are issued directly to the patient, electronic prescriptions are transmitted directly from the practitioner to the pharmacy in the form of an electronic data file.
DEA realizes that this scenario creates the potential for duplication of prescriptions, if the practitioner transmits a new prescription to a different pharmacy and does not cancel or void the original prescription that was sent to the first pharmacy. It also recognizes that this scenario creates additional burden for patients, who have to get back in touch with the prescribing practitioner to request a new prescription. As more practitioners are issuing controlled substance prescriptions electronically (as discussed below), there is an increasing need to address how a pharmacy should handle an electronic controlled substance prescription that it receives but cannot fill.
DEA's March 2010 interim final rule (IFR),
DEA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
DEA received 183 comments in response to the NPRM.
The majority of commenters expressed support for the rule. In fact, 89 comments were general statements of support, with no discussion of the proposed regulatory changes. Thirty-seven commenters shared personal accounts of occasions when they or a family member had an electronic prescription sent to the wrong pharmacy or a pharmacy that could not fill the prescription. While most commenters supported the rule in its entirety, some supported the rule's general purpose but were opposed to certain provisions and proposed changes to those particular provisions. Other commenters raised issues of concern, without proposing changes, or sought clarification. Only one commenter opposed the entire rule. Five comments were outside the scope of the rule. These comments, along with DEA's responses, are discussed below.
Two commenters stated that DEA should allow the electronic transfer of controlled substance prescriptions for initial filling as one option, but should not mandate electronic transfer as the only option for transferring EPCS. Six commenters suggested that the final rule should allow the transfer of EPCS between pharmacies through pharmacist-to-pharmacist communication by phone or via facsimile. One commenter, noting that pharmacists have been transferring prescriptions successfully for a long time, stated that pharmacists should be trusted and allowed to transfer EPCS by oral communication between the two pharmacists, or by transmitting via facsimile a printed copy of the prescription, annotated with all the required documentation to indicate that the prescription was transferred.
DEA wishes to clarify that the one-time basis stipulation for transferring EPCS for initial filling is per prescription. In other words, each prescription transmitted from a practitioner to a retail pharmacy may be transferred one time, upon request from the patient, regardless of whether any previous EPCS were transferred. If the prescription being transferred includes authorized refills, the refills are transferred with the prescription to the pharmacy receiving the transfer. This final rule adds additional text to 21 CFR 1306.08(e) to provide this clarification. As proposed in the NPRM, this final rule permits the transfer of EPCS between pharmacies for initial dispensing on a one-time basis only. This is consistent with the current regulations at 21 CFR 1306.25 for the transfer of prescription information between pharmacies for refill dispensing of schedule III-V EPCS on a one-time basis only.
Regarding the transfer of prescriptions for controlled substances, existing regulations permit the transfer of schedules III-V controlled substance prescriptions for refill dispensing only.
One pharmacists' association supports DEA's proposal to allow the transfer of EPCS between pharmacies for initial filling from a patient care perspective, but expressed concern about the economic impact of the proposed rule on pharmacies. The association noted that although DEA estimates the rule will result in overall health system cost savings of $22 million annually, pharmacies will actually incur significant costs of $91,625,000 annually, as estimated by DEA.
DEA also agrees the cost savings per transfer would be higher for prescribing practitioners who do not have administrative staff and would have to handle calls from patients requesting new prescriptions themselves under current regulations. According to Surescripts' “2021 National Progress Report,” the rate of electronic prescribing of controlled substances was 73 percent in 2021.
In regards to the estimated additional costs that pharmacies will incur, DEA notes that, although the rule allows EPCS to be transferred at the request of a patient, it does not require a pharmacy to transfer EPCS if it is unable to do so (
In the Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis below, DEA compared the estimated cost of this rule to the annual revenues of the smallest of small pharmacy firms, those with less than $100,000 in annual revenue. The estimated cost of this rule is $9 annually for the 666 smallest of small pharmacies.
Five comments were outside the scope of this rule. Three commenters asked DEA to also allow controlled substance prescriptions prescribed orally and via facsimile to be transferred between pharmacies for initial dispensing. This is beyond the scope of this rule which only addresses the one-time transfer of EPCS between pharmacies for initial dispensing. One commenter disagreed with health insurance entities requiring prior authorization for medications currently being prescribed and those prescribed to treat chronic illnesses. The commenter also stated that after patients have been prescribed medications to treat chronic illnesses for an extended period of time, the prescriptions should be allowed to be refilled without requiring patients to revisit the prescribing practitioner or requiring the practitioner to issue new prescriptions. Additionally, the commenter stated that practitioners should be allowed to prescribe stimulants for less than a 30-day supply. One commenter wanted medications used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder removed from the controlled substances lists. These comments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking and therefore are not addressed.
DEA is finalizing the proposed regulatory text with modifications to address concerns brought forth by commenters. The final rule adds “upon request from the patient,” to the proposed text in 21 CFR 1306.08(e) to clarify that prescription transfers must be requested by the patient. Further, a new sentence is also added to 21 CFR 1306.08(e) to clarify that, when a prescription for a schedule III, IV, or V controlled substance issued with authorized refills is transferred, the authorized refills are transferred with the original prescription.
Additionally, a new paragraph is added to 21 CFR 1306.08(f) to state that a transferring or receiving pharmacy's prescription processing software, if capable, is permitted to capture the information required from the electronic prescription and automatically populate the corresponding data fields to document the transfer of prescriptions between pharmacies. The new paragraph also states that the transferring or receiving pharmacist, as applicable, must ensure that the populated information is complete and accurate.
DEA is amending its regulations to allow, upon request from the patient, the transfer of EPCS between registered retail pharmacies for initial filling on a one-time basis only. The final rule explicitly states that an electronic prescription for a controlled substance in schedule II-V may be transferred between retail pharmacies for initial filling on a one-time basis only, upon request from the patient, and clarifies that any authorized refills included on a prescription for a schedule III, IV, or V controlled substance are transferred with the original prescription. The final rule specifies the following requirements that must be met when EPCS are transferred between pharmacies for initial dispensing. The prescription must be transferred in its electronic form and may not be converted to another form (
The final rule describes the documentation requirements for pharmacies transferring EPCS for initial filling. A pharmacist transferring an electronic controlled substance prescription must update the electronic prescription record to note that the prescription was transferred. The transferring pharmacist must also update the prescription record with the following information: the name, address, and DEA registration number of the pharmacy to which the prescription was transferred; the name of the pharmacist receiving the transfer; the name of the transferring pharmacist; and the date of the transfer. Similarly, the pharmacist receiving the transferred prescription must record the transferring pharmacy's name, address, and DEA registration number, the name of the transferring pharmacist, the date of the transfer, and the name of the pharmacist receiving the transfer. In lieu of manual data entry, the transferring or receiving pharmacy's prescription processing software may, if capable, capture the aforementioned required information from the electronic prescription and automatically populate the corresponding data fields to document the transfer. However, the transferring or receiving pharmacist, as applicable, must ensure that the
This final rule was developed in accordance with the principles of Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563. E.O. 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects; distributive impacts; and equity). E.O. 13563 is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review as established in E.O. 12866. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866, section 3(f).
DEA is amending its regulations to allow the transfer of electronic prescriptions for schedule II-V controlled substances between registered retail pharmacies for initial dispensing, upon request from the patient, on a one-time basis only. This amendment specifies the procedure that must be followed and the information that must be documented when transferring EPCS between DEA-registered retail pharmacies. As described below, DEA estimates the annual cost savings of this rule is $29 million.
The final rule specifies that: the transfer must be communicated directly between two licensed pharmacists; the prescription must be transferred in its electronic form and may not be converted to another form (
As DEA regulations previously did not permit the transfer of schedule II-V EPCS from one retail pharmacy to another retail pharmacy for initial filling, DEA anticipates the ability to transfer EPCS under this final rule will affect the following parties: the first (transferring) pharmacy, patient, prescriber, and second (receiving) pharmacy. To quantify the economic impact of this rule, DEA estimated the average cost and cost savings for each transfer and applied this cost or cost savings to the estimated number of transfers.
To estimate the unit cost or cost savings, DEA compared the anticipated activities for each of the affected parties when a pharmacy receives EPCS it cannot fill under current practices (prior to the final rule) versus the final rule. The term “current” is used in the analysis to mean prior to the implementation of this final rule. The anticipated activities for each of the affected parties under current practices are described below. DEA understands there may be many operational variations; however, DEA believes the scenarios described below are good representations for the purposes of estimating costs.
The anticipated activities for each of the affected parties under current practice are described below.
1. The first (transferring) pharmacy contacts the patient to inform the patient that it is unable to fill the prescription.
2. The first pharmacy notes action taken, as needed.
3. The patient receives the call from the first pharmacy notifying the patient that it is unable to fill the prescription.
4. The patient contacts the prescriber and requests a new prescription.
5. The prescriber's secretary or administrative personnel receives the phone call from the patient.
6. The prescriber cancels the EPCS at the first pharmacy and issues a new EPCS at an alternate (receiving) pharmacy.
7. The alternate pharmacy receives and fills the EPCS.
8. The patient receives the filled prescription from the alternate pharmacy.
By contrast, the anticipated activities for each of the affected parties under the final rule and the economic impact are described below.
1. The first (transferring) pharmacy contacts the patient to inform them that it is unable to fill the prescription. DEA assumes the duration of the call to the patient is the same under the current and final rule scenarios, and therefore, there is no impact on the transferring pharmacy.
2. The patient receives a call from the transferring pharmacy notifying the patient that it is unable to fill the prescription; the patient requests that the prescription be transferred to an alternate (receiving) pharmacy. DEA assumes the duration of the call from the transferring pharmacy is the same under current and final rule scenarios. Therefore, there is no impact to the patient.
3. The patient (nor the transferring or receiving pharmacy) does not need to contact the prescriber to request a new prescription under the final rule. Therefore, there are cost savings for the patient from not contacting the prescriber.
4. The prescriber does not receive a call from the patient. Therefore, there are cost savings for the prescriber.
5. The prescriber does not need to issue a new EPCS. Therefore, there are cost savings for the prescriber.
6. The transferring pharmacy transfers the prescription (including contacting the receiving pharmacy, exchanging information, and recording the required information regarding transfer). Transferring the prescription will take longer than simply informing the patient that the prescription cannot be filled. Therefore, there is an additional cost to the transferring pharmacy to transfer a prescription.
7. The alternate (receiving) pharmacy receives the transfer and fills the transferred EPCS (including being contacted by the transferring pharmacy, exchanging information, and recording the required information regarding transfer). DEA anticipates there will be additional costs related to being contacted by the transferring pharmacy and exchanging information. Therefore, there is an additional cost to the receiving pharmacy to transfer a prescription, but the receiving pharmacy also obtains full reimbursement for the cost of filling the prescription.
8. The patient receives the filled prescription from the alternate (receiving) pharmacy. DEA assumes the burden is the same under the current and final rule scenarios, and therefore, there is no impact on the patient. Note that there may be a burden for the patient in needing to travel to a different pharmacy, but that is a cost that arises in every case where the patient must go to a different pharmacy than expected because the first pharmacy is unable to fill the prescription. There is no difference under this rule in the patient's burden in traveling to a different pharmacy, whether the EPCS is transferred under this rule, or the prescriber sends a new EPCS to the second pharmacy, or the patient takes a paper prescription to the second pharmacy.
Table 1 summarizes the activity scenarios under current practices (prior to the final rule) and final rule and the anticipated economic impact.
Cost or cost savings is based on applying the loaded labor rate for each of the affected persons to the estimated time to conduct the activity. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) hourly wage data for various occupation codes was used to estimate the labor rates for each of the affected persons. Occupation codes 29-1051 Pharmacists, 00-0000 All Occupations, and 43-6013 Medical Secretaries and Administrative Assistants are used as best representations of first (transferring) and second (receiving) pharmacists, patient, and prescriber's secretary, respectively. DEA estimates the best representation for prescribers are the occupation codes 29-1215 Family Medicine Physicians, 29-1171 Nurse Practitioners, and 29-1071 Physician Assistants for practitioner, nurse practitioner, and physician assistant prescribers, respectively. The occupation code 29-1215 Family Medicine Physicians was chosen to represent practitioners as DEA estimates that it best represents the typical prescribing practitioner.
DEA estimates the median hourly wages for the first (transferring) and second (receiving) pharmacist, patient, prescriber's secretary, and prescriber are $61.81, $22.00, $18.01, and $99.18, respectively.
The below sections describe the calculation conducted to quantify the economic impact associated with the changes in activities under the current and final rule scenarios described above.
1. Currently, the first pharmacy contacts the patient to inform the patient that the pharmacy is unable fill the prescription. DEA estimates that it takes three minutes for the first pharmacist to call the patient. From Table 2, the estimated loaded hourly rate of a pharmacist is $87.65. Multiplying the loaded hourly rate of $87.65 by 0.05 (3/60) hours results in a cost of $4.38. Under the final rule, the first (transferring) pharmacist would also contact the patient regarding the inability to fill the prescription. DEA estimates that it would also take three minutes for the transferring pharmacist to call the patient under the final rule, resulting in the same cost of $4.38. Therefore, there is no economic impact to the transferring pharmacy associated with this activity under the final rule.
2. Currently, the first pharmacist notes in the electronic prescription record that the prescription was not filled. DEA estimates that it takes one minute for the first pharmacist to make the entry in the electronic prescription record. From Table 2, the estimated loaded hourly rate of a pharmacist is $87.65. Multiplying the loaded hourly rate of $87.65 by 0.0167 (1/60) hours results in a cost of $1.46. Under the final rule, the transferring pharmacy may transfer the prescription, upon request from the patient, to the receiving pharmacy. Additionally, the transferring pharmacy must also contact the receiving pharmacy and exchange and document information such as the transferring pharmacy's name, address and DEA registration number, the name of the transferring pharmacist, and the name of the pharmacist receiving the transfer. DEA estimates that it takes three minutes for the transferring pharmacist to transfer the prescription. From Table 2, the estimated loaded hourly rate of a pharmacist is $87.65. Multiplying the loaded hourly rate of $87.65 multiplied by 0.05 (3/60) hours results in a cost of $4.38. Therefore, the net cost to the transferring pharmacy under the final rule is $2.92 ($4.38-$1.46) per transfer.
3. Under current practices, the patient first receives a call from the pharmacist who informs him/her that his/her prescription cannot be filled. DEA estimates that the call between the pharmacist and the patient lasts three minutes. From Table 2, the estimated loaded hourly rate of a patient is $31.20. Multiplying the loaded hourly rate of $31.20 multiplied by 0.05 (3/60) hours results in a cost of $1.56 to the patient. Under the final rule, this activity does not change. With transfers of EPCS, the pharmacist must still contact the patient. Thus, under the final rule, the patient also receives a call from the pharmacist. Estimating three minutes for the call, there is still a cost of $1.56 to the patient. Therefore, there is no economic impact to the patient associated with this activity under the final rule.
4. Under current practices, the patient must contact the prescriber to request a new prescription. DEA estimates that it takes five minutes for the patient to contact the prescriber. From Table 2, the estimated loaded hourly rate of the patient is $31.20. Multiplying the loaded hourly rate of $31.20 by 0.083 (5/60) hours results in a cost of $2.60. Under the final rule, the patient no longer needs to contact the prescriber; the patient requests an electronic transfer of the prescription from the first (transferring) pharmacy to the second (receiving) pharmacy; thus, there is zero cost to the patient. Therefore, this activity under the final rule results in a cost savings to the patient of $2.60 per transfer.
5. Under current practices, the patient has to contact the prescriber asking for a new prescription. DEA estimates that it takes five minutes for the prescriber's medical secretary to receive the call from the patient. From Table 2, the estimated loaded hourly rate of a medical secretary is $25.54. Multiplying the loaded hourly rate of $25.54 by 0.083 (5/60) hours results in a cost of $2.13. Under the final rule, the patient no longer needs to contact the prescriber; thus, this interaction will not occur. Therefore, this activity under the final rule results in a cost savings to the prescriber of $2.13 per transfer.
6. Under current practices, after the medical secretary receives the call from the patient and the information is relayed to the prescriber, the prescriber issues a new prescription. DEA estimates the prescriber takes two minutes to cancel the first prescription and issue a new prescription. From Table 2, the estimated loaded hourly rate of a prescriber is $140.64. Multiplying the loaded hourly rate of $140.64 by 0.03 (2/60) hours results in a cost of $4.69. Under the final rule, the prescriber does not need to issue a new prescription; the original prescription is simply transferred to the receiving pharmacy. Therefore, this activity under the final rule results in a cost savings to the prescriber of $4.69 per transfer.
7. Under current practices, the second (receiving) pharmacy receives and fills the prescription. DEA estimates that it takes 15 minutes for the second (receiving) pharmacy to receive and fill the prescription. From Table 2, the estimated loaded hourly rate of a pharmacist is $87.65. Multiplying the loaded hourly rate of $87.65 by 0.25 (15/60) hours results in a cost of $21.91. Under the final rule, DEA also estimates the receiving pharmacist still conducts this activity at the same loaded labor
8. Under current practices, DEA assumes that the patient is informed that the first pharmacy is unable to fill the prescription prior to traveling to pick it up; thus, the patient only makes one trip to the second pharmacy where the prescription was transferred. DEA estimates that it takes 20 minutes for the patient to pick up the filled prescription. From Table 2, the estimated loaded hourly rate of a patient is $31.20. Multiplying the loaded hourly rate of $31.20 by 0.33 (20/60) hours results in a cost of $10.40. Under the final rule, DEA also assumes that the patient is informed that the first pharmacy is unable to fill the prescription prior to traveling to pick up the prescription; thus, the patient only makes one trip. Estimating 20 minutes for the patient to pick up the filled prescription, under the final rule, there is still a cost of $10.40 to the patient. Therefore, there is no economic impact to the patient associated with this activity under the final rule.
As shown by Table 3, the final rule results in a total cost of $8.76 and a total cost savings of $10.88 per transfer. This results in an overall net cost savings of $2.12 per transfer.
As mentioned earlier, in order to calculate the total cost savings, DEA applied the $2.12 net cost savings per transaction, from above, to the estimated number of total transfers. DEA estimated the number of total transfers by estimating the number of EPCS for the analysis period, the first five years after the rule goes into effect, and applying an estimated percentage of EPCS that will be transferred.
Surescripts' National Progress Reports for 2019, 2020, and 2021 form the basis for estimating the number of EPCS for the five-year analysis period.
As shown in Table 4, the estimated total prescriptions for controlled substances decreased from 382.4 million in 2017 to 351.9 million in 2021. For the purposes of this analysis, DEA estimates the total number of controlled substances prescriptions will stay constant at 351.9 million per year for the five-year analysis period.
Also, from Table 4, the rate of electronic prescribing for non-controlled substances is higher than that of controlled substances. However, DEA estimates the rate of electronic prescribing for controlled substances will match that of non-controlled substances in year one due to a CMS December 2020 rule, which requires electronic prescribing for all controlled substances (with some exceptions) covered under Medicare Part D.
CMS estimates that as much as four percent of electronic prescriptions for non-controlled substances in 2019 were transfers.
In order to calculate the total cost savings, DEA applied the $2.12 net cost savings per transaction to the estimated 13.7 million transfers, resulting in a total annual net cost savings of $29.0 million over the five-year analysis period. The net present value (NPV) of the cost savings is $132.8 million at three percent discount rate and $118.9 million at seven percent discount rate. The annualized cost savings from year one to year five is $29.0 million at three percent and seven percent. Table 5 summarizes the NPV and annualized cost savings calculation.
This final rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988 to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.
This final rule does not have federalism implications warranting the application of E.O. 13132. The final rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This final rule does not have tribal implications warranting the application of E.O. 13175. It does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), DEA evaluated the impact of this rule on small entities. DEA's evaluation of economic impact by size category indicates that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of these small entities.
The RFA requires an agency to analyze options for regulatory relief of small entities unless it can certify that the rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. DEA has analyzed the economic impact of each provision of this final rule and estimates that it will have minimal economic impact on affected entities, including small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
DEA is amending its regulations to allow the transfer of electronic prescriptions for schedules II-V controlled substances between registered retail pharmacies for initial dispensing, upon request from the patient, on a one-time basis only. This amendment specifies the procedure that must be followed and the information that must be documented when transferring EPCS between DEA-registered retail pharmacies.
The final rule specifies that: the transfer must be communicated directly between two licensed pharmacists; the prescription must be transferred in its electronic form and may not be converted to another form (
DEA anticipates this final rule will affect pharmacies, offices of physicians, and hospitals, as the majority of prescribers are employed by offices of physicians or hospitals. Table 6 indicates the sectors, as defined by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), affected by this final rule. There may be other small entities under Small Business Administration size standards in other NAICS code industries affected by this final rule. However, DEA believes the list in Table 6 is a good general representation of affected small entities and their industries as defined by NAICS.
CMS estimates that as much as four percent of electronic prescriptions for non-controlled substances in 2019 were transfers.
In order to determine whether the final rule will result in a significant impact on the affected small entities, the following steps were taken:
1. Estimate the cost or cost savings per transfer.
2. Estimate the total cost or cost savings of transfers.
3. Allocate the total cost or cost savings across all affected entities in proportion to their revenue to estimate the cost or cost savings per entity.
4. Compare the cost or cost savings to the annual revenue for the smallest of small entities. If the impact is not significant for the smallest of small entities, then the impact is not significant for the larger small entities.
Table 3 summarizes the cost or cost savings on a per-transfer basis. The net cost to the transferring pharmacy is $2.92 (the cost of transferring the prescription, $4.38 (2.b.), minus the cost of updating the prescription record to note that the prescription was not filled, $1.46 (2.a.)). The cost to the receiving pharmacy is $4.38 (8.b.) per transfer. Each transfer affects two different pharmacies, the transferring and receiving pharmacies. Since pharmacies are likely to transfer and receive, an average was taken to determine the typical cost per transfer for a pharmacy. The average cost is $3.65 (($2.92 + $4.38)/2) per transfer. Also, from Table 3, the total cost savings to a prescriber (office of physician or hospital) is $6.82, the sum of the cost savings from not receiving a call from the patient $2.13 (6.) and the cost savings from not issuing a new prescription $4.69 (7.).
To calculate the total cost to pharmacies and total cost savings to prescribers, the unit cost and cost savings are multiplied by the estimated total annual transfers. From above, the estimated number of transfers is 13.7 million per year. Multiplying the average net cost of $3.65 per transfer for pharmacies by 13.7 million transfers, the estimated total cost of transfers to all pharmacies is $50,005,000 per year. Multiplying the cost saving of $6.82 per transfer for prescribers (office of physician or hospital) by 13.7 million transfers, the estimated total cost saving to all prescribers is $93,434,000 per year.
The U.S. Census Bureau's Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB) is an annual series that provides national and subnational data on the distribution of economic data by enterprise size and industry. SUSB data includes the number of firms at various size ranges. For the purposes of this analysis, the term “firm” as defined in the SUSB is used interchangeably with “entity” as defined in the RFA. Based on SUSB data, there are 19,234, 161,286, and 2,560 firms in 446110—Pharmacies and Drugs Stores, 621111—Offices of Physicians (except Mental Health Specialists), and 622110—General Medical and Surgical Hospitals industry sectors, respectively.
SUSB data also includes the number of firms and receipts for various receipt-size ranges. The smallest size range is firms with annual revenue less than $100,000. The average receipt per firm was calculated based on the number of firms and for the receipts for the firms in the size range. For example, in the 446110—Pharmacies and Drug Stores industry sector, there are 666 firms with receipts under $100,000, and their combined receipts is $34,342,000. Dividing $34,342,000 by 666 results in an average receipt of $51,565 per firm. Performing the same calculation for all three industries, the average receipt per firm is $51,565, $50,554, and $259,478 for the smallest size category in 446110—Pharmacies and Drugs Stores, 621111—Offices of Physicians (except Mental Health Specialists), and 622110—General Medical and Surgical Hospitals industry sectors, respectively. Table 8 summarizes the calculation for the average receipt per firm.
To compare the average cost per firm with the average receipt per firm, DEA allocated the cost and cost savings proportionally by revenue, divided by the number of firms to calculate the average cost per firm, and compared the average cost per firm as a percent of receipt per firm. For example, the receipts for the 666 firms with receipts under $100,000 in 446110—Pharmacies and Drug Stores industry sector is $34,342,000. This is 0.0121930 percent of total receipt of $281,653,229,000 for all size ranges. Allocating 0.0121930 percent of total cost to pharmacies of $50,005,000 to the 666 firms, the average cost per firm is $9.
This calculation is repeated for 621111—Offices of Physicians (except Mental Health Specialists) and 622110—General Medical and Surgical Hospitals industry sectors. However, the economic impact for 621111—Offices of Physicians (except Mental Health Specialists) and 622110—General Medical and Surgical Hospitals industry sectors is a cost savings, rather than a cost. Although employment of prescribers is expected to be split between these two industries, to be conservative, the total cost savings (rather than estimating a split between the two industries) is compared to the average receipt per firm. In summary, the average cost or cost savings per firm as percent of receipt is 0.01745 percent, 0.01978 percent, and 0.00925 percent for 446110—Pharmacies and Drugs Stores, 621111—Offices of Physicians (except Mental Health Specialists), and 622110—General Medical and Surgical Hospitals industry sectors, respectively. Table 9 summarizes the calculation and results.
In conclusion, the average cost or cost savings per firm as percent of receipt of 0.01745 percent, 0.01978 percent, and 0.00925 percent are not significant economic impacts. Therefore, DEA concludes this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501
Pursuant to section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), DEA has identified the following collection of information related to this rule and has submitted this collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
DEA is creating a new collection of information by requiring pharmacies to create and maintain certain records relating to the transfer of unfilled EPCS between pharmacies for initial filling. The rule requires the transferring pharmacy to note in the electronic prescription record that the prescription was transferred. The transferring pharmacy is also required to add to the prescription record the name, address, and DEA registration number of the pharmacy to which the prescription was transferred, as well as the name of the pharmacist receiving the transfer, the name of the transferring pharmacist, and the date of the transfer. Similarly, the rule requires the pharmacy receiving the transfer to record the name, address, and DEA registration number of the transferring pharmacy, the name of the transferring pharmacist, the name of the pharmacist receiving the transfer, and the date of the transfer. In addition, the rule required the records to be maintained by both pharmacies for at least two years from the date of the transfer. DEA estimates the following number of respondents and burden associated with this collection of information:
•
•
•
•
•
The activities described in this information collection are usual and ordinary business activities and no additional cost is anticipated.
If you need additional information, please contact the Regulatory Drafting and Policy Support Section (DPW), Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (571) 776-2265.
Any additional comments on this collection of information may be sent in writing to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for DOJ, Washington, DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to RIN 1117-AB64/Docket No. DEA-637.
This final rule is not a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 804. However, pursuant to the CRA, DEA is submitting a copy of this final rule to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on July 20, 2023, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA
Drug traffic control, Prescription drugs.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DEA amends 21 CFR part 1306 as follows:
21 U.S.C. 821, 823, 829, 829a, 831, 871(b) unless otherwise noted.
(e) The transfer for initial dispensing of an electronic prescription for a controlled substance in Schedule II-V is permissible between retail pharmacies, upon request from the patient, on a one-time basis only. If the transferred prescription is for a controlled substance in Schedule III, IV, or V and includes authorized refills, the refills are transferred with the initial prescription to the pharmacy receiving the transfer.
(f) The transfer of an electronic prescription for a controlled substance in Schedule II-V between retail pharmacies for the purpose of initial dispensing is subject to the following requirements:
(1) The prescription must be transferred from one retail pharmacy to another retail pharmacy in its electronic form. At no time may an intermediary convert an electronic prescription to another form (
(2) The contents of the prescription required by this part must not be altered during transfer between retail pharmacies. Any change to the content during transfer, including truncation or removal of data, will render the electronic prescription invalid.
(3) The transfer must be communicated directly between two licensed pharmacists.
(4) The transferring pharmacist must add the following to the electronic prescription record:
(i) Information that the prescription has been transferred.
(ii) The name, address, and DEA registration number of the pharmacy to which the prescription was transferred and the name of the pharmacist receiving the prescription information.
(iii) The date of the transfer and the name of the pharmacist transferring the prescription information.
(5) The receiving pharmacist must do the following:
(i) Add the word “transfer” to the electronic prescription record at the receiving pharmacy.
(ii) Annotate the prescription record with the name, address, and DEA registration number of the pharmacy from which the prescription was transferred and the name of the pharmacist who transferred the prescription.
(iii) Record the date of the transfer and the name of the pharmacist receiving the prescription information.
(6) In lieu of manual data entry, the transferring or receiving pharmacy's prescription processing software may, if capable, capture the information required, as outlined in this paragraph (f), from the electronic prescription and automatically populate the corresponding data fields to document the transfer of an electronic controlled substance prescription between pharmacies. The transferring or receiving pharmacist, as applicable, must ensure that the populated information is complete and accurate.
(g) The transfer of an electronic prescription for a controlled substance in Schedule II-V for the purpose of initial dispensing is permissible only if allowable under existing State or other applicable law.
(h) The electronic records documenting the transfer of the electronic prescription must be maintained for a period of two years
(i) A pharmacy may transfer electronic prescription information for a controlled substance in Schedule III, IV, and V to another pharmacy for the purpose of refill dispensing pursuant to § 1306.25.
U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Final rule.
Pursuant to the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act, the U.S. Copyright Office is adopting as final a May 3, 2023, proposed rule governing the filing of agreement-based counterclaims and related discovery requirements in Copyright Claims Board proceedings.
Effective August 28, 2023.
Rhea Efthimiadis, Assistant to the General Counsel, by email at
The Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2020 (the “CASE Act”)
On May 3, 2023, the Office published a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) seeking public comment on a proposed rule addressing the filing of agreement-based counterclaims and related discovery requirements in the CCB.
The Office received one comment that addressed the proposed rulemaking, but did not recommend any changes to the proposed regulatory text.
The Office appreciates these comments and will take them under advisement. Because the Office did not receive any comments recommending changes to the proposed rule, it adopts the rule as final.
Claims, Copyright.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the U.S. Copyright Office amends 37 CFR parts 222 and 225 as follows:
17 U.S.C. 702, 1510.
(c) * * *
(6) For a counterclaim arising under an agreement asserted under paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this section—
(i) A description of the agreement that the counterclaim is based upon;
(ii) A brief statement describing how the agreement pertains to the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject of the infringement claim against the counterclaimant; and
(iii) A brief statement describing how the agreement could affect the relief awarded to the claimant;
(b) * * *
(6) For counterclaims arising under an agreement, as set forth in 37 CFR 222.9(c)(2)(iv), a statement describing in detail the dispute regarding the contractual counterclaim, including any defenses as well as an explanation of why the counterclaim respondent believes the counterclaimant's position regarding the agreement lacks merit; and
17 U.S.C. 702, 1510.
(f)
(1) Identification and a description of the specific terms or provisions of the agreement the counterclaim respondent is alleged to have violated;
(2) The basis for the counterclaimant's belief that the agreement was valid;
(3) The basis for the counterclaimant's belief that the agreement was violated;
(4) The basis for the counterclaimant's belief that the agreement could affect the relief that might be awarded to the claimant;
(5) A description of the counterclaimant's performance under the agreement, as relevant to the counterclaim;
(6) Identification and a description of any inadequacies in performance under the agreement by the counterclaim respondent; and
(7) If the agreement at issue in the counterclaim is oral, a description of the terms and provisions of the agreement.
(g)
(1) All defenses asserted to the counterclaim arising under an agreement and the basis for those assertions. Defenses listed in timely answers and timely updated answers to the
(2) The basis for any other reasons the counterclaim respondent believes that it did not violate the agreement or that the agreement was not valid;
(3) The basis for any belief by the counterclaim respondent that the agreement does not affect the relief that might be awarded to the claimant;
(4) A description of the counterclaim respondent's performance under the agreement, as relevant to the counterclaim; and
(5) Identification and a description of any inadequacies in performance under the agreement by the counterclaimant.
(f)
(1) The agreement at issue in the counterclaim arising under an agreement, including any amendments or revisions;
(2) Documents related to the agreement at issue, including any amendments or revisions and documents related to the validity of and the parties' performance under the agreement; and
(3) Documents relevant to damages arising out of the counterclaim, including documents sufficient to show the damages suffered by the counterclaimant related to violation of the agreement in question.
(g)
(1) The agreement at issue in the counterclaim arising under an agreement, including any amendments or revisions;
(2) Documents related to the agreement at issue, including any amendments or revisions and documents related to the validity of and the parties' performance under the agreement; and
(3) Documents relevant to damages, including documents sufficient to show the lack of damages suffered by the counterclaimant related to the counterclaim respondent's alleged violation of the agreement in question.
Approved by:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West Virginia. The revision updates West Virginia's incorporation by reference (IBR) of EPA's national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and the associated monitoring reference and equivalent methods. EPA is approving these revisions to the West Virginia SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This final rule is effective on August 28, 2023.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2022-0656. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Om P. Devkota, Planning & Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Four Penn Center, 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-2172. Mr. Devkota can also be reached via electronic mail at
On May 8, 2023 (88 FR 29616), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of West Virginia. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of a formal SIP
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) has historically chosen to incorporate by reference the NAAQS, found at 40 CFR part 50, and the associated Federal ambient air monitoring reference methods and equivalent methods for these NAAQS found at 40 CFR part 53. When incorporating by reference these Federal regulations, WVDEP has specified that it is incorporating by reference these regulations as they existed on a certain date. The IBR of the NAAQS that is currently approved in the West Virginia SIP incorporates by reference 40 CFR parts 50 and 53 as they existed on June 1, 2020. West Virginia's July 1, 2022 SIP revision updates the State's IBR of the primary and secondary NAAQS and the ambient air monitoring reference and equivalent methods, found in 40 CFR parts 50 and 53, respectively, as of June 1, 2021.
Since the last West Virginia IBR of June 1, 2020, EPA: (1) updated method 201A of Appendix M of Part 51; (2) completed the review of the NAAQS for particulate matter; (3) completed the review of the NAAQS for ozone; and (4) designated one new reference method for measuring concentrations of sulfur dioxide and one new equivalent method for measuring concentrations of particulate matter (PM
The amendments to the legislative rule include changes to sections 45-8-1 (General) and 45-8-3 (Adoption of Standards). The amendments alphabetize the criteria pollutants list in the scope (1.1), update the filing and effective dates (1.3, 1.4) and update West Virginia's IBR of the primary and secondary NAAQS and the ambient air monitoring reference and equivalent methods from June 1, 2020, to June 1, 2021 (1.6, 3.1, 3.2). West Virginia is incorporating the Federal rules in 40 CFR parts 50 and 53 as they existed on June 1, 2021, into sections 45-8-1 and 45-8-3.
EPA received one comment in response to the NPRM, which is available in the docket for this action. The comment was outside of the scope of this rulemaking. As such, the comment does not require a response by EPA.
EPA is approving the West Virginia SIP revision of July 1, 2022, updating the IBR of EPA's NAAQS and associated ambient air monitoring reference methods and equivalent methods.
In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of 45CSR8, as effective April 1, 2022, as discussed in section II. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
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, this 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).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
The WVDEP did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 25, 2023. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action, approving the West Virginia SIP revision updating its incorporation by reference of EPA's NAAQS and associated ambient air monitoring reference methods and equivalent methods, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of sodium salt of acifluorfen in or on berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G; soybean, vegetable, edible podded; and soybean, vegetable, succulent shelled. The Interregional Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective July 27, 2023. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before September 25, 2023, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0361, is available online at
Charles Smith, Director, Registration Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (202) 566-1030; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of 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:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0361 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before September 25, 2023. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0361, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified therein, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for sodium salt of acifluorfen including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with sodium salt of acifluorfen follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
The toxicology database for sodium salt of acifluorfen is complete and considered adequate for risk assessment. EPA has waived the subchronic inhalation study, subchronic neurotoxicity studies, and the developmental neurotoxicity study. Hematological effects (such as decreases in erythrocyte count, hematocrit, and/or mean cell volume) were noted in dog, rat, and mice. The liver (dog, rat, and mouse) and kidney (rat and mouse) are also target organs of oral exposure, and effects in these organs were noted following both subchronic and chronic exposures. Indications of liver toxicity
EPA has classified sodium salt of acifluorfen as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans at high enough doses to cause the biochemical and histopathological changes in livers of rodents, but unlikely to be carcinogenic at doses below those causing these changes”. EPA determined that non-linear extrapolation is appropriate for risk assessment purposes. The non-linear reference dose (RfD) approach will be protective for chronic effects, including carcinogenicity.
Sodium salt of acifluorfen has low acute toxicity by the oral and dermal exposure routes (Toxicity Category III). However, it is a severe eye irritant (Toxicity Category I) and moderate dermal irritant (Toxicity Category II). It is not considered a skin sensitizer.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by sodium salt of acifluorfen as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for sodium salt of acifluorfen used for human risk assessment can be found in the Sodium Acifluorfen Human Health Risk Assessment on pages 12-15.
1.
i.
In estimating the acute dietary exposure, EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software using the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) Version 4.02, which uses the 2005-2010 food consumption data from the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). The acute dietary exposure assessment assumes tolerance-level residues and 100% crop treated (PCT) for all commodities and incorporates default processing factors.
ii.
iii.
iv.
2.
Based on the groundwater modeling results from Pesticide Root Zone Model
3.
Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at
4.
Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to sodium salt of acifluorfen and any other substances, and sodium salt of acifluorfen does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that sodium salt of acifluorfen has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.
For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for sodium salt of acifluorfen is complete.
ii. The weight of evidence (WOE) suggests that sodium salt of acifluorfen is not neurotoxic. This conclusion is based on the following: (1) indications of treatment-related toxicity in the acute neurotoxicity study (ACN) are well-characterized, and the decreased motor activity observed could be an indication of systemic toxicity from the bolus dose; (2) the slight effect observed in fetuses in a developmental toxicity study with Sprague-Dawley rats (dilated brain ventricles) were not reproduced in another developmental toxicity study with Wistar rats nor in developmental toxicity studies with rabbits; and (3) there was no indication of treatment-related neurotoxicity observed in any studies for structurally-related chemicals (fomesafen, lactofen, and oxyfluorfen), except for decreased motor activity in an acute neurotoxicity study with fomesafen at the same dose where general systemic toxicity (body weight loss) was observed. No immunotoxicity was observed. In the dermal toxicity test, skin irritation was observed at all doses, and systemic toxicity was noted at the limit dose.
iii. There is evidence that sodium salt of acifluorfen results in increased susceptibility following exposure
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure database. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to sodium salt of acifluorfen in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by sodium salt of acifluorfen.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing dietary exposure estimates to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD).Short-, intermediate-, and chronic term aggregate risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated total food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Adequate methods are available for enforcement of tolerances of sodium salt of acifluorfen in the Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) Volume II. PAM Volume II lists a gas chromatography/electron capture detector (GC/ECD) method, (Method I), for the determination of sodium salt of acifluorfen in/on plant commodities. Identifications are confirmed by gas chromatograph equipped with a mass spectroscopy (GC/MS), Method A in PAM II.
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4).
Codex has not established any MRLs for sodium salt of acifluorfen; thus, harmonization is not an issue.
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of sodium salt of acifluorfen, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the following commodities: berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G at 0.1 ppm; soybean, vegetable, edible podded at 0.09 ppm and soybean, vegetable, succulent shelled at 0.09 ppm. Additionally, EPA is removing the established tolerance for residues of sodium salt of acifluorfen in or on strawberry at 0.05 ppm.
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerances in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR chapter I as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
The additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; inseason adjustment.
NMFS announces an inseason action for the 2023 non-tribal directed commercial Pacific halibut fishery that operates south of Point Chehalis, Washington (lat. 46°53.30′ N) in the International Pacific Halibut Commission's regulatory Area 2A off Washington, Oregon, and California. Specifically, this action adds an additional fishing period beginning on August 1, 2023 at 8 a.m. and closing on August 3, 2023 at 6 p.m. and implements a fishing period catch limit of 1,000 pounds (lb) (0.45 mt) dressed weight for all vessel size classes. This action is intended to conserve Pacific halibut and provide commercial fishing opportunity where available.
Melissa Mandrup, 562-980-3231,
On June 26, 2023, NMFS published a final rule implementing harvest specifications, fishing periods, and fishing period limits by vessel size class for the Area 2A non-tribal directed commercial Pacific halibut fishery (88 FR 41334), as authorized by the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (16 U.S.C. 773-773(k)). The Pacific Fishery Management Council 2023 Catch Sharing Plan provides a recommended framework for NMFS' management considerations and allocations based on the 2023 Area 2A Pacific halibut catch limit of 1,520,000 pounds (lb) (689 metric tons (mt)) set by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC). The Area 2A catch limit and commercial fishery allocations were adopted by the IPHC and were published in the
Per a final rule published on June 26, 2023 (88 FR 41334), two fishing periods were set for the 2023 directed commercial Pacific halibut fishery; the first fishing period began on June 27, 2023 at 8 a.m. and closed on June 29 at 6 p.m. and the second fishing period opened on July 11, 2023 at 8 a.m. and closed on July 13 at 6 p.m. Fishing period limits for the fishing periods announced in the final rule varied by vessel size class, ranging from 2,716 lb (1.23 mt) to 6,136 lb (2.78 mt). Federal regulations at 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(iii), “Inseason action to add fishing periods and associated fishing period limits,” allow the NMFS Regional Administrator to add fishing periods as needed to attain the directed commercial fishery allocation. Fishing period limits, for those fishing periods added inseason, are equal across all vessel size classes.
Landings information at the conclusion of the second fishing period indicate that sufficient allocation remains to warrant an additional fishing period without exceeding the allocation for the Area 2A directed commercial fishery. As stated above, inseason addition of fishing periods with fishing period limits equal across all vessel size classes is authorized by Federal regulations at 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(iii) and was announced in the final rule (88 FR 41334, June 26, 2023). NMFS determined the following inseason action is necessary to meet the management objective of attaining the directed commercial fishery allocation, will not result in exceeding the allocation, and is consistent with the inseason management provisions allowing for additional fishing periods. Notice of this additional fishing period and fishing period limits will also be announced on the NMFS hotline at 206-526-6667 or 800-662-9825.
As of July 19, approximately 223,261 lb (101.27 mt), net weight, have been harvested of the 257,819 lb (116.95 mt) allocation (87 percent), leaving 34,558 lb (15.68 mt) remaining (13 percent). With little risk of the directed commercial fishery allocation being exceeded, an additional fishing period is warranted for participants in the directed commercial fishery. Therefore, through this action, NMFS is adding one fishing period not previously implemented in the final rule on June 26, 2023 (88 FR 41334). Specifically, an additional fishing period is announced for August 1, 2023 at 8 a.m. until August 3, 2023 at 6 p.m.
Fishing period limits for the two fishing periods, implemented in the final rule (88 FR 41334, June 26, 2023), varied across vessel size classes, ranging from 2,715 lbs. (1.23 mt) to 6,135 lbs. (2.78 mt), and were based on the number of permits issued and the allocation. Fishing period limits implemented through inseason action
Notice of this additional fishing period and fishing period limit will also be announced on the NMFS hotline at 206-526-6667 or 800-662-9825.
NMFS issues this action pursuant to the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982. This action is taken under the regulatory authority at 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(iii), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The California, Oregon, and Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife provided estimated harvest data to NMFS, showing that the fishery participants in the directed commercial fishery had caught only an estimated 87 percent of the directed commercial fishery allocation. NMFS uses current fishery harvest and participation estimates, and fishing period catches from prior years to determine if additional fishing periods are necessary and to set fishing period limits. Given that harvest in the first two fishing periods is below the allocation, a third fishing period is considered necessary to increase commercial fishing opportunity to attain the directed commercial fishery allocation. This action should be implemented as soon as possible for fishery participants to plan for the additional fishing. This fishery has historically had 2 weeks between fishing periods, or as close to 2 weeks between them as is practicable, and closes no later than December 7, 2023 (88 FR 14066, March 3, 2023). As such, implementing this action through proposed and final rulemaking would limit the benefit this action would provide to fishery participants. Without implementation of an additional fishing period, the directed commercial fishery allocation is unlikely to be reached, limiting economic benefits to the participants and not meeting the goals of the Catch Sharing Plan. It is necessary that this rulemaking be implemented in a timely manner so that planning for additional fishing periods can take place, and for business decision making by the regulated public impacted by this action, which includes commercial fishing operations and associated port businesses, among others. To ensure the regulated public is fully aware of this action, notice of this regulatory action will also be provided to fishery participants through a telephone hotline, and news release. No aspect of this action is controversial, and changes of this nature were anticipated in the process described in regulations at 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(iii) and in the final rule (88 FR 41334, June 26, 2023).
For the reasons discussed above, there is also good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effective date and make this action effective immediately upon filing for public inspection, as a delay in effectiveness of this action would constrain fishing opportunity and be inconsistent with the goals of the Catch Sharing Plan, as well as potentially limit the economic opportunity intended by this rule to the associated fishing communities. This inseason action is not expected to result in exceeding the allocation for the directed commercial fishery. NMFS regulations allow the Regional Administrator to add fishing periods and set fishing period limits inseason, provided that the action allows allocation objectives to be met and will not result in exceeding the catch limit for the fishery. NMFS recently received information on the progress of landings in the directed commercial fishery, indicating an additional fishing period with fishing period limits should be implemented in the fishery to ensure optimal and sustainable harvest of the allocation. As stated above, it is in the public interest that this action is not delayed, because a delay in the effectiveness of this additional fishing period would not allow the allocation objectives of the directed commercial Pacific halibut fishery to be met.
16 U.S.C. 773-773k.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS approves and implements the 2023-2025 specifications for the Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan as recommended by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. This action sets the 2023-2025 chub mackerel specifications, the 2023-2024 butterfish specifications, and the 2023
Effective July 27, 2023.
Copies of supporting documents used by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, including the Environmental Assessment (EA), the Supplemental Information Report (SIR), the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis are available from: Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901, telephone (302) 674-2331. These documents are also accessible via the internet at
Copies of the small entity compliance guide are available from Michael Pentony, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298, or available on the internet at:
Shannah Jaburek, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-282-8456.
This rule implements specifications, which are the combined suite of commercial and recreational catch levels established for one or more fishing years, for chub mackerel,
The regulations implementing the fishery management plan (FMP) require the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Monitoring Committee to develop specification recommendations for each species based upon the ABC advice of the Council's SSC. The FMP regulations also require the specification of annual catch limits (ACL) and accountability measure (AM) provisions for butterfish. Both squid species are exempt from the ACL/AM requirements because they have a life cycle of less than 1 year. In addition, the regulations require the specification of domestic annual harvest (DAH), the butterfish mortality cap in the longfin squid fishery, and initial optimum yield (IOY) for both squid species.
On May 10, 2022 (87 FR 27952), we published a final rule in the
The Council's SSC met in May and July 2022 to reevaluate the chub mackerel, longfin squid,
This action maintains the 2022 longfin squid ABC of 23,400 metric tons (mt) for 2023. The background for this ABC is discussed in the proposed rule to implement the 2021-2022 squid and butterfish specifications (86 FR 38586; July 22, 2021) and is not repeated here. The IOY, DAH, and domestic annual processing (DAP) are calculated by deducting an estimated discard rate (2 percent) from the ABC. This results in a 2023 IOY, DAH, and DAP of 22,932 mt (Table 1). This action also maintains the existing allocation of longfin squid DAH among trimesters according to percentages specified in the FMP (Table 2). The Council will review these specifications during its annual specifications process following annual data updates each spring, and may change its recommendation for 2024 if new information becomes available.
This action implements the 2023 butterfish specifications and projected 2024 specifications as outlined in Table 3. The SSC reviewed the research track assessment results in May 2022. A variety of ecosystem topics were considered for inclusion in the butterfish assessment. These included predictive models for spatial distribution patterns over time; the influence of environmental drivers; the potential magnitude of natural mortality by marine mammal, bird, and fish populations; and comparative analyses of trends in recruitment and condition factor for a broad range of fish species. The proposed 2023 and projected 2024 butterfish specifications uses a new biological reference point for fishing mortality that is higher than earlier values based on updated scientific information. These specifications maintain the existing butterfish mortality cap in the longfin squid fishery of 3,884 mt and the existing allocation of the butterfish mortality cap among longfin squid trimesters (Table 4).
The 2023
Amendment 21 to the FMP (88 FR 6665; February 1, 2023) previously implemented chub mackerel specifications for the 2020-2022 fishing years. The Council reevaluated these specifications at its June 2022 meeting and decided to make no adjustments for the 2023-2025 fishing years. This action sets the previously implemented specifications for 2023 and projects the same for 2024-2025.
In addition to implementing the specifications discussed previously, this final rule reinstates regulatory text outlining the eligibility requirements required to issue Tier 1 longfin squid moratorium permits found at 50 CFR 648.4(a)(5)(i)(A)(
We received no public comments on the proposed rule published on March 7, 2023 (88 FR 14110).
Originally the Council recommended that the
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.
This final rule does not contain policies with federalism or “takings” implications, as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively.
This action does not contain any collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effective date. The start of the fishing year began on January 1, 2023. This rule slightly increases the
However, if there is a delay in implementing the 2023 longfin squid specifications, the closure would occur
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(a) * * *
(2)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-19-22, which applies to British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Jetstream Series 3101 and Jetstream Model 3201 airplanes. AD 2017-19-22 requires incorporating BAE Systems' Corrosion Prevention and Control program into the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the existing instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA) for your airplane, which adds new and more restrictive inspections for corrosion that include inspecting the door hinges/supporting structure and attachment bolts for the main spar joint and engine support, and the rudder hinge location on the vertical stabilizer, and applicable corrective actions. Since the FAA issued AD 2017-19-22, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) of the United Kingdom superseded the mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to correct an unsafe condition on these products. This proposed AD would require revising the ALS of the existing ICA for your airplane. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this NPRM by September 11, 2023.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For service information identified in this NPRM, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd., Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; phone: +44 3300 488727; fax: +44 1292 675704; email:
• You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110. It is also available at
Doug Rudolph, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (816) 329-4059; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Doug Rudolph, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Westbury, NY 11590. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
The FAA issued AD 2017-19-22, Amendment 39-19052 (82 FR 44502, September 25, 2017) (AD 2017-19-22), for all British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Jetstream Series 3101 and Jetstream Model 3201 airplanes. AD 2017-19-22 was prompted by MCAI originated by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued EASA AD 2017-0073, dated April 27, 2017 (EASA AD 2017-0073) to correct an unsafe condition identified as findings of extensive corrosion in areas covered by an existing zonal inspection.
AD 2017-19-22 requires incorporating new revisions to the ALS of the existing ICA for your airplane to incorporate new and more restrictive inspections for corrosion, which include inspecting the door hinges/supporting structure and attachment bolts of the main spar joint and engine support, and the hinge location on the vertical stabilizer, and repair or replacement, as applicable. The FAA issued AD 2017-19-22 to address corrosion on the rudder upper hinge bracket and internal wing, areas of the passenger/crew door hinges and supporting structure, the main spar joint, and the engine support attachment bolts, which could lead to reduced structural integrity with consequent loss of control.
Since the FAA issued AD 2017-19-22, the CAA of the United Kingdom superseded EASA AD 2017-0073 and issued CAA AD G-2022-0021, dated December 21, 2022 (CAA AD G-2022-0021) (referred to after this as “the MCAI”) for all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Jetstream Series 3100 and 3200 airplanes. The MCAI states that reports were received of corrosion on the rudder tab hinges, fuselage skin beneath the marker beacon antenna external doubler, and fuselage skin beneath the static vent external doubler, resulting in the need for new and more restrictive inspection requirements. The MCAI requires accomplishing the actions specified in BAE Systems Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Corrosion Prevention and Control Programme, Manual Ref: JS/CPCP/01, Revision 9, dated April 15, 2022 (BAE Systems CPCP Manual JS/CPCP/01, Revision 9) within the associated threshold and intervals specified in BAE Systems CPCP Manual JS/CPCP/01, Revision 9. Consequently, this proposed AD would require revising the ALS of the existing ICA for your approved maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by including new actions, which include inspecting the rudder tab hinges, fuselage skin beneath the marker beacon antenna external doubler, and fuselage skin beneath the static vent external doubler for corrosion, and depending on the inspection results, performing applicable corrective actions.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address corrosion on the rudder tab hinges, fuselage skin beneath the marker beacon antenna external doubler, and fuselage skin beneath the static vent external doubler. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to reduced structural integrity of the affected parts with consequent loss of control of the airplane.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA reviewed BAE Systems CPCP Manual JS/CPCP/01, Revision 9. This service information specifies procedures for a comprehensive corrosion prevention and control program.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
These products have been approved by the aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI described above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would retain none of the requirements of AD 2017-19-22. This proposed AD would require revising the ALS of the existing ICA for your approved maintenance or inspection program. The revision to the ALS of the existing ICA specified in this proposed AD may be performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate and must be entered into the aircraft records showing compliance with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.
The MCAI applies to Model Jetstream Series 3100 and Jetstream Series 3200 airplanes, which are identified on the FAA type certificates as Jetstream Model 3101 and Jetstream Model 3201 airplanes, respectively.
The MCAI specifies contacting BAE for approved corrective actions instructions and this proposed AD would require, for certain corrective actions, contacting the Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA; CAA of the United Kingdom; British Aerospace (Operations) Limited's Design Organization Approval (DOA) (for Jetstream Series 3101); or British Aerospace Regional Aircraft's DOA (for Jetstream Model 3201) for approved corrective action instructions and accomplishing those instructions accordingly. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
The MCAI requires revising the existing aircraft maintenance program (AMP) to introduce the actions specified in BAE Systems CPCP Manual JS/CPCP/01, Revision 9. After the AMP is revised, the MCAI does not require recording AD compliance on a continued basis each time an action in the revised AMP is performed. The AMP is not required for U.S. operators for the affected airplanes; however, this proposed AD would require incorporating BAE Systems CPCP Manual JS/CPCP/01, Revision 9, into the ALS of the existing ICA for your airplane, which has the same intended result as revising the AMP of not needing to record compliance with the proposed AD each time an individual action is accomplished.
The MCAI requires doing all actions in BAE Systems CPCP Manual JS/CPCP/01, Revision 9, from the effective date of CAA AD G-2022-0021 and this proposed AD would require doing all actions in BAE Systems CPCP Manual JS/CPCP/01, Revision 9, at the compliance times specified in that manual or within 12 months after the effective date of the proposed AD, whichever occurs later, except for the actions identified in paragraph (g)(3) of this proposed AD.
BAE Systems CPCP Manual JS/CPCP/01, Revision 9 specifies reporting of Level 2 and Level 3 corrosion, and this proposed AD would not.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 42 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The scope of damage found while performing in the actions specified in BAE Systems CPCP Manual JS/CPCP/01, Revision 9, could vary significantly from airplane to airplane. The FAA has no data to determine the costs to repair or replace damaged parts on each airplane or the number of airplanes that may require repair.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by September 11, 2023.
This AD replaces AD 2017-19-22, Amendment 39-19052 (82 FR 44502, September 25, 2017).
This AD applies to British Aerospace (Operations) Limited Model Jetstream Model 3101 airplanes and British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Model Jetstream Model 3201 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2721, Rudder Tab Control System; 5330, Fuselage Main, Plate/Skin.
This AD was prompted by reports of corrosion on the rudder tab hinges, fuselage skin beneath the marker beacon antenna external doubler, and fuselage skin beneath the static vent external doubler. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion on the rudder tab hinges, fuselage skin beneath the marker beacon antenna external doubler, and fuselage skin beneath the static vent external doubler. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to reduced structural integrity of the affected parts with consequent loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Before further flight after the effective date of this AD, revise the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the existing instructions for continued airworthiness for your approved maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the actions and associated thresholds and intervals, including life limits, specified in BAE Systems Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Corrosion Prevention and Control Programme, Manual Ref: JS/CPCP/01, Revision 9, dated April 15, 2022 (BAE Systems CPCP Manual JS/CPCP/01, Revision 9).
(2) The actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD may be performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate and must be entered into the aircraft records showing compliance with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.
(3) Do all the actions in BAE Systems CPCP Manual JS/CPCP/01, Revision 9, as follows:
(i) For all tasks other than 130/EX/01 C3, 140/EX/01 C2, 150/EX/01 C2, 150/EX/01 C3, 150/EX/01 C4, and 200/EX/01 C3: At the compliance times specified in BAE Systems CPCP Manual JS/CPCP/01, Revision 9, or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(ii) For tasks 130/EX/01 C3, 140/EX/01 C2, 150/EX/01 C2, 150/EX/01 C3, 150/EX/01 C4, and 200/EX/01 C3: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
(4) If any discrepancy, as identified in BAE Systems CPCP Manual JS/CPCP/01, Revision 9, is found during any inspection or task required by paragraph (g)(3) of this AD, repair or replace, as applicable, all damaged structural parts and components and do the maintenance procedures for corrective action in accordance with and at the compliance time specified in BAE Systems CPCP Manual JS/CPCP/01, Revision 9, except reporting Level 2 and Level 3 corrosion and reporting cracks or other structural defects are not required. If no compliance time is defined, do the applicable corrective action before further flight.
(5) If during any inspection or task required by paragraph (g)(3) of this AD, any discrepancy is found that is not identified in paragraph (g)(4) of this AD or is beyond the repairable limits specified in paragraph (g)(4) of this AD, before further flight, contact either the Manager, International Validation
After the action required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD has been done, no alternative actions and associated thresholds and intervals, including life limits, are allowed unless they are approved as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, mail it to the address identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD or email to:
(1) Refer to Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) AD G-2022-0021, dated December 21, 2022, for related information. This CAA AD may be found in the AD docket at regulations under Docket No. FAA-2023-1643.
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Doug Rudolph, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (816) 329-4059; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) BAE Systems Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Corrosion Prevention and Control Programme, Manual Ref: JS/CPCP/01, Revision 9, dated April 15, 2022.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd., Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; phone: +44 3300 488727; fax: +44 1292 675704; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class D airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for William P. Gwinn Airport, Jupiter, FL. This action would increase the radius of the Class D airspace, as well as amend verbiage in the Class D description. This action would also update the geographic coordinates for the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and revoke Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area.
Comments must be received on or before September 11, 2023.
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2023-1587 and Airspace Docket No. 23-ASO-29 using any of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
FAA Order JO 7400.11G Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone: (404) 305-6364.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, as it would amend Class D and Class E airspace, and remove Class E airspace in Jupiter, FL. An airspace evaluation determined that this update is necessary to support IFR operations in the area.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.
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 Operations office (see
Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 5000, 6004, and 6005, of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. These updates would be published subsequently in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.
The FAA proposes an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend Class D airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for William P. Gwinn Airport, Jupiter, FL, by increasing the Class D radius to 4.5 miles (previously 4.1 miles) and updating the geographic coordinates of the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to coincide with the FAA's database and remove the city name from the second line of the Class E airspace description. This action would also replace the terms Notice to Airmen with Notice to Air Missions, and Airport/Facility Directory with Chart Supplement in the Class D description. Finally, this action would remove the Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area, due to all approaches utilizing the United NDB and Pahokee VORTAC have been canceled, and the extensions are no longer required. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.
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.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,500 feet MSL within a 4.5-mile radius of William P. Gwinn Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Air Missions. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.5-mile radius of William P. Gwinn Airport.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) required the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or the Commission) to publish, as a mandatory consumer product safety standard, the
Submit comments by September 25, 2023.
Comments related to the Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of the proposed rule's information collection requirements should be directed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: CPSC Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-6974, or emailed to:
Comments related to the proposed rule, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2017-0032, may be submitted electronically or in writing by any of the following methods:
Han Lim, Project Manager, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone: (301) 987-2327; email:
CPSIA directed the Commission to “publish in the
The Commission has revised the mandatory standard twice in accordance with the revision procedures set out in CPSIA and incorporated into section 42 of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2089(b). On February 29, 2012, the Commission published a final rule that amended the Commission's ATV standard to reference the 2010 edition of the ANSI/SVIA standard. 77 FR 12197. Then on February 27, 2018, the Commission published a final rule that amended the mandatory ATV standard to reference the 2017 edition of the ANSI/SVIA standard. 83 FR 8336. On March 21, 2023, ANSI notified the Commission that the 2017 edition of the ANSI/SVIA standard had been revised.
Section 42(b) of the CPSA provides that, if ANSI/SVIA 1-2007 is revised, ANSI must notify the Commission of the revision. The Commission has 120 days after it receives that notification to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the Commission's mandatory ATV standard “to include any such revision that the Commission determines is reasonably related to the safe performance of [ATVs] and notify the Institute of any provision it has determined not to be so related.” 15 U.S.C. 2089(b)(1) and (2). Thereafter, the Commission has 180 days after publication of the proposed amendment to publish a final rule to revise the ATV standard.
ANSI/SVIA 1-2023 contains requirements and test methods relating to ATVs, including vehicle equipment and configuration, vehicle speed capability, brake performance, pitch stability, electromagnetic compatibility, and sound level limits. The staff memorandum at Tab A of the July XX, 2023 Staff Briefing Package: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) to Amend the All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) Standard (Staff's NPR Briefing Package)
Requirements for hot surfaces;
Requirements for fuel system components;
Removal of the maximum recommended tire pressure of 69 kPa (10 psi); and
Requirement of an effective date “beginning with 2026 model year vehicles” within the scope of the standard;
Removal of requirement that paper user manuals be provided with all ATVs.
ANSI/SVIA 1-2023 Section 12.1,
ANSI/SVIA 1-2023 sets out performance tests to evaluate whether surface temperatures for various touch points are within specified limits. In September 2018, CPSC recommended that SVIA add requirements to address burn hazards to users of ATVs. CPSC staff subsequently worked with SVIA to develop standards for maximum surface temperatures on ATVs to address the risk of burns associated with ATVs. The Commission preliminarily concludes that testing the temperature of specified ATV touch points as provided by ANSI-SVIA 1-2023 is reasonably related to the safe performance of ATVs.
The 2017 edition of the ANSI/SVIA standard does not contain performance requirements to address fire hazards from fuel leaks. ANSI/SVIA 1-2023 adds multiple performance requirements to mitigate the risk of fuel leaks and fire hazards. These performance requirements apply to various aspects of an ATV's fuel system that may contribute to fire hazards.
Most of the requirements are based on other similar standards that each address different aspects of the fuel system. For example, the fuel hose tensile test is similar to the test procedure from ANSI/OPEI B71.10-2018
These fuel system performance requirements are organized into four general categories:
CPSC staff is aware of three fuel tank recalls, two fuel hose recalls, and one fuel filter-related recall associated with ATVs.
Section 13 contains test requirements that are (a) one-time design qualification tests and (b) tests that are required of every fuel system for new production ATVs. Most of the requirements are one-time design qualification tests. The one-time qualification test requires manufacturers to conduct a single test that proves the design of a subsystem component such as the fuel tank meets all the applicable requirements. The water immersion leak test is required for all fuel tank units that will be installed on a manufacturer's ATV production line. Appendix A of the Staff's NPR Briefing Package lists all the tests contained in Section 13 and distinguishes which tests are one-time design qualification type of tests and which tests are required for every ATV.
Section 13.3 is a leak test that requires every ATV fuel tank to be tested for leaks. The production fuel tank, fitted with all the fuel system components, is pressurized with compressed air and then submerged in water. Failures are detected by visual inspection of bubbles. This leak test is repeated during the course of various other tests after subjecting the fuel tank and/or fuel tank components to impact loading, pressure cycling, and elevated temperature conditioning to ensure no stress cracks or fuel tank breaches result from those three physical tests. Section 13.4 provides leak tests for individual components such as fuel filters and fuel shut-off valves that are similar to the leak tests Section 13.3 establishes for fuel tanks. Section 13.4 sets out a water immersion test to ensure these components are leak-free. CPSC staff has advised the Commission that these performance tests to detect leaks from fuel tanks, fuel filters, and fuel shut-off valves are effective in mitigating the risk of fuel leaks and can reduce the risk of fire hazards.
Fuel tanks are subjected to pressure cycling due to the varying amounts of fuel in the tank and changing temperatures. To simulate the effects of pressure cycling, a performance test described in section 13.5 (Fuel Tank Cyclic Pressure Integrity Test) applies a cyclic air pressure up to 4 psi for 10,000 cycles. This is a one-time design qualification test. Upon completion of the 10,000 pressure cycles, a leak test per the section 13.3 test procedure is conducted. CPSC staff assesses that the test procedure described in section 13.5 adequately evaluates the structural integrity of ATV fuel tanks when subjected to the repeated, fatigue type of pressure test.
The elevated temperature test set out in Section 13.6 evaluates structural damage that may occur when a fuel tank is subjected to elevated temperature scenarios. This performance test requires a sample fuel tank filled with gasoline to be kept in a test chamber at a constant elevated temperature of 60 °C (140 °F) for 480 hours. This requirement would detect stress cracks, seam splits, or other structural damage that can cause fuel to leak. At the conclusion of this 480-hour high temperature
In a vehicle fuel system, components such as fuel pumps, shutoff valves, and fuel filters are joined with multilayered rubber hoses that may be connected in various ways such as barbed friction fittings, hose clamps, or quick snap-on connect mechanisms. Sections 13.9 and 13.10 contain tensile test requirements to ensure hose connections do not leak. Sample hose connections are subjected to a 30 lb tensile (pull) force to ensure fuel hoses do not slip off. Staff assesses that these performance tests are effective in mitigating the risk of fuel hoses slipping off and therefore this testing reduces the risk of fire hazards. The Commission preliminarily concludes that that these tensile test requirements are reasonably related to the safe performance of ATVs.
ATVs are driven in a wide range of environments and conditions, from extreme cold, snowy conditions to extreme hot weather. Plastic fuel tanks are susceptible to expansion and contraction due to temperature fluctuations and variations in operating conditions and over time plastic fuel tanks may develop stress cracks. Unprotected portions of the fuel tank can be struck by debris, such as rocks, which can compromise the structural integrity of the tank. Section 13.7 provides that ATV fuel tanks be subjected to a qualification impact test that evaluates the structural integrity of the fuel tank after it is either struck by a steel ball (SVIA test option) or dropped from 1.25 meters onto a concrete surface (SAE J288—Snowmobile Fuel Tank Standard Test method option). The test option is decided by the manufacturer. Prior to the impact, the fuel tanks are subjected to a low temperature soak (−30 °C for the SVIA test option or −40 °C for the SAE J288 test option). CPSC staff assesses that this performance test is effective in evaluating the structural integrity of ATV fuel tanks when subjected to impact forces. The Commission preliminarily concludes that that these tensile test requirements are reasonably related to the safe performance of ATVs.
Section 13.8 (Fuel Tank Protection Envelope Analysis) requires visual, computer aided design (CAD), or similar inspection to ensure neighboring components do not inadvertently compromise the structural integrity of fuel system components such as the fuel tank, fuel hoses, etc. in the event of a tip-over or roll-over. The procedure is a visual inspection or spatial analysis done with CAD, which CPSC staff consider useful to aid in addressing potential structural integrity issues of ATV fuel systems. The Commission preliminarily concludes that that these inspection requirements are reasonably related to the safe performance of ATVs.
The performance test set out in Section 13.15 evaluates the effectiveness of the fuel system to limit the amount of fuel leakage (and associated risk of fire and/or explosion) in a rollover scenario where the ATV and its fuel tank are not in their normal upright positions. A test sample fuel tank filled with water is flipped upside down (180° from its normal upright position) for 10 minutes and the maximum allowable volume of water that can leak within that period is 300 m. On average, the allowable leak rate is 30 mL per minute. Gasoline evaporates relatively quickly when exposed to air. This rate is consistent with the requirement from the 2012 edition of the golf car standard, ANSI/ILTVA (International Light Transportation Vehicle Association) Z130.1. CPSC staff assesses that this performance test is effective in evaluating the rollover vent valve's ability to limit the amount of fuel leakage if the ATV fuel tank is involved in a rollover.
Components with elastomeric parts such as fuel filters and fuel shut off valves are susceptible to cracking, corrosion, and/or deterioration when exposed to certain chemical or environmental elements such as ethanol-blended gasolines, ultraviolet (UV) light, and ozone. Elastomeric parts are composed of various rubber-like materials. Sections 13.10 through 13.14 set out the performance tests that expose sample fuel filters and fuel shut off valves to E10 (gasoline blended with 10% ethanol), UV light, and ozone for extended periods. The test components are visually examined for any cracks or signs of deterioration upon the completion of the performance tests. Parts made of fluoroelastomer are exempt, as this material is not susceptible to deterioration due to UV, ozone, or E10 exposures. Fluoroelastomer is a fluorocarbon-based type of synthetic rubber that has chemical corrosion resistant properties that are used for applications such as gaskets, O-rings, and seals. CPSC staff assesses that this performance test is effective in evaluating the corrosion resistance properties of elastomeric parts.
The Commission preliminarily concludes that the fuel system performance requirements in Section 13 of the 2023 edition of the ANSI/SVIA standard are reasonably related to the to the safe performance of ATVs on the basis of staff's assessment that they will reduce the risk of fuel leaks and associated fire and burn hazards due to possible fuel breaches, over pressurizations, fuel spills, and component deterioration.
The 2007, 2010, and 2017 editions of the SVIA-1 standard defined low-pressure tires as “having a recommended tire pressure of no more than 69 kPa (10 psi)” in section 4.19 Tires. In the 2017 edition, Section 4.19 differentiated between Pneumatic (section 4.19.1) and Non-Pneumatic Tires (NPT) (section 4.19.2) and changed Pneumatic Tire requirements to “Maximum recommended tire pressure of 69kPa (10 psi).” Section 4.19.2 specifies “NPTs vertical stiffness shall be designed to produce a ground pressure of 69kPA (10 psi) or less with the subject vehicle.” In the 2023 edition, the tire pressure value and vertical stiffness equivalent tire pressure value have been deleted.
The 2023 version retains the 4.19 requirement that ATVs be equipped with tires designed for off-highway use on these vehicles and that the tire sidewalls be marked with the recommended tire pressure. In addition, the 2023 version retains the various testing and performance requirements in sections 5 to 9 for speed capability, brakes, and pitch stability.
An ATV manufacturer could design an ATV with a proper suspension and 12 psi tires, and the tires would still be “low pressure” yet conflict with the definition. For that reason, staff does not believe that it is necessary to include a maximum tire pressure of 10 psi in the standard. Since ANSI/SVIA 1-2023 instructs consumers to follow manufacturers' recommendations for tire inflation pressures, either from the markings on the tires or the owners' manuals, CPSC staff assesses that this change to the standard is neutral and is not detrimental to ATV safety. The Commission preliminarily concludes that these inspection requirements are reasonably related to the safe performance of ATVs.
The 2017 edition of the SVIA-1 standard provides in Section 4.21 that all ATVs shall be provided an owner's manual “in paper form” and adds that the paper manual “may be supplemented at the manufacturer's option in electronic form viewable on a display on the ATV or other device.” The 2023 edition of SVIA-1 removes the phrase “which may be supplemented at the manufacturer's option in electronic form viewable on a display on the ATV or other device” which was added to the 2017 edition. Section 4.21 now states “All ATVs shall be provided with a manual in paper or electronic format at the time of delivery to the first purchaser. All ATVs with printed manuals shall be equipped with a means of carrying the manual that protects it from destructive elements while allowing reasonable access.” Under this standard the manufacturer has the choice of whether to provide electronic or paper manuals. The information required to be provided in the owner's manual includes a dedicated introductory safety section and important safety messages regarding age recommendations, proper operation of the ATV, and training resources. Therefore, CPSC staff believes that paper manuals should remain the default medium for important safety information because in that format the information will be immediately available for consumers. Many consumers are already disinclined to read instruction manuals and requiring them to go through extra steps to access them in electronic format reduces the likelihood that they will do so. Based on the increased risk of consumers not receiving information on the safe use of ATVs if that information is only electronically available, CPSC staff assesses that this change would likely result in a reduction in safety. For that reason, the Commission preliminarily concludes that this provision is not consistent with the safe operation of ATVs and therefore proposes maintaining in effect the current regulatory provision incorporating the 2017 version Section 4.21.
The CPSIA provides a timetable for the Commission to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (within 120 days of receiving notification of a revised ANSI/SVIA standard) and to issue a final rule (within 180 days of publication of the proposed rule), but it does not establish requirements for effective dates. When the Commission adopted the 2010 revision to the ANSI/SVIA standard, it provided for an effective date of 60 days from publication of the final rule. That date was revised based on comments from several ATV companies in order to allow them time to update their certification labels. When the Commission adopted the 2017 revision to the ANSI/SVIA standard, it provided for an effective date of January 1, 2019, approximately 10 months after publication of the final rule, based on SVIA's comments about the time needed for manufacturers to make the required changes.
CPSC staff assesses that many ATVs may already meet the new requirements in ANSI/SVIA 1-2023, and the changes from the 2017 to the 2023 voluntary standard will not require significant vehicle design or testing. Once SVIA notifies the Commission of a new version of the SVIA standard, CPSC is required to issue an NPR within 120 days and then issue a final rule 180 days after the NPR publication (300 days total). Because the projected date for issuance of a final rule is early in calendar year 2024, setting the effective date 180 days after publication of the final rule, as the Commission did with the 2017 standard, would result in an effective date in July 2024, with the specific date dependent on the date the final rule is issued. However, in order to set a date certain that will facilitate industry planning, as well as to align the effective date more closely with the timing of the ATV industry's typical transition from one model year to the next, the Commission proposes an effective date of September 1, 2024. With this effective date, ATV manufacturers will have approximately 17 months to comply with the new hot surface and fuel system requirements. The Commission preliminarily concludes that the proposed effective date is reasonable, feasible, and adequate to protect consumer safety for the following reasons:
• Since all ATVs' gasoline powered engines and associated components sold in the U.S. are regulated by the U.S. EPA for Exhaust and Evaporative emissions (40 CFR 1051.515(d)—Fuel Tank Permeation Testing), those ATVs will be exempt from having to conduct testing per Section 13.5 (Fuel Tank Cyclic Pressure Integrity Test) of ANSI/SVIA-1-2023. Where hazards associated with fuel tank cyclic pressure have already been addressed, there will be no negative effect on safety by providing this effective date rather than a shorter time period to comply.
• Depending on a firm's ATV manufacturing schedule cycle during the calendar year, any design changes and associated testing to comply with the new standard will take place sometime within the 17-month period, with the understanding that firms will not produce ATVs all year round. The 17-month period from the issuance of SVIA-1-2023 to the proposed effective date will allow for resolution of supply chain issues, quality control issues, and any other issues that may arise.
• The proposed timeline here is similar to the timeline for the SVIA-1-2017 standard update. In June 2017, SVIA notified the Commission of the 2017 edition of the SVIA-1 standard. The final rule established an effective date of January 1, 2019, which was 18 months from start to finish (comparable to the recommended 17-month period proposed here).
For these reasons, the Commission proposes an effective date that is more clearly defined than the effective date for SVIA-1-2023 and that allows sufficient time for manufacturers to prepare to comply with the new standard while at the same time protecting consumer safety by requiring compliance within a reasonable time.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that agencies review a proposed rule for the rule's potential economic impact on small entities, including small businesses. Section 603 of the RFA generally requires that agencies prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and make the analysis available to the public for comment when the agency publishes an NPR. 5 U.S.C. 603. Section 605 of the RFA provides that an IRFA is not required if the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The IRFA, or a summary of it, must be published in the
(1) a description of why action by the agency is being considered;
(2) a succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule;
(3) a description and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
(4) a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the
(5) an identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
The IRFA must also describe any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that would accomplish the stated objectives and that minimize any significant economic impact on small entities. Staff's initial regulatory flexibility analysis is provided in Tab B of Staff's NPR Briefing Package.
The intent of this rulemaking is to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from fire and burn hazards associated with ATVs. The Commission is considering this rule to amend the current mandatory standard to reference ANSI/SVIA 1-2023 because we preliminarily conclude that compliance with ANSI/SVIA 1-2023 would reduce fatal and non-fatal injuries associated with ATVs.
The Commission proposes this rule to reduce the risk of fatal and non-fatal injuries associated with ATVs. On March 24, 2023, ANSI published the latest revision of the American National Standard for Four-Wheel All-Terrain Vehicles, ANSI/SVIA 1-2023. This rule is promulgated as required by, and under the authority of, CPSA section 42(b).
The proposed rule would directly affect manufacturers and importers of ATVs that are responsible for ensuring that the ATVs distributed in the United States meet the Commission's mandatory rule based on the ANSI/SVIA-1 standard. If promulgated as a final rule, it would not have any direct impact on other businesses, such as ATV dealers (unless they are also importers), or other small entities, including small governmental jurisdictions or other organizations.
To be distributed in the United States, ATVs must be covered by “ATV Action Plans,” which, among other things, describe the actions that manufacturers or importers will undertake to ensure that consumers are offered safety training and to monitor that ATVs intended for adult riders are not sold by ATV dealers for the use of children. As of April 2023, there were 38 ATV manufacturers or importers with ATV Action Plans registered with the CPSC.
Staff believes that the remaining 24 companies are likely importers, although in several cases there was insufficient information to make this determination. Of these 24 likely importers, staff has identified 14 firms that meet SBA criteria to be considered small businesses. For the remaining 10 firms, there was insufficient information to make a size determination.
The CPSA requires manufacturers (a term which includes importers) to certify that their products comply with applicable CPSC standards and regulations. 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(11) & 2063(a)(1). The proposed rule amends the performance requirements and test procedures that suppliers must meet in order to sell ATVs in the United States. CPSC staff has examined differences between ANSI/SVIA 1-2017 and ANSI/SVIA 1-2023. A detailed list and discussion of these differences appear Staff's NPR Briefing Package. In addition to making minor modifications to Sections 1 through 11, ANSI/SVIA 1-2023 adds Section 12 (Burn Hazards) and Section 13 (Fuel Systems Requirements). Manufacturers and/or importers of models that do not currently comply with ANSI/SVIA 1-2023 will incur costs for testing, and possibly for parts and vehicle redesign.
In accordance with Section 14 of the CPSA, manufacturers would have to issue a GCC for each ATV model, certifying that the model complies with the proposed rule. According to Section 14 of the CPSA, GCCs must be based on a test of each product, or a reasonable testing program; and GCCs must be provided to all distributors or retailers of the product. The manufacturer would have to comply with 16 CFR part 1110 concerning the content of the GCC, retention of the associated records, and any other applicable requirement.
Because modifications in Sections 1 through 11 consist primarily of editorial updates and clarifications to the existing voluntary standards, staff assesses that manufacturer costs to comply with these modifications are insignificant.
Manufacturers will incur testing costs to comply with Section 12 of the revised standard, which sets forth a one-time design qualification that requires the identification and testing of ATV surfaces that come into continuous, intermittent, momentary, and incidental contact with the vehicle occupant and passengers. Those manufacturers whose models do not meet the performance requirement will incur costs associated with model reconfiguration or redesign.
Manufacturers will also incur testing costs to comply with Section 13 of the revised standard which contains several one-time design qualifications and production part inspection tests related to ATV fuel systems.
For ATVs that already meet the performance requirements of Section 12 and 13, the cost to manufacturers is limited to the cost of testing. The Commission estimates that one-time design qualification inspection tests would cost approximately $12,096 per model. To comply with new Sections 13.3 (Fuel Tank Immersion Leak Test) and 13.4 (Fuel Filter and Shut-off Valve Immersion Leak Test), manufacturers will incur costs associated with testing each production part; CPSC estimates that the cost of production part testing is approximately $20.00 per vehicle.
Manufacturers whose ATV models do not meet the performance requirements of Sections 12 and 13 may incur additional costs associated with sourcing compliant—likely more expensive—parts that were previously tested by the parts manufacturer/supplier. These costs are expected to be approximately $20.00 per vehicle, some of which may be borne by the parts supplier. ATV models which do not meet Sections 12, 13.8 (Fuel Tank Production Envelope Analysis), or 13.9 (Fuel Line Integrity) requirements may require reconfiguration or redesign, which CPSC estimates would cost approximately $70,000 per model.
The Commission generally assesses a draft proposed rule to have a significant adverse economic impact if a firm's costs to comply exceed 1 percent of the firm's annual sales revenue. Because, as noted above, none of the 14 identified ATV manufacturers meet the SBA criteria to be considered a small business, CPSC preliminarily assesses that the draft proposed rule requiring compliance with ANSI/SVIA 1-2023 will not have a significant economic impact on any small ATV manufacturers, since none was identified. Staff seeks information on
Foreign manufacturers whose models do not meet the ANSI/SVIA 1-2023 performance requirements may choose to exit the U.S. ATV market. An importer whose foreign manufacturer exited the market, and was unable to procure an alternative source, would likely suffer a significant, adverse economic impact. However, given that ATV sales volume has been stable over the last 5 years, and grew by approximately 5 percent in 2020 (the last year for which CPSC has data), it is unlikely that foreign ATV manufacturers will exit the market. Therefore, CPSC preliminarily concludes that the draft proposed rule will not have a significant, adverse economic impact on ATV importers.
If a foreign manufacturer chooses not to conduct the required testing and/or provide the documentation necessary to support the issuance a GCC, importers of that manufacturer's products may choose to conduct and document compliance testing, incurring the associated costs. For importers whose costs exceed 1 percent of the firm's annual ATV revenues, the effect would be considered significant. Of the 14 small importers identified by staff, only 7 could be found in the 2020 ATV market sales data.
An effective date later than September 1, 2024, could reduce manufacturers' costs of compliance and/or allow manufacturers to spread those costs over a longer period of time. However, an effective date of September 1, 2024 allows manufacturers approximately 17 months from the publication of ANSI/SVIA 1-2023 to comply with its requirements, which the Commission preliminarily considers reasonable, feasible, and adequate as explained above.
For these reasons, any cost savings that might accrue to manufacturers if a later effective date were adopted are likely to be insignificant. Delaying implementation of the rule would allow continued manufacture and importation of non-compliant models for a longer period of time, expose a greater number of consumers to ATV fire and burn hazards, and increase associated societal costs. Therefore, the Commission is not proposing this alternative.
The Commission preliminarily concludes that the draft proposed rule will not have a significant, negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and requests comments with data supporting or refuting whether the Commission could certify to that effect.
The proposed rule would revise 16 CFR 1420.1 and 1420.3. Consistent with current requirements, the revised language states that new assembled or unassembled ATVs manufactured before September 1, 2024, must comply with ANSI/SVIA 1-2017. Any new assembled or unassembled ATVs manufactured on or after September 1, 2024 must comply with ANSI/SVIA 1-2023. The revision also removes extraneous references to past effective dates.
This proposed rule contains information collection requirements that are subject to public comment and review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). In this document, pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), we set forth—
• a title for the collection of information;
• a summary of the collection of information;
• a brief description of the need for the information and the proposed use of the information;
• a description of the likely respondents and proposed frequency of response to the collection of information;
• an estimate of the burden that shall result from the collection of information; and
• notice that comments may be submitted to the OMB.
Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), we invite comments on:
• Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the CPSC's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of the CPSC'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, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
• Ways to reduce the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology; and
• The estimated burden hours associated with producing the GCC and the certification testing required to support the GCC.
Section 14 of the Consumer Product Safety Act requires manufacturers and importers of ATVs to prepare GCCs. Based on current ATV action plans filed with the CPSC, there are 38 entities that supply, or intend to supply ATVs to the U.S. market. CPSC staff found evidence of ATV sales activity, in the form of actual sales or advertisement for sale, for only 32 of the 38 entities. Nevertheless, taking a conservative approach, CPSC staff assumed that all 38 entities are currently supplying ATVs to the U.S. market and used this number to calculate the burden hours and annual cost associated with GCCs. ATV manufacturers typically produce one GCC that covers all the models of a model year, which implies the number of PRA responses is one per entity, per year. CPSC conservatively estimates the time required to produce this GCC is about 1.5 hours per year (although in most cases the actual time required will likely be significantly lower). Therefore, the estimated burden associated with GCCs is 57 hours (38 entities × 1 GCC per year × 1.5 hours per GCC = 57 hours). CPSC staff multiplied the estimated number of burden hours by $36.80,
In the event a foreign manufacturer chooses not to conduct required certification testing and/or provide documentation to support preparation of the GCC, its importer could choose to conduct its own certification testing. However, CPSC considers this scenario unlikely, and for several of the importers, cost prohibitive. Therefore, the Commission assumes entities conducting certification testing and associated recordkeeping are limited to ATV manufacturers. Based on 2020 sales data, there were 25 known U.S. and foreign manufacturers supplying as many as 239 new and old ATV models and 420,730 ATVs to the U.S. market.
CPSC estimates the average life cycle of an ATV model is approximately 5 years, which implies each manufacturer will conduct one-time design qualification testing on approximately 1.6 models per year (239 models ÷ 25 entities ÷ 5 years ≉ 1.9 models per entity per year). CPSC staff estimates the time required to create and maintain certification records to be approximately 8 person hours per model.
Based on this analysis, the proposed rule for ATVs would impose an annual burden to industry of approximately 441 hours per year (57 for preparation of the GCC and 384 hours for recordkeeping associated with the certification tests upon which the GCCs are based). The estimated annual cost is approximately $16,229 ($2,098 and $14,131 for GCC preparation and certification testing recordkeeping, respectively).
The above estimates are a conservative estimate of the average annual burden to ATV entities. The proposed rule requires all ATVs manufactured on or after September 1, 2024, to comply with ANSI/SVIA 1-2023. Therefore, in the first year following promulgation of the rule, existing entities may be required to redesign and test more than the estimated average 48 models per year and incur higher costs than the estimates in this PRA analysis. In subsequent years, costs could be less, as fewer numbers of ATV models will require design updates. To the extent that the ATV industry already complies, or substantially complies, with the ANSI/SVIA 1-2023 standard, these figures may over-estimate the actual burden.
The Commission's regulations provide a categorical exemption for the Commission's rules from any requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement as they “have little or no potential for affecting the human environment.” 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). This proposed amendment falls within the categorical exemption.
The Commission proposes to incorporate by reference those provisions of ANSI/SVIA 1-2023 that it has concluded are related to the safe operation of ATVs, which encompass all provisions other than Section 4.21 concerning the provision of paper user manuals. The Office of the
In accordance with the OFR's requirements, section II of this preamble summarizes the provisions of ANSI/SVIA 1-2023 that the Commission proposes to incorporate by reference. ANSI/SVIA 1-2023 is copyrighted. Interested persons may purchase a copy of ANSI/SVIA 1-2023 from Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, 2 Jenner, Suite 150, Irvine, CA 92618-3806; telephone: 949-727-3727 ext. 3023;
Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that when a consumer product safety standard is in effect and applies to a product, no state or political subdivision of a state may either establish or continue in effect a standard or regulation that prescribes requirements for the performance, composition, contents, design, finish, construction, packaging, or labeling of such product dealing with the same risk of injury unless the state requirement is identical to the federal standard. Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states or political subdivisions of states may apply to the Commission for an exemption from this preemption under certain circumstances. Section 42 of the CPSA refers to the rules to be issued under that section as “consumer product safety standards.” Therefore, the preemption provision of section 26(a) of the CPSA would apply to this proposed rule.
The CPSA establishes certain requirements for product certification and testing. Certification of children's products subject to a children's product safety rule must be based on testing conducted by a CPSC-accepted third-party conformity assessment body. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2). The Commission is required to publish a notice of requirements (NOR) for the accreditation of third-party conformity assessment bodies to assess conformity with a children's product safety rule to which a children's product is subject.
This NPR begins a rulemaking proceeding under section 42 of the CPSA to amend the Commission's mandatory ATV standard to reference the 2023 edition of the ANSI/SVIA standard. We invite all interested persons to submit comments on any aspect of this proposal, including whether any of the changes to the standard (summarized in Tab A of the Staff's NPR Briefing Package) are substantive changes and whether they improve or do not improve the safety of ATVs. In particular, as noted previously, we invite comment as to the standard's proposed change to format in which an owner's manual must be provided and as to the proposed effective date. We also invite comments on the estimated burden of the recordkeeping associated with issuing a GCC for ATVs as required by 16 CFR part 1110, discussed in Section VI, above. In addition, we request comments on the effect on safety of the removal of the 10 PSI maximum recommended tire pressure. In particular, we invite comments on the anticipated effect on safety if ATV tires exceed 10 psi. Comments should be submitted in accordance with the instructions in the
Consumer protection, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Infants and children, Information, Labeling, Law enforcement, Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
15 U.S.C. 2089.
This part 1420, a consumer product safety standard, prescribes requirements for all terrain vehicles.
Each new assembled or unassembled ATV manufactured before September 1, 2024, shall comply with all applicable provisions of the American National Standard for Four-Wheel All-Terrain Vehicles (ANSI/SVIA 1-2017), approved on June 8, 2017. Each new assembled or unassembled ATV manufactured on or after September 1, 2024, shall comply with all applicable provisions of the American National Standard for Four-Wheel All-Terrain Vehicles (ANSI/SVIA 1-2023), approved on March 21, 2023 with the exception of Section 4.21 Owner's Manual, as to which it shall continue to comply with the ANSI/SVIA 1-2017 standard. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy of these standards from Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, 2 Jenner, Suite 150, Irvine, CA 92618-3806; telephone: 949-727-3727 ext. 3023;
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of petition.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing that we have filed a petition, submitted by Kemin Industries, Inc., proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of chromium propionate to be used as a source of chromium in turkey feed.
The food additive petition was filed on July 6, 2023.
For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to
Wasima Wahid, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-221), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-5857,
Under section 409(b)(5) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5)), we are giving notice that we have filed a food additive petition (FAP 2318), submitted by Kemin Industries, Inc, 1900 Scott Ave., Des Moines, IA 50317. The petition proposes to amend in 21 CFR part 573—Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals to provide for the safe use of chromium propionate to be used as a source of chromium in turkey feed.
We are reviewing the potential environmental impact of this petition. To encourage public participation consistent with regulations issued under the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1501.5(e)), we are placing the environmental assessment submitted with the petition that is the subject of this notice on public display at the Dockets Management Staff (see
We will also place on public display, in the Dockets Management Staff and at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing under the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”) to approve a revision to the San Francisco Bay Area portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision consists of updated transportation conformity procedures related to the interagency coordination on project-level conformity and exchange of travel data for emissions inventories developed for air quality plans and regional transportation conformity analyses. The intended effect is to update the transportation conformity criteria and procedures in the California SIP.
Comments must be received on or before August 28, 2023.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2023-0203 at
Michael Dorantes, Geographic Strategies and Modeling Section (AIR-2-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 972-3934, or by email at
Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Transportation conformity is required under section 176(c) of the CAA to ensure that federally supported highway, transit projects, and other activities are consistent with (“conform to”) the purpose of the SIP. Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Transportation conformity currently applies to areas that are designated nonattainment, and to areas that have been redesignated to attainment after 1990 (maintenance areas) with plans developed under section 175A of the Act. This applies for the following transportation-related criteria pollutants: ozone, fine and coarse particulate matter (PM
On November 24, 1993, the EPA promulgated the federal transportation conformity criteria and procedures (“conformity rule”). Among other things, the conformity rule required states to address all of its provision in their SIPs (“conformity SIPs”).
For transportation planning purposes, the San Francisco Bay Area is defined as the nine California counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma. Transportation planning in the San Francisco Bay Area is conducted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).
On December 16, 1996, the Governor's designee for SIP submittals, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), submitted “The San Francisco Bay Area Transportation Air Quality Conformity Protocol—Conformity Procedures” and “The San Francisco Bay Area Transportation Air Quality Conformity Protocol—Interagency Consultation Procedures,” together referred to as the “San Francisco Bay Area conformity SIP submittal” to the EPA. The EPA approved the San Francisco Bay Area conformity SIP submittal on October 21, 1997.
Following SAFETEA-LU's enactment in 2005, the co-lead agencies for air quality planning in the San Francisco Bay Area,
The eastern portion of Solano County is in the Sacramento Metropolitan air quality planning area, which is also designated nonattainment for the same 8-hour ozone and PM
Effective May 12, 1994, the MTC and SACOG entered into the original “Memorandum of Understanding between the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments” to establish an agreement regarding Federal conformity procedures and programming of Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds in Solano County. The MTC and SACOG then amended the original Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 2004 to provide clarity regarding their responsibilities during a conformity lapse.
The MTC and SACOG updated the Memorandum of Understanding between the two agencies (“revised MTC-SACOG MOU” or “revised MOU”) again in 2018. The MTC approved resolution No. 2611, Revised, on July 6, 2018, and MTC's and SACOG's executive directors executed the MOU on September 11, 2018.
The most recent revision to the transportation conformity protocol supersedes the 2006 revision and is the subject of this proposed action. The revised protocol largely retains the content of the previous protocol adopted in 2006 but contains revisions explicitly reflecting the revised MOU language along with some other content changes. A notable revision is the addition of a new standalone section (“Section X”), entitled “Addressing Activities and Emissions that Cross MPO Boundaries.” Section X retains relevant text from the previous transportation conformity protocol and references revisions made within the revised MTC-SACOG MOU that clarify MTC and SACOG roles and responsibilities related to updated Federal transportation air quality requirements. These address the responsibilities related to the programming of Federal CMAQ funds, coordination between the MTC and SACOG when exchanging travel data for emissions inventories, and coordination between the MTC and SACOG when conducting project-level and regional conformity, including procedures to follow in the event of a conformity lapse and considerations for new PM
The updated SIP revision that CARB submitted to the EPA consisted of the revised transportation conformity protocol, as well as documents from the MTC, ABAG, the BAAQMD, and CARB adopting the revisions. In November 2019, the BAAQMD and ABAG delegated authority to the MTC to conduct a public hearing on the proposed conformity protocol.
We have reviewed the submittal to ensure consistency with the Clean Air Act and with EPA regulations (40 CFR part 93 and 40 CFR 51.390) governing state procedures for transportation conformity and interagency consultation and have concluded that the submittal is approvable. The public comment period and hearing the MTC held for this SIP revision satisfies the requirements of CAA section 110(l) and 40 CFR 51.102. Additional details of our review are set forth in a technical support document (TSD), which has been included in the docket for this proposed rulemaking. Specifically, in our TSD, we identify how the submitted procedures satisfy our requirements under 40 CFR 93.105 for interagency consultation with respect to the development of transportation plans and programs, SIPs, and conformity determinations, the resolution of conflicts, the provision of adequate public consultation, and our requirements under 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 93.125(c) for enforceability of control measures and mitigation measures.
In accordance with section 110(k) of the Act, and for the reasons set forth in Section III of this document, the EPA is proposing to approve the “San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Conformity Protocol—Conformity Procedures and Interagency Consultation Procedures” as a revision to the California SIP.
If we finalize our action as proposed, the revised protocol adopted by the BAAQMD on March 4, 2020, by ABAG on April 23, 2020, and by the MTC February 26, 2020, then adopted on May 6, 2021, and submitted to the EPA on May 17, 2021 by CARB, will be incorporated into the San Francisco Bay Area portion of the California SIP, and thereby replace the previous version of the revised protocol approved on October 11, 2007.
The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until August 28, 2023, and will consider comments before taking final action.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it proposes to approve a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 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.”
The air agency did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of the proposed action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this proposed action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and 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, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental Relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Office of Child Care (OCC), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Request for information.
The Office of Child Care invites public comment on the rules and regulations of the Tribally administered Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) program as part of the Administration for Children and Families' (ACF) commitment to creating partnerships with Tribal Nations to identify and implement solutions that transcend traditional program boundaries. As part of that commitment, OCC seeks input on the requirements, regulations, and processes for Tribal Nations that administer CCDF. This Request for Information (RFI) specifically seeks public comment on the following topics of the Tribal child care program—CCDF Funding Policies for Tribes, CCDF Administration, Improving Families' Access to Child Care, and Increasing Child Care Supply in Tribal Communities—but input on any aspect of the Tribally administered CCDF program is welcome. OCC will host a Tribal consultation during the RFI public comment period.
To be considered, public comments must be received electronically no later than January 2, 2024.
Public comments should be submitted online at
Megan Campbell, Office of Child Care, 202-690-6499. Telecommunications Relay users may dial 711 first. Email inquiries to
There are approximately half a million Native children under the age of 13 in the United States, and nearly half are below the age of five.
The Act does not explicitly apply most of its provisions to the Tribal program, so with some exceptions and within certain parameters, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) has the authority to
We recognize that any changes made to Tribal regulations or other requirements must be made with input and consultation from Tribal Nations and organizations that receive CCDF funding. This RFI is being issued with ACF's Principles for Working with Federally Recognized Tribes
Through this RFI, the OCC is seeking input from Tribal leaders, Tribal program administrators, and others who are impacted directly by the Tribal CCDF requirements. We also welcome input from service providers, current federal and non-federal technical assistance providers, national organizations, researchers, philanthropy, families, and community members.
Responses to this RFI will inform ongoing and future efforts to improve the ways in which the OCC administers the CCDF Tribal program, including potential regulatory changes, to meet the needs of children, families, and communities within Tribal Nations. This RFI is for information and planning purposes only and should not be construed as a solicitation for applications or as an obligation on the part of ACF or HHS. We also note that changes in policy requiring revisions to statute or regulations will require further appropriate processes to effectuate, which may entail Congressional action or rulemaking procedures.
We recommend that respondents address the questions listed below, but input on any aspect of the Tribally administered CCDF program is welcome. Commenters do not need to address every question and should focus on those where commenters have relevant expertise or experience. Commenters should identify the question to which they are responding by indicating the corresponding letter and number(s). We request commenters who identify barriers or policies to indicate the source/level (
OCC seeks public comment on the CCDF rules and regulations related to the triennial child count and defined service area. Every three years as part of the triennial plan submission, Tribal Lead Agencies submit the number of children that will be counted as the basis for funding formulas, as well as their definition of Indian Child and Indian Reservation or Service Area (otherwise referred to as the “child count” (45 CFR 98.81(b)(4)) to receive CCDF funds. Tribal Lead Agencies have flexibility to determine the methodology and data sources used for their child count. Additional information about these requirements can be found in the Child Count and Tribal Early Learning Initiative (TELI) Program Instructions (CCDF-ACF-PI-2022-03).
Regulations allow Tribal Lead Agencies to include children from other Tribes in their count, provided they are from federally recognized Tribes and there is no duplication in counts across overlapping or neighboring service areas, which are on or near a reservation (except Tribes in Alaska, California, and Oklahoma) (45 CFR 98.80(e)). CCDF requires the service area to be “on or near” a reservation, and OCC has specified through the above-referenced policy guidance that “on or near” refers to a geographic proximity to the borders of a tribe's reservation.
A tribe with fewer than 50 children under age 13 may participate in a consortium of eligible Tribes if the consortium demonstrates authorization from each participating tribe, including a letter for each participating tribe that the consortia can act and receive funding on their behalf (45 CFR 98.80(c). This demonstration is required initially and every three years.
OCC seeks input on whether the current requirements for the triennial child count work well for Tribal Lead Agencies and if there are changes to the child count requirements that would better support the implementation of Tribal CCDF programs. We also request input on what changes to child care rules, guidance, and/or the role of the federal office, if any, would enable a fair and equitable child count process for all Tribal Nations.
OCC seeks input on the current requirements for Tribal CCDF consortia, including whether there are barriers or challenges for identifying the methods or data sources for consortia child count. We also seek input on the benefits and/or burdens to how Tribes must demonstrate they authorize the consortium to receive funds and act on their behalf.
OCC seeks input on whether the definition or parameters of “service area” enables Tribal Lead Agencies to meet the child care needs for Native families in their area and whether and what changes to the requirements for defining service area would help ensure a fair and equitable process for all Tribal Nations.
The preamble of the 2016 CCDF Final Rule established thresholds for the three categories of Tribal Lead Agencies based upon funding allocations, which have remained unchanged: small (less than $250,000), medium ($250,000 to $1 million), or large (more than $1 million) (FR 67536-6). While all Tribal Lead Agencies are subject to health and safety requirements and quality spending minimums, Tribal Lead Agencies with small allocations operate under a smaller number of CCDF requirements and complete an abbreviated CCDF plan compared to Tribes with medium and large allocation (45 CFR 98.81 & 98.83). These modified requirements are meant to account for implementation and structural variance that arise from a small award size and fewer services. Tribal Lead Agencies with medium and large allocations must meet more requirements, provide direct services, and complete a full CCDF plan.
Every three years, Tribal Lead Agencies are required to submit a CCDF plan as a condition to receive annual CCDF funds (45 CFR 98.17 & 98.81(a)). Prior to CCDF plan submission, OCC provides a CCDF plan preprint outlining the applicable regulations and requirements with instructions on how to address each plan item or question. OCC also provides training and technical assistance on how to develop and submit the triennial plan.
Tribal Lead Agency CCDF allocations are based on a discretionary base amount set by the Secretary, as well as a discretionary and mandatory amount based on the number of children submitted in the child count (45 CFR 98.61(c) & 98.62(b) through (c)). The base amount is not subject to the administrative cost limitations nor the quality expenditure requirement discussed below and can be used on any allowable CCDF expenditure (45 CFR 98.83(h)). The discretionary base amount is not regulatory and was originally established in the preamble to the 1998 CCDF Final Rule (63 FR 39978) and was increased in the preamble to the 2016 Final Rule (81 FR 67544). Beginning in FY 2017, the base amount increased from $20,000 to $30,000 to account for inflation that eroded the value of the base amount since it was originally established in 1998.
CCDF Tribal Lead Agencies are required to coordinate services with other Tribal, federal, state, and/or local child care and early childhood development programs with agencies responsible for public health, employment services/workforce development, public education, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (42 U.S.C. 601
CCDF regulations includes three types of set-asides for how funds must be spent. First, Tribal Lead Agencies with medium and large allocations must spend at least 70 percent of their discretionary CCDF funds (excepting the base amount) on direct services, which is based on total expenditures after reserving funds for quality and administration (45 CFR 98.50(f)(2) & 98.83(g)). The 70 percent minimum does not apply to Tribes with small allocation, which are not required to spend CCDF on direct services (45 CFR 98.83(f)). This minimum set-aside ensures CCDF is mainly spent on
OCC requests comment on whether the 70 percent direct service spending requirement for discretionary funds creates challenges for Tribal Lead Agencies and if there are alternative policies that would better meet Tribes' child care needs. We also seek feedback on whether any of the spending requirements (for direct services, quality activities, and/or administrative expenses) inhibit opportunities and access to child care and early learning services in Tribal Nations.
OCC requests comment on whether the 15 percent administrative cap inhibits Tribal implementation of the CCDF program and if so, the changes that would facilitate the Tribal Lead Agency better meeting the purposes of the program.
OCC requests comment on any barriers or challenges the quality set-aside may pose to Tribes implementing their child care program.
With approval from ACF, CCDF Tribal Lead Agencies may use CCDF funds for the construction and/or major renovation of child care facilities (45 CFR 98.84 (a)). Construction or major renovation funds must be set-aside from the Tribal Lead Agency's current grant year's CCDF allocation and must be liquidated by the end of the second fiscal year following the fiscal year the grant is awarded (45 CFR 98.84(e)). This policy provides three years to fully liquidate funds. Funds set aside for construction or major renovation may also pay for a modular unit, including the costs of buying and installing the unit, if the unit is fixed to the land. A Tribal Lead Agency must demonstrate that adequate child care facilities are not otherwise available and that the lack of facilities will inhibit future program operations (45 CFR 98.84(b)). The Tribal Lead Agency must also show that after the construction or renovation is complete, either the level of direct child care services will increase or the quality of child care services will improve.
Tribes may use set-aside funds to construct or renovate a facility that services more than the CCDF program, however, a cost allocation plan that ensures proportionate cost sharing must be in place.
Tribal Lead Agencies must obligate, or legally commit, all funds by the end of the fiscal year (September 30th) following the fiscal year the funds were initially awarded (approximately two years) (45 CFR 98.60(e)(1)). Obligated funds must be liquidated within the next fiscal year (approximately three years) (45 CFR 98.60(e)(2)). Any funds that remain unobligated or unliquidated by these deadlines are returned to the Department of Treasury. Financial information regarding obligated and liquidated funds are reported through the ACF-696T form.
We acknowledge the rapid influx of Tribal funding since 2017, in combination with these deadlines, created a burden for many Tribal Lead Agencies in spending funds within the time allotted. This led to many requests for extension of the obligation and liquidation periods through temporary fiscal waivers—including for COVID supplemental funds, discretionary funds, or construction and major renovation funds—to allow more time to manage and spend down the multiple increased funding streams during a short window of time.
Tribal Lead Agencies that receive CCDF funds are required to submit an aggregate report (ACF-700 Tribal Annual Report
Tribal Lead Agencies receive CCDF funds to increase the quality of child care and childhood development programs and are required to report how their funds and policies support quality programming (45 CFR 98.53(a)). Quality activities could include, but are not limited to, training and professional development, improving early learning and development guidelines, or supporting health and safety practices. Tribal Lead Agencies also report how their payment rates to providers support quality, including cultural and
State CCDF programs may sometimes intersect with the administration of Tribal CCDF programs. Therefore, CCDF requires States to be proactive and timely in reaching out to the Tribal officials for collaboration and are required to describe how they consulted, collaborated, and coordinated with Tribes in their State Plans (45 CFR 98.16(e)). The CCDF regulations recognize the need for states to conduct formal, structured consultation with Tribal governments, including Tribal leadership (45 CFR 98.10(f)). Many states and Tribes have consultation policies and procedures in place. Tribal Lead Agencies are subject to health and safety as well as monitoring requirements for providers who receive CCDF funds (45 CFR 98.41(a) & 98.83(d)(2)). They have some flexibility in determining which monitoring requirements should apply to child care providers (45 CFR 98.83(d)(2)). However, any alternative approaches must be approved, and this flexibility cannot be used to bypass these requirements altogether. Rather, Tribal Lead Agencies can introduce strategies that are more culturally appropriate or more financially feasible for Native children, families, and child care providers.
State Lead Agencies are subject to the same health and safety requirements and also must have child care licensing requirements for child care providers (45 CFR 98.40(a)(1)). State Lead Agencies may require child care providers to meet additional health and safety standards or quality levels in order to participate in the CCDF program. Tribal Lead Agencies may use their CCDF funds to pay child care providers regulated by a State Lead Agency rather than requiring a separate set of Tribal health and safety requirements or standards. Many Tribal Lead Agencies pay state-licensed or state-regulated providers with Tribal CCDF funds to serve Tribal children. Tribal Lead Agencies may accept state subsidy payments at their Tribally operated child care centers. In cases where Tribally operated child care centers accept state subsidy payments, State Lead Agencies may require such providers to meet their state-specific health and safety requirements or standards, which may result in the Tribally operated child care center being subject to the State-specific health and safety requirements or their quality improvement systems. However, state licensing or regulation and quality improvement systems may not be culturally appropriate or relevant for Native children, families, and child care providers.
All Tribes are exempt from creating a CCDF consumer education website given the administrative cost of building a website and the lack of reliable high-speed internet in some Tribal areas (45 CFR 98.83(d)(1)(i)). However, Tribal Lead Agencies with medium or large allocations are required to meet some of the CCDF consumer education requirements, including maintaining a parental complaint hotline, disseminating certain information to parents, providers, and the general public on child care services, sharing consumer-friendly and easily accessible, provider-specific monitoring reports and provider-specific consumer education statement with a summary of the Tribe's health and safety policies. Tribes with small allocations are exempt from all consumer education requirements.
Tribal Lead Agencies with small allocations can consider any Native child under age 13 in the service area to be eligible for child care services automatically (referred to as “categorical eligibility”) (45 CFR 98.83(f)(8) & 98.81(b)(1)(i)), and many CCDF Tribal Lead Agencies with small allocations utilize this flexibility.
Tribal Lead Agencies with large or medium allocations are subject to standard eligibility requirements unless the tribe's median income is below a level established by the Secretary, and therefore to be eligible for CCDF services, children must be under age 13, reside with a family whose income does not exceed 85 percent of the Grantee Median Income (GMI), and reside with parents who are working, attending a job training or educational program (45 CFR 98.81(b)). To use categorical eligibility, Tribal Lead Agencies with large or medium allocations must demonstrate their Tribal Median Income is below 85 percent of State Median Income, and that provision for services is delivered to those with the highest need. Most Tribal Lead Agencies meet this requirement.
ACF's mission is to advance an early childhood sector that meets the developmental needs of, and that creates equitable opportunities for, children and families. This includes supporting systems that attract, prepare, support, and retain a qualified and diverse work force. President Biden's Executive order on Increasing Access to High-Quality Care and Supporting
Eligible child care providers under CCDF include center-based child care providers, family child care providers, or in-home child care providers that are subject to health and safety requirements and monitoring and enforcement procedures (45 CFR 98.2). Relative providers are also eligible if they are 18 years of age or older and provide child care services only to eligible children who are—by marriage, blood relationship, or court decree—the grandchild, great grandchild, sibling[s] (if such provider lives in separate residence), niece, or nephew of such provider (45 CFR 98.2).
CCDF regulations require Tribes to comply with the same background check provisions as states and territories (45 CFR 98.83(d)(3), but the Act does not provide Tribes the legal authority to conduct all checks, and Tribes face unique challenges directly requesting and accessing certain data. This lack of statutory authority and access to conduct certain checks impacts public safety not only in Tribal communities but across the United States.
Please describe any other CCDF Tribal regulations and processes that interfere with Tribal Nations' child care program implementation and/or CCDF policies or regulations not yet addressed in this RFI and proposed solution(s).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to list two species and one subspecies of Brazilian swallowtail butterflies as endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Specifically, we are proposing to list the Fluminense swallowtail (
We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before September 25, 2023. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Rachel London, Chief, Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species, Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: ES, 5275
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from other governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current ranges, including distribution patterns and the locations of any additional populations of these species;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, their habitats, or both.
(2) Threats and conservation actions affecting these species, including:
(a) Factors that may be affecting the continued existence of the species, which may include habitat destruction, modification, or curtailment; overutilization; disease; predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or manmade factors.
(b) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to these species.
(c) Existing regulations or conservation actions that may be addressing threats to these species.
(3) Additional information concerning the historical and current status of these species.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or opposition to, the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)) directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a threatened species must be made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
If you submit information via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
Our final determinations may differ from this proposal because we will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well as any information that may become available after this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and, if relevant, any comments on that new information), we may conclude that one or more of these species are threatened instead of endangered, or we may conclude that one or more of these species do not warrant listing as either endangered species or threatened species. In our final rule, we will clearly explain our rationale and the basis for our final decisions, including why we made changes, if any, that differ from this proposal.
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(5)) provides for a public hearing on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified in
On January 1, 1994, we received a petition to add the Fluminense, Harris' mimic, and Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtails to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. On May 10, 1994, we published in the
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for the Fluminense swallowtail, Harris' mimic swallowtail, and Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail. The SSA team was composed of Service biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA report represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of the species, including the impacts of past, present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting the species.
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
As discussed in Peer Review above, we received comments from four peer reviewers on the draft SSA report. We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the information contained in the SSA report. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions, and provided additional information, clarification, and suggestions, including updates to the taxonomy of
One peer reviewer suggested we inappropriately based our distribution area estimates for the three species on alfa hull polygons, spatial polygons used to represent a geographic location, and that our map suggests occurrences outside the distribution of the three species. The estimated ranges were based on data from the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and Sistema de Avaliação do Risco de Extinção da Biodiversidade (SALVE) and were not estimated using alfa hull polygons. We clarified the language in the SSA report and added details to the uncertainty discussion to address these concerns. Two peer reviewers also noted new occurrence records for the Fluminense and Harris' mimic swallowtails, but they were unable to provide further specifics at this time because the data are under restricted use. We incorporated the information on these new occurrence records into the text of the SSA report, but without details on the exact location, size, or condition of the new occurrence records, we were unable to incorporate them into the habitat analyses in the SSA report. In the SSA report, we also considered how this added uncertainty could lead to either over or under estimation in the resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the species. Otherwise, no substantive changes to our analysis and conclusions within the SSA report were deemed necessary, and peer reviewer comments are addressed in the SSA report (Service 2023, entire).
The Fluminense swallowtail, Harris' mimic swallowtail, and Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail are all butterflies belonging to the Papilonidae family. The Fluminense swallowtail (
All three swallowtails are endemic to Brazil. The Fluminense swallowtail butterfly is a black-white-and-red swallowtail with a 45-millimeter (mm) (1.77-inch (in)) wingspan (Otero and Brown 1984, p. 2). Mimicking the Fluminense swallowtail, Harris' mimic swallowtail is a similar-looking medium-sized black-white-and-red swallowtail with narrow and relatively short tails (Collins and Morris 1985, p. 208). Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is a large black-and-yellow butterfly with a wingspan of 80-100 mm (3.14-3.93 in) (Collins and Morris 1985, p. 242).
The Fluminense swallowtail, endemic to sand forests or “restingas,” currently occupies an estimated 36 to 288 square kilometers (km
The Fluminense swallowtail typically has six generations per year and develops from egg to adult in approximately 50-58 days, with adult male life expectancy averaging 12.3 days (Otero and Brown 1984, pp. 5-6, 8-9; Herkenhoff et al. 2013, pp. 29-32; Almeida 2015b, p. 387). Adult males can travel distances of 400 to 1,000 meters (m) but are not found above 60 m of altitude (Soares et al. 2011, p. 69; Herkenhoff et al. 2013, pp. 29, 32; Seraphim et al. 2016, p. 544).
Fluminense swallowtails are known to have a sparse distribution throughout their range; sex ratios are male-dominated; and population numbers increase in the austral spring, peaking in October, correlated with warmer temperatures and lower relative humidity (Herkenhoff et al. 2013, p. 32; dos Santos Pereira et al. 2020, pp. 371-372). The Fluminense swallowtail currently occupies at least eight sites in the state of Rio de Janeiro where the species exhibits a metapopulation structure (a group of separate subpopulations that has some level of mixing) (Seraphim et al. 2016, pp. 534, 544). The species has also recently been seen in the southern part of the state of Espírito Santo, but records of this occurrence are not yet published (Brant 2023, unpaginated). There has been a continual decline in both the number of subpopulations as well as the numbers of individuals within each subpopulation, but there are no current total population estimates (Seraphim et al. 2016, p. 535; Almeida 2017, unpaginated; H. Grice et al. 2019b, p. 4).
The Harris' mimic swallowtail currently occupies approximately 96 km
Harris' mimic swallowtail feeds on several plant species in the larval stage, and adults feed on nectar from flowering plants (Collins and Morris 1985, p. 209; Tyler, Hamilton A., Brown, and Wilson 1994, p. 179; Xerces Society 2006, unpaginated). The Harris'
Population ecology data are limited for Harris' mimic swallowtail. While new and unpublished information indicates there may be more colonies that have recently been discovered, the current best available information indicates there are only five known colonies of the subspecies, with abundance estimates for only one site from the early 2000s (Tyler, Hamilton A., Brown, and Wilson 1994, p. 179; Brown, Jr. 2004, pers. comm.; Monteiro et al. 2004, entire; Almeida 2015a, unpaginated; Brant 2023, pers. comm.). Information on sex ratio, population structure, and total population size are unknown, but the best available information indicates the total population size is decreasing due to ongoing habitat loss and degradation.
Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is very rare with a patchy distribution, inhabiting old sand strips (
Due to its extremely low densities and occurrence in remote regions, there is very limited information on the ecology, population size, population trends, or sex ratio of Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail. We are unaware of any information on the number of generations per year, life span, or duration of each life stage for this species. The species likely feeds on only one or a few larval host plants, and while it has not been identified to species, it is believed to be in the Dutchman's pipe genus, either
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the Fluminense, Harris' mimic, and Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtails is presented in the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 1-11).
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and threatened species. In 2019, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Service issued a final rule that revised the regulations in 50 CFR part 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify endangered and threatened species and the criteria for designating listed species' critical habitat (84 FR 45020; August 27, 2019). On the same day, the Service also issued final regulations that, for species listed as threatened species after September 26, 2019, no longer automatically applied the prohibitions that section 9 of the Act applies to endangered species (84 FR 44753; August 27, 2019).
The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a “threatened species” as a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term “threat” to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively affect individuals of a species. The term “threat” includes actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term “threat” may encompass—either together or separately—the source of the action or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species.” In determining whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all identified threats by considering the species' expected response and the effects of the threats—in light of those actions and conditions that will ameliorate the threats—on an individual, population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether the species meets the definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species” only after conducting this cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term “foreseeable future,” which appears in the statutory definition of “threatened species.” Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term “foreseeable future” extends only so far into the future as we can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions. “Reliable” does not mean “certain”; it means sufficient to provide
It is not always possible or necessary to define the foreseeable future as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the species' biological response include species-specific factors such as lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and other demographic factors.
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision on whether the species should be proposed for listing as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. However, it does provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve the further application of standards within the Act and its implementing regulations and policies.
To assess the Fluminense, Harris' mimic, and Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtails' viability, we used the three conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold years), redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events), and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment (for example, climate conditions, pathogens). In general, species viability will increase with increases in (or decrease with decreases in) resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat characteristics, including an explanation of how each of these species arrived at its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these stages, we used the best available information to characterize viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the wild over time. We use this information to inform our regulatory decision.
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2023-0067 on
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of each of these three species and their resources, and the threats that influence the species' current and future conditions, in order to assess the species' overall viability and the risks to that viability.
Based on each species' biology described above (see discussion under Background) and in the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 1-11), the three Brazilian swallowtails all need sufficient quantity, quality, and connectivity of their respective specialized habitats; host plants for larval development and food sources; an abundance of flowering plants for nectar sources for the adult butterflies; and like most species, sufficient conspecific individuals to find a mate. Owing to the limited data available, our assessment of species-level needs is developed further based on general principles as they apply to butterfly biology.
Butterfly viability is fostered—and thereby extinction risk reduced—by having multiple, connected demographically and genetically robust populations distributed widely across heterogeneous environmental conditions (referred to as spatial heterogeneity) and the breadth of diversity (genetic, morphological, physiological, and ecological variation). Spatial heterogeneity fosters asynchronous fluctuations among populations, guarding against concurrent population declines. Maintaining historical patterns and levels of gene flow maintains genetic health (increases heterozygosity), while continued connectivity allows for demographic rescue following population decline or extirpation and supports dispersal in response to shifting conditions. Gene flow and spatial heterogeneity also support continuing adaptive responses, as does conserving genetic diversity across the landscape. Conversely, butterfly species composed of reduced or isolated populations are vulnerable to genetic drift and have reduced adaptive capacity, or the ability to respond to (
Habitat loss and degradation is the primary factor negatively impacting the three Brazilian swallowtails, with all species experiencing high levels of deforestation in their ranges (Collins and Morris 1985, pp. 22, 67, 152, 209, 242; Tyler, Hamilton A., Brown, and Wilson 1994, p. 179; Brown, Jr. 1996, pp. 45-46, 52, 57; Seraphim et al. 2016, p. 534). The Fluminense and Harris' mimic swallowtails both occupy the Atlantic Forest, which has experienced an estimated 88 to 95 percent deforestation, and the remaining tracts of its habitat are severely fragmented (Saatchi et al. 2001, p. 868; Monteiro et al. 2004, p. 786; Tabarelli et al. 2005, p. 695; Ribeiro et al. 2009, pp. 1141-1145). Within the Atlantic Forest, the highly specialized restinga habitat required by the Fluminense and Harris' mimic swallowtails only comprises 0.4 percent of its historical distribution, and the remaining patches of restinga habitat are under strong pressure from anthropogenic disturbance (Otero and Brown 1984, pp. 3-6, 10-12; Brown, Jr. 2004, pers. comm.; Rocha et al. 2007, entire; Uehara-Prado and Fonseca 2007, pp. 264-266). The states of Pará and Amazonas, where the Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail occurs, have also experienced and are continuing to experience high rates of deforestation, losing 66 percent and 11 percent of forests, respectively, over less than three decades (Soares-Filho et al. 2006, p. 250; The Economist 2013, unpaginated; Fraser 2015, unpaginated; Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE) 2017, unpaginated). Considering the life
Across Brazil, climate change is expected to increase temperatures and alter precipitation patterns as well as increase heatwaves and the length of the dry season in the Amazon (The World Bank Group 2021, unpaginated). Studies of butterflies in other fragmented tropical landscapes indicate an adverse effect on species richness as a result of altered precipitation patterns (Shuey 2022, pers. comm). As progressing global climate change increases storm surge and causes sea level to rise (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2022, pp. 6-13), the extent of the Fluminense and Harris' mimic swallowtails' habitats are projected to be further reduced. Given the narrow distribution and habitat fragmentation of all three of these Brazilian swallowtails, coupled with reliance on specialized habitat, they are likely to be increasingly susceptible to negative impacts from climatic changes with limited adaptive capacity (Bellaver et al. 2022, p. 654).
Fire is another factor impacting all three swallowtails' viability. The Poco das Antas Biological Reserve, a large reserve where both the Fluminense and Harris' mimic swallowtails occur, has experienced frequent fire since the 1980s following drainage and damming projects in the region (Herkenhoff et al. 2013, p. 29; Sansevero et al. 2020, p. 32). Regarding the Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail, fire in the Amazon has increased in recent years and is correlated with increased deforestation (Silveira et al. 2020, entire; 2022, entire). Fire has and will likely continue to cause habitat fragmentation and reduce the availability of specialized habitat for the three swallowtails.
Rare butterflies and moths are highly prized by collectors, and all three swallowtails have been collected and sold internationally (Collins and Morris 1985, pp. 155-179; Morris et al. 1991, pp. 332-334; Williams 1996, entire). Despite some protections under Brazilian and European laws, monitoring the trade of insects is difficult and these existing regulations have minimal impact on regulating trade or collection (H. Grice et al. 2019a, p. 4; 2019b, p. 4; 2019c, p. 4). Both the Fluminense and Harris' mimic swallowtail occur near urban areas, increasing opportunity and ease of capture (Brown, Jr. 2004, pers. comm.). Additionally, species such as these three swallowtails with restricted distributions or localized populations tend to be more vulnerable to overcollection than those with a wider distribution (Brown, Jr. 2004, pers. comm.).
Parasitism has been identified as another stressor of the Fluminense swallowtail, with several parasites known to target the species and some colonies experiencing annual patterns of parasitism (Tavares, Navarro-Tavares, and Almeida, 2006, entire; Almeida 2015b, p. 388; 2017, pers. comm.). While impacts of parasitism on the species are unknown, parasitism and subsequent mortality of early life stages could potentially contribute to local extirpations of the remaining small, fragmented subpopulations.
Our evaluation of the status of the species takes into account the extent to which threats are reduced or removed as a result of conservation efforts or existing regulatory mechanisms.
All three swallowtails are afforded some protections under Brazilian and international laws, including Brazilian environmental laws for endangered species (Fluminense and Harris' mimic swallowtails), protections in the state of Pará through its list of threatened species (Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail), and inclusion in Annex B of the European Union (EU) Wildlife Trade Regulations (Fluminense and Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtails) (Snt'Anna, Rabinovici and Spitzeck 2016, unpaginated; European Commission 2017, p. 802; Biodiversidade 2022, unpaginated). However, due to the difficulty in monitoring the insect trade, these existing regulations have minimal impact, and none of the three swallowtails is listed in the Appendices to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (H. Grice et al. 2019a, p. 4; 2019b, p. 4; 2019c, p. 4).
Habitat protection is generally lacking for all three swallowtails, although there is some overlap of protected areas in the Fluminense and Harris' mimic swallowtails' ranges. While most extant subpopulations of the Fluminense swallowtail exist outside protected areas, it is afforded some protection where it occurs in small municipal parks and conservation units as well as in one protected reserve, Poço das Antas Biological Reserve (Seraphim et al. 2016, p. 536; Almeida 2017, pers. comm.). The Harris' mimic swallowtail also is afforded some protections from conservation units and the Poço das Antas Biological Reserve, in addition to occupying Jurubatiba National Park, which holds the largest remaining remnant of restinga habitat (Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) 2001, p. 9; Rocha et al. 2007, pp. 263-269). While some habitat protections are in place in known occurrence locations for the Fluminense and Harris' mimic swallowtail, they occupy a highly urbanized matrix undergoing continuing development pressures (International Finance Corporation (IFC) 2002, entire; Khalip 2007, unpaginated). It is unknown if the Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail currently occurs in any protected areas, but limited resources for conservation application minimize effectiveness of protected areas in the Amazon (Collins and Morris 1985, p. 234; Laurance and Williamson 2001, p. 1533; H. Grice et al. 2019c, p. 4).
Captive-reared Fluminense swallowtails were released over several years throughout the city of Rio de Janeiro in an attempt to increase subpopulation sizes and genetic diversity, but there was limited post-release monitoring to determine the success of this effort (Instituto Chico Mendes De Conservação Da Biodiversidade (ICMBio) 2007, pp. 82-89; Almeida 2017, pers. comm.; Monteiro 2017, pers. comm.). Captive rearing may be reinitiated in the future, but it is unclear when or how effective it might be at conserving the species (Almeida 2017, pers. comm.). There are no known captive rearing efforts for the Harris' mimic swallowtail nor for the Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail.
The best available scientific and commercial data indicate the Fluminense swallowtail is a narrow endemic with low genetic diversity composed of a single metapopulation that occupies an estimated 36 to 288 km
The Fluminense swallowtail's small and isolated colonies are at increased risk of extirpation due to stochasticity and catastrophic events, and although we cannot quantify the level of risk, there is increasing vulnerability the longer they remain in this impaired condition. The requisite restinga habitat of the Fluminense swallowtail, once the dominant habitat type along the eastern coast of Brazil, was reduced to less than 1 percent of its former range by 2007. Past deforestation resulted in extirpation of multiple colonies and fragmentation and isolation of remaining sites. Considering the severe reduction in the specialized requisite habitat for the Fluminense swallowtail and its reliance on a single larval host plant, the species has limited resiliency and ability to withstand environmental and demographic stochasticity. With only a single metapopulation and a reduced number of subpopulations inhabiting a highly urbanized and fragmented landscape, the Fluminense swallowtail has minimal redundancy to safeguard against catastrophic events. Lastly, while the species is already known to have low genetic diversity and an inherently limited ability to adapt (owing to its specialized habitat requirements, a single larval host plant, and a narrow climatic niche breadth), as subpopulations are increasingly isolated from habitat loss and fragmentation the species representation and ability to adapt to changing and shifting environmental conditions is further constrained.
The Harris' mimic swallowtail is a narrow endemic that occupies an estimated 96 km
By the early 2000s, the restinga habitat was reduced to only 0.4 percent of its historical distribution with restinga remnants already generally small and surrounded by areas undergoing rapid urbanization or already urbanized (Ribeiro et al. 2009, as cited in Seraphim et al. 2016, p. 534; Rocha et al. 2007, pp. 263, 265). This severely reduced habitat has continued to decline. Over the last 20 years, there was an estimated 2.14 percent forest loss in the Harris' mimic swallowtail's remaining range, and at times protected areas experienced higher rates of deforestation than outside protected areas (Service 2023, p. 21).
In the absence of historical or current population data, the large quantities of habitat loss seen in the range of the Harris' mimic swallowtail suggest the population has likely experienced comparable declines in size. The subspecies has been extirpated from portions of its historical range and in its once strongest colony it now appears to be scarce. While the Harris' mimic swallowtail occupies two protected areas of intact restinga habitat, has some diversity in habitat types used, and has larva that feeds on multiple host plants, its extent of occurrence is severely reduced and is within a highly urbanized landscape, limiting the subspecies' resiliency and ability to withstand environmental and demographic stochasticity. The subspecies reliance on a severely reduced specialized habitat in a highly urbanized and fragmented landscape with only a few known colonies, indicates the Harris' mimic swallowtail has limited redundancy to safeguard against catastrophic events. Finally, the highly urbanized and fragmented landscape the Harris' mimic swallowtail inhabits likely limits migration and gene flow between colonies, which coupled with the subspecies' reliance on specialized habitat, hinders the Harris' mimic swallowtails' representation and leaves it vulnerable to changing and shifting environmental conditions.
The Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail has an estimated extent of occurrence of 189,015 km
Regions where the Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail was previously known to occur have experienced continued and increasing rates of deforestation (H. Grice et al. 2019a, p. 4). From 2000-2020, there was 5.65 percent forest cover loss in the range of the Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail, and there were similar trends in forest loss between protected areas and non-protected areas (Service 2023, p. 24). While there remains about 85 percent of forest cover in the species' known extent of occurrence, the species is inherently rare, restricted to a highly specialized habitat, and likely has only a single larval host plant, which limits the species' resiliency and ability to withstand environmental and demographic stochasticity. While the large extent of occurrence provides some level of redundancy to safeguard against catastrophic events, the species has only been found in a few locations, suggesting that localized extirpations from habitat loss or other factors would likely be detrimental to the species. Finally, considering the species' scarcity and patchy linear distribution, there is also likely little gene flow between populations, limiting the species' representation and making it vulnerable to changing and shifting environmental conditions.
As part of the SSA report, we developed future-condition scenarios to capture the range of uncertainties regarding future threats and the projected responses by the Fluminense, Harris' mimic, and Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtails. Our future scenarios reflect the conclusion from our analysis that the primary factor influencing the future viability of all three of these swallowtails is habitat loss and degradation resulting from: (1) deforestation from land-use change and urbanization, and (2) climate-change impacts on the species' climatic niche breadths and habitat availability. The best available information indicates that all three swallowtails' populations and distributions will decline in the future. However, because we have determined
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation actions on these species. To assess the current and future condition of the species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors that may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects analysis.
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a “threatened species” as a species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we determined that the Fluminense swallowtail's distribution and population have been reduced across its range as evidenced by the extensive loss and degradation of its requisite specialized habitat. The remnant subpopulations occur in a highly urbanized landscape undergoing increased isolation from habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation and consequently are at increased risk of extirpation due to stochasticity and catastrophic events. Coupled with the species' specialized habitat requirements, the isolation and fragmentation of the remaining subpopulations, which make up a single metapopulation, have left the species with insufficient resiliency, redundancy, and representation for its continued existence to be secure.
Thus, after assessing the best scientific and commercial data available regarding threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we determine that the Fluminense swallowtail is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range primarily due to historical and ongoing habitat loss and degradation from development and urbanization (Factor A) and the additive threat from capture (Factor B). The existing regulatory mechanisms and other conservation measures are inadequate to address the identified threats to the species (Factor D). The species does not fit the statutory definition of a threatened species because it is currently in danger of extinction, whereas threatened species are those likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future.
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we determined the Harris' mimic swallowtail's distribution and population have been reduced across its range as evidenced by the extensive loss and degradation of its requisite specialized habitat. The remnant colonies occur in a highly urbanized landscape undergoing increased isolation from habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation and consequently are at increased risk of extirpation due to stochasticity and catastrophic events. Coupled with the species' specialized habitat requirements, the isolation and fragmentation of the remaining colonies have left the subspecies with insufficient resiliency, redundancy, and representation for its continued existence to be secure.
Thus, after assessing the best scientific and commercial data available regarding threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we determine that the Harris' mimic swallowtail is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range due to historical and ongoing habitat loss and degradation from anthropogenic activities (Factor A) and the additive threat from capture (Factor B). The existing regulatory mechanisms and other conservation measures are inadequate to address the identified threats to the species (Factor D). The species does not fit the statutory definition of a threatened species because it is currently in danger of extinction, whereas threatened species are those likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future.
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we determined that the viability of the Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is limited as a result of extensive habitat loss and degradation coupled with the species' rarity and patchy distribution. The species is inherently rare, is restricted to a highly specialized habitat, and likely has only a single larval host plant, which, when coupled with habitat loss and degradation, makes it vulnerable to changing and shifting environmental conditions and catastrophic events, and has left the species with insufficient resiliency, redundancy, and representation for the species' continued existence to be secure.
Thus, after assessing the best scientific and commercial data available regarding threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we determine that the Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range primarily due to ongoing and increasing habitat loss and degradation from deforestation and fire (Factor A) and the additive threat from capture (Factor B). The existing regulatory mechanisms and other conservation measures are inadequate to address the identified threats to the species (Factor D). The species does not fit the statutory definition of a threatened species because it is currently in danger of extinction, whereas threatened species are those likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We have determined that the Fluminense swallowtail, Harris' mimic swallowtail, and Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail are in danger of extinction throughout all of their ranges and accordingly did not undertake an analysis of any significant portion of their ranges. Because the Fluminense swallowtail, Harris' mimic swallowtail, and Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail warrant listing as endangered throughout all of their ranges, our determination does not conflict with the decision in
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial information indicates that the Fluminense swallowtail, Harris' mimic swallowtail, and Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail meet the Act's definition of endangered species. Therefore, we propose to list the Fluminense swallowtail, Harris' mimic swallowtail, and Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail as endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
The purposes of the Act are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in the Act. Under the Act, a number of steps are available to advance the conservation of species listed as endangered or threatened species. As explained further below, these conservation measures include: (1) recognition, (2) recovery actions, (3) requirements for Federal protection, (4) financial assistance for conservation programs, and (5) prohibitions against certain activities.
Recognition through listing results in public awareness, as well as in conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, foreign governments, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried out for listed species.
Section 7 of the Act is titled, “Interagency Cooperation,” and it mandates all Federal action agencies to use their existing authorities to further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations implementing section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal action agency shall, in consultation with the Secretary, ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
A Federal “action” that is subject to the consultation provisions of section 7(a)(2) is defined in our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 402.02 as all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies in the United States or upon the high seas. With respect to the Fluminense swallowtail, Harris' mimic swallowtail, and Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail, no known actions would require consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Given the regulatory definition of “action,” which clarifies that it applies to activities or programs “in the United States or upon the high seas,” the Fluminense swallowtail, Harris' mimic swallowtail, and Hahnel's Amazonian swallowtail are unlikely to be the subject of section 7 consultations, because the entire life cycles of these species occur in terrestrial areas outside of the United States and are unlikely to be affected by U.S. Federal actions. Additionally, no critical habitat will be designated for these species because, under 50 CFR 424.12(g), we will not designate critical habitat within foreign countries or in other areas outside of the jurisdiction of the United States.
Section 8(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1537(a)) authorizes the provision of limited financial assistance for the development and management of programs that the Secretary of the Interior determines to be necessary or useful for the conservation of endangered or threatened species in foreign countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1537(b) and (c)) authorize the Secretary to encourage conservation programs for foreign listed species, and to provide assistance for such programs, in the form of personnel and the training of personnel.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, and implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit or to cause to be committed any of the following acts with regard to any endangered wildlife: (1) import into, or export from, the United States; (2) take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) within the United States, within the territorial sea of the United States, or on the high seas; (3) possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such wildlife that has been taken illegally; (4) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of commercial activity; or (5) sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce. Certain exceptions to these prohibitions apply to employees or agents of the Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered wildlife species under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits for endangered wildlife are codified at 50 CFR 17.22, and general Service permitting regulations are codified at 50 CFR part 13. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for scientific purposes, for enhancing the propagation or survival of the species, or for take incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The statute also contains certain exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
The Service may also register persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States through its captive-bred wildlife (CBW) program if certain established requirements are met under the CBW regulations (see 50 CFR 17.21(g)). Through a CBW registration, the Service may allow a registrant to conduct
It is our policy, as published in the
At this time, we are unable to identify specific activities that would not be considered likely to result in a violation of section 9 of the Act beyond what is already clear from the descriptions of prohibitions or already excepted through our regulations at 50 CFR 17.21. Also, at this time, we are unable to identify specific activities that would be considered likely to result in a violation of section 9 of the Act beyond what is already clear from the descriptions of the prohibitions at 50 CFR 17.21.
Applicable wildlife import/export requirements established under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1538(d)-(f)), the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3371
We are required by E.O.s 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the internet at
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding: whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques and other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by August 28, 2023 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice is announcing that the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods (NACMCF) will hold a virtual public meeting of the full Committee on August 30, 2023. The Committee will discuss and vote to adopt the following report:
The full Committee will hold a virtual public meeting on Wednesday, August 30, 2023, from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. ET. Submit comments on or before August 25, 2023.
The Committee meeting will be held virtually using Webex. Attendance is free but pre-registration by Friday, August 25, 2023, is requested. Attendees must pre-register at
The NACMCF document for adoption will be available at
•
•
•
Please note that the meeting agenda is subject to change due to the time required for reviewing and adopting the reports; thus, sessions could end earlier or later than anticipated. Please plan accordingly if you would like to attend this meeting or participate in the public comment period. The official transcript of the August 30, 2023 Committee meeting, when it becomes available, will be posted on FSIS' website at
Kristal Southern, USDA, FSIS, Office of Public Health Science, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 1128, Washington, DC 20250; Email:
The NACMCF was established in 1988, in response to a recommendation of the National Academy of Sciences for an interagency approach to microbiological criteria for foods, and in response to a recommendation of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, as expressed in the Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill for fiscal year 1988. The charter for the NACMCF is available for viewing at
NACMCF documents and comments posted on the FSIS website are electronic conversions from a variety of source formats. In some cases, document conversion may result in character translation or formatting errors. The original document is the official, legal copy. To meet the electronic and information technology accessibility standards in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, NACMCF may add alternate text descriptors for non-text elements (graphs, charts, tables, multimedia, etc.). These modifications only affect the internet copies of the documents. Copyrighted documents will not be posted on FSIS' website but will be available for inspection in the FSIS Docket Room.
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and USDA civil rights regulations and policies, USDA, its Mission Areas, agencies, staff offices, employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Program information may be made available in languages other than English. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication to obtain program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, a complainant should complete a Form AD-3027,
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBCS) announces its intention to request a revision of a currently approved information collection package for Voluntary Labeling Program for Biobased Products.
Comments on this notice must be received by September 25, 2023 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically by the Federal eRulemaking Portal,
All comments will be available for public inspection online at the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
Katherine Anne Mathis, Rural Development Innovation Center—Regulations Management Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250, Telephone: 202-713-7565, 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 an information collection that the Agency is submitting to OMB for revision.
Comments are invited on (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.
To implement the statutory requirements of FSRIA, USDA will gather relevant product information on biobased products for which manufacturers and vendors seek certification to use the label. Participation in the Voluntary Labeling Program is entirely voluntary.
The information collected will enable USDA to evaluate the qualifications of biobased products to carry the USDA Certified Biobased Product label and to ensure that the label is used properly and in accordance with the requirements specified in 7 CFR part 3202. To the extent feasible, the information sought by USDA can be transmitted electronically using the website
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Katherine Anne Mathis, Rural Development Innovation Center—Regulations Management Division, at (202) 713-7565. 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 Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBCS) announces its intention to request a revision of a currently approved information collection package for Guidelines for Designating Biobased Products for Federal Procurement.
Comments on this notice must be received by September 25, 2023 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically by the Federal eRulemaking Portal,
Information on using
All comments will be available for public inspection online at the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
Katherine Anne Mathis, Rural Development Innovation Center—Regulations Management Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250, Telephone: 202-713-7565, 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 an information collection that the Agency is submitting to OMB for revision.
Comments are invited on (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 Katherine Anne Mathis, Rural Development Innovation Center—Regulations Management Division, at (202) 713-7565. 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 Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice; announcement of the opening of the online application window for the New ERA Program.
The Rural Utilities Service, a Rural Development agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), hereinafter referred to as “RUS” or “the Agency” announced its intent to solicit Letters of Interest (LOI) for applications under the Empowering Rural America (New ERA) Program in a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) on May 16, 2023, in the
The Agency will begin accepting LOIs for the New ERA Program beginning at 11:59 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) on July 31, 2023, and until 11:59 p.m. ET on September 15, 2023. Letters of Interest will not be accepted after 11:59 p.m. ET on September 15, 2023.
All LOIs must be submitted to RUS electronically at
Christopher McLean, Assistant Administrator, Electric Program, Rural Utilities Service, Rural Development, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 1568, Washington, DC 20250-1560; Telephone: 202-690-4492. Email to:
On August 16, 2022, The Biden Harris Administration and the United State Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 which authorized the New ERA Program. The goal of the New ERA Program is to provide financial assistance to Eligible Entities to achieve the greatest reductions in GHG emissions through the cooperatives' voluntary transformation of rural electric systems in a way that promotes resiliency and reliability of rural electric systems and affordability for their members.
On May 16, 2023, the Agency published a NOFO in the
The Agency has added the requirement to submit an Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424) to the list of items needed for a complete LOI in order to accept the LOI's through
1. Application of General Assistance. Prior to official submission of an LOI, Applicants may request general assistance from the Agency if such
2.
The LOIs must be submitted electronically thru
To be eligible for an award, applications must meet all of the requirements contained in the NOFO published in the
Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice; correction to meeting type.
The Commission on Civil Rights published a notice in the
Victoria Moreno,
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of public meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the Wyoming Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a public forum via Zoom at 1 p.m. MT on Monday, September 18, 2023. The purpose of this meeting is to hear testimony from individuals impacted by housing discrimination in the state.
Monday, September 18, 2023, from 1 p.m.-3 p.m. Mountain Time.
The meeting will be held via Zoom.
Kayla Fajota, Designated Federal Officer, at
This committee meeting is available to the public through the registration 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. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. 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. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning will be available for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email Liliana Schiller, Support Services Specialist, at
Members of the public are 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 Kayla Fajota at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of virtual business meetings.
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 (FACA) that the California Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a series of virtual business meetings via ZoomGov on the following dates and times listed below. These meetings are for the purpose of reviewing and discussing the latest draft of their report on the civil rights implications of AB5.
These meetings will take place on:
Zoom Link To Join:
Brooke Peery, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at
Committee meetings are available to the public through the registration 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. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. 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. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning will be available for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email Angelica Trevino, Support Services Specialist at
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Brooke Peery (DFO) at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website,
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of public meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the Nebraska Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will host an in-person Community Forum in Lincoln. The purpose of the meeting is to gather testimony regarding the Covid-19 Pandemic on education in the state, with a focus on digital divide and increasing mental health challenges. The Committee seeks to hear from students, teachers and other stakeholders on their experiences and in areas in which they still need support.
Wednesday, August 9, 2023, from 1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. Central Time]
Embassy Suites Lincoln, Room Regents B, 1040 P Street, Lincoln, NE 68506
Victoria Moreno, Designated Federal Officer, at
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period towards the end of the Community Forum if you did not speak during the Community Forum.
Members of the public are 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 Coordination Unit at 434-515-0204. Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of virtual business 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
Friday, August 18, 2023, from 1:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held via Zoom.
Mallory Trachtenberg, DFO, at
This Committee meeting is available to the public through the registration 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. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. 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. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are 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 Mallory Trachtenberg at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via
Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice; update meeting date.
The Commission on Civil Rights published a notice in the
Brooke Peery (DFO),
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of virtual business 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 (FACA) that the California Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a business meeting via ZoomGov on Friday, September 8, 2023, from 1:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m. Pacific time for the purpose of reviewing and discussing the latest draft of their report on the civil rights implications of AB5.
Thes meeting will take place on:
• Friday, September 8, 2023, from 1:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m. PT.
ZOOM LINK TO JOIN:
Brooke Peery, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at
Committee meetings are available to the public through the registration 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. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. 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. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning will be available for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email Angelica Trevino, Support Services Specialist at
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Brooke Peery (DFO) at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that certain corrosion-resistant steel products (CORE) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) were not sold in the United States at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR), July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable July 27, 2023.
Jaron Moore or William Horn, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3640 or (202) 482-4868, respectively.
On July 25, 2016, Commerce published the antidumping duty order on CORE from Korea.
On March 22, 2023, we extended the deadline for the preliminary results of this review until July 21, 2023.
The merchandise covered by the
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price and constructed export price are calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. NV is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an antidumping duty investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
However, where the dumping margins for individually examined respondents are all zero,
We preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margins for the period July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed for these preliminary results of review to interested parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Interested parties may submit case briefs to Commerce no later than 30 days after 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 Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
All submissions to Commerce must be filed using ACCESS
Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any case or rebuttal briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless this deadline is extended.
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. For any individually examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
Where an importer-specific
In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by any of the above-referenced respondents for which they did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation (as amended)
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 deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above will be that established in the final results of this 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 and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the countervailing duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that passenger vehicle and light truck tires (PVLT) from Thailand were sold in the United States at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) January 6, 2021, through June 30, 2022. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable July 26, 2023.
Myrna Lobo or Jacob Saude, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2371 or (202) 482-0981, respectively.
On July 1, 2022, Commerce published in the
For a detailed description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The products covered by the
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act. Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results,
We preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period January 6, 2021, through June 30, 2022:
The Act and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a weighted-average dumping margin to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a less-than-fair-value investigation, for guidance when calculating the weighted-average dumping margin for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an
Where the dumping margin for individually examined respondents are all zero,
Because Commerce preliminarily calculated weighted-average dumping margins for Sentury Tire (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Sentury) and Sumitomo Rubber (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (SRT) that are not zero or
As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in determining the final results of review.
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed for these preliminary results of review to interested parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs to Commerce no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this administrative review. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than seven days after the date for filing case briefs.
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. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; (3) whether any participant is a foreign national; and (4) a list of issues the party intends to discuss. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a date and time to be determined.
All submissions should be filed using ACCESS,
Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review in the
If Sentury or SRT's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Sentury or SRT for which it did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate in the original less-than-fair-value investigation if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the
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)(2) and 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies were provided to Bharat Forge Limited (Bharat Forge), a producer and exporter of forged steel fluid end blocks (fluid end blocks) from India during the period of review (POR), May 26, 2020, through December 31, 2021.
Applicable July 27, 2023.
Nicholas Czajkowski, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1395
On February 7, 2023, Commerce published the preliminary results of this administrative review in the
The products covered by the scope of the
All issues raised by the interested parties in their case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum and are listed in the appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on our analysis of comments from interested parties and the evidence on the record, we revised the
Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, we find that there is a subsidy,
We determine that the net countervailable subsidy rate for the period May 26, 2020, through December 31, 2021, to be as follows:
In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce also intends to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown above for the above-listed companies with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of these final results of review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the all-others rate or the most recent company-specific rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, effective upon publication of these final results, shall remain in effect until further notice.
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce has determined, and CBP shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review, for the above-listed companies at the applicable
Commerce intends to disclose calculations and analysis performed for the final results of review within five days after the date of publication of this notice in the
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
The final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of aluminum sheet produced from aluminum alloy 4017 (4017 aluminum sheet) produced in the People's Republic of China (China) and exported to the United States constitutes merchandise altered in form or appearance in such minor respects that it should be included within the scope of the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on common alloy aluminum sheet (CAAS) from China. As a result, 4017 aluminum sheet will be subject to suspension of liquidation effective August 26, 2022.
Applicable July 27, 2023.
Frank Schmitt, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
On April 12, 2023, Commerce published the
The merchandise covered by the
Common alloy sheet may be made to ASTM specification B209-14, but can also be made to other specifications. Regardless of specification, however, all common alloy sheet meeting the scope description is included in the scope. Subject merchandise includes common alloy sheet that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the
Excluded from the scope of the
Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set for the above.
Common alloy sheet is currently classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 7606.11.3060, 7606.11.6000, 7606.12.3090, 7606.12.6000, 7606.91.3090, 7606.91.6080, 7606.92.3090, and 7606.92.6080. Further, merchandise that falls within the scope of the
This circumvention inquiry covers aluminum sheet produced in China from aluminum alloy 4017 and exported to the United States. A complete description of the merchandise subject to the circumvention inquiry is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
We conducted this circumvention inquiry pursuant to section 781(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.226(j). For a complete description of the methodology underlying the preliminary determination,
As detailed in the
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.226(l)(3), based on this final determination in this circumvention inquiry, Commerce will direct CBP to begin or continue to suspend liquidation and to require cash deposits of estimated duties equal to the AD and CVD rates in effect for CAAS from China for each unliquidated entry of 4017 aluminum sheet produced in China and exported to the United States that has been entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 26, 2022.
This notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is published in accordance with section 781(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.226(g)(2).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on a request from the Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations (the petitioner), the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is initiating a changed circumstances review (CCR) of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain softwood lumber from Canada.
Applicable July 27, 2023.
Samuel Brummitt, 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) 482-7851.
On January 3, 2018, Commerce published the CVD order on certain softwood lumber from Canada.
The merchandise covered by this
• Coniferous wood, sawn, or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not planed, whether or not sanded, or whether or not finger-jointed, of an actual thickness exceeding six millimeters.
• Coniferous wood siding, flooring, and other coniferous wood (other than moldings and dowel rods), including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, that is continuously shaped (including, but not limited to, tongued, grooved, rebated, chamfered, V-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded) along any of its edges, ends, or faces, whether or not planed, whether or not sanded, or whether or not end-jointed.
• Coniferous drilled and notched lumber and angle cut lumber.
• Coniferous lumber stacked on edge and fastened together with nails, whether or not with plywood sheathing.
• Components or parts of semi-finished or unassembled finished products made from subject merchandise that would otherwise meet the definition of the scope above.
Finished products are not covered by the scope of this
The following items are excluded from the scope of this
• Softwood lumber products certified by the Atlantic Lumber Board as being first produced in the Provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, or Prince Edward Island from logs harvested in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, or Prince Edward Island.
• U.S.-origin lumber shipped to Canada for processing and imported into the United States if the processing occurring in Canada is limited to one or more of the following: (1) Kiln drying; (2) planing to create smooth-to-size board; or (3) sanding.
• Box-spring frame kits if they contain the following wooden pieces—two side rails, two end (or top) rails and varying numbers of slats. The side rails and the end rails must be radius-cut at both ends. The kits must be individually packaged and must contain the exact number of wooden components needed to make a particular box-spring frame, with no further processing required. None of the components exceeds 1″ in actual thickness or 83″ in length.
• Radius-cut box-spring-frame components, not exceeding 1″ in actual thickness or 83″ in length, ready for assembly without further processing. The radius cuts must be present on both ends of the boards and must be substantially cut so as to completely round one corner.
Softwood lumber product imports are generally entered under Chapter 44 of the HTSUS. This chapter of the HTSUS covers “Wood and articles of wood.” Softwood lumber products that are subject to this
Subject merchandise as described above might be identified on entry documentation as stringers, square cut box-spring-frame components, fence pickets, truss components, pallet components, flooring, and door and window frame parts. Items so identified might be entered under the following ten-digit HTSUS subheadings in Chapter 44: 4415.20.40.00; 4415.20.80.00; 4418.99.90.05; 4418.99.90.20; 4418.99.90.40; 4418.99.90.95; 4421.99.70.40; and 4421.99.97.80.
Although these HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this
Pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act, Commerce will conduct a CCR upon receipt of a request from an interested party
Neither the Act, the Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, or Commerce's regulations offer a definition of the term “changed circumstances,” nor do they explain what aspects of a determination may be reconsidered in light of such changed circumstances. Commerce has in the past conducted CCRs regarding a variety of issues.
This CCR is a request to investigate potential cross-ownership among four exporter/producers subject to the
A potential affirmative finding of cross-ownership regarding Interfor Corporation, EACOM Timber Corporation, Chaleur Forest Products Inc., and Chaleur Forest Products LP could result in a cross-owned entity that is large enough to be selected as a respondent in a future administrative review.
For the reasons outlined above, Commerce determines that the issue raised by the petitioner of whether Interfor Corporation, EACOM Timber Corporation, Chaleur Forest Products Inc., and Chaleur Forest Products LP are cross-owned constitutes a sufficient basis to conduct a CCR of the
In the event that Commerce determines an expedited action is warranted, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii) permits Commerce to combine the notice of initiation of the review and the preliminary results of review into a single notice. However, we are not combining this notice of initiation with the preliminary results, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii), because Commerce has determined that it is necessary to issue a questionnaire to Interfor Corporation and gather additional information regarding the company's corporate structure and ownership. After examining any properly filed comments and following up with any additional questionnaires as needed, we intend to issue the preliminary results of this CCR.
Commerce intends to publish in the
This initiation notice is published in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.216(d), and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is amending the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded stainless pressure pipe (WSPP) from India to correct certain ministerial errors. The period of review is November 1, 2020, through October 31, 2021.
Applicable July 27, 2023.
John Conniff, 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) 482-1009.
On June 9, 2023, Commerce published the
Section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.224(f) defines a “ministerial error” as including “errors in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other unintentional error which the administering authority considers ministerial.” With respect to final results of administrative reviews, 19 CFR 351.224(e) provides that Commerce “will analyze any comments received and, if appropriate, correct any ministerial error by amending . . . the final results of review . . . .”
The petitioner alleges that Commerce made a ministerial error in the
We agree with the petitioner that a ministerial error was made in not including certain international movement expenses in the final calculation of Ratnamani's net U.S. price. In the
Details of Commerce's analysis of the petitioner's ministerial error allegation are included in the Ministerial Error Allegation Memorandum.
Accordingly, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(e), Commerce is amending the
As a result of correcting these ministerial errors, Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period November 1, 2020, through October 31, 2021:
We will disclose the calculations performed for these amended final results to parties to this segment of the proceeding within five days of the date of the publication of these amended final results, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with these amended final results of the administrative review.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific
Commerce's “automatic assessment” will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by Ratnamani for which the reviewed company did not know that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary (
For the companies which were not selected for individual examination, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties at an
The amended final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the amended final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the amended final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective retroactively for all shipments of subject merchandise that entered, or were withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after June 9, 2023, the date of publication of the
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the period of review. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the countervailing duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.224(e).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Notice; issuance of letter of authorization.
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, its implementing regulations, and NMFS' MMPA Regulations for Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical Surveys Related to Oil and Gas Activities in the Gulf of Mexico, notification is hereby given that a Letter of Authorization (LOA) has been issued to Shell Offshore Inc. (Shell) for the take of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activity in the Gulf of Mexico.
The LOA is effective from July 21, 2023 through April 30, 2024.
The LOA, LOA request, and supporting documentation are available online at:
Jenna Harlacher, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
On January 19, 2021, we issued a final rule with regulations to govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activities conducted by oil and gas industry operators, and those persons authorized to conduct activities on their behalf (collectively “industry operators”), in Federal waters of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico (GOM) over the course of 5 years (86 FR 5322; January 19, 2021). The rule was based on our findings that the total taking from the specified activities over the 5-year period will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock(s) of marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of those species or stocks for subsistence uses. The rule became effective on April 19, 2021.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 217.180
Shell plans to conduct a 3D ocean bottom node (OBN) survey over approximately 185 lease blocks in the Mississippi Canyon and Atwater Valley Protraction Areas, with approximate water depths ranging from 1,100 to 1,500 meters (m). See Section F of the LOA application for a map of the area.
Shell anticipates using two source vessels, with one towing dual conventional airgun array sources consisting of 32 elements, with a total volume of 5,110 cubic inches (in
Consistent with the preamble to the final rule, the survey effort proposed by Shell in its LOA request was used to develop LOA-specific take estimates based on the acoustic exposure modeling results described in the preamble (86 FR 5398, January 19, 2021). In order to generate the appropriate take numbers for authorization, the following information was considered: (1) survey type; (2) location (by modeling zone;
No 3D OBN surveys were included in the modeled survey types, and use of existing proxies (
All available acoustic exposure modeling results assume use of a 72-element, 8,000 in
The survey will take place over approximately 80 days, including 58 days of sound source operation, all within Zone 5. Although Shell's application states that all survey days would occur in the “Winter” season, NMFS assumes that the seasonal distribution of survey days is not known in advance. Therefore, the take estimates for each species are based on the season that produces the greater value.
For some species, take estimates based solely on the modeling yielded results that are not realistically likely to occur when considered in light of other relevant information available during the rulemaking process regarding marine mammal occurrence in the GOM. The approach used in the acoustic exposure modeling, in which seven modeling zones were defined over the U.S. GOM, necessarily averages fine-scale information about marine mammal distribution over the large area of each modeling zone. Thus, although the modeling conducted for the rule is a natural starting point for estimating take, the rule acknowledged that other information could be considered (see,
NMFS' final rule described a “core habitat area” for Rice's whales (formerly known as GOM Bryde's whales)
Although Rice's whales may occur outside of the core habitat area, we expect that any such occurrence would be limited to the narrow band of suitable habitat described above (
Killer whales are the most rarely encountered species in the GOM, typically in deep waters of the central GOM (Roberts
As discussed in the final rule, the density models produced by Roberts
NOAA surveys in the GOM from 1992-2009 reported only 16 sightings of killer whales, with an additional three encounters during more recent survey effort from 2017-18 (Waring
The rarity of encounters during seismic surveys is not likely to be the product of high bias on the probability of detection. Unlike certain cryptic species with high detection bias, such as
In summary, killer whales are the most rarely encountered species in the GOM and typically occur only in particularly deep water. This survey would take place in deep waters that would overlap with depths in which killer whales typically occur. While this information is reflected through the density model informing the acoustic exposure modeling results, there is relatively high uncertainty associated with the model for this species, and the acoustic exposure modeling applies mean distribution data over areas where the species is in fact less likely to occur. NMFS' determination in reflection of the data discussed above, which informed the final rule, is that use of the generic acoustic exposure modeling results for killer whales will generally result in estimated take numbers that are inconsistent with the assumptions made in the rule regarding expected killer whale take (86 FR 5403; January 19, 2021).
In past authorizations, NMFS has often addressed situations involving the low likelihood of encountering a rare species, such as killer whales in the GOM, through authorization of take of a single group of average size (
Based on the results of our analysis, NMFS has determined that the level of taking expected for this survey and authorized through the LOA is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the regulations. See Table 1 in this notice and Table 9 of the rule (86 FR 5322; January 19, 2021).
Under the GOM rule, NMFS may not authorize incidental take of marine mammals in an LOA if it will exceed “small numbers.” In short, when an acceptable estimate of the individual marine mammals taken is available, if the estimated number of individual animals taken is up to, but not greater than, one-third of the best available abundance estimate, NMFS will determine that the numbers of marine mammals taken of a species or stock are small. For more information please see NMFS' discussion of the MMPA's small numbers requirement provided in the final rule (86 FR 5438; January 19, 2021).
The take numbers for authorization are determined as described above in the Summary of Request and Analysis section. Subsequently, the total incidents of harassment for each species are multiplied by scalar ratios to produce a derived product that better reflects the number of individuals likely to be taken within a survey (as compared to the total number of instances of take), accounting for the likelihood that some individual marine mammals may be taken on more than one day (see 86 FR 5404; January 19, 2021). The output of this scaling, where appropriate, is incorporated into adjusted total take estimates that are the basis for NMFS' small numbers determinations, as depicted in Table 1.
This product is used by NMFS in making the necessary small numbers determinations through comparison with the best available abundance estimates (see discussion at 86 FR 5391; January 19, 2021). For this comparison, NMFS' approach is to use the maximum theoretical population, determined through review of current stock assessment reports (SAR;
Based on the analysis contained herein of Shell's proposed survey activity described in its LOA application and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the affected species or stock sizes (
NMFS has determined that the level of taking for this LOA request is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the incidental take regulations and that the amount of take authorized under the LOA is of no more than small numbers. Accordingly, we have issued an LOA to Shell authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to its geophysical survey activity, as described above.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of Intent to prepare a Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement for the San Francisco Waterfront Coastal Flood Study, San Francisco County, California.
Pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Tulsa District, announces its intent to prepare a Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement (IFR-EIS) for the San Francisco Waterfront Coastal Flood Study. The study will investigate the feasibility of managing tidal and fluvial flooding and sea level rise along 7.5 miles of the San Francisco Waterfront, from Aquatic Park to Herons Head Park, in the City of San Francisco, San Francisco County, California. This notice announces USACE's intent to determine the scope of the issues to be addressed and identify the significant issues related to a proposed action.
Written comments should be submitted by August 28, 2023.
Written comments related to the development of the Draft IFR-EIS may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
• For more information visit the project website at:
Questions or comments regarding the proposed Draft IFR-EIS may be directed to Ms. Melinda Fisher at 918-669-7423 or by email at
1.
2.
The Study began in 2018 under the USACE San Francisco District, South Pacific Division and was transferred to the Tulsa District out of the Southwestern Division in 2021. The Study follows the USACE Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Risk Informed, and Timely (SMART) planning process which targets a feasibility study to be completed within three years, but due to several complexities, including consideration of seismic conditions and the diversity of the geographic regions and stakeholders, the Study has been approved to complete the process in seven years.
3.
4.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5.
The USACE San Francisco District and Port issued a Notice of Early Scoping in the
6.
For compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the USACE will serve as the lead Federal agency in the preparation of the Draft IFR-EIS. For the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of San Francisco Planning Department (Planning Department) is the lead agency for the Study. The Planning Department is conducting CEQA review under a separate process and will not be integrated with this NEPA effort.
7.
Early scoping began in 2020, however due to the scale of anticipated effects, the USACE is inviting additional comments on the potential alternatives, issues of concern and any analyses relevant to the proposed action with this notice and formally announces the intent to prepare an EIS. For more information visit the project website at
The scoping comment period begins with publication of this notice and ends on August 28, 2023. All comments
While no public scoping meetings are scheduled during this scoping period, virtual public scoping meetings were held on September 16 and 17, 2020 coinciding with the Notice of Early Scoping issued in the
8.
Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a revision of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 25, 2023.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Julie Laurel, 202-453-6733.
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. The Department is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (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.
In this revision, the Department added two fields, at the project level, requesting information on the implementation of the Competitive Preference Priorities (CPPs) used in the most recent grant competition. The addition of the CPP questions coupled with an increase in the number of respondents resulted in a slight increase in total annual burden hours.
Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education.
Notice of a Modified System of Records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended
Submit your comments on this modified system of records notice on or before August 28, 2023.
This modified system of records notice will become applicable upon publication in the
Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
•
The Department's policy is to make all comments received from members of the public available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Mark LaVia, Executive Director, Servicing, Student Experience and Aid Delivery, Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, 1300 Market St., 5th floor, Philadelphia, PA 19107. Telephone: 202-805-4376. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
In accordance with the Privacy Act, the Department proposes to modify the system of records notice entitled “Common Services for Borrowers (CSB)” (18-11-16), which was last published in full in the
The Department is modifying the section entitled “SYSTEM LOCATION” as follows:
(i) For Nelnet Servicing, LLC, clarifying that the backup site in Sioux Falls, SD is the system hosting backup site; separating the imaging center locations from the mail fulfillment locations; clarifying that the Lincoln, NE, location previously designated as a contact center location is the location of an imaging center; adding a new imaging center location in Madison, WI; deleting the contact center location in Aurora, CO, updating the addresses of the contact center locations in Lincoln, NE and Omaha, NE; and adding new contact center locations in Boscobel, WI, Brownsville, TX, Columbus, NE, Eau Claire, WI, Madison, WI, Sidney, NE, and Stevens Point, WI;
(ii) For Aidvantage, for the mail fulfillment and imaging centers, deleting the location in Wilkes-Barre, PA, and adding a new location in Greenville, TX; and for contact centers, deleting and replacing the locations in Fishers, IN, Wilkes-Barre, PA, and Muncie, IN, with a note explaining that Aidvantage employs a fully remote contact center model where Customer Service Representatives manage customer calls in a distributed environment utilizing secure internet connections and using centrally managed technology;
(iii) For the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, deleting the Boyers, PA, and Sterling Forest, NY, locations; and adding a new additional location in Washington, DC; and
(iv) Updating the name of the Department contractor “North Texas Higher Education Servicing Corp. (NFPHESC—EdFinancial)” to “EdFinancial;” and for EdFinancial; clarifying that the North Bellevue, NE location is the Nelnet system hosting site and that the Sioux Falls, SD location is the Nelnet system hosting backup site; and adding new FISERV system hosting and system hosting backup site locations in Omaha, NE, and Chandler, AZ, new mail fulfillment and imaging center locations in West Sacramento, CA, and North Monroe, NC, and new contact center locations in Montgomery, AL, and Concord, NH.
The Department is modifying the section entitled “PURPOSE(S) OF THE SYSTEM” to add new purpose (24) to determine whether an aid recipient who is applying for an income-driven repayment (IDR) plan or recertifying an IDR plan has provided consent/affirmative approval to redisclose Federal Tax Information (FTI) of such individuals pursuant to clause (iv) of section 6103(l)(13)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) of 1986 and for the disclosure of records by the Department to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to obtain FTI and for the IRS to disclose FTI to the Department as referenced in Section 494(a) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1098h(a)) for the purpose of determining repayment obligation monthly amounts for an IDR plan under title IV of the HEA with respect to loans made under part D of title IV of the HEA (Direct Loan Program).
The Department is modifying the section entitled “CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM” as follows:
(i) Adding a new “Note” section to explain that beginning with the 2024-2025 award year application cycle, the IRS will disclose FTI directly to the Department for use by the Department in processing the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA®) and making aid eligibility determinations under a program authorized under subpart 1 of part A, part C, or part D of title IV of the HEA and that FTI will not be maintained in this system. All FTI that the Department will obtain directly from the IRS under the authority provided by the Fostering Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking Resources for Education (FUTURE) Act will be maintained within the FTI Module (FTIM) system that will be compliant with the IRS Publication 1075, “Tax Information Security Guidelines for Federal, State and Local Agencies, Safeguards for Protecting Federal Tax Returns and Return Information,” and that will be covered under the Department's system of
(ii) The third paragraph of this section is updated to include consent/affirmative approval to include permitting the Department to disclose records to the IRS to obtain FTI and to permit the disclosure and redisclosure of the FTI, monthly payment amounts, and ADOI.
The Department is modifying the section entitled “RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES” to indicate that information is also obtained from other Department systems including the Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) system (covered by the Department's system of records notice entitled “Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) System” (18-11-02)) and the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) (covered by the Department's system of records notice entitled “National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS)” (18-11-06)) or any successor systems thereto.
The Department is modifying the section entitled “ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL, AND PHYSICAL SAFEGUARDS” to update paragraph four to remove the reference to the Department's Standard PR.AC: Password Parameters Policy and add the Department's Information Technology (IT) Identification and Authentication (IA) Standard; and to update the password change policy from 60-90 days to 90 days or based on the Zero Trust Strategy/Plan in accordance with the Department's IT IA standards.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Chief Operating Officer, Federal Student Aid (FSA), U.S. Department of Education (Department), publishes a notice of a modified system of records to read as follows:
Common Services for Borrowers (CSB) (18-11-16).
Unclassified.
(1) U.S. Department of Education,
Executive Director, Servicing, Student Experience and Aid Delivery, Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, 1300 Market St., 5th floor, Philadelphia, PA 19107 (System Manager);
50 Beale St., San Francisco, CA 94105;
500 West Madison St., Chicago, IL 60661; and
61 Forsyth St., Atlanta, GA 30303.
(2) Maximus Federal Services, Inc. (Contractor—Federal Loan Servicer for Collections—Debt Management Collection System (DMCS)):
5202 Presidents Ct., Frederick, MD 21703 (Department contractor—DMCS Program Management and Help Desk;
Amazon Web Services Government Cloud, US East,;
410 Terry Ave. North, Seattle, WA 98109-5210 (System Hosting);
Mail Fulfillment and Imaging Centers: 800 Commerce Dr., Upper Marlboro, MD 20774; and 6201 Interstate 30, Greenville, TX 75402; and
Contact Centers: 1 Imeson Park Blvd., Suite 300, Jacksonville, FL 32218; and 4335 Paredes Line Rd. Brownsville, TX 78526.
(3) Nelnet Servicing, LLC (Contractor—Federal Loan Servicer),
1001 Fort Crook Rd. North, Suite 132, Bellevue, NE 68005 (System Hosting);
700 East 54th St. North, Suite 200, Sioux Falls, SD 57104 (System Hosting Backup site);
Mail Fulfillment: 1720 Northway Dr., North Mankato, MN 56003; 3125 Lewis Centre Way, Grove City, OH 43123; 3885 Seaport Blvd., Suite 40, West Sacramento, CA 95691; and 1803 Rocky River Rd., North Monroe, NC 28110;
Imaging Centers: 121 South 13th St., Lincoln, NE 68508 and 2401 and 2501 International Lane, Madison, WI 53704; and
Contact Centers: 308 Second St., Boscobel, WI 53805; 3381 Ruben M. Torres Blvd., Brownsville, TX 78526; 3620 23rd St., Columbus, NE 68601; 1529 Continental Dr., Eau Claire, WI 54701; 401 S. 21st St., Lincoln, NE 68510; 2401 and 2501 International Lane, Madison, WI 53704; 14400 Branch St. Omaha, NE 68010; 1205 Jackson St. Suite 300, Sidney, NE 69162; and 1101 Centerpoint Drive, Stevens Point, WI 54481;
(4) Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc. (GLCS) (Contractor—Federal Loan Servicer):
2401 and 2501 International Lane, Madison, WI 53704; and 1529 Continental Dr., Eau Claire, WI 54701; (System Hosting and System Hosting Backup site);
Mail Fulfillment and Imaging Centers: 2401 and 2501 International Lane, Madison, WI 53704; and 1529 Continental Dr., Eau Claire, WI 54701; and
Contact Centers: 930 Blue Gentian Rd., Eagan, MN 55121; 2401 and 2501 International Lane, Madison, WI 53704; 1529 Continental Dr., Eau Claire, WI 54701; 308 2nd St., Boscobel, WI 53805; and 1101 Center Point Dr., Stevens Point, WI 54481.
(5) Aidvantage (Contractor—Federal Loan Servicer):
Chandler Data Center, 240 North Roosevelt Ave., Chandler, AZ 48226 (System Hosting);
Omaha Data Center, 7305 Pacific St., Omaha, NE 68106 (System Hosting Backup site);
Mail Fulfillment and Imaging Centers: 3885 Seaport Blvd., Suite 40, West Sacramento, CA 95691; 1803 North Rocky River Rd., Monroe, NC 28110; and 6201 Interstate 30, Greenville, TX 75402; and
Contact Center(s): A fully remote contact center model is employed. Customer Service Representatives manage customer calls in a distributed environment utilizing secure internet connections and using centrally managed technology.
(6) Missouri Higher Education Loan Assistance Authority (MOHELA)
633 Spirit Dr., Chesterfield, MO 63005 (System Hosting);
555 Vandiver Dr., Columbia, MO 65202 (System Hosting Backup site);
820 First Street, NE, Suite L-120, Washington, DC 20002 (Main Office);
Mail Fulfillment and Imaging Centers: 633 Spirit Dr., Chesterfield, MO 63005; and 555 Vandiver Dr., Columbia, MO 65202; and
Contact Centers: 633 Spirit Dr., Chesterfield, MO 63005; 555 Vandiver Dr., Columbia, MO 65202; and 820 First St. NE, Suite L-120, Washington, DC 20002.
(7) Oklahoma Student Loan Authority (NFPOSLA) (Contractor—NFP Federal Loan Servicer):
525 Central Park Dr., Ste. 600, Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (System Hosting); 7499 East Paradise Lane, Scottsdale, AZ 85260 (System Hosting Backup site);
1001 Fort Crook Road. North, Suite 132, Bellevue NE. 68005-4247 (System Hosting Backup site);
700 East 54th St. North, Suite 200, Sioux Falls, SD 57104 (System Hosting Backup site);
Mail Fulfillment and Imaging Center: 525 Central Park Dr., Ste. 600, Oklahoma City, OK 73105; and
Call Center: 525 Central Park Dr., Ste. 600, Oklahoma City, OK 73105.
EdFinancial (Contractor—NFP Federal Loan Servicer):
1001 Fort Crook Rd., Suite 132, North Bellevue, NE 68005-4247 (Nelnet System Hosting);
700 East 54th St. North, Suite 200, Sioux Falls, SD 57104 (Nelnet System Hosting Backup);
7301 Pacific Street, Omaha, NE 68114 (FISERV System Hosting—FISERV Solutions Primary Data Center); and
240 North Roosevelt Avenue, Chandler, AZ 85226 (FISERV System Hosting Backup);
Mail Fulfillment and Imaging Centers: 13271 North Promenade Blvd., Stafford, TX 77477-3957; 3885 Seaport Blvd., Suite 40, West Sacramento, CA 95691; and 1803 Rocky River Rd., North Monroe, NC 29110 (Mail Fulfillment and Imaging Backup site); and
Contact Centers: 120 North Seven Oaks Dr., Knoxville, TN 37922; 298 North Seven Oaks Dr., Knoxville, TN 37922; 2741 Gunter Park Dr., Montgomery, AL 36109; and 4 Barrell Court, Concord, NH 03301;
(8) Educational Computer Systems, Inc. (ECSI) (Contractor—Federal Perkins Loan Servicer):
1033 Jefferson St. NW, Atlanta, GA 30318 (System Hosting);
Mail Fulfillment and Imaging Center: 100 Global View Dr., Warrendale, PA 15086; and
Contact Centers: 1200 Cherrington Parkway, Suite 200,Moon Township, PA 15108; and 3330 Healy Dr., Winston-Salem, NC 27103.
(9) Action Financial Services (Contractor—Private Collection Agency):
2055 Cardinal Ave., Medford, OR 97504 (Call Center, Administrative Support, Compliance, Training and Human Resources).
(10) Bass & Associates, P.C. (Contractor—Private Collection Agency):
3926 E Fort Lowell Rd., Tucson, AZ 85712-1083 (Administration and Student Loan Collections).
(11) Central Research, Inc. (CRI) (Contractor—Private Collection Agency):
122 N Bloomington St., Suite I, Lowell, AR 72745 (Accounting/Corporate Administration).
(12) Coast Professional, Inc. (Contractor—Private Collection Agency):
4273 Volunteer Rd., Geneseo, NY 14454 (Student Loan Servicing & Collecting).
(13) Credit Adjustments, Inc. (CAI) (Contractor—Private Collection Agency):
1270 Geneva Blvd. Defiance, OH 43512 (Collection Activity, Administrative Offices).
(14) F.H. Cann & Associates, Inc. (Contractor—Private Collection Agency):
1600 Osgood St., Suite 2-120, North Andover, MA 01845 (Collection Activity, Administrative Office).
(15) Immediate Credit Recovery (ICR) (Contractor—Private Collection Agency):
6 Neptune Rd., Suite 110, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 (Call Center, Rehab Payer Service and Maintenance, Compliance, IT Staff, HR, Accounting, CEO, CIO, VP admin and other executive staff).
(16) National Credit Services (Contractor—Private Collection Agency):
2525 220th St. SE, Suite 200, Bothell, WA 98021 (Debt Collection, Rehabilitations, Skip Tracing, QA, Compliance, HR and Administrative Wage Garnishment (AWG)).
(17) National Recoveries Inc. (Contractor—Private Collection Agency):
14735 Hwy. 65, NE, Ham Lake, MN 55304 (Collections, Invoice Processing, IT).
(18) Professional Bureau of Collections of Maryland, Inc. (Contractor—Private Collection Agency):
5295 DTC Parkway, Greenwood Village, CO 80111 (Executive, Administrative, Accounting, Collections, IT and Compliance).
(19) Reliant Capital Solutions (Contractor—Private Collection Agency):
670 Cross Pointe Rd., Gahanna, OH 43230 (Front Line Agents and Administrative Office).
Executive Director, Servicing, Student Experience and Aid Delivery, Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, 1300 Market St., 5th floor, Philadelphia, PA 19107.
Titles IV-A, IV-B, IV-D, and IV-E of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1070
Different parts of the HEA use the terms “discharge,” “cancellation,” or “forgiveness” to describe when a borrower's loan amount is reduced in whole or in part by the Department. To reduce complexity, this system of records notice uses the term “discharge” to include all three terms (“discharge,” “cancellation,” and “forgiveness”), including but not limited to discharges of student loans made pursuant to specific benefit programs. At times, this system of records notice may refer by name to a specific benefit program, such as the “Public Service Loan Forgiveness” program; such specific references are not intended to exclude any such program benefits from more general references to loan discharges.
The information maintained in this system of records is used for the following purposes:
(1) To verify the identity of an individual;
(2) To determine program eligibility and benefits;
(3) To facilitate default reduction efforts by program participants;
(4) To enforce the conditions or terms of a title IV, HEA obligation;
(5) To originate, disburse, service, collect, assign, adjust, transfer, refer, furnish credit information for, and discharge a title IV, HEA obligation;
(6) To provide customers with information to help them make informed decisions on repayment options, including forbearance, deferment, and recurring debit options, based on their unique situations;
(7) To investigate possible fraud or abuse or verify compliance with program regulations or contract requirements;
(8) To locate a delinquent or defaulted individual obligated to repay a title IV, HEA obligation;
(9) To litigate a title IV, HEA obligation, or to prepare for, provide support services for, or audit the results of litigation on a title IV, HEA obligation;
(10) To prepare for, conduct, or enforce a limitation, suspension, termination, or debarment action;
(11) To verify that Federal, state, local, and Tribal statutory, regulatory, and program requirements are met by educational and financial institutions, guaranty agencies, and Department contractors including Federal Loan Servicers, NFP Federal Loan Servicers, the Federal Perkins Loan Servicer, and Private Collection Agencies (PCAs);
(12) To verify whether a title IV, HEA obligation qualifies for discharge;
(13) To conduct credit checks or respond to inquiries or disputes arising from information on a title IV, HEA obligation already furnished to a consumer reporting agency;
(14) To investigate, respond to, or resolve complaints submitted to the Department or to other Federal, State, local, or Tribal agencies regarding an aid applicant's or recipient's title IV, HEA program eligibility, the disbursement, or servicing of a title IV, HEA obligation, or the practices or processes of the Department and/or the Department's contractors;
(15) To determine credit balances to be refunded by the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) to the individual or loan holder;
(16) To allow educational institutions, financial institutions, Federal Loan Servicers, NFP Federal Loan Servicers the Federal Perkins Loan Servicer, PCAs, and guaranty agencies to report information to the Department on all aspects of title IV, HEA obligations in uniform formats to permit the Department to directly compare data submitted to the Department by individual educational institutions, financial institutions, third-party servicers, guaranty agencies, Federal Loan Servicers, NFP Federal Loan Servicers the Federal Perkins Loan Servicer, or PCAs;
(17) To report to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) information required by law to be reported, including, but not limited to, reports required by 26 U.S.C. 6050P and 6050S;
(18) To support research, analysis, and development of educational policies in relation to title IV, HEA student financial aid programs;
(19) To support Federal budget analysts in the Department, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in the development of budget needs and forecasts;
(20) To help governmental entities at the Federal, State, Tribal, and local levels to exercise their supervisory and administrative powers (including, but not limited to licensure, examination, discipline, regulation, or oversight of educational institutions, Department contractors, guaranty agencies, eligible lenders, and third-party servicers); to investigate, respond to, or resolve complaints regarding the practices or processes of the Department and/or the Department's contractors; and to update information or correct errors contained in Department records;
(21) To ensure that only authorized users access aid applicants' or recipients' records, to maintain a history of each instance in which the aid applicant's or recipient's records are viewed or updated, and to assist the Department in responding to a suspected or confirmed breach of this system or in preventing, minimizing, or remedying harm when the Department suspects or confirms that this system has been breached or when the Department determines that information from this system is reasonably necessary to assist another agency or entity in responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or in preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach;
(22) To support the Department in detecting, preventing, mitigating, and recouping improper payments in title IV, HEA programs;
(23) To conduct testing, analysis, or take other administrative actions needed to prepare for or execute programs under title IV of the HEA; and
(24) To identify whether an aid recipient or application participant who is applying for an income-driven repayment (IDR) plan or recertifying an IDR plan has provided consent/affirmative approval to redisclose Federal Tax Information (FTI) of such individuals pursuant to clause (iv) of section 6103(l)(13)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) of 1986 and for the disclosure of records by the Department to the IRS to obtain FTI and for the IRS to disclose FTI to the Department as referenced in Section 494(a) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1098h(a)) for the purpose of determining repayment obligation monthly amounts for an IDR plan under title IV of the HEA with respect to loans made under part D of title IV of the HEA (Direct Loan Program).
The CSB system contains records on individuals who received a loan or who otherwise owe a title IV, HEA obligation held, originated, serviced, disbursed, adjusted, collected, or discharged by the Department, which was made under:
(1) The Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program, including Stafford Loans, Federal Insured Student Loans (FISL), Supplemental Loans for Students (SLS), PLUS Loans (formerly Parental Loans for Undergraduate Students), and Consolidation Loans;
(2) the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program, including Federal Direct Unsubsidized and Subsidized Stafford/Ford Loans, Federal Direct Consolidation Loans, and Federal Direct PLUS Loans;
(3) the Federal Perkins Loan Program;
(4) the Federal Pell Grant Program;
(5) the Federal Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant (FSEOG) Program;
(6) the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership (LEAP) Program;
(7) the Special Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership (SLEAP) Program;
(8) the Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) Program;
(9) the National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (SMART) Grant Program;
(10) the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant Program; and
(11) the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant Program.
This system also contains records on individuals who apply for, but do not receive, a Direct Loan, as well as individuals identified by the borrower or recipient of the Federal title IV, HEA program funds as references, co-signers, endorsers, or a spouse whose income and expenses are considered in connection with the making or the enforcement of a title IV, HEA obligation.
Beginning with the 2024-2025 award year application cycle, the IRS will disclose FTI directly to the Department for use by the Department in processing the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA®) and making aid eligibility determinations under a program authorized under subpart 1 of part A, part C, or part D
This system of records covers the following Information Technology (IT) systems of the Department used to carry out activities with regard to title IV, HEA obligations held, originated, serviced, disbursed, collected, or discharged by the Department: DMCS, IT systems operated by the Federal Loan Servicers and NFP Federal Loan Servicers to accomplish the purpose(s) of this system of records, IT systems operated by the Federal Perkins Loan Program Servicer to accomplish the purpose(s) of this system of records, and IT systems operated by the PCAs to accomplish the purpose(s) of this system of records. This system of records also covers paper records obtained by the Department from guaranty agencies in the process of considering appeals by title IV, HEA loan borrowers of guaranty agency decisions.
This system of records maintains the employment information, educational status, family income, Social Security number (SSN), address(es), email address(es), monthly payment amounts, ADOI, and telephone number(s) of the aid applicant or recipient indebted on a title IV, HEA obligation or the individuals whose income and expenses are included in a financial statement submitted by the aid applicant or recipient. This system also maintains the consent/affirmative approval to include permitting the Department to disclose records to the IRS to obtain FTI and to permit the disclosure and redisclosure of the FTI of the applicant or recipient. This system of records maintains the loan discharge income, eligibility information, and associated discharge eligibility consent information of the aid recipient indebted on a title IV, HEA obligation. This system also maintains records including, but not limited to, the application for, agreement to repay, and disbursements on the loan, and loan guaranty, if any; the repayment history, including deferments and forbearances; claims by lenders on the loan guaranty; and records related to discharge of title IV, HEA obligations on grounds of qualifying service, bankruptcy discharge, Total and Permanent Disability (including medical records submitted to support an application for discharge by reason of disability), death, Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) (including, but not limited to, employment records), Borrower Defense (including but not limited to, case decisions, principal and interest discharged, amount refunded, and borrower defense notifications) or other statutory or regulatory grounds for relief.
Additionally, for title IV, HEA grant overpayments, the system contains records about the amount disbursed, the school that disbursed the grant, and the basis for overpayment; for all title IV, HEA obligations, the system contains demographic, employment, and other data on the individual who owes a title IV, HEA obligation or provided as references by the obligor, and the collection actions taken by any holder, including write-off amounts and compromise amounts.
This system also contains information obtained from matching programs or other information exchanges with other Federal and State agencies, and other entities, to assist in identifying individuals who may be eligible for benefits related to their title IV, HEA obligations, including, but not limited to, TPD discharges, loan deferments, interest rate reductions, PSLF, and other Federal and State loan repayment or discharge benefits or for the purpose of recouping payments on delinquent title IV, HEA obligations under title IV, HEA programs.
The system includes information that the Department obtains from applicants and those individuals and their families who received, or who are otherwise obligated to repay, a title IV, HEA obligation held and collected by the Department. The Department also obtains information from Federal Loan Servicers, NFP Federal Loan Servicers, the Federal Perkins Loan Servicer, PCAs, references, cosigners, endorsers, current or prior FFEL loan holders or servicers, guaranty agencies, educational and financial institutions and their authorized representatives, and Federal, State, Tribal and local agencies and their authorized representatives; private parties, such as relatives and business and personal associates; present and former employers; creditors; consumer reporting agencies; and adjudicative bodies. Information in this system may be obtained from other persons or entities from whom or from which data is obtained following a disclosure under the listed routine uses.
Information is also obtained from other Department systems including the Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) system (covered by the Department's system of records notice entitled “Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) System” (18-11-02)) and the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) (covered by the Department's system of records notice entitled “National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS)” (18-11-06)) or any successor systems thereto.
The Department may disclose information contained in a record in this system of records under the routine uses listed in this system of records without the consent of the individual if the disclosure is compatible with the purposes for which the information in the record was collected. These disclosures may be made on a case-by-case basis, or, if the Department has complied with the computer matching requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act), under a computer matching agreement.
(1)
(a) To verify the identity of the individual whom records indicate has applied for or received title IV, HEA program funds, disclosures may be made to guaranty agencies, educational and financial institutions, and their authorized representatives; to Federal, State, Tribal, or local agencies, and their authorized representatives; to private parties, such as relatives, business and personal associates, and present and former employers; to creditors; to consumer reporting agencies; to adjudicative bodies; and to the individual whom the records identify as the party obligated to repay the title IV, HEA obligation;
(b) To determine program eligibility and benefits, disclosures may be made to guaranty agencies, educational and financial institutions, and their authorized representatives; to Federal, State, or local agencies, and their authorized representatives; to private parties, such as relatives, business and personal associates, and present and former employers; to creditors; to consumer reporting agencies; and to adjudicative bodies;
(c) To facilitate default reduction efforts by program participants, disclosures may be made to guaranty agencies, educational and financial institutions, and their authorized representatives; to Federal, State, or local agencies, and their authorized representatives; to consumer reporting agencies; and to adjudicative bodies;
(d) To enforce the conditions or terms of a title IV, HEA obligation, disclosures may be made to guaranty agencies, educational and financial institutions, and their authorized representatives; to Federal, State, or local agencies, and their authorized representatives; to private parties, such as relatives, business and personal associates, and present and former employers; to creditors; to consumer reporting agencies; to adjudicative bodies; and to the individual whom the records identify as the party obligated to repay the title IV, HEA obligation;
(e) To permit originating, disbursing, servicing, collecting, assigning, adjusting, transferring, referring, furnishing of credit information, or discharging title IV, HEA obligations, disclosures may be made to guaranty agencies, educational institutions, or financial institutions that originated, held, serviced, or have been assigned the title IV, HEA obligation, and their authorized representatives; to a party identified by the debtor as willing to advance funds to repay the title IV, HEA obligation; to Federal, State, or local agencies, and their authorized representatives; to private parties, such as relatives, business and personal associates, and present and former employers; to creditors; to consumer reporting agencies; and to adjudicative bodies;
(f) To provide customers with information to help them make informed decisions on repayment options, including deferment, forbearance, and recurring auto debit, based on their unique situations, disclosures may be made to guaranty agencies, educational and financial institutions, and their authorized representatives; and to Federal, State, or local agencies, and their authorized representatives;
(g) To investigate possible fraud or abuse or to verify compliance with contractual requirements or Federal, State, local, or Tribal statutory, regulatory, or program requirements, disclosures may be made to guaranty agencies, educational and financial institutions, third-party servicers, and their authorized representatives; to Federal, State, Tribal, or local agencies, and their authorized representatives; to private parties, such as relatives, present and former employers, and business and personal associates; to creditors; to consumer reporting agencies; and to adjudicative bodies;
(h) To locate a delinquent or defaulted borrower, or an individual who owes a title IV, HEA obligation, disclosures may be made to guaranty agencies, educational and financial institutions, and their authorized representatives; to Federal, State, or local agencies, and their authorized representatives; to private parties, such as relatives, business and personal associates, and present and former employers; to creditors; to consumer reporting agencies; and to adjudicative bodies;
(i) To prepare a title IV, HEA obligation for litigation, to provide support services for litigation on a title IV, HEA obligation, to litigate a title IV, HEA obligation, or to audit the results of litigation on a title IV, HEA obligation, disclosures may be made to FFEL loan holders or servicers; Department contractors including but not limited to, Federal Loan Servicers, NFP Federal Loan Servicers, the Federal Perkins Servicer, PCAs and to guaranty agencies and their authorized representatives; Federal, State, Tribal, or local agencies, and their authorized representatives; and to adjudicative bodies;
(j) To prepare for, conduct, or enforce a limitation, suspension, or termination or a debarment action, disclosures may be made to guaranty agencies, educational or financial institutions, and their authorized representatives; to Federal, State, or local agencies, and their authorized representatives; and to adjudicative bodies;
(k) To verify that HEA program requirements are met by educational and financial institutions, guaranty agencies, Federal Loan Servicers, NFP Federal Loan Servicers, the Federal Perkins Loan Servicer, and PCAs, disclosures may be made to guaranty agencies, educational or financial institutions, and their authorized representatives; to accrediting agencies; to auditors engaged to conduct an audit of a guaranty agency or an educational or financial institution; to Federal, State, Tribal, or local agencies, and their authorized representatives; and to adjudicative bodies;
(l) To verify whether a title IV, HEA obligation qualifies for discharge, disclosures may be made to guaranty agencies, educational and financial institutions, and their authorized representatives; to Federal, State, or local agencies, and their authorized representatives; to private parties, such as relatives, present and former employers, and business and personal associates; to creditors; to consumer reporting agencies; and to adjudicative bodies;
(m) To conduct credit checks or to respond to inquiries or disputes arising from information on the title IV, HEA obligation already furnished to a consumer reporting agency, disclosures may be made to consumer reporting agencies; to guaranty agencies, educational and financial institutions, and their authorized representatives; to Federal, State, or local agencies, and their authorized representatives; to private parties, such as relatives, present and former employers, and business and personal associates; to creditors; and to adjudicative bodies;
(n) To investigate, respond to, and resolve complaints submitted to the Department or to Federal, State, local, or Tribal agencies regarding an aid applicant's or recipient's title IV, HEA program eligibility, the disbursement or servicing of a title IV, HEA obligation, or the practices or processes of the Department and/or the Department's contractors or to update information or correct errors contained in Department records, disclosures may be made to guaranty agencies, educational and financial institutions, and their authorized representatives; to Federal, State, Tribal, or local agencies, and their authorized representatives; to private parties, such as relatives, present and former employers, and business and personal associates; to creditors; to consumer reporting agencies; and to adjudicative bodies;
(o) To provide credit balances identified in the Department's systems to Treasury for distribution, disclosures may be made to guaranty agencies, educational and financial institutions, and their authorized representatives; to Federal, State, or local agencies, and their authorized representatives; to private parties, such as relatives, present and former employers, and business and personal associates; and to creditors;
(p) To allow the reporting of information to the Department on all aspects of title IV, HEA obligations in uniform formats and to permit the Department to directly compare data submitted to the Department by
(q) To report information required by law to be reported, including, but not limited to, reports required by 26 U.S.C. 6050P and 6050S, disclosures may be made to the IRS; and
(r) To help Federal, State, Tribal, and local governmental entities exercise their supervisory and administrative powers (including, but not limited to, licensure, examination, discipline, regulation, or oversight of educational institutions, Department contractors, guaranty agencies, eligible lenders, and third-party servicers) or to investigate, respond to, or resolve complaints submitted regarding the practices or processes of the Department and/or the Department's contractors, the Department may disclose records to governmental entities at the Federal, State, Tribal, and local levels. These records may include all aspects of records relating to title IV, HEA obligations to permit these governmental entities to verify compliance with debt collection, consumer protection, financial, and other applicable statutory, regulatory, or local requirements. Before making a disclosure to these Federal, State, local, or Tribal governmental entities, the Department will require them to maintain safeguards consistent with the Privacy Act to protect the security and confidentiality of the disclosed records.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(a)
(i) The Department or any of its components;
(ii) Any Department employee in his or her official capacity;
(iii) Any Department employee in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice (DOJ) has been requested to or agrees to provide or arrange for representation for the employee;
(iv) Any Department employee in his or her individual capacity where the Department has agreed to represent the employee; and
(v) The United States, where the Department determines that the litigation is likely to affect the Department or any of its components.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(5)
(a)
(b)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
Disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12): The Department may disclose to a consumer reporting agency information regarding a valid overdue claim of the Department; such information is limited to:
(1) The name, address, taxpayer identification number, and other information necessary to establish the identity of the individual responsible for the claim;
(2) the amount, status, and history of the claim; and
(3) the program under which the claim arose. The Department may disclose the information specified in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12) and the procedures contained in 31 U.S.C. 3711(e). A consumer reporting agency to which these disclosures may be made is defined in 15 U.S.C. 1681a(f) and 31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3).
The records are maintained in hardcopy, microfilm, magnetic storage, and optical storage media, such as tape, disk, etc.
Records in this system pertaining to a title IV, HEA loan borrower or grant recipient are retrieved by one or more of the following data elements: the SSN, name, address, randomly generated number, debt number, phone number, debt type reference, debt type extension debt number, commercial name, commercial contact name, legacy ID, driver's license number, American Bankers Association (ABA) routing number, bankruptcy docket number, debt placement date, debt user defined page (UDP), email address, last worked date, payment additional extension reference ID, payment extension reference ID, tag short name, total balance, credit bureau legacy ID, debt type group short name, debt type short name, department name, institution account number, judgment docket number, license-issuing State, next scheduled payment amount, next scheduled payment date, office name, original debt type name, PCA group short name, and PCA short name.
All records are retained and disposed of in accordance with ED Records Schedule 075: FSA Loan Servicing, Consolidation, and Collections Records (N1-441-09-016) (ED 075). The Department has submitted amendments to ED 075 for NARA's consideration and will continue to preserve all records covered by ED 075 until the amendments are approved.
All physical access to the Department's site, and to the sites of the Federal Loan Servicers, the Federal Perkins Loan Servicer, PCAs, and other
In accordance with the Department's Administrative Communications System Directive ACSD-OFO-013 entitled “Contractor Employee Personnel Security Screenings,” all contract personnel who have facility access and system access are required to undergo a security clearance investigation. Individuals requiring access to Privacy Act records are required to hold, at a minimum, a moderate-risk security clearance level. These individuals are required to undergo periodic screening at five-year intervals.
In addition to conducting security clearances, contract and Department employees are required to complete security awareness training on an annual basis. Annual security awareness training is required to ensure that contract and Department users are appropriately trained in safeguarding Privacy Act records.
The computer system employed by the Department offers a high degree of resistance to tampering and circumvention. This security system limits data access to Department and contract staff on a “need-to-know” basis and controls individual users' ability to access and alter records within the system. All users of this system of records are given a unique user identification and password. The Department's Information Technology (IT) Identification and Authentication (IA) Standard requires the enforcement of a complex password policy. In addition to the enforcement of a complex password policy, users are required to change their password at least every 90 days or based on the Zero Trust Strategy/Plan in accordance with the Department's IT IA standards.
In accordance with the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA), as amended by the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014, every Department system must receive a signed Authorization to Operate (ATO) from a designated Department official. The ATO process includes a rigorous assessment of security and privacy controls, a plan of actions and milestones to remediate any identified deficiencies, and a continuous monitoring program.
FISMA controls implemented comprise a combination of management, operational, and technical controls, and include the following control families: access control, awareness and training, audit and accountability, assessment, authorization, and monitoring, configuration management, contingency planning, identification and authentication, incident response, maintenance, media protection, physical and environmental protection, planning, program management, personnel security, personally identifiable information processing and transparency, risk assessment, system and services acquisition, system and communications protection, system and information integrity, and supply chain risk management.
All of the Federal Loan Servicers, NFP Federal Loan Servicers, the Federal Perkins Loan Servicer, PCAs, and other contractors, as listed in “SYSTEM LOCATION,” undergo FISMA security authorizations. In addition, access is monitored 24 hours per day, 7 days a week.
If you wish to gain access to a record in this system, provide the system manager with your name, date of birth, and SSN. Requests by an individual for access to a record must meet the requirements of the regulations in 34 CFR 5b.5, including proof of identity.
If you wish to contest the content of a record in this system of records, contact the system manager with your name, date of birth, and SSN; identify the specific items to be changed; and provide a written justification for the change. Requests to amend a record must meet the requirements of the regulations in 34 CFR 5b.7.
If you wish to determine whether a record exists regarding you in this system of records, provide the system manager with your name, date of birth, and SSN. Requests must meet the requirements of the regulations in 34 CFR 5b.5 and 5b.7, including proof of identity.
None.
The system of records entitled “Common Services for Borrowers (CSB)” (18-11-16) was originally published in the
Take notice that on July 18, 2023, NFEnergía LLC (NFEnergía), 111 W 19th Street, New York, New York 10011, filed a request under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and part 153 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization to permit construction and interconnection of a new pipeline at its MFH Facility located at the Port of San Juan, Puerto Rico (Project). NFEnergía states that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) emergency temporary generation project, located adjacent to the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority's San Juan Power Plant, must interconnect to an existing, available blind flange MFH Facility in order for that project to meet its objectives timely. Thus, NFEnergía seeks authorization to construct an interconnection of approximately 220 feet of 10-inch-diameter pipeline to an existing, available blind flange at the MFH Facility in order to deliver natural gas to USACE's project. NFEnergía avers that the existing capacity at the MFH Facility is adequate to make available the fuel necessary to support the temporary power generation, 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 regarding the proposed project should be directed to Cameron MacDougall, General Counsel, NFEnergía LLC, 111 W 19th Street, New York, New York 10011, by phone at (212) 479-1522, or by email at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file comments on the project, you can protest the filing, and you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding. There is no fee or cost for filing comments or intervening. The deadline for filing a motion to intervene is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 25, 2023. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. Comments may include statements of support or objections, to the project as a whole or specific aspects of the project. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.
Pursuant to sections 157.10(a)(4)
To ensure that your comments or protests are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before July 25, 2023.
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments or protests to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket number CP23-518-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website at
(2) You may file your comments or protests electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments or protests by mailing them to the following address below. Your written comments must reference the Project docket number (CP23-518-000).
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments (options 1 and 2 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Persons who comment on the environmental review of this project will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will receive notification when the environmental documents (EA or EIS) are issued for this project and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. However, the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding. For instructions on how to intervene, see below.
Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses, municipalities, and other entities,
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
There are two ways to submit your motion to intervene. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP23-518-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your motion to intervene by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your motion to intervene, along with three copies, by mailing the documents to the address below. Your motion to intervene must reference the Project docket number CP23-518-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of motions to intervene (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail or email at: Cameron MacDougall, General Counsel, NFEnergía LLC, 111 W 19th Street, New York, New York 10011, or at email at
All timely, unopposed
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Great Cove Solar II LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 10, 2023.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Wisconsin Reliability Project, proposed by ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) in the above-referenced docket. ANR requests authorization to construct and operate facilities in Lincoln, Manitowoc, Marathon, Oconto, Outagamie, Portage, Sheboygan, Washington, Waukesha, Waupaca, and Winnebago counties, Wisconsin, and McHenry County, Illinois.
The Wisconsin Reliability Project would provide about 144,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas to the states of Wisconsin and Illinois. The Project includes replacing 48 miles of existing pipeline, modification and replacement of compression facilities at two compressor stations, modifications to six meter stations, and installation and removal of auxiliary facilities. According to ANR, the Project would provide natural gas supply to meet the increasing market demand in Wisconsin and Illinois while increasing the reliability and efficiency of ANR's existing system.
The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Wisconsin Reliability Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection participated as cooperating agencies in preparation of the EA. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis. The proposed Project includes the following:
• Install two new 3,750-horsepower (hp) Dual Drive Technologies, Ltd.
• Install two new 3,750-hp dual-drive compressor units, remove one existing compressor unit, install an electric substation, and upsize station inlet and discharge piping at the existing Weyauwega CS in Waupaca County, Wisconsin;
• Replace approximately 48 miles of existing 14-inch-diameter and 22-inch- diameter pipeline on ANR's ML-301 system (ML-301) with 30-inch-diameter and 36-inch-diameter pipeline, and existing 24-inch-diameter pipeline on ANR's ML-226 system (ML-226) with 30-inch-diameter pipeline in Washington, Waukesha, Waupaca, Outagamie, and Winnebago counties, Wisconsin, and McHenry County, Illinois;
• Modify the existing Lena, Merrill, Oshkosh, South Wausau, Stevens Point, and Two Rivers Meter Stations (MS) to accommodate deliveries of incremental capacity in Oconto, Lincoln, Winnebago, Marathon, Portage, and Manitowoc counties, Wisconsin; and
• Install or modify other minor appurtenant facilities.
The Commission mailed a copy of the
The EA is not a decision document. It presents Commission staff's independent analysis of the environmental issues for the Commission to consider when addressing the merits of all issues in this proceeding. Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the EA's disclosure and discussion of potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 21, 2023.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's website (
(2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP23-15-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or judicial review of the Commission's decision. At this point in this proceeding, the timeframe for filing timely intervention requests has expired. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene out-of-time pursuant to Rule 214(b)(3) and (d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214(b)(3) and (d)) and show good cause why the time limitation should be waived. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
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. Go to
Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been filed with the Commission and are available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
To partially mitigate the cost of the proposed decommissioning of the Paris Project, PacifiCorp proposes to amend the license for the Bear River Project to reduce the minimum instream flow requirement in the Grace Development's bypassed reach. This reduction in required minimum instream flow would allow PacifiCorp to increase hydroelectric generation at the Grace Development to offset lost generation associated with the Paris Project decommissioning.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
p. The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Platteview Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 10, 2023.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing an opportunity for public input on the Safer Choice and Design for the Environment (DfE) programs' potential expansion of their certification to new product categories. Safer Choice helps consumers, businesses, and purchasers find products that perform and contain ingredients that are safer for human health and the environment. DfE is a similar program currently used by EPA for the purpose of helping consumers and commercial buyers identify antimicrobial products that meet the health and safety standards of the normal pesticide registration process required by the Federal Insecticide,
Taylor Dunivin, Safer Choice Program (7409M), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 566-0580; email address:
This is directed to the public in general. This notice may be of specific interest to persons who represent relevant industries; manufacturers and distributors; colleges and universities; state, tribal, and local governments, including U.S. territories and the District of Columbia; other federal agencies; community groups; non-governmental organizations; the public; and international organizations.
EPA is announcing a stakeholder engagement opportunity through a listening session webinar and request stakeholder comment on which new product categories Safer Choice and DfE programs could expand into and why.
During the listening session, EPA will give a presentation on the Agency's proposed plans to expand Safer Choice and DfE certification to new product categories. After the presentation, there will be time for attendees to submit questions and comments. The Agency will respond to those questions and comments that time allows during the listening session and asks for written submission of all comments after the listening session.
As part of its human health and environmental mission, the Safer Choice program partners with businesses to help consumers and commercial buyers identify products whose chemical ingredients have met EPA's criteria for being “safer”, without sacrificing quality or performance criteria set by EPA. The Safer Choice program certifies products containing ingredients that have met the program's specific and rigorous human health and environmental toxicological criteria. The Safer Choice program allows companies to use its label on certified products that contain safer ingredients and perform, as determined by expert evaluation. The Safer Choice program certification represents a high level of achievement in formulating products made with safer ingredients for people and the environment. For more information on the Safer Choice program, please see:
The DfE program is a similar program currently used by EPA for the purpose of helping consumers and commercial buyers identify antimicrobial products that meet the health and safety standards of the normal pesticide registration process required by FIFRA as well as meeting the DfE certification criteria (as described in the Safer Choice Standard). For more information on the DfE program, please see:
1.
Do not submit Confidential Business Information (CBI) to EPA through
2.
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 (
3.
When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces that information submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, pursuant to the Clean Air Act, including information that may be claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI) by the submitter, will be transferred to the United States Energy Information Administration (EIA), a Federal agency. EPA is responding to a written request from EIA, seeking information about active, registered biodiesel and renewable diesel fuel producers. Specifically, EIA has requested data for parties who have generated RINs in recent years.
Access by EIA to this material, including CBI, discussed in this Notice, is ongoing and expected to occur beginning August 7, 2023.
Anne-Marie Pastorkovich, Attorney/Advisor, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality; telephone number: 202-343-9623; email address:
EPA is providing notice of disclosure pursuant to a written request by EIA under 40 CFR 2.209(c). EPA collects various data, including registration and compliance information, to implement the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program and other fuels programs under section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act. This includes collecting information from submitter companies about their facilities, products, and generation and use of renewable identification numbers (RINs). The data may be claimed as CBI by the submitter.
EIA is a Federal agency that “. . . collects, analyzes, and disseminates independent and impartial energy information to promote sound policymaking, efficient markets, and public understanding of energy and its interaction with the economy and the environment.”
Although EPA publishes a public list of parties who are registered under various Clean Air Act fuels programs,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the State of Connecticut is revising its approved Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program to meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
All interested parties may request a public hearing for any of the above EPA determinations. A request for a public hearing must be submitted by August 28, 2023 to the Regional Administrator at the address shown below. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing may be denied by the Regional Administrator.
However, if a substantial request for a public hearing is made by this date, a public hearing will be held. If no timely and appropriate request for a hearing is received, and the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on his own motion, this determination shall become final and effective August 28, 2023.
Any request for a public hearing shall include the following information: (1) the name, address, and telephone number of the individual organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; (2) a brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional Administrator's determination; (3) information that the requesting person intends to submit at such hearing; and (4) the signature of the individual making the request, or if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.
All documents relating to this determination are available for inspection between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the following office(s) below. Please call to arrange a visit.
For state-specific documents:
Stafford Madison, U.S. EPA-New England, Water Division, telephone (617) 918-1622.
The State of Connecticut has adopted drinking water regulations for the Revised Total Coliform Rule (78 FR 10269) promulgated on February 13, 2013. After review of documentation submitted by the State, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that the State's rule is no less stringent than the corresponding federal regulation. EPA, therefore, intends to approve the state's PWSS program revision for this rule.
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.”
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before August 28, 2023.
Comments should be sent to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) go to the web page
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.
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.”
FCC Form 1240 is filed by cable operators seeking to adjust maximum permitted rates for regulated cable services to reflect changes in external costs.
Cable operators submit Form 1240 to their respective local franchising authorities (“LFAs”) to justify rates for the basic service tier and related equipment or with the Commission (in situations where the Commission has assumed jurisdiction).
The Commission is creating two new radio service codes and directing applicants seeking to license 4.9 GHz band base/mobile, mobile-only or temporary fixed stations (new radio service code PB) to submit with their applications on FCC Form 601: coordinates (base), antenna height above average terrain (base), center frequency, emission designator, effective radiated power, number of units (mobile and temporary fixed), and area of operation (mobile and temporary fixed). Similarly, the Commission is directing applicants seeking to license 4.9 GHz band permanent fixed point-to-point, point-to-multi-point and fixed receiver stations (new radio service code PF) to submit with their applications on FCC Form 601: transmitter and receiver antenna coordinates, frequencies, polarizations, tolerance, effective isotropic radiated power, emission designator, type of modulation, antenna model, gain, antenna center line height(s) above ground level and ground elevation above mean sea level, and path azimuth and distance.
The current FCC Form 601 already collects the information detailed above on Schedules D, H and I, but existing 4.9 GHz band operations under radio service code PA are not currently required to utilize these schedules. The changes proposed herein will modify the instructions of the FCC Form 601 to include the two new radio service codes and to duplicate certain questions from Schedule D onto Schedule I regarding eligibility, extended implementation and associated call sign.
On July 18, 2022, the Commission released a Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Partitioning, Disaggregation, and Leasing of Spectrum, WT Docket No. 19-38, FCC 22-53, in which the Commission established the Enhanced Competition Incentive Program (ECIP) to establish incentives for wireless radio service licensees to make underutilized spectrum available to small carriers, Tribal Nations, and entities serving rural areas (ECIP Report and Order in WT Docket No. 19-38, FCC 22-53). In the Report and Order, the Commission adopted a program under which any covered geographic area licensee may offer spectrum to an unaffiliated eligible entity through a partition and/or disaggregation, and any covered geographic area licensee eligible to lease in an included service may offer spectrum to an unaffiliated eligible entity through a long-term leasing arrangement. If the FCC finds that approval of an ECIP eligible assignment or lease is in the public interest, the agency will consent to the transaction and confer benefits, including five-year license term extensions, one year construction extensions, and substituted alternative construction requirements for rural-focused transactions. The Commission also established rules to permit reaggregation of geographic licenses.
In establishing the ECIP, the Commission requires applicants seeking to participate in the program to submit certain information that shows the transaction qualifies for ECIP inclusion. The Commission found that the ECIP builds on Congressional goals in the MOBILE NOW Act to incentivize beneficial transactions in the public interest that will promote greater competition in the provision of wireless services, facilitate increased availability of advanced wireless services in rural areas, facilitate new opportunities for small carriers and Tribal Nations to increase access to spectrum, and bring more advanced wireless service including 5G to underserved communities. The ECIP related change created a new Schedule O, similar to schedule K, that will be used by certain ECIP Licensees to file either their Initial Operation Requirement Notifications (IORN) or their Final Operation Requirement Notifications (FORN), as required by 47 CFR 1.60004, 1.60006.
The Commission now seeks approval for revisions to its currently approved collection of information under OMB Control Number 3060-0798 to permit the collection of the two changes. We anticipate that these revisions will have no impact on the hourly burden to complete FCC Form 601, as the existing burden already provides the appropriate estimate. The Commission therefore seeks approval for a revision to its currently approved information collection on FCC Form 601 to revise FCC Form 601 accordingly.
Federal Communications Commission.
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 28, 2023.
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.”
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice of renewal.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), and after consultation with the General Services Administration, the Chairman of the FDIC has determined that renewal of the FDIC Advisory Committee on Community Banking (Committee) is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the FDIC by law. The Committee has been a successful undertaking by the FDIC and has provided valuable feedback to the agency on a broad range of policy issues that have a particular impact on community banks throughout the United States and the local communities that are served by community banks. The Committee will continue to review various issues that may include, but not be limited to, examination policies and procedures, credit and lending practices, deposit insurance assessments, insurance coverage, and regulatory compliance matters to promote the continued growth and ability of community banks to extend financial services in their respective local markets. The structure and responsibilities of the Committee are unchanged from when it was originally established in July 2009. The Committee will continue to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Debra A. Decker, Committee Management Officer of the FDIC, at (202) 898-8748.
5 U.S.C. 1001
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1009(d), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended, and the Determination of the Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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 Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
On May 28, 2010, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) guidance related to the “generic” clearance process. Generally, this is an expedited clearance process by which agencies may obtain OMB's approval of collection of information requests that are “usually voluntary, low-burden, and uncontroversial,” do not raise any substantive or policy issues, and do not require policy or methodological review. The process requires the submission of an overarching plan that defines the scope of the individual collections that may be submitted under that umbrella. This notice is intended to advise the public of our intent to extend OMB's approval of our MACPro (Medicaid and CHIP Program) umbrella and all of the individual generic collection of information requests that fall under that umbrella. This notice also provides the public with general instructions for obtaining documents that are associated with such collections and for submitting comments.
Comments must be received by August 28, 2023.
1.
2.
1. We encourage you to access the Federal eRulemaking portal at the applicable web address listed below under the
For general information contact William N. Parham at 410-786-4669. For policy related questions, contact the individual listed below under the
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information that they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c). Generally, it applies to voluntary and mandatory requirements that are related to any one or more of the following activities: the collection of information, the reporting of information, the disclose of information to a third-party, and/or recordkeeping.
While there are some exceptions (such as collections having non-substantive changes and collections requesting emergency approval) section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish 60- and 30-day notices in the
Interested parties are invited to submit comments regarding our burden estimates or any other aspect of the collection, including: the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of our agency's functions; the accuracy of burden estimates; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to
While we will review all comments received, we may choose not to post off-topic or inappropriate comments. Otherwise, all comments will be posted without edit under the applicable docket number, including any personal information that the commenter provides. Our response to such comments will be posted at
At this time, MACPro is made up of the main umbrella (see collection number 1 in the following list) and nine individual generic collections of information (see collection numbers 2 through 10 in the following list). Details such as the collection's requirements and burden estimates can be found in the collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled “CDER's Program for the Recognition of Voluntary Consensus Standards Related to Pharmaceutical Quality.” This guidance describes a program at FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) to make public a comprehensive listing of recognized voluntary consensus standards related to pharmaceutical quality. This program facilitates submissions by external stakeholders and FDA staff proposing voluntary consensus standards related to pharmaceutical quality for recognition. CDER believes that this program will help promote innovation in pharmaceutical development and manufacturing and streamline the preparation and assessment of marketing applications for products regulated by CDER. This guidance
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances 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 this 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. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Colleen Thomas, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 4159, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-4853.
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “CDER's Program for the Recognition of Voluntary Consensus Standards Related to Pharmaceutical Quality.” This guidance describes a program at CDER to make public a comprehensive listing of recognized voluntary consensus standards related to pharmaceutical quality. This program, established by publication of this final guidance, facilitates submissions by external stakeholders and FDA staff proposing voluntary consensus standards related to pharmaceutical quality for recognition.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) and Circular A-119 by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) have established Federal Government policies to improve the internal management of the executive branch by directing Agencies to use voluntary consensus standards developed or adopted by a standards-developing organization—rather than Government-unique standards—except where these standards are inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. FDA's development and use of standards have been integral to the execution of FDA's mission.
This program will help promote innovation in pharmaceutical development and manufacturing and streamline the preparation and review of marketing applications for products regulated by CDER. CDER also believes that this program (1) allows CDER to communicate to external stakeholders that its relevant expert(s) have evaluated a consensus standard and determined if that standard is potentially useful both to industry and FDA staff, and (2) provides transparency to industry regarding CDER's thinking about a method or approach.
This guidance finalizes the draft guidance entitled “CDER's Program for the Recognition of Voluntary Consensus Standards Related to Pharmaceutical Quality” issued on February 14, 2019 (84 FR 4076). FDA considered comments received on the draft guidance as the guidance was finalized. Changes from the draft to the final guidance include: clarification of the program's policies and procedures and the program's relationship to existing guidances, regulations, and policies under which CDER operates.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “CDER's Program for the Recognition of Voluntary Consensus Standards Related to Pharmaceutical Quality.” 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 collection of information in this guidance has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0139.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance entitled “Hydrogen Peroxide-Based Contact Lens Care Products: Consumer Labeling Recommendations—Premarket Notification (510(k)) Submissions.” FDA is issuing this guidance to provide labeling recommendations for Hydrogen Peroxide-Based Contact Lens Care Products (HPCPs) submitted in premarket notification (510(k)) submissions. The labeling recommendations in this guidance are intended to promote the safe and effective use of HPCPs and help consumers receive and understand information regarding the benefits and risks associated with the use of the device.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances 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)).
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download
Angelo Green, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1306, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6860.
The safety and effectiveness of HPCPs when used as directed has been well established in the last few decades; however, FDA had become aware of an increase in the number of adverse event reports related to the misuse of these products. These reports led FDA to convene a meeting of the Ophthalmic Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee and the Risk Communication Advisory Committee on March 17, 2017, to discuss additional measures to mitigate the potential risk for misuse of these devices. The meeting covered a range of important issues, including appropriate labeling and packaging of these products and the importance of clearly communicating these concerns to the consumer public, which were incorporated into this guidance. This guidance is intended to provide recommendations concerning the content and format of labeling for HPCPs. FDA believes that the labeling recommendations in this guidance may help manufacturers develop labeling with information about specific risks and directions for use of the HPCPs in conjunction with a user's prescribed contact lenses.
A notice of availability of the draft guidance appeared in the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Hydrogen Peroxide-Based Contact Lens Care Products: Consumer Labeling Recommendations—Premarket Notification (510(k)) Submissions.” 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.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
While this guidance contains no new 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 the following FDA regulations have been approved by OMB as listed in the following table:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is issuing an order under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) permanently debarring Diana Daffin from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application. FDA bases this order on a finding that Ms. Daffin was convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct that relates to the regulation of any drug product under the FD&C Act. Ms. Daffin was given notice of the proposed permanent debarment and was given an opportunity to request a hearing to show why she should not be debarred. As of April 2, 2023 (30 days after receipt of the notice), Ms. Daffin has not responded to the notice. Ms. Daffin's failure to respond and request a hearing within the prescribed timeframe constitutes a waiver of her right to a hearing concerning this action.
This order is applicable July 27, 2023.
Any application by Ms. Daffin for special termination of debarment under section 306(d)(4) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(d)(4)) may be submitted as follows:
If you want to submit an application with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the application as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
For a written/paper application submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your application, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked, and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
Confidential Submissions—To submit an application with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your application 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 your application. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Jaime Espinosa, Division of Compliance and Enforcement, Office of Policy, Compliance, and Enforcement, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, 240-402-8743, or
Section 306(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(a)(2)(B)) requires debarment of an individual from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application if FDA finds that the individual has been convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of any drug product under the FD&C Act. On November 2, 2022, Ms. Daffin was convicted in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, when the court entered a judgment of conviction, after her plea of guilty, to one count of introduction into interstate commerce of unapproved drugs in violation of 21 U.S.C. 331(d), 333(a)(2), and 355(a), a felony offense under Federal law.
As described in the plea agreement in Ms. Daffin's case, filed on June 22, 2022; the factual basis for this conviction is as follows: Ms. Daffin operated a business, Savvy Holistic Health d/b/a Holistic Healthy Pet, from Ms. Daffin's home, which primarily sold holistic pet remedies on its website
Although Ms. Daffin told FDA that she would be closing the HAMPL product line, instead, in February 2021, Ms. Daffin sold to an undercover law enforcement officer Respiratory Immune 331, a HAMPL product intended to cure, mitigate, treat, and prevent COVID-19 in humans. In an email leading up to the sale, Ms. Daffin told the undercover officer, “This stuff does work for COVID, but FDA shut it down.” In another email, Ms. Daffin admitted to the undercover officer that Ms. Daffin had been warned that “these all natural homeopathy and herbs,” appearing to refer to the HAMPL products Ms. Daffin sold, were unapproved drugs. Ms. Daffin nevertheless sold the HAMPL to the undercover officer.
Based on this conviction, FDA sent Ms. Daffin by certified mail on February 24, 2023, a notice proposing to permanently debar her from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application. The proposal was based on a finding, under section 306(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(a)(2)(B)), that Ms. Daffin was convicted, as set forth in section 306(l)(1) of the FD&C Act, of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of a drug product under the FD&C Act. The proposal also offered Ms. Daffin an opportunity to request a hearing, providing her 30 days
Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Office of Human and Animal Food Operations, under section 306(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(a)(2)(B)), under authority delegated to the Assistant Commissioner, finds that Diana Daffin has been convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of a drug product under the FD&C Act.
As a result of the foregoing finding, Ms. Daffin is permanently debarred from providing services in any capacity to a person with an approved or pending drug product application, effective (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. On September 27, 2023, the committee will discuss and make recommendations on biologics license application (BLA) 125782 from BrainStorm Therapeutics, Inc. for debamestrocel (autologous bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells induced to secrete neurotrophic factors). The applicant has requested an indication for the treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.
The meeting will be held on September 27, 2023, from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Eastern Time.
All meeting participants will be heard, viewed, captioned, and recorded for this advisory committee meeting via an online teleconferencing and/or video conferencing platform. Answers to commonly asked questions about FDA advisory committee meetings may be accessed at:
The online web conference meeting will be available at the following link on the day of the meeting:
FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2023-N-2608. The docket will close on September 26, 2023. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Comments received on or before September 20, 2023, will be provided to the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by FDA. In the event that the meeting is cancelled, FDA will continue to evaluate any relevant applications or information, and consider any comments submitted to the docket, as appropriate.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” FDA will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Marie DeGregorio or Cicely Reese, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 1246, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, email:
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available on FDA's website at the time of the advisory committee meeting. Background material and the link to the online teleconference and/or video conference meeting will be available at
For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Marie DeGregorio or Cicely Reece at
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 1001
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before August 28, 2023.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Sherrette Funn,
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel, Review of Support for Conferences and Scientific Meetings (R13), July 27, 2023, 1 p.m.-3 p.m., National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 which was published in the
This notice is being amended to change the meeting date and time from July 27, 2023, 1 p.m.-3 p.m. to August 7, 2023, 12 p.m.-1:30 p.m. The meeting location will stay the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) National Advisory Council (NAC) will meet on August 29, 2023, 9:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. (EDT).
The meeting is open to the public and will include consideration of minutes from the SAMHSA CSAT NAC meeting of April 25, 2023, a discussion with SAMHSA leadership, a discussion on harm reduction, and discussion on addressing stigma in substance use disorder care. It will also cover updates on CSAT activities from the Office of the Director (OD); the Division of Pharmacologic Therapies (DPT); the Division of States and Community Systems (DSCS); the Division of Services Improvement (DSI); Office of Program Analysis and Coordination (OPAC); Office of Performance Analysis and Management (OPAM).
The meeting will be held at SAMHSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, 5N76, Rockville, MD 20857. Attendance by the public will be limited to space available and will be limited to the open sessions of the meeting. Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the Council. Presentations from the public will be scheduled at the conclusion of the meeting. Individuals interested in making oral presentations must notify the contact person, Tracy Goss, CSAT NAC Designated Federal Officer (DFO) on or before August 11, 2023. Up two minutes will be allotted for each approved public comment as time permits. Written comments received in advance of the meeting will be considered for inclusion in the official record.
The open meeting session may also be accessed virtually. Please register on-line at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Comments are to be submitted on or before October 25, 2023.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2353, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The date of December 7, 2023 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Comments are to be submitted on or before October 25, 2023.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2354, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Comments are to be submitted on or before October 25, 2023.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2355, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The date of November 30, 2023, has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The date of December 21, 2023 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting 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. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until August 28, 2023.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, Telephone number (240) 721-3000 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
The information collection notice was previously published in the
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until September 25, 2023.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0069 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2006-0042. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, telephone number (240) 721-3000 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until September 25, 2023.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0099 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2006-0059. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, telephone number (240) 721-3000 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until September 25, 2023.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0105 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2008-0037. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, telephone number (240) 721-3000 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
DHS is proposing to revise the subject information collection to allow an attorney or accredited representative to name a paralegal that they supervise who would be permitted to communicate with USCIS in named limited circumstances. See the form and form instructions in the documents for the specific changes being proposed.
DHS is proposing to limit the change to the form to allow for the addition of a paralegal and not extend it to any employee of the organization or firm supervised by the practitioner of record on the Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative. USCIS believes that the employee who is provided with the authority to communicate with USCIS on a case should have education, experience and training in regulatory compliance and professional responsibility, and understand the distinction between administrative tasks and independent legal advice. The term paralegal is not defined by law or regulated by all states or state bar associations but education and training is generally associated with being a paralegal.
USCIS specifically requests comments on the limitation from the practitioner community and others who may be affected on the limitation to paralegals, if that limitation should be maintained, and if not, detailed reasons why it should not.
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Office of Policy Development and Research, Chief Data Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, REE, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 7th Street SW, Room 8210, Washington, DC 20410; email at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing- Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection can be sent within 60 days of publication of this notice to
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, REE, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
In addition, under 24 CFR 203.255(c) and (e), HUD conducts both pre- and post-endorsement reviews of loans submitted for FHA insurance by DE lenders. As part of those reviews, the Secretary is authorized to determine if there is any information indicating that any certification or required document is false, misleading, or constitutes fraud or misrepresentation on the part of any party, or that the mortgage fails to meet a statutory or regulatory requirement. In order to assist the Secretary with this directive, FHA requires that lenders self-report all findings of fraud and material misrepresentation, as well any material findings concerning the origination, underwriting, or servicing of the loan that the lender is unable to mitigate or otherwise resolve, per HUD Handbook 4000.1, sections V.A.2.d. iv (A) and V.A.2.d.iv (B). The obligation to self-report these findings creates an additional information collection burden on DE lenders.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
Office of Housing Counseling, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Notice.
Through this notice, HUD is announcing the publication of a preview of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 Homeownership Initiative Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) in advance of publication on
Melissa Noe, Housing Program Specialist, Policy and Grant Administration, Office of Housing Counseling, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 77 W Jackson Blvd., Room 2301, Chicago, IL 60604; telephone number 312-913-8648 (this is not a toll-free number); email
HUD is publishing a preview of the FY 2023 Homeownership Initiative NOFO to give interested applicants time to prepare their applications prior to the opening of the application period. During this preview, the FY 2023 Homeownership Initiative NOFO Preview is available on HUD's website at the following URL:
This NOFO Preview is subject to change. While HUD does not intend to make substantive changes at this point, applicants should consider the NOFO published on
HUD will not accept applications during the preview period. However, during this preview, interested applicants may submit questions on the NOFO Preview to the following email address:
Interested applicants are strongly encouraged to thoroughly review and prepare for the NOFO, by carefully examining the NOFO Preview, with particular attention to the fixed amount award submission requirements and rating factor responses.
HUD anticipates that the FY 2023 Homeownership Initiative NOFO will be published on
HUD will not accept requests for a waiver of electronic submission requirements during the preview period. Such requests may only be submitted once the NOFO has been published on
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Colorado State Office, Lakewood, Colorado, 30 calendar days from the date of this publication. The surveys, which were executed at the request of the U.S. Forest Service, are necessary for the management of these lands.
Unless there are protests of this action, the plats described in this notice will be filed on August 28, 2023.
You may submit written protests to the BLM Colorado State Office, Cadastral Survey, P.O. Box 151029, Lakewood, CO 80215.
David W. Ginther, Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Colorado, telephone: (970) 826-5064; email:
The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey and survey in Townships 32 North, Ranges 6 and 7 East, New Mexico Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on April 27, 2023.
The plat incorporating the field notes of the remonumentation of a corner in Township 5 North, Range 72 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, was accepted on May 19, 2023.
The plat incorporating the field notes of the remonumentation of a corner in Township 10 North, Range 73 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, was accepted on May 19, 2023.
The plat and field notes of the corrective dependent resurvey and survey in Township 9 North, Range74 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on June 6, 2023.
The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey and subdivision of section 14 in Township 11 North, Range 73 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on June 15, 2023.
The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey in Township 10 North, Range 72 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on July 7, 2023.
A person or party who wishes to protest any of the above surveys must file a written notice of protest within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication at the address listed in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your protest, please be aware that your entire protest, 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 21, 2023, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Bell Northern Research, LLC of Chicago, Illinois. Supplements were filed on July 3 and 11, 2023. 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 electronic devices and semiconductor devices having wireless communication capabilities and components thereof by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,564,914 (“the '914 patent”); U.S. Patent No. RE 48,629 (“the '629 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862 (“the '862 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 13, 14, 17, 21, and 22 of the '914 patent; claims 1, 8-11, 13, 14, 19, 20, and 27 of the '629 patent; and claims 1-4 and 9-12 of the '862 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 “semiconductor devices, and specifically undiced wafers, diced wafers, packaged chips and chipsets both attached and unattached to printed circuit boards and modules; personal and tablet computers; and routers, gateways, and networking devices having wireless communication capabilities, and components thereof”;
(3) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(l), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties or other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. l337(d)(l), (f)(1), (g)(1);
(4) 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
(5) 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.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and accompanying Environmental Assessment (EA) for an application request from Rare Element Resources, Inc. (RER) for a source materials license accompanying the construction and operation of a rare earth element (REE) separation and processing demonstration plant near Upton, Wyoming. Based on the analysis in the EA, the NRC staff has concluded that there would be no significant impacts to environmental resources from RER's proposed facility and, therefore, a FONSI is appropriate.
The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on July 27, 2023.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2023-0090 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:
•
•
•
James Park, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6954; email:
By letter dated September 13, 2022, RER applied for a source material license from the NRC for RER's proposed REE separation and processing demonstration plant to be located near Upton, Wyoming. In the Demonstration Plant, RER proposes to use its proprietary process to extract and concentrate neodymium-praseodymium (NdPr) and other rare earth oxides (REOs) from an approximately 907 metric-ton (1,000-ton) exploration sample obtained from RER's Bear Lodge site in the Black Hills National Forest in Wyoming. During processing, thorium in the exploration sample would be concentrated to a level necessitating a source material license from the NRC in accordance with the provisions of part 40 of title 10 of the
RER proposes to locate its proposed Demonstration Plant on an approximately 3.2-hectare (ha) (8-acre [ac]) parcel of privately owned land, approximately 3.2 kilometers (km) [2 miles (mi)] northwest of Upton, Wyoming. RER proposes to modify the existing site and site structures for its purposes in demonstrating its proprietary process for extracting NdPr and REOs from an approximately 907 metric-ton (1,000-ton) exploration sample removed previously from the Bear Lodge project site in northeastern Wyoming. RER proposes to operate its Demonstration Plant for 1 year, processing the exploration sample at a rate of 2.7 metric tons (3 tons) a day.
Facilities planned by RER to be located inside the proposed site's radiological restricted area would include a Physical Upgrade/Sample Storage Facility, a Main Process Facility, an Equipment Building, a Chemical Containment Area, and a Clean Room as well as loading and unloading areas. Ancillary facilities outside the radiological restricted area would include the office trailer, a laydown yard, access roads, and a parking area for employees and visitors.
RER's process to extract NdPr and other REOs would involve four stages. First, RER would use a jaw crusher, a cone crusher, and coarse vibrating screen units to comminute (
RER's process would produce solid waste and wastewater streams. Both waste streams would be neutralized with quicklime and then combined in a batched process. RER would add bentonite as needed to absorb excess liquid in the combined tailings waste. RER expects that nearly 100 percent of the radioactive material from the processed ore sample would be contained in the tailings waste. RER would transfer the tailings waste to a 27-metric ton (30-ton) roll-off bin and store the waste onsite prior to planned weekly waste shipments by rail to the Waste Control Specialists (WCS) low-level radioactive waste disposal facility located in Andrews County, Texas.
Construction and operation of the proposed Demonstration Plant would also generate non-radiological wastes, to include both industrial and chemical wastes. RER would dispose of non-radioactive organic process-related waste at a local hydrocarbon treatment facility. Any laboratory chemicals that would be generated would be stored in containers in the onsite laboratory, prior to off-site disposal at an appropriate facility. Non-hazardous industrial waste would be disposed at the Weston County, Wyoming transfer facility. Additionally, RER would consider recycling certain non-radioactive wastes (
REEs include the lanthanide series of elements from lanthanum (atomic number 57) to lutetium (atomic number 71) along with yttrium (atomic number 39) and scandium (atomic number 21). REEs are essential elements in many applications in today's economy, including electric automobiles, smart phones, camera lenses, advanced wind turbines, computer hard drives, fluorescent and light-emitting-diode bulbs, magnets, additives in ceramics and glass, and military systems.
Several U.S. governmental agencies have identified the growing need and reliance in the United States for REEs. The Department of Energy has identified the REEs as strategic resources for economic prosperity and national defense of the United States. The U.S. Department of the Interior published an updated final list of critical minerals that includes many of the REEs, and the U.S. Department of Defense has identified REEs as critical to future defense applications.
The NRC staff has assessed the potential environmental impacts from RER's proposed Demonstration Plant at the Upton, Wyoming site. The NRC staff assessed the impacts of the proposed action on land use; historical and cultural resources; visual and scenic resources; climatology, meteorology and air quality; geology and soils; water resources; ecological resources; socioeconomics; noise; traffic and transportation; public and occupational health and safety; and waste management. The NRC staff determined that impacts to these environmental resource areas would be minimal and not significant. With respect to ecological resources, the NRC staff determined that the proposed action would have no effect on listed endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat. The NRC staff also determined that no historical properties would be affected by the undertaking (
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (
On May 25, 2023, the staff provided a copy of the draft EA to the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) for its review and comment. On June 26, 2023, the State provided its comments on the draft document.
Based on its review of the proposed action, in accordance with 10 CFR part 51, the NRC staff has determined that issuance of a source material license to RER, and subsequent construction and operation of an REE Demonstration Plant at the proposed facility site near Upton, Wyoming, would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Approval of the proposed action would be expected to result in minimal impacts and RER's operational activities would be
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through ADAMS.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern Market Dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3030, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern Competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
4.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 21, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 21, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 19, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 21, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule for trading on the BOX Options Market LLC (“BOX”) options facility to change how certain Complex Orders are assessed within the fee structure, specifically each leg of a Complex Orders that executes against the BOX Book
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.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX to change how certain Complex Orders are assessed within the fee structure, specifically each leg of a Complex Orders that executes against the BOX Book
While a Participant may enter a Complex Order with the intent of that Order executing against another Complex Order on the Complex Order Book, the BOX Trading System allows single legs within the Complex Order to execute against orders on the BOX Book.
Each order on the BOX Book executed against a Complex Order and each leg of a Complex Order executed against the BOX Book will be treated as a standard order for purposes of the Fee Schedule and subject to Section IV.A (Electronic Transaction Fees for Non-Auction Transactions).
The Exchange believes the proposed change is reasonable because the Exchange's fee structures for electronic non-auction transactions and Complex Orders are designed to independently attract liquidity and to reward Participants for their order flow. Specifically, when a Complex Order interacts with the BOX Book, the orders in the BOX Book are assessed electronic transaction fees for non-auction transactions.
The Exchange notes that Complex Orders from Public Customers are assessed no fee or provided a rebate of $0.50 depending on the contra party and whether the order is making or taking liquidity in Penny Interval Classes and are assessed no fee or provided a rebate
Similarly, Complex Orders from Professional Customers and Broker Dealers are currently provided a rebate of $0.30 or assessed a fee of $0.50 depending on the contra party and whether the order is making or taking liquidity in Penny Interval Classes and are provided a rebate of $0.30 or assessed a fee between $0.98 and $1.00 depending on the contra party and whether the order is making or taking liquidity in Non-Penny Interval Classes. Electronic transaction fees in non-auction transactions for Professional Customers and Broker Dealers are currently assessed a fee between $0.15 and $0.60 depending on the contra party and whether the order is making or taking liquidity in Penny Interval Classes, are assessed a fee between $0.15 and $0.95 depending on the contra party and whether the order is making or taking liquidity in Non-Penny Interval Classes, and are assessed a fee between $0.15 and $0.60 depending on the contra party and whether the order is making or taking liquidity for transactions in SPY. Complex Order SPY transactions are assessed the fee or provided the rebate for Penny Interval Classes as SPY is a Penny Interval Class. Therefore, the proposal may increase or decrease fees or result in BOX providing no rebate for the legs of Professional Customer and Broker Dealer Complex Orders that trade against the BOX Book depending on the contra party and whether the class traded is a Penny Interval Class, a Non-Penny Interval class, or SPY.
Lastly, Complex Orders from Market Makers are currently provided a rebate of $0.30 or assessed a fee of $0.50 depending on the contra party and whether the order is making or taking liquidity in Penny Interval Classes and are provided a rebate of $0.30 or a fee between $0.98 and $1.00 depending on the contra party and whether the order is making or taking liquidity in Non-Penny Interval classes. Electronic transaction fees in non-auction transactions for Market Makers are currently assessed a fee between $0.00 and $0.50 depending on the contra party and whether the order is making or taking liquidity in Penny Interval Classes, are assessed a fee between $0.00 and $0.95 depending on the contra party and whether the order is making or taking liquidity in Non-Penny Interval Classes, and are assessed a fee between $0.00 and $0.50 depending on the contra party and whether the order is making or taking liquidity for transactions in SPY. Complex Order SPY transactions are assessed the fee or provided the rebate for Penny Interval Classes as SPY is a Penny Interval Class. Therefore, the proposal may increase or decrease fees or result in BOX providing no rebate for the legs of Market Maker Complex Orders that trade against the BOX Book depending on the contra party and whether the class traded is a Penny Interval Class, a Non-Penny Interval Class, or SPY.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change discussed above will allow both sides of a transaction executed on BOX to be assessed consistently and will add clarity by expressly providing how fees will be assessed for each leg of a Complex Order executed against the BOX Book.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Exchange believes the proposed change is reasonable because the Exchange's fee structures for both electronic non-auction transactions and Complex Orders are designed to independently attract liquidity and to reward Participants for their order flow. Specifically, when a Complex Order interacts with the BOX Book, the orders in the BOX Book are assessed electronic transaction fees for non-auction transactions.
Further, the Exchange believes that to the extent the legs of Complex Orders are assessed lower or higher fees or provided a smaller rebate or no rebate, this proposal is reasonable because such orders may benefit from the liquidity on the BOX Book in addition to the liquidity on the Complex Order Book. The Exchange notes that Complex Orders may receive executions for each leg of a Complex Order against the BOX Book when the Complex Order would not otherwise have received an execution in the Complex Order Book. The Exchange notes further that another exchange assesses fees similarly to the proposal.
The Exchange notes another mechanism in the BOX Fee Schedule where both sides of a transaction are assessed fees, in a consistent manner, from the same section of the Fee Schedule. In Section IV.B of the BOX Fee Schedule for PIP and COPIP transactions, each PIP Order or COPIP Order that executes against an Unrelated Order on the BOX Book shall be treated as a non-auction transaction.
The Exchange notes that the BOX Fee Schedule, including Section VI (Complex Order Transaction Fees), assesses fees and credits according to the account type of the Participant originating the order and the contra party.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The proposal does not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition. The Exchange believes its proposal, to the extent it increases or decreases fees or provides smaller rebates or no rebates, remains competitive with other options markets. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and rebates in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. The Exchange notes that another exchange has a similar fee structure.
The proposed changes do not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the Exchange does not believe that the proposal will place any category of market participant at a competitive disadvantage. Specifically, the Exchange believes that applying Section IV.A (Electronic Transaction Fees for Non-Auction Transactions) to the legs of Public Customer Complex Orders that trade against the BOX Book does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the fee structure contained in Section IV.A is designed to attract Public Customer order flow which increases the number of executions on the Exchange, thus benefiting all market participants. The Exchange notes that, as discussed above, although the Public Customer rebates in Section IV.A are smaller than Public Customer rebates in Section VI (Complex Order Transaction Fees), Public Customers benefit from the additional liquidity available on the BOX Book.
Lastly, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes will provide all Participants with consistency and clarity regarding how Complex Order fees are assessed on BOX. The Exchange notes that all Participants sending a Complex Order to BOX that interacts with the BOX Book will be subject to fees and rebates already in place on the Exchange.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or would otherwise further 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.
• 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.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of New York (FEMA-4723-DR), dated 07/22/2023.
Issued on 07/22/2023.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 07/22/2023, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 18028 6 and for economic injury is 18029 0.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 9.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of California (FEMA-4699-DR), dated 04/03/2023.
Issued on 07/20/2023.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of California, dated 04/03/2023, is hereby amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster to 09/01/2023.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Vermont (FEMA-4720-DR), dated 07/14/2023.
Issued on 07/14/2023.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 07/14/2023, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 18026 6 and for economic injury is 18027 0.
Small Business Administration.
Amendment 2.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Vermont (FEMA-4720-DR), dated 07/21/2023.
Issued on 07/21/2023.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Vermont, dated 07/14/2023, is hereby amended to expand the disaster incident to include landslides and mudslides.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Vermont (FEMA-4720-DR), dated 07/14/2023.
Issued on 07/21/2023.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Vermont, dated 07/14/2023, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice announces final environmental action taken by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for the Cajon Pass High-Speed Rail Project. The purpose of this notice is to advise the public of the time limit to file any claims that may challenge this decision and other Federal permits, licenses, and approvals for the project.
A claim seeking judicial review of Federal agency actions for the listed rail transportation project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before July 28, 2025. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than two years for filing such claim, then the shorter time period applies.
For further information related to this notice, please contact Kathryn Johnson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: (202) 731-0658, email:
Notice is hereby given that FRA has taken final agency action by issuing certain approvals for the rail transportation project listed below. The action on the project, as well as the laws under which such action was taken, are described in the documentation issued for the project to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and related environmental laws.
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions on the project as of the issuance date of this notice and all Federal laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to, NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321-4375); Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303); Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108); the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q); the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544); the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251) and relevant Executive Orders including, E.O. 11990 Protection of Wetlands, E.O. 11988 Floodplain Management, E.O. 13112 Invasive Species, E.O. 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, and E.O. 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The project that is the subject of this notice follows:
FRA issued an environmental assessment for the Cajon Pass High-Speed Rail Project on October 26, 2022 and a Finding of No Significant Impact on July 12, 2023.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
OFAC: 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 24, 2023, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
1. BAGAYOKO, Adama, Mali; DOB 14 Sep 1979; POB Bamako, Mali; nationality Mali; citizen Mali; Gender Male; Passport AA0262268 (Mali) (individual) [RUSSIA-EO14024] (Linked To: PRIVATE MILITARY COMPANY `WAGNER').
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(vi) of Executive Order 14024 of April 15, 2021, “Blocking Property With Respect To Specified Harmful Foreign Activities of the Government of the Russian Federation,” 86 FR 20249, 3 CFR, 2021 Comp., p. 542 (Apr. 15, 2021) (E.O. 14024) for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Private Military Company `WAGNER' (Wagner) a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14024.
2. CAMARA, Sadio, Bamako, Mali; Malibougou, Kati, Koulikoro, Mali; DOB 22 Mar 1979; POB Kati, Koulikoro, Mali; nationality Mali; citizen Mali; alt. citizen France; Gender Male; Passport DA0004031 (Mali) expires 15 Oct 2015 (individual) [RUSSIA-EO14024] (Linked To: PRIVATE MILITARY COMPANY `WAGNER').
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(vi) of E.O. 14024 for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Wagner, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14024.
3. DIARRA, Alou Boi, Bamako, Mali; DOB 01 Sep 1981; POB Kati Koulikoro, Mali; nationality Mali; citizen Mali; Gender Male; Passport DA0004002 (Mali) (individual) [RUSSIA-EO14024] (Linked To: PRIVATE MILITARY COMPANY `WAGNER').
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(vi) of E.O. 14024 for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Wagner, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14024.
Departmental Offices, Department of the Treasury.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund), U.S. Department of the Treasury, is soliciting comments concerning the Transaction Level Report (TLR) for the New Markets Tax Credit Program (NMTC Program).
Comments should be received on or before August 28, 2023 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
This information is used to assess: (1) The Allocatee's activities as detailed in its application materials; (2) the Allocatee's approved use of the allocation; (3) the Allocatee's financial condition; (4) the socio-economic characteristics of Allocatee's borrowers/investees, loan and investment terms, repayment status, and community development outcomes; and (5) overall compliance with the terms and conditions of the allocation agreement entered into by the CDFI Fund and the Allocatee.
For the NMTC TLR, to address the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommendations in its July 2014 report
For fees and transaction costs, 12 out of 13 TLR data points have been revised to ensure that they are mutually exclusive and align with required QALICB disclosures and the Allocation Application. In addition, all data points will be reported as actual dollar amounts. Three TLR data points are proposed to be eliminated due to a lack of usage (Other Sources of Compensation and Profits Charged to Investors; Other Sources of Compensation and Profits Charged to Borrowers/Investees; Other Sources of Compensation and Profits Charged to Other Entities). The revised data points are:
• Total QEI Proceeds Retained by the CDE or CDE Affiliate;
• Upfront Fees to the CDE or CDE Affiliate;
• Upfront Fees to Investors or Investor Affiliates;
• Upfront Fees to Unaffiliated Third Parties;
• Upfront Transaction Costs;
• Ongoing Fees to the CDE or CDE Affiliate;
• Ongoing Fees Paid to Investors or Investor Affiliates;
• Ongoing Fees to Unaffiliated Third Parties;
• Ongoing Transaction Costs;
• Back-end Fees to CDE or CDE Affiliates;
• Back-end Fees to Investors or Investor Affiliates;
• Back-end Fees to Unaffiliated Third Parties; and
• Back-end Transaction Costs.
To better measure the depth of public subsidy, a new data point (Estimated Annual Net Operating Income) will be added to the NMTC Allocatee TLR, as well as revised TLR guidance for the existing data point on “Total Project Cost Public Sources”.
The proposed addition and changes to the outcome reporting in the NMTC Allocatee TLR affect the data points related to job creation and retention; quality of jobs; accessible jobs; type of business loans; financing of minority-owned or controlled businesses; commercial and community goods and services; and environmental outcomes. The changes include:
• Projected Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Jobs to Be Created or Retained at Businesses Financed (new data point);
• Actual Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Jobs Created or Retained at Businesses Financed (new data point);
• Job Quality Measures (new data point);
• Identify Accessible Jobs Measure (new data point);
• Number of Accessible Jobs (new data point);
• Type of Business Loan (new data point);
• Minority-Owned or Controlled Businesses (revised data point);
• Native American-Owned or Controlled Businesses (new data point);
• Number of People Served by Commercial Goods or Services (new data point);
• Number of People Served by Community Goods or Services (new data point);
• Number of Households Served by Infrastructure Services (new data point);
• Identify Environmental Restoration and/or Sustainability Outcome Measure (new data point); and
• Quantify Environmental Restoration and/or Sustainability Outcome (new data point).
In order to better assess compliance with certain terms and conditions of the Allocation Agreement when a QLICI is originated, the following five data points are proposed:
• Below Market Interest Rate at origination (new data point);
• Blended Interest Rate at origination (new data point);
• Comparable Blended Interest Rate at origination (new data point);
• What is Interest Rate Comparable at origination? (new data point); and
• Interest Rate Comparable at Origination—Other (new data point).
In addition, the CDFI Fund proposes to eliminate the following data points that are no longer relevant in assessing compliance given that they relate to data points after origination:
• Below Market Interest Rate the end of the reporting period.
• Blended Interest Rate the end of the reporting period.
• Comparable Blended Interest Rate the end of the reporting period.
• Below Market Interest Rates or Flexible Terms Required under Allocation Agreement.
• Below Market Interest Rate at the end of the reporting period.
• What is Interest Rate Comparable at the end of the reporting period?
• Interest Rate Comparable—Other.
• Interest Rate Financial Note Terms at the end of the reporting period.
More details on the changes described above can be found in the updated guidance document available on the CDFI Fund website at
Regulatory Information Service Center.
Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.
Publication of the Spring 2023 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions represents a key component of the regulatory planning mechanism prescribed in Executive Order (“E.O.”) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” (58 FR 51735, as amended) and reaffirmed in E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” (76 FR 3821) and E.O. 14094, “Modernizing Regulatory Review,” (88 FR 21879). The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies publish semiannual regulatory agendas in the
The Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda), published in the fall and spring, helps agencies fulfill all of these requirements. All federal regulatory agencies have chosen to publish their regulatory agendas as part of this publication. The complete publication of the Spring 2023 Unified Agenda containing the regulatory agendas for 67 Federal agencies is available to the public at
The Spring 2023 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the
Regulatory Information Service Center (MV), General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405.
For further information about specific regulatory actions, please refer to the agency contact listed for each entry. To provide comment on or to obtain further information about this publication, contact: Boris Arratia, Director, Regulatory Information Service Center (MV), General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, 703-795-0816. You may also send comments to us by email at:
The Unified Agenda provides information about regulations that the Government is considering or reviewing. The Unified Agenda has appeared in the
The Spring 2023 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the
The regulatory agendas for agencies not publishing Regulatory Flexibility Agendas are listed below and are available to the public at
The Regulatory Information Service Center compiles the Unified Agenda for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), part of the Office of Management and Budget. OIRA is responsible for overseeing the Federal Government's regulatory, paperwork, and information resource management activities, including implementation of Executive Order 12866, as amended (incorporated in Executive Order 13563). The Center also provides information about Federal regulatory activity to the President and his Executive Office, the Congress, agency officials, and the public.
The activities included in the Agenda are, in general, those that will have a regulatory action within the next 12 months. Agencies may choose to include activities that will have a longer timeframe than 12 months. Agency agendas also show actions or reviews completed or withdrawn since the last Unified Agenda. Executive Order 12866, as amended, does not require agencies to include regulations concerning military or foreign affairs functions or regulations related to agency organization, management, or personnel matters.
Agencies prepared entries for this publication to give the public notice of their plans to review, propose, and issue regulations. They have tried to predict their activities over the next 12 months as accurately as possible, but dates and schedules are subject to change. Agencies may withdraw some of the regulations now under development, and they may issue or propose other regulations not included in their agendas. Agency actions in the rulemaking process may occur before or after the dates they have listed. The Unified Agenda does not create a legal obligation on agencies to adhere to schedules in this publication or to confine their regulatory activities to those regulations that appear within it.
The Unified Agenda helps agencies comply with their obligations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and various Executive orders and other statutes.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to identify those rules that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (5 U.S.C. 602). Agencies meet that requirement by including the information in their submissions for the Unified Agenda. Agencies may also indicate those regulations that they are reviewing as part of their periodic review of existing rules under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 610). Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” signed August 13, 2002 (67 FR 53461), provides additional guidance on compliance with the Act.
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51735), as amended, requires covered agencies to prepare an agenda of all regulations under development or review. The Order also requires that certain agencies prepare annually a regulatory plan of their “most important significant regulatory actions,” which appears as part of the fall Unified Agenda. Executive Order 13497, signed January 30, 2009 (74 FR 6113), revoked the amendments to Executive Order 12866 that were contained in Executive Order 13258 and Executive Order 13422.
Executive Order (E.O.) 14094, “Modernizing Regulatory Review,” April 6, 2023 (88 FR 21879) sets forth specific actions for Federal agencies and OIRA designed to modernize the regulatory process in order to advance policies that promote the public interest and address national priorities. E.O. 14094, among other things, amends Section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) to increase the monetary threshold for significance under that provision, amends Section 3(f)(4) to clarify what is significant under that provision, and encourages greater public participation during all stages of the regulatory process.
Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3821) supplements and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” August 4, 1999 (64 FR 43255), directs 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” as defined in the Order. Under the Order, an agency that is proposing a regulation with federalism implications, which either preempt State law or impose non-statutory unfunded substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments, must consult with State and local officials early in the process of developing the regulation. In addition, the agency must provide to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget a federalism summary impact statement for such a regulation, which consists of a description of the extent of the agency's prior consultation with State and local officials, a summary of their concerns and the agency's position supporting the need to issue the regulation, and a statement of the extent to which those concerns have been met. As part of this effort, agencies include in their submissions for the Unified Agenda information on whether their regulatory actions may have an effect on the various levels of government and whether those actions have federalism implications.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, title II) requires agencies to prepare written assessments of the costs and benefits of significant regulatory actions “that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any 1 year.” The requirement does not apply to independent regulatory agencies, nor does it apply to certain subject areas excluded by section 4 of the Act. Affected agencies identify in the Unified Agenda those regulatory actions they believe are subject to title II of the Act.
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” May 18, 2001 (66 FR 28355), directs agencies to provide, to the extent possible, information regarding the adverse effects that agency actions may have on the supply, distribution, and use of energy. Under the Order, the agency must prepare and submit a Statement of Energy Effects to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, for “those matters identified as significant energy actions.” As part of this effort, agencies may optionally include in their submissions for the Unified Agenda information on whether they have prepared or plan to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for their regulatory actions.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104-121, title II) established a procedure for congressional review of rules (5 U.S.C. 801
Agency regulatory flexibility agendas are printed in a single daily edition of the
The online, complete Unified Agenda contains the preambles of all participating agencies. Unlike the printed edition, the online Agenda has no fixed ordering. In the online Agenda, users can select the particular agencies' agendas they want to see. Users have broad flexibility to specify the characteristics of the entries of interest to them by choosing the desired responses to individual data fields. To see a listing of all of an agency's entries, a user can select the agency without specifying any particular characteristics of entries.
Each entry in the Agenda is associated with one of five rulemaking stages. The rulemaking stages are:
A bullet (•) preceding the title of an entry indicates that the entry is appearing in the Unified Agenda for the first time.
In the printed edition, all entries are numbered sequentially from the beginning to the end of the publication. The sequence number preceding the title of each entry identifies the location of the entry in this edition. The sequence number is used as the reference in the printed table of contents. Sequence numbers are not used in the online Unified Agenda because the unique Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is able to provide this cross-reference capability.
Editions of the Unified Agenda prior to fall 2007 contained several indexes, which identified entries with various characteristics. These included regulatory actions for which agencies believe that the Regulatory Flexibility Act may require a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, actions selected for periodic review under section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and actions that may have federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132 or other effects on levels of government. These indexes are no longer compiled, because users of the online Unified Agenda have the flexibility to search for entries with any combination of desired characteristics. The online edition retains the Unified Agenda's subject index based on the
All entries in the online Unified Agenda contain uniform data elements including, at a minimum, the following information:
On April 6, 2023, the President issued E.O. 14904 entitled “Modernizing Regulatory Review.” E.O 14904 amends Section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866 to increase the monetary threshold for significance under this provision from $100 million to $200 million in annual effects and directs that it be adjusted for GDP growth every three years. Given that the Spring Agenda was in development prior to the issuance of E.O. 14904, the Agenda largely uses the previous nomenclature of “economically significant” to indicate rulemaking actions expected to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, the threshold in E.O. 12866 prior to April 6, 2023. For rulemaking actions which were submitted for OIRA review after the issuance of the E.O. 14904 on April 6, 2023 and are expected to have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more, the term “Section 3(f)(1) Significant” is used and will continue to be used in future unified agendas. The amended definition of “Section 3(f)(1) Significant” under Executive Order 12866 is a rulemaking action that will “have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more (adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of OIRA for changes in gross domestic product); or will adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.”
A rulemaking that is not Economically Significant but is considered Significant by the agency. This category includes rules that the agency anticipates will be reviewed under Executive Order 12866, as amended, or rules that are a priority of the agency head. These rules may or may not be included in the agency's regulatory plan.
A rulemaking that has substantive impacts, but is neither Significant, nor Routine and Frequent, nor Informational/Administrative/Other.
A rulemaking that is a specific case of a multiple recurring application of a regulatory program in the Code of Federal Regulations and that does not alter the body of the regulation.
A rulemaking that is primarily informational or pertains to agency matters not central to accomplishing the agency's regulatory mandate but that the agency places in the Unified Agenda to inform the public of the activity.
Some agencies have provided the following optional information:
Alternatively, timely public comments may be submitted at the Governmentwide e-rulemaking site,
The following abbreviations appear throughout this publication:
Copies of the
Office of the Secretary, USDA.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
This agenda provides summary descriptions of significant and not significant regulations being developed in agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in conformance with Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” and 14094, “Modernizing Regulatory Review.” The agenda also describes regulations affecting small entities as required by section 602 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law 96-354. This agenda also identifies regulatory actions that are being reviewed in compliance with section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We invite public comment on those actions as well as any regulation consistent with Executive Order 13563.
USDA has attempted to list all regulations and regulatory reviews pending at the time of publication except for minor and routine or repetitive actions, but some may have been inadvertently missed. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this listing. Also, the dates shown for the steps of each action are estimated and are not commitments to act on or by the date shown.
USDA's complete regulatory agenda is available online at
(1) Rules that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
For further information on any specific entry shown in this agenda, please contact the person listed for that action. For general comments or inquiries about the agenda, please contact Mr. Michael Poe, Office of Budget and Program Analysis, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, (202) 769-8247.
Topics addressed in this rule include: Applicability of the regulations and exemptions from organic certification; National Organic Program Import Certificates; recordkeeping and product traceability; certifying agent personnel qualifications and training; standardized certificates of organic operation; unannounced on-site inspections of certified operations; oversight of certification activities; foreign conformity assessment systems; certification of grower group operations; labeling of nonretail containers; annual update requirements for certified operations; compliance and appeals processes; and calculating organic content of multi-ingredient products.
Maureen Lydon,
Maureen Lydon,
Maureen Lydon,
Maureen Lydon,
Maureen Lydon, Phone: 703 457-7713,
Office of the Secretary, Commerce.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
In compliance with Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, the Department of Commerce (Commerce), in the spring and fall of each year, publishes in the
The purpose of the Agenda is to provide information to the public on regulations that are currently under review, being proposed, or recently issued by Commerce. It is expected that this information will enable the public to participate more effectively in the Department's regulatory process.
Commerce's spring 2023 regulatory agenda includes regulatory activities that are expected to be conducted during the period June 1, 2023, through May 31, 2024.
Commerce hereby publishes its spring 2023 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions pursuant to Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
The internet is the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
In this edition of Commerce's regulatory agenda, a list of the most important significant regulatory and deregulatory actions and a Statement of Regulatory Priorities are included in the Regulatory Plan, which appears in both the online Unified Agenda and in part II of the issue of the
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the internet. In addition, for fall editions of the Agenda, Commerce's entire Regulatory Plan will continue to be printed in the
Within Commerce, the Office of the Secretary and various operating units may issue regulations.
Among these operating units, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Bureau of Industry and Security, and the Patent and Trademark Office issue the greatest share of Commerce's regulations.
A large number of regulatory actions reported in the Agenda deal with fishery management programs of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). To avoid repetition of programs and definitions, as well as to provide some understanding of the technical and institutional elements of NMFS' programs, an “Explanation of Information Contained in NMFS Regulatory Entries” is provided below.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Councils also recommend actions to NMFS deemed necessary or appropriate to implement FMPs. The proposed regulations, FMPs, and FMP amendments are subject to review and approval by NMFS, based on consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. The Council process for developing FMPs and amendments makes it difficult for NMFS to determine the significance and timing of some regulatory actions under consideration by the Councils at the time the semiannual regulatory agenda is published.
Commerce's spring 2023 regulatory agenda follows.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
This agenda announces the regulatory actions the Department of Defense (DoD) plans to take in the next 12 months and those regulatory actions completed since the publication of the fall 2022 Unified Agenda. It was developed under the guidelines of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” This agenda includes regulatory actions that support the Administration's regulatory priorities, the Secretary of Defense's top priorities to defend the Nation, take care of our people, and succeed through teamwork, as well as those priorities of the National Defense Strategy. These actions include efforts to promote the country's economic resilience; healthcare issues; support underserved communities and improve small business opportunities; promote competition in the American economy; promote diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in the Federal workforce; support national security efforts, especially safeguarding Federal Government information and information technology systems; tackle the climate crisis; and address military family matters. Members of the public may submit comments on individual proposed and interim final rulemakings at
This agenda updates the report published on February 22, 2023, and includes regulations expected to be issued and under review over the next 12 months. The next agenda will publish in the fall of 2023. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602), which requires agencies to publish its regulatory flexibility agendas in the
(1) rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Any rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Although printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's agenda requirements, additional information on these entries is in the Unified Agenda available online.
For information concerning the overall DoD regulatory program and for general semiannual agenda information, contact Ms. Patricia Toppings, telephone 571-372-0485, or write to Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Transparency, Regulatory Directorate, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, or email:
For questions of a legal nature concerning the agenda and its statutory requirements or obligations, write to Office of the General Counsel, 1600 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1600, telephone 703-695-1853, or email:
For general information on Office of the Secretary regulations, other than those which are procurement-related, contact Ms. Patricia Toppings, telephone 571-372-0485, or write to Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Transparency, Regulatory Directorate, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, or email:
For general information on Office of the Secretary regulations which are procurement-related, contact Ms. Jennifer Johnson, telephone 571-372-6100, or write to Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, Defense Pricing and Contracting, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060, or email:
For general information on Department of the Army regulations, contact Mr. James “Jay” Satterwhite, telephone 571-515-0304, or write to the U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, ATTN: AAHS-RDO, Building 1458, 9301 Chapek Road, Ft. Belvoir, VA, 22060-5605, or email:
For general information on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations, contact Ms. Stacey Jensen, telephone 703-459-6026, or write to Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), 108 Army Pentagon, Room 3E441, Washington, DC 20310-0108, or email:
For general information on Department of the Navy regulations, contact LCDR Abigail Holt, telephone 703-614-6005, or write to Department of the Navy, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Administrative Law Division (Code 13), Washington Navy Yard, 1322 Patterson Avenue SE, Suite 3000, Washington, DC 20374-5066, or email:
For general information on Department of the Air Force regulations, contact Mr. Robert Bivins, telephone 703-693-7302, or write the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, Chief, Information Dominance/Chief Information Officer (SAF CIO/A6), 1800 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1800, or email:
For specific agenda items, contact the appropriate individual indicated for each regulatory action.
This edition of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions reports on actions planned by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment for procurement-related actions, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
This agenda also identifies rules impacted by the:
a. Regulatory Flexibility Act.
b. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
c. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Generally, rules discussed in this agenda will contain five sections: (1) pre-rule stage; (2) proposed rule stage; (3) final rule stage; (4) completed actions; and (5) long-term actions. Where certain regulatory actions indicate that small entities are affected, the effect on these entities may not necessarily have significant economic impact on a substantial number of these entities as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).
The publishing of this agenda does not waive the applicability of the military affairs exemption in section 553 of title 5 U.S.C. and section 3 of Executive Order 12866.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Education.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
The Secretary of Education publishes a semiannual agenda of Federal regulatory and deregulatory actions. The agenda is issued under the authority of section 4(b) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” The purpose of the agenda is to encourage more effective public participation in the regulatory process by providing the public with early information about the regulatory actions we plan to take.
Questions or comments related to specific regulations listed in this agenda should be directed to the agency contact listed for the regulations. Other questions or comments on this agenda should be directed to LaTanya Cannady, Program Specialist, Levon Schlichter, Attorney, or Lynn Mahaffie, Assistant General Counsel, Division of Regulatory Services, Department of Education, Room 6C128, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202-2241; telephone: LaTanya Cannady (202) 401-9676, Levon Schlichter (202) 453-6387, or Lynn Mahaffie (202) 453-7862. Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
Section 4(b) of Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993, requires the Department of Education (ED) to publish, at a time and in a manner specified by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, an agenda of all regulations under development or review. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 602(a), requires ED to publish, in the Spring and Fall of each year, a regulatory flexibility agenda.
The regulatory flexibility agenda may be combined with any other agenda that satisfies the statutory requirements (5 U.S.C. 605(a)). In compliance with the Executive Order and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Secretary publishes this agenda.
For each set of regulations listed, the agenda provides the title of the document, the type of document, a citation to any rulemaking or other action taken since publication of the most recent agenda, and planned dates of future rulemaking. In addition, the agenda provides the following information:
• An abstract that includes a description of the problem to be addressed, any principal alternatives being considered, and potential costs and benefits of the action.
• An indication of whether the planned action is likely to have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601(6)).
• A reference to where a reader can find the current regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations.
• A citation of legal authority.
• The name, address, and telephone number of the contact person at ED from whom a reader can obtain additional information regarding the planned action.
In accordance with ED's Principles for Regulating listed in its regulatory plan (78 FR 1361, published January 8, 2013), ED is committed to regulations that improve the quality and equality of services it provides to its customers. ED will regulate only if absolutely necessary and then in the most flexible, most equitable, and least burdensome way possible.
Interested members of the public are invited to comment on any of the items listed in this agenda that they believe are not consistent with the Principles for Regulating. Members of the public are also invited to comment on any uncompleted actions in this agenda that ED plans to review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 610) to determine their economic impact on small entities.
This publication does not impose any binding obligation on ED with regard to any specific item in the agenda. ED may elect not to pursue any of the regulatory actions listed here. Dates of future regulatory actions are subject to revision in subsequent agendas.
Department of Energy.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared and is making available its portion of the semi-annual Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Agenda) pursuant to Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The Agenda is a government-wide compilation of upcoming and ongoing regulatory activity, including a brief description of each rulemaking and a timetable for action. The Agenda also includes a list of regulatory actions completed since publication of the last Agenda. The Department of Energy's portion of the Agenda includes regulatory actions called for by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, and programmatic needs of DOE offices.
The internet is the basic means for disseminating the Agenda and providing users the ability to obtain information from the Agenda database. DOE's Spring 2023 Agenda can be accessed online by going to
DOE's regulatory flexibility agenda is made up of rulemakings setting energy efficiency standards and requirements applicable to DOE sites.
In the notice of proposed rulemaking, DOE proposed standards that represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in the significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regards to technological feasibility products achieving these standard levels are already commercially available for all product classes covered by this proposal. As for economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that the benefits of the proposed standard exceed, to a great extent, the burdens of the proposed standards.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 require the semiannual issuance of an inventory of rulemaking actions under development throughout the Department, offering for public review summarized information about forthcoming regulatory actions.
Elizabeth J. Gramling, Executive Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201; (202) 690-5627.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the Federal government's lead agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services. HHS enhances the health and well-being of Americans by promoting effective health and human services and by fostering sound, sustained advances in the sciences underlying medicine, public health, and social services.
This Agenda presents the regulatory activities that the Department expects to undertake in the foreseeable future to advance this mission. The purpose of the Agenda is to encourage more effective public participation in the regulatory process. The regulatory actions forecasted in this Agenda reflect the priorities of HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra and the Biden-Harris Administration. Accordingly, this Agenda contains rulemakings aimed at tackling the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, building and expanding access to affordable, quality health care, addressing health disparities and promoting equity, and boosting the mental health and wellbeing of children and families, among other policy priorities.
The rulemaking abstracts included in this paper issue of the
In response to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, which removed the requirement to obtain a waiver in order to prescribe certain schedule III-V medications for the treatment of OUD, SAMHSA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking on Feb. 13, 2023, (88 FR 9221) calling for additional public comment on SAMHSA's plans to remove reference to the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (
Laura Chilaka, Regulatory Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Tobacco Products, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Document Control Center, Building 71, Room G335, Silver Spring, MD 20993,
Cost estimates of the rule include reading and understanding the rule, registering as a commercial importer through the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) electronic importer registration system, annual updating of registration, establishing a quality management system, conducting risk evaluations of drugs and suppliers, shipment verifications, investigations, corrective actions, and records maintenance.
The unquantified benefits of the proposed rule include improvement in the safety of finished drugs allowed to enter the United States from the commercial drug importer's requirement to register with FDA and for increased due diligence required by the importer regarding the safety of the drugs. There would also be cost savings to both FDA and industry from facilitating the review of documentation that ensures compliance with our regulations prior to being allowed to enter the United States. This proposed rulemaking will also enhance FDA's ability to collect and analyze data to enable risk-informed decision-making while focusing on protecting the integrity of the global drug supply chain and ensuring safety, effectiveness, and quality of imported drugs.
Office of the Secretary, DHS.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
This regulatory agenda is a semiannual summary of projected regulations, existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its components. This agenda provides the public with information about DHS's regulatory and deregulatory activity. DHS expects that this information will enable the public to be more aware of, and effectively participate in, the Department's regulatory and deregulatory activity. DHS invites the public to submit comments on any aspect of this agenda.
Please direct general comments and inquiries on the agenda to the Regulatory Affairs Law Division, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2707 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, Mail Stop 0485, Washington, DC 20528-0485.
Please direct specific comments and inquiries on individual actions identified in this agenda to the individual listed in the summary portion as the point of contact for that action.
DHS provides this notice pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, Sept. 19, 1980) and Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review” (Sept. 30, 1993) as incorporated in Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (Jan. 18, 2011), which require the Department to publish a semiannual agenda of regulations. The regulatory agenda is a summary of existing and projected regulations as well as actions completed since the publication of the last regulatory agenda for the Department. DHS's last semiannual regulatory agenda was published online on January 4, 2023, at
Beginning in fall 2007, the internet became the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602) requires Federal agencies to publish their regulatory flexibility agendas in the
The semiannual agenda of the Department conforms to the Unified Agenda format developed by the Regulatory Information Service Center.
Nancy Harvey, Policy Analyst, Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Room 3636-15, 301 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20528,
James Ruger, Chief Economist, Economic Analysis Branch-Coordination & Analysis Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Policy, Plans, and Engagement, 6595 Springfield Center Drive, Springfield, VA 20598-6028,
Christine Beyer, Senior Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Chief Counsel's Office, 6595 Springfield Center Drive, Springfield, VA 20598-6002,
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
This notice provides the semiannual agenda of Department of the Interior (Department) rules scheduled for review or development between spring 2023 and spring 2024. The Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866 require publication of the agenda.
Unless otherwise indicated, all agency contacts are located at the Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240.
Please direct all comments and inquiries about these rules to the appropriate agency contact. Please direct general comments relating to the agenda to the Office of Executive Secretariat and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, at the address above or at (202) 513-0357.
With this publication, the Department satisfies the requirement of Executive Order 12866 that the Department publish an agenda of rules that we have issued or expect to issue and of currently effective rules that we have scheduled for review.
Simultaneously, the Department meets the requirement of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
In some cases, the Department has withdrawn rules that were placed on previous agendas for which there has been no publication activity or for which a proposed or interim rule was published. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this agenda. Withdrawal of a rule does not necessarily mean that the Department will not proceed with the rulemaking. Withdrawal allows the Department to assess the action further and determine whether rulemaking is appropriate. Following such an assessment, the Department may determine that certain rules listed as withdrawn under this agenda are appropriate for promulgation.
This rule rests within 43 CFR 6000, which includes Conservation and Preservation, and would provide an overarching framework governing multiple resource areas to ensure land health and sustained yield. This rule will affirm existing policy direction for restoration and conservation actions in building and maintaining sustainable land management practices to ensure healthy and productive ecosystems for current and future generations.
Department of Justice.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
The Department of Justice is publishing its spring 2023 regulatory agenda pursuant to Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 to 612 (1988).
Robert Hinchman, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy, Department of Justice, Room 4252, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530, (202) 514-8059.
Beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the internet has been the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Because publication in the
Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and any rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the internet.
Office of the Secretary, Labor.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
The internet has become the means for disseminating the entirety of the Department of Labor's semiannual regulatory agenda. However, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires publication of a regulatory flexibility agenda in the
Albert T. Herrera, Director, Office of Regulatory and Programmatic Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room S-2312, Washington, DC 20210; (202) 693-5959.
Information pertaining to a specific regulation can be obtained from the agency contact listed for that particular regulation.
Executive Order 12866 requires the semiannual publication of an agenda of regulations that contains a listing of all the regulations the Department of Labor expects to have under active consideration for promulgation, proposal, or review during the coming one-year period. The entirety of the Department's semiannual agenda is available online at
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602) requires DOL to publish in the
All interested members of the public are invited and encouraged to let departmental officials know how our regulatory efforts can be improved and are invited to participate in and comment on the review or development of the regulations listed on the Department's agenda.
The Department has identified a need to strengthen and clarify protections for all temporary agricultural workers, including U.S. workers and workers employed through the H-2A temporary agricultural program. The H-2A temporary agricultural program allows agricultural employers to perform agricultural labor or services of a temporary or seasonal nature so long as there are not sufficient able, willing, and qualified U.S. workers to perform the work and the employment of H-2A workers does not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed workers in the United States. The use of the H-2A program has grown substantially in recent years and the Department is committed to protecting agricultural workers in light of their significant vulnerabilities.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation.
Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Regulatory Agenda).
The Regulatory Agenda is a semiannual summary of all current and projected rulemakings, reviews of existing regulations, and completed rulemaking actions of the Department of Transportation (DOT). The Regulatory Agenda provides the public with information about DOT's planned regulatory activity for the next 12 months. This information enables the public to participate in the Department's regulatory process. The public is encouraged to submit comments on any aspect of this Regulatory Agenda.
Please direct all general comments and inquiries on the Regulatory Agenda to Daniel Cohen, Assistant General Counsel for Regulation, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366-4702. Please direct all comments and inquiries relative to specific items in the Regulatory Agenda to the individual listed in the summary of each regulation.
To obtain a copy of a specific regulatory document in the Regulatory Agenda, you should communicate directly with the contact person listed with the regulation. We note that most such documents, including the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, are available through the internet at
The Department is publishing this Regulatory Agenda in the
DOT's Regulatory Agenda is intended primarily for the use of the public. Since its inception, the Department has made modifications and refinements that provide the public with more helpful information, as well as making the Regulatory Agenda easier to use. We would like you, the public, to make suggestions or comments on how the Regulatory Agenda could be further improved.
The Department has long recognized the importance of regularly reviewing its existing regulations to determine whether they need to be revised or revoked. Our Regulatory Policies and Procedures require such reviews. DOT also has responsibilities under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 76 FR 3821 (January 18, 2011) to conduct such reviews. We are committed to continuing our reviews of existing rules and, if it is needed, will initiate rulemaking actions based on these reviews. Generally, each DOT operating administration divides its rules into 10 different groups and plans to analyze one group each year. In each Fall Regulatory Agenda, each operating administration will publish the results of the analyses it has completed during the previous year. The most recent results appeared in the Department's 2022 Fall Regulatory Agenda Preamble, which was published in the
Executive Orders 13132 and 13175 require the Department to develop a process to ensure “meaningful and timely input” by State, local, and Tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism or tribal implications. These policies are defined in the Executive orders to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects” on States or Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and them, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and various levels of Government or Indian tribes. Therefore, we encourage State and local Governments or Indian Tribes to provide us with information about how the Department's rulemakings impact them.
Department of the Treasury.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
This notice is given pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), which require the publication by the Department of a semiannual agenda of regulations.
The Agency contact identified in the item relating to that regulation.
The semiannual regulatory agenda includes regulations that the Department has issued or expects to issue and rules currently in effect that are under departmental or bureau review.
Beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the internet has been the primary medium for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
(1) Rules that are in the regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that have been identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda available on the internet.
The semiannual agenda of the Department of the Treasury conforms to the Unified Agenda format developed by the Regulatory Information Service Center (RISC).
The third required rulemaking will revise the customer due diligence (CDD) requirements for financial institutions. FinCEN previously issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) entitled Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirements on April 5, 2021, that solicited comments on a wide range of questions that concerned all three rulemakings. FinCEN also previously issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with the same title on December 8, 2021 (BOI Reporting NPRM) that addressed only the first of the three rulemakings, but the comments FinCEN received related to all three subjects. This rule reflects FinCEN's consideration of public comments that have been received in response to the ANPRM and BOI Reporting NPRM, as well as to the NPRM for Beneficial Ownership Information Access and Safeguards.
This is not a new requirement; it replaces RINs 1506-AB24 and 1506-AB29.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes the Semiannual Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions online at
• Regulations in the Semiannual Agenda that are under development, completed, or canceled since the last agenda; and
• Reviews of regulations with small business impacts under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
If you have questions or comments about a particular action, please get in touch with the agency contact listed in each agenda entry. If you have general questions about the Semiannual Agenda, please contact: Caryn Muellerleile (
EPA is committed to a regulatory strategy that effectively achieves the Agency's mission of protecting human health and the environment. EPA publishes the Semiannual Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions to update the public about regulatory activity undertaken in support of this mission. In the Semiannual Agenda, EPA provides notice of our plans to review, propose, and issue regulations. EPA is committed to environmental protection that benefits all communities and encourages public participation and meaningful engagement in our regulatory activities and processes.
Additionally, EPA's Semiannual Agenda includes information about rules that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and review of those regulations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended.
In this document, EPA explains in greater detail the types of actions and information available in the Semiannual Agenda and actions that are currently undergoing review specifically for impacts on small entities.
“E-Agenda,” “online regulatory agenda,” and “semiannual regulatory agenda” all refer to the same comprehensive collection of information that, until 2007, was published in the
“Regulatory Flexibility Agenda” refers to a document that contains information about the subset of regulations that may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. We continue to publish this document in the
“Unified Regulatory Agenda” refers to the collection of all agencies' agendas with an introduction prepared by the Regulatory Information Service Center facilitated by the U.S. General Services Administration.
“Regulatory Agenda Preamble” refers to the document you are reading now. It appears as part of the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda and introduces both EPA's Regulatory Flexibility Agenda and the e-Agenda.
“Section 610 Review” as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act means a periodic review within ten years of promulgating a final rule that has or may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA maintains a list of these actions at
Several environmental laws authorize EPA's actions, including but not limited to:
• American Innovation and Manufacturing Act (AIM)
• Clean Air Act (CAA),
• Clean Water Act (CWA),
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund),
• Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA),
• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
• Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and
• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
EPA must comply not only with environmental and other statutes, but also with administrative legal requirements that apply to the issuance of regulations, such as the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA), and the Congressional Review Act (CRA).
EPA also meets a number of requirements contained in numerous Executive Orders: 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), supplemented by Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011) and amended by Executive Order 14094, “Modernizing Regulatory Review” (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023); 12898, “Environmental Justice” (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) and 14096, “Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All” (88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023); 13045, “Children's Health Protection” (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997); 13132, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999); 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, Nov. 9, 2000); and 13211, “Actions Concerning
You can make your voice heard by getting in touch with the contact person provided in each agenda entry. EPA encourages you to participate as early in the process as possible. You may also participate by commenting on proposed rules published in the
Instructions on how to submit your comments through
EPA believes its actions will be more cost effective and protective if the development process includes stakeholders working with us to help identify the most practical and effective solutions to environmental problems. EPA encourages you to become involved in its rule- and policymaking processes. For more information about EPA's efforts to increase transparency, participation, and collaboration in EPA activities, please visit
EPA includes regulations in the e-Agenda. However, there is no legal significance to the omission of an item from the agenda, and EPA generally does not include the following categories of actions:
• Administrative actions such as delegations of authority, changes of address, or phone numbers.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Meanwhile, the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda includes:
• Actions likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
• Rules the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the RFA.
EPA is initiating one review under section 610 of the RFA in this Agenda for the 2014 rulemaking “Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards.”
You can choose how to sort the agenda entries on-line by specifying the characteristics of the entries of interest in the desired individual data fields of the e-Agenda at
Each entry in the Agenda is associated with one of five rulemaking stages. The rulemaking stages are:
1. Pre-rule Stage—EPA's pre-rule actions are generally intended to determine whether the agency should initiate rulemaking. Pre-rulemakings may include anything that influences or leads to rulemaking; this would include Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs) or analyses of the possible need for regulatory action.
2. Proposed Rule Stage—Proposed rulemaking actions include EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemakings (NPRMs); these proposals are scheduled to publish in the
3. Final Rule Stage—Final rulemaking actions are those actions that EPA is scheduled to finalize and publish in the
4. Long-Term Actions—This section includes rulemakings for which the next scheduled regulatory action (such as publication of a NPRM or final rule) is twelve or more months into the future. We encourage you to explore becoming involved even if an action is listed in the Long-Term category.
5. Completed Actions—EPA's completed actions are those that have been promulgated and published in the
The Regulatory Flexibility Agenda entries include only the nine categories of information that are required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and by
E-Agenda entries include:
a. Significant under 3(f)(1): Under Executive Order 12866, as amended, a rulemaking that may have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or tribal governments or communities.
b. Other Significant: A rulemaking that is not economically significant but is considered significant for other reasons. This category includes rules that may:
1. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.
2. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
3. Raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would meaningfully further the President's priorities, or the principles in Executive Order 12866.
c. Substantive, Nonsignificant: A rulemaking that has substantive impacts but is not Significant, Routine and Frequent, or Informational/Administrative/Other.
d. Routine and Frequent: A rulemaking that is a specific case of a recurring application of a regulatory program in the Code of Federal Regulations. If an action that would normally be classified Routine and Frequent is reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866, then we would classify the action as either “Economically Significant” or “Other Significant.”
e. Informational/Administrative/Other: An action that is primarily informational or pertains to an action outside the scope of Executive Order 12866.
The
Some actions listed in the Agenda include a URL for an EPA-maintained website that provides additional information about the action.
When EPA publishes either an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) or a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Section 610 of the RFA requires that an agency review each rule that has or will have a significant economic impact
For each of EPA's rulemakings, consideration is given to whether there will be any adverse impact on any small entity. EPA attempts to fit the regulatory requirements, to the extent feasible, to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to the regulation.
Under the RFA as amended by SBREFA, the Agency must prepare a formal analysis of the potential negative impacts on small entities, convene a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (proposed rule stage), and prepare a Small Entity Compliance Guide (final rule stage) unless the Agency certifies a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For more detailed and current information about the Agency's policy and practice with respect to implementing the RFA/SBREFA, including ongoing Small Business Advocacy Review Panels, please visit EPA's RFA/SBREFA website at
We would like to thank those of you who choose to join with us in making progress on the complex issues involved in protecting human health and the environment through engaging in our rulemaking process. Collaborative efforts such as EPA's open rulemaking processes are valuable tools for implementing our legal requirements in order to address environmental and public health challenges. Our regulatory agenda and your engagement play an important role in that process.
Steve Fruh, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, E143-01, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Steve Fruh, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code E143-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, NC 27711,
David Turk, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code
Joel Wolf, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 7404M, Washington, DC 20460,
Joel Wolf, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 7404M, Washington, DC 20460,
Joel Wolf, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 7404M, Washington, DC 20460,
Joel Wolf, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 7404M, Washington, DC 20460,
Clara Hull, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 7404M, Washington, DC 20460,
Ana Corado, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 7404M, Washington, DC 20460,
David Turk, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 7406M, Washington, DC 20460,
General Services Administration (GSA).
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
This agenda announces the proposed regulatory actions that GSA plans for the next 12 months and those that were completed since the fall 2022 edition. This agenda was developed under the guidelines of Executive Orders 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” GSA's purpose in publishing this agenda is to allow interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. GSA also invites interested persons to recommend existing significant regulations for review to determine whether they should be modified or eliminated. The public may provide comments on rules via
The Unified Agenda, including previous versions, are available at
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Any rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda. In addition, for fall editions of the Agenda, the entire Regulatory Plan will continue to be printed in the
Lois Mandell, Division Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division, 1800 F Street NW, 7th Floor, Washington, DC 20405-0001, 202-501-2735 or by email at
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
Timetable:
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
This semiannual Regulatory Agenda (Agenda) is a summary of current and projected rulemakings and completed actions of the Small Business Administration (SBA). This summary information is intended to enable the public to be more aware of, and effectively participate in, SBA's regulatory activities. Accordingly, SBA invites the public to submit comments on any aspect of this Agenda.
Please direct general comments or inquiries to Lindsey K. McCready, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416; (202) 401-2996;
Please direct specific comments and inquiries on individual regulatory activities identified in this Agenda to the individual listed in the summary of the regulation as the point of contact for that regulation.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires SBA to publish in the
In addition, SBA intends to adjust other monetary thresholds in its regulations that are otherwise not adjusted for inflation under FAR 1.109. These thresholds primarily are those used in the 8(a) Business Development and the Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business (EDWOSB) programs to determine economic disadvantage. Others are used to maintain eligibility for the 8(a) program. In some cases, these thresholds have not been adjusted for 25 years. This action will permit small businesses to retain eligibility as economically disadvantaged and eligible for the 8(a) program, despite an increase in inflation.
SBA will publicize the rule via the Small Business Procurement Advisory Council, the Integrated Acquisition Environment, fbo.gov, press releases, publication of this rule in the
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
This agenda provides summary descriptions of regulations being developed by the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council in compliance with Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This agenda is being published to allow interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. The Regulatory Secretariat Division has attempted to list all regulations pending at the time of publication, except for minor and routine or repetitive actions; however, unanticipated requirements may result in the issuance of regulations that are not included in this agenda. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this listing. Also, the dates shown for the steps of each action are estimated and are not commitments to act on or by the dates shown.
Published proposed rules may be reviewed in their entirety at the Government's rulemaking website at
Lois Mandell, Division Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division, 1800 F Street NW, 7th Floor, Washington, DC 20405-0001, 202-501-4755 or by email at
DoD, GSA, and NASA, under their several statutory authorities, jointly issue and maintain the FAR through periodic issuance of changes published in the
The electronic version of the FAR, including changes, can be accessed on the FAR website at
The Government uses suspension and debarment procedures to exercise business judgment. These procedures give Federal officials a discretionary means to exclude parties from participation in certain transactions, while affording those parties due process.
Additionally this rule will implement section 868 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Pub. L. 116-283) as implemented in SBA's final rule published on July 22, 2022 (87 FR 43731). Section 868 provided two methods for small businesses to obtain past performance: (1) a small business may use the past performance of a joint venture of which it is a member, provided the small business worked on the joint venture's contract(s), and (2) a small business may use past performance it obtained as a first-tier subcontractor from a prime contractor when specifically identified under a subcontracting plan for the contract. This rule promotes equity in Federal procurement.
Generally, this rule will clarify matters related to the limitations on subcontracting for small businesses. Changes will be made in areas such as: exclusions of other direct costs from the limitations on subcontracting for services; the application of the limitations on subcontracting to similarly situated entities, the application of the nonmanufacturer rule to kit assemblers; and the application of the limitations on subcontracting to construction contracts that also contain supplies and or services.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is publishing this agenda as part of the Spring 2023 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The CFPB reasonably anticipates having the regulatory matters identified below under consideration during the period from June 1, 2023 to May 31, 2024. The next agenda will be published in Fall 2023 and will update this agenda through Fall 2024. Publication of this agenda is in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This information is current as of March 22, 2023.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20552.
A staff contact is included for each regulatory item listed herein. If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please contact
The CFPB is publishing its Spring 2023 Agenda as part of the Spring 2023 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866. The agenda lists the regulatory matters that the CFPB reasonably anticipates, as of March 22, 2023, that it will have under consideration during the period from June 1, 2023, to May 31, 2024, as described further below.
Consistent with procedures established by OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
In this document, the Commission publishes its semiannual regulatory flexibility agenda. In addition, this document includes an agenda of regulations that the Commission expects to develop or review during the next 12 months. This document meets the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866.
The Commission welcomes comments on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries. Submit comments to the Office of the Secretary on or before August 28, 2023.
Caption comments on the regulatory agenda, “Regulatory Flexibility Agenda.” You can submit comments by email to:
For further information on the agenda, in general, contact David M. DiMatteo, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814-4408,
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601-612) contains several provisions intended to reduce unnecessary and disproportionate regulatory requirements on small businesses, small governmental organizations, and other small entities. Section 602 of the RFA requires each agency to publish, twice a year, a regulatory flexibility agenda containing “a brief description of the subject area of any rule which the agency expects to propose or promulgate which is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 602. The agency must provide a summary of the nature of the rule, the objectives and legal basis for the rule, and an approximate schedule for acting on each rule for which the agency has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking.
In addition, Executive Order 12866,
The agenda contains a brief description and summary of each regulatory activity, including the objectives and legal basis for each; an approximate schedule of target dates, subject to revision, for developing or completing each activity; and the name and telephone number of an agency official who is knowledgeable about items in the agenda.
The internet is the primary means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at:
Because agencies must publish in the
(1) rules that are in the agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the RFA, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) rules that the agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the RFA.
The entries in the Commission's printed agenda are limited to fields that contain information that the RFA requires in an agenda. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the internet.
The agenda reflects the Commission's assessment of the likelihood that the specified event will occur during the next year; the precise dates for each rulemaking are uncertain. New information, changes of circumstances, or changes in the law, may alter anticipated timing. In addition, this agenda does not represent a final determination by the Commission or its staff regarding the need for, or the substance of, any rule or regulation.
Federal Communications Commission.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
Twice a year, in spring and fall, the Commission publishes in the
Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Andrea Brown, Program Specialist, Office of Communications Business Opportunities, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-1663.
The Commission encourages public participation in its rulemaking process. To help keep the public informed of significant rulemaking proceedings, the Commission has prepared a list of important proceedings now in progress. The General Services Administration publishes the Unified Agenda in the
The following terms may be helpful in understanding the status of the proceedings included in this report:
Jerusha Burnett, Attorney Advisor, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554,
The Spectrum Act requires that the BIA consist of a reverse auction “to determine the amount of compensation that each broadcast television licensee would accept in return for voluntarily relinquishing some or all of its spectrum usage rights” and a forward auction of licenses in the reallocated spectrum for flexible-use services, including mobile broadband. Broadcast television licensees who elected to voluntarily participate in the auction had three bidding options: go off-the-air, share spectrum with another broadcast television licensee, or move channels to the upper or lower VHS band in exchange for receiving part of the proceeds from auctioning that spectrum to wireless providers. The Spectrum Act also authorized the Commission to reorganize the 600 MHz band following the BIA including, as necessary, reassigning full power and Class A television stations to new channels in order to clear the spectrum sold in the BIA. That post-auction reorganization (known as the repack) is currently underway and all of the stations who were assigned new channels are scheduled to have vacated their pre-auction channels by July 3, 2020, pursuant to a 10-phase transition schedule adopted by the Commission.
In May 2014, the Commission adopted a Report and Order that laid out the general framework for the BIA. The auction started on March 29, 2016, with the submission of initial commitments by eligible broadcast licensees. The BIA ended on April 13, 2017, with the release of the Auction Closing and Channel Reassignment Public Notice that also marked the start of the 39-month transition period during which 987 of the full power and Class A television stations remaining on-the-air will transition their stations to their post-auction channel assignments in the reorganized television band. Pursuant to the Spectrum Act, the Commission will reimburse 957 of those full power and Class A stations for the reasonable costs associated with relocating to their post-auction channel assignments and will reimburse multichannel video programming distributors for their costs associated with continuing to carry the signals of those stations.
In March 2018, the Consolidated Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 115-141, at Div. E, Title V, 511, 132 Stat. 348 (2018), codified at 47 U.S.C. 1452(j)-(n)) (the Reimbursement Expansion Act or REA), extended the deadline for reimbursement of eligible entities from April 2020 to no later than July 3, 2023, and also expanded the universe of entities eligible for reimbursement to include low-power television stations and TV translator stations displaced by the BIA for their reasonably incurred costs to relocate to a new channel, and FM broadcast stations for their reasonably incurred costs for facilities necessary to reasonably minimize disruption of service as a result of the post-auction reorganization of the television band. On March 15, 2019, the Commission adopted a Report and Order setting rules for the reimbursement of eligible costs to those newly eligible entities.
On March 23, 2020, the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability Act (Broadband DATA Act) was signed into law requiring the Commission to create a new set of broadband availability maps. Among other things, the Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission to collect standardized, granular data on the availability and quality of both fixed and mobile broadband internet access services, to create a common dataset of all locations where fixed broadband internet access service can be installed (the Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric or Fabric), and to create publicly available coverage maps. The Act further requires the Commission to establish processes for members of the public and other entities to (1) provide verified data for use in the coverage maps; (2) challenge the coverage maps, the broadband availability data submitted by broadband internet access service providers (providers), and the Fabric; and (3) submit specific crowdsource information about the development and availability of broadband service.
In July 2020, implementing the Broadband DATA Act and building off of an August 2019 Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission adopted a Second Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that adopted rules for the collection and verification of improved, more precise data on both fixed and mobile broadband availability. In January 2021, the Commission released a Third Report and Order that established new requirements for the BDC and took additional steps to implement the Broadband DATA Act. The Commission adopted rules to specify which fixed and mobile providers are required to report broadband availability data and expanded the reporting and certification requirements for filing data in the BDC. It also adopted standards for collecting verified broadband data from State, local, and Tribal entities and certain third parties, and for identifying locations that would be included in the Fabric. Importantly, in the Third Report and Order, the Commission also established processes for verifying the accuracy of provider-submitted data and the Fabric, including a third party challenge process.
Implementing the Broadband DATA Act and these new rules, the Commission created a complex data platform and system to collect and map availability data collected from over 2500 providers and for consumers and other stakeholders to submit challenges to that data; established the Fabric dataset of locations upon which to overlay provider availability data; and
In July 2021, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA), and Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) released a Public Notice seeking comment on the technical requirements for the mobile challenge, verification, and crowdsourcing processes required under the Broadband DATA Act for the new Broadband Data Collection (BDC). In March 2022, the Broadband Data Task Force (Task Force), WTB, OEA, and OET released a detailed order, technical appendix, rules, and technical data specifications setting forth technical requirements and specifications for the mobile challenge, verification, and crowdsource processes required by the Act.
To help facilitate the mobile challenge process, in April 2022, the Task Force and OET issued a Public Notice announcing the technical requirements and procedures for approving third-party mobile speed test procedures for use in collecting and submitting mobile network performance data as part of the BDC. To assist entities that choose to file mobile challenges in bulk, in September 2022 the Task Force and WTB established a process for entities to use their own software and hardware to collect on-the-ground mobile speed test data for use in the BDC mobile challenge process.
Also in April 2022, the Task Force, WCB, WTB, OEA, and OET released a Public Notice providing details on the procedures for state, local, and Tribal governmental entities to submit verified availability data through the BDC system.
Seeking to clarify the Commission's rules for filing data in the BDC, in July 2022 WCB, WTB, OEA, and the Task Force issued a Declaratory Ruling on certain aspects of a rule regarding the engineering certification in BDC filings and issued a limited waiver of the requirement that providers have an engineer certification their biannual BDC filings for the first three filing cycles of the BDC.
On June 15, 2022, the FCC Enforcement Bureau issued an Enforcement Advisory reminding all facilities-based providers of their duty to timely file complete and accurate data in the BDC by September 1, 2022.
In February 2022, the Commission announced the opening of the initial filing window of the BDC would open on June 30, 2022, and was due no later than September 1, 2022. In December 2022, the Commission announced that the second filing window of the BDC would open on January 3, 2023, and required all fixed and mobile providers to submit broadband availability data as of December 31, 2022, and was due no later than March 1, 2023.
In November 2022, the Commission released a pre-production draft of its new National Broadband Map based on version 1 of the Fabric and the availability data submitted by providers as of June 30, 2022. The new map is the most comprehensive, granular, and standardized data the Commission has ever published on broadband availability.
The Commission adopted an Order in December 2022, to sunset the Form 477 broadband deployment data collection and eliminate a largely duplicative requirement on providers. As a result, providers will no longer be required to submit Form 477 broadband deployment data, but must still submit broadband and voice subscription data using the FCC Form 477; those filers will submit their data through the BDC system.
In the Further Notice, the Commission addresses issues remaining to finalize the restructuring of the 5.9 GHz band. Specifically, the Commission addresses: The transition of ITS operations in the 5.895-5.925 GHz band from Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) based technology to Cellular Vehicle-to-Everything (C-V2X) based technology; the codification of C-V2X technical parameters in the Commission's rules; other transition considerations; and the transmitter power and emissions limits, and other issues, related to full-power outdoor unlicensed operations across the entire 5.850-5.895 GHz portion of the 5.9 GHz band. The Commission modified the Further Notice released on November 20, 2020, with an Erratum released on December 11, 2020. The Commission released a Second Erratum on February 9, 2021. The corrections from these errata are included in this document.
Thomas Struble, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554,
The NPRM proposes changes to improve disclosure of debris mitigation plans. The NPRM also makes proposals and seeks comment related to satellite disposal reliability and methodology, appropriate deployment altitudes in low-Earth-orbit, and on-orbit lifetime, with a particular focus on large NGSO satellite constellations. Other aspects of the NPRM include new rule proposals for geostationary orbit satellite (GSO) license term extension requests, and consideration of disclosure requirements related to several emerging technologies and new types of commercial operations, including rendezvous and proximity operations.
The Report and Order in this proceeding adopted a number of these proposals. In addition a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking sought comment on topics such as collision risk and casualty risk for multi-satellite systems, de-orbit timelines, maneuverability requirements, and indemnification and post mission disposal bond issues. The Commission issued a Second Report and Order adopting a 5-year de-orbit timeframe for satellites ending their missions in or passing through the low-Earth Orbit region.
Sean O'More, Attorney Advisor, International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554,
Brendan Holland, Chief, Industry Analysis Division, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554,
In the 2nd R&O, the Commission provided additional guidance to broadcasters deploying Next Gen TV.
In 2021, the Commission made a technical modification to the rules governing the use of a distribution transmission system by a television station to account for deployment of ATSC 3.0. Further, the Commission released an FNPRM that sought comment on rule changes designed to preserve over-the-air viewers access to the widest possible range of television programming. The 3rd FNPRM sought comment on the state of the Next Gen TV transition.
Brendan Holland, Chief, Industry Analysis Division, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554,
Brendan Holland, Chief, Industry Analysis Division, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554,
In March 2020, the Commission adopted a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in PS Docket No. 15-80 that proposed a framework to provide state and federal agencies with access to outage information to improve their situational awareness while preserving the confidentiality of this data, including proposals to: provide direct, read-only access to NORS and DIRS filings to qualified agencies of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Tribal nations, territories, and federal government; allow these agencies to share NORS and DIRS information with other public safety officials that reasonably require NORS and DIRS information to prepare for and respond to disasters; allow participating agencies to publicly disclose NORS or DIRS filing information that is aggregated and anonymized across at least four service providers; condition a participating agency's direct access to NORS and DIRS filings on their agreement to treat the filings as confidential and not disclose them absent a finding by the Commission that allows them to do so; and establish an application process that would grant agencies access to NORS and DIRS after those agencies certify to certain requirements related to maintaining confidentiality of the data and the security of the databases. In March 2021, the Commission adopted the proposed information sharing framework with some modifications in a Second Report and Order. In April 2021, in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission proposed to codify a rule adopted in 2016 that exempts satellite and terrestrial wireless providers from reporting outages that potentially affect special offices and facilities, as defined in Commission rules. This proceeding addresses the Commission's efforts to improve the utility of its efforts to track network outages and disruptions and does not promote the administration's specified priorities.
In May 2021, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) filed a Petition for Reconsideration (PFR) requesting that the Commission reconsider its decision in the Second Report and Order to maintain the presumption of confidentiality applied to NORS and DIRS filings. The Commission sought comment on the PFR's requests.
Saswat Misra, Attorney-Advisor, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554,
In May 2016, the Commission released a Report and Order, FNPRM, and Order on Reconsideration (see Dockets 11-82 and 15-80). The Order on Reconsideration addressed outage reporting for events at airports, and the FNPRM sought comment on database sharing. The Commission received comments and replies in August and September 2016.
Saswat Misra, Attorney-Advisor, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554,
Saswat Misra, Attorney-Advisor, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554,
Jaclyn Rosen, Federal Communications Commission, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554,
In the Second Report and Order, the Commission takes further steps to facilitate the deployment and viability of technological solutions used to combat contraband wireless devices in correctional facilities. The Second Report and Order adopts a framework requiring the disabling of contraband wireless devices detected in correctional facilities upon satisfaction of certain criteria, and the Commission addresses issues involving oversight, wireless provider liability, and treatment of 911 calls. The Second Report and Order further adopts rules requiring advance notice of certain wireless provider network changes to promote and maintain contraband interdiction system effectiveness. In the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission takes further steps to facilitate the deployment and viability of technological solutions used to combat contraband wireless devices in correctional facilities. The Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks further comment on the relative effectiveness, viability, and cost of additional technological solutions to combat contraband phone use in correctional facilities previously identified in the record.
The Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order addressed several Petitions for Reconsideration submitted in response to the Report and Order and resolved the outstanding issues raised in the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
The 2017 NPRM sought comment on limited changes to the rules governing Priority Access Licenses in the band, adjacent channel emissions limits, and public release of base station registration information.
The 2018 Report and Order addressed the issues raised in the 2017 NPRM and implemented changes rules governing
On July 2020, the Commission commenced an auction of Priority Access Licenses in the band. “Winning bidders were announced on September 2, 2020”.
Georgios Leris, Federal Communications Commission, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554,
In 2016, the Commission issued a Report and Order extending the separations freeze for an additional 18 months until January 1, 2018. In 2017, the Joint Board issued a Recommended Decision recommending changes to the part 36 rules designed to harmonize them with the Commission's previous amendments to its part 32 accounting rules. In February 2018, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing amendments to part 36 consistent with the Joint Board's recommendations. In October 2018, the Commission issued a Report and Order adopting each of the Joint Board's recommendations and amending the Part 36 consistent with those recommendations. In July 2018, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to extend the separations freeze for an additional 15 years and to provide rate-of-return carriers that had elected to freeze their category relationships a time limited opportunity to opt out of that freeze. In December 2018, the Commission issued a Report and Order extending the freeze for up to 6 years until December 31, 2024, and granting rate-of-return carriers that had elected to freeze their category relationships a one-time opportunity to opt out of that freeze.
On March 31, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the Commission's December 2018 Report and Order.
On June 13, 2017, the D.C. Circuit vacated the rate caps adopted in the Second Report and Order, as well as reporting requirements related to video visitation. The court held that the Commission lacked jurisdiction over intrastate ICS calls and that the rate caps the Commission adopted for interstate calls were arbitrary and capricious. The court also remanded the Commission's caps on ancillary fees. On September 26, 2017, the court denied a petition for rehearing en banc. On December 21, 2017, the court issued two separate orders: one vacating the 2016 Order on Reconsideration insofar as it purported to set rate caps on inmate calling services, and one dismissing as moot challenges to the Commission's First Report and Order on ICS.
On February 4, 2020, the Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) released a Public Notice seeking to refresh the record on ancillary service charges imposed in connection with ICS.
On August 6, 2020, the Commission adopted a Report and Order on Remand and a Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking responding to remands by the D.C. Circuit and proposing to comprehensively reform rates and charges for the ICS within the Commission's jurisdiction. The Report and Order on Remand found that the Commission's five permitted ancillary service charges: (1) automated payment fees; (2) fees for single-call and related services; (3) live agent fees; (4) paper bill/statement fees; and (5) third-party financial transaction fees generally, cannot be practically segregated between interstate and intrastate inmate telephone calls, except in a limited number of cases. Accordingly, the Commission prohibited ICS providers
The Order also reinstated a rule prohibiting providers from marking up third-party fees for single-call services; reinstated rule language that prohibits providers from marking up mandatory taxes or fees that they pass on to inmate telephone service consumers; and amended certain of the ICS rules consistent with the D.C. Circuit's mandates to reflect that the Commission's rate and fee caps on ICS apply only to interstate and international inmate calling.
The Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposed to substantially reduce the interstate rate cap for inmate telephone calls from the current interim rate caps of $0.21 per minute for debit or prepaid calls and $0.25 per minute for collect calls for all types of correctional facilities, to permanent rate caps of $0.14 per minute for all interstate calls from prisons and $0.16 for all interstate calls from jails. The Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking also proposed to adopt rate caps for international ICS calls for the first time based on the proposed interstate rate caps, plus the amount that the provider must pay its underlying international service provider for an international call. It also proposed a waiver process for providers that believe the Commission's rate caps would not allow them to recover their costs of serving a particular facility or contract. Finally, it sought comment on a further mandatory data collection to continue efforts to reform these rates and fees.
On November 23, 2020, Global Tel*Link Corporation (GTL) filed a petition for reconsideration of the August 6, 2020 Order on Remand. On December 3, 2020, the Commission established the opposition and reply comment dates for the petition.
On May 24, 2021, the Commission released the Third Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration and Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. In the Third Report and Order, the Commission: (1) substantially reduced the interim rate caps for interstate ICS from prisons and larger jails (those with 1,000 or more incarcerated people) from $0.21 per minute for debit and prepaid calls and $0.25 per minute for collect calls to new uniform interim interstate caps of $0.12 per minute for prisons and $0.14 per minute for larger jails; (2) maintained the interim interstate rate cap of $0.21 for jails with less than 1,000 incarcerated people because of insufficient record evidence to determine providers' costs of serving those facilities at the time; (3) eliminated separate treatment of collect calls, resulting in a uniform interim interstate rate cap for all types of calls at each facility; (4) reformed the treatment of site commission payments by specifying that providers may pass through to consumers (without any markup) site commission payments that are mandated by federal, state, or local law and that providers may pass through to consumers no more than $0.02 per minute site commission payments resulting from contractual obligations negotiated between providers and correctional officials; (5) capped, for the first time, international calling rates at all facilities at the applicable facility's total interstate rate cap, plus the amount the inmate calling services provider pays to its underlying wholesale carriers for completing international calls; (6) reformed the ancillary service charge caps for third-party financial transaction fees, including those related to calls that are billed on a per-call basis; and (7) adopted a new mandatory data collection to obtain more uniform cost data based on consistent, prescribed allocation methodologies to determine just and reasonable, permanent, interstate and international cost-based rates for facilities of all sizes.
In the Order on Reconsideration, the Commission denied GTL's petition for reconsideration of a single sentence from the 2020 Remand Order, in which the Commission reminded providers that the jurisdictional nature of a call, that is whether it is interstate or intrastate, depends on the physical location of the endpoints of the call and not on whether the area code or NXX prefix of the telephone number associated with the account are associated with a particular state. The Commission determined that the end-to-end analysis has been, and remains, the generally applicable test for all telecommunications carriers in determining the jurisdiction of their calls and the Commission continues to use the traditional end-to-end jurisdictional analysis in setting rates for calls placed by ICS consumers.
In the Fifth Further Notice, the Commission proposed to amend its rules to require calling service providers to provide access to all forms of Telecommunications Relay Services, including internet-based services, to facilitate greater accessibility for incarcerated people with hearing and speech disabilities. The Commission also sought comment on: (1) the methodology the Commission should use to set permanent per-minute rate caps for interstate and international inmate calling services; (2) site commission costs for facilities of all sizes and site commission reform generally; (3) the costs of providing services to jails with average daily populations of fewer than 1,000 incarcerated people; (4) whether and how the Commission should reform the ancillary service charge caps and how the Commission can curtail potentially abusive practices related to these charges; (5) whether to institute a recurring periodic data collection; and (6) whether some providers have market power in the bidding process, thereby impacting the competitiveness of the bidding process.
On September 22, 2021, WCB and the Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA), (collectively, WCB/OEA) issued a Public Notice seeking comment on the contours and specific requirements of the Third Mandatory Data Collection, including proposed instructions and a proposed template for that collection. In issuing this Public Notice, WCB/OEA were acting pursuant to the Commission's directive, made in the
On December 15, 2021, WCB/OEA issued a Public Notice seeking comment on revised requirements for ICS Annual Reports, including proposed instructions, templates, and a provider certification. Specifically, the Public Notice proposed changes in the reporting requirements to align them with ICS rule changes adopted in the
On January 18, 2022, WCB adopted an Order implementing the Third Mandatory Data Collection and adopted accompanying instructions, reporting templates, and a certification form. The collected information would allow the Commission to set permanent interstate and international inmate calling services rate caps and to evaluate and, if warranted, revise the current ancillary service charge caps.
On February 9, 2022, WCB released a public notice announcing that the providers' mandatory data collection responses will be due no later than June 30, 2022.
On June 24, 2022, WCB adopted an Order implementing revisions to its annual reporting requirements, including accompanying instructions, reporting templates, and a certification form. The revisions were consistent with changes made in the Third Report and Order.
On September 30, 2022, the Commission released the Fourth Report and Order, and Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Report and Order required ICS providers to provide access to all relay services eligible for Telecommunications Relay Services fund support in any correctional facility that is located where broadband is available and is part of a correctional system with 50 or more incarcerated people. This included the ability to place point-to-point video calls using American Sign Language. The rules also restricted provider charges for relay services and point-to-point video calls. More generally, the rules reduced certain charges and curtailed abusive practices related to ICS to ease the financial burdens on all incarcerated people and their families. To ensure that the rates, terms, and practices related to interstate and international ICS are just and reasonable, the Order prohibited providers from taking control of funds in inactive calling accounts until at least 180 calendar days of continuous inactivity had passed, after which providers are required to refund the balance or dispose of the funds in accordance with applicable state law. The Order also lowered the current ancillary fee caps on charges for single call services, and lowered the cap on provider charges for processing credit card, debit card, and other payments to calling services accounts. Finally, the Commission revised the definitions of “Prison” and “Jail” in its rules to conform with the Commission's intent in adopting them in 2015.
In the Sixth Further Notice, the Commission sought additional comment on whether to allow enterprise registration for internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service in carceral settings and how to address the special circumstances faced by some ICS providers in jurisdictions with average daily populations of fewer than 50 incarcerated persons. This Notice sought comment on refining the rules adopted in the Fifth Report and Order concerning the treatment of balances in inactive accounts. It also sought comment on expanding the breadth and scope of the Commission's consumer disclosure requirements. The Commission asked for comment on how it should use the data filed in response to the Third Mandatory Data Collection to establish just and reasonable permanent caps on interstate and international rates and associated ancillary service charges consistent with the Telecommunications Act of 1934 (the Act). The Commission invited further comment on allowing ICS providers to offer pilot programs allowing consumers to purchase calling services under alternative pricing structures.
On March 17, 2023, the Commission opened a new docket, WC Docket No. 23-62, and released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order to begin implementation of the Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act of 2022, which was signed into law on January 5, 2023. The Martha Wright-Reed Act expands the Commission's authority over rates charged for incarcerated people's communications services, including intrastate services, and directs the Commission to adopt just and reasonable rates and charges for incarcerated people's audio and video communications services not earlier than 18 months and not later than 24 months after the date of its enactment. The Notice seeks comment on (1) the expansion of the Commission's authority over incarcerated people's communications services to include advanced communications services (including audio and video services) and intrastate services; (2) the meaning of “just and reasonable” in the context of the Act's other provisions; (3) the rate-making methodology the Commission should use to fulfill its mandate to ensure that rates and charges for incarcerated people's communications services are just and reasonable; (4) the safety and security costs necessary for the provision of incarcerated people's communications services; and (5) the actions the Commission should take to ensure that incarcerated people's communications services are accessible to, and usable by, people with communication disabilities. The accompanying Order reaffirmed the Commission's prior delegation of data collection authority to WCB/OEA and directed staff to initiate a collection of provider data to inform the Commission's responsibilities to implement the requirements of the Martha Wright-Reed Act.
Erik Raven-Hansen, Assistant Division Chief, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Comp., Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554,
On February 23, 2017, the Commission adopted a Report and Order that revised the part 32 USOA to substantially reduce accounting burdens for both price cap and rate-of-return carriers. First, the Order streamlines the USOA for all carriers. In addition, the USOA will be aligned more closely with generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP. Second, the Order allows price cap carriers to use GAAP for all regulatory accounting purposes as long as they comply with targeted accounting rules, which are designed to mitigate any impact on pole attachment rates. Alternatively, price cap carriers can elect to use GAAP accounting for all purposes other than those associated with pole attachment rates and continue to use the part 32 accounts for pole attachment rates for up to 12 years. Third, the Order addresses several miscellaneous issues, including referral to the Federal-State Joint Board on Separations the issue of examining jurisdictional separations rules in light of the reforms adopted to part 32.
On June 5, 2017, NCTA-The internet & Television Association filed a petition for reconsideration of the Report and Order requesting that the Commission: (a) clarify that parties making pole attachments will have access to all accounting information needed to verify the reasonableness of pole attachment rates; and (b) establish additional substantive protections to ensure that pole attachment rates based on GAAP are consistent with the requirements of Section 224 of the Communication Act and the assurances contained in the Part 32 Order. Oppositions to that petition were due on July 21, 2017, and replies were due on July 31, 2017.
On November 16, 2017, the Commission adopted a Report and Order (R&O), Declaratory Ruling, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Wireline Infrastructure Order) that takes a number of actions and seeks comment on further actions designed to accelerate the deployment of next-generation networks and services through removing barriers to infrastructure investment.
The Wireline Infrastructure Order took a number of actions. First, the Report and Order revised the pole attachment rules to reduce costs for attachers, reforms the pole access complaint procedures to settle access disputes more swiftly, and increases access to infrastructure for certain types of broadband providers. Second, the Report and Order revised the section 214(a) discontinuance rules and the network change notification rules, including those applicable to copper retirements, to expedite the process for carriers seeking to replace legacy network infrastructure and legacy services with advanced broadband networks and innovative new services. Third, the Report and Order reversed a 2015 ruling that discontinuance authority is required for solely wholesale services to carrier-customers. Fourth, the Declaratory Ruling abandoned the 2014 “functional test” interpretation of when section 214 discontinuance applications are required, bringing added clarity to the section 214(a) discontinuance process for carriers and consumers alike. Finally, the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking sought comment on additional potential pole attachment reforms, reforms to the network change disclosure and section 214(a) discontinuance processes, and ways to facilitate rebuilding networks impacted by natural disasters. Various parties filed a Petition for Review of the Wireline Infrastructure Order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit denied the Petition on January 23, 2020 on the grounds that the parties lacked standing.
On June 7, 2018, the Commission adopted a Second Report and Order (Wireline Infrastructure Second Report and Order) taking further actions designed to expedite the transition from legacy networks and services to next generation networks and advanced services that benefit the American public and to promote broadband deployment by further streamlining the section 214(a) discontinuance rules, network change disclosure processes, and part 68 customer notification process.
The Wireline Infrastructure NPRM, NOI, and RFC sought comment on additional issues not addressed in the November Wireline Infrastructure Order or the June Wireline Infrastructure Second Report and Order. It sought comment on changes to the Commission's pole attachment rules to: (1) streamline the timeframe for gaining access to utility poles; (2) reduce charges paid by attachers for work done to make a pole ready for new attachments; and (3) establish a formula for computing the maximum pole attachment rate that may be imposed on an incumbent LEC.
The Wireline Infrastructure NPRM, NOI, and RFC also sought comment on whether the Commission should enact rules, consistent with its authority under section 253 of the Act, to promote the deployment of broadband infrastructure by preempting State and local laws that inhibit broadband deployment. It also sought comment on whether there are State laws governing the maintenance or retirement of copper facilities that serve as a barrier to deploying next-generation technologies and services that the Commission might seek to preempt.
Previously, in November 2014, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Declaratory Ruling that: (1) proposed new backup power rules; (2) proposed new or revised rules for copper retirements and service discontinuances; and (3) adopted a functional test in determining what constitutes a service for purposes of section 214(a) discontinuance review. In August 2015, the Commission adopted a Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that: (i) lengthened and revised the copper retirement process; (ii) determined that a carrier must obtain Commission approval before discontinuing a service used as a wholesale input if the carrier's actions will discontinue service to a carrier-customer's retail end users; (iii) adopted an interim rule requiring incumbent LECs that seek to discontinue certain TDM-based wholesale services to commit to certain rates, terms, and conditions; (iv) proposed further revisions to the copper retirement discontinuance process; and (v) upheld the November 2014 Declaratory Ruling. In July 2016, the Commission adopted a Second Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Order on Reconsideration that: (i) adopted a new test for obtaining streamlined treatment when carriers seek Commission authorization to discontinue legacy services in favor of services based on newer technologies; (ii) set forth consumer education requirements for carriers seeking to discontinue legacy services in favor of services based on newer technologies; (iii) allowed notice to customers of discontinuance applications by email; (iv) required carriers to provide notice of discontinuance applications to Tribal entities; (v) made a technical rule change to create a new title for copper retirement notices and certifications; and (vi) harmonized the timeline for competitive LEC discontinuances caused by incumbent LEC network changes.
On August 2, 2018, the Commission adopted a Third Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling (Wireline Infrastructure Third Report and Order)
On August 8, 2018, Public Knowledge filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the Second Report and Order and Motion to Hold in Abeyance. On October 20, 2020, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) adopted a Declaratory Ruling, Order on Reconsideration, and Order. In the Declaratory Ruling, the Bureau clarified that any carrier seeking to discontinue legacy voice service to a community or part of a community that is the last retail provider of such legacy TDM service to that community or part of the community is subject to the Commission's technology transition discontinuance rules, including the requirements to receive streamlined treatment of its discontinuance application. In the Order on Reconsideration, the Bureau denied the Public Knowledge Petition for Reconsideration because all of Public Knowledge's arguments were fully considered, and rejected, by the Commission in the underlying proceeding. It also dismissed as moot the accompanying motion to have the Commission hold that
In September 2019, CTIA filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling seeking clarification of certain issues raised in the 2018 Third Report and Order. On July 29, 2020, the Wireline Competition Bureau issued a Declaratory Ruling clarifying that (1) the imposition of a blanket ban” by a utility on attachments to any portion of a utility pole is inconsistent with the federal requirement that a denial of access . . . be specific” to a particular request; and (2) while utilities and attachers have the flexibility to negotiate terms in their pole attachment agreements that differ from the requirements in the Commission's rules, a utility cannot use its significant negotiating leverage to require an attacher to give up rights to which the attacher is entitled under the rules without the attacher obtaining a corresponding benefit.
On July 20, 2020, the Wireline Competition Bureau issued a Public Notice seeking comment on a Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed on July 16, 2020 by NCTA The internet & Television Association. NCTA asked the Commission to declare that: (1) pole owners must share in the cost of pole replacements in unserved areas pursuant to section 224 of the Communications Act, section 1.1408(b) of the Commission's rules, and Commission precedent; (2) pole attachment complaints arising in unserved areas should be prioritized through placement on the Accelerated Docket under section 1.736 of the Commission's rules; and (3) section 1.1407(b) of the Commission's rules authorizes the Commission to order any pole owner to complete a pole replacement within a specified period of time or designate an authorized contractor to do so. Comments on the NCTA Petition were due by September 2, 2020, and reply comments by September 17, 2020.
On January 19, 2021, WCB released a Declaratory Ruling on the subject of pole replacements. WCB declined to rule on the NCTA Petition, finding that the questions raised were better suited to a rulemaking. However, in response to the Petition's record, WCB issued a narrow clarification: a utility may not impose the entire cost of a pole replacement on a requesting attacher when the attacher is not the sole cause of the pole replacement (for instance, where the pole has been red-tagged”
On July 23, 2021, the Wireline Competition Bureau issued a Public Notice seeking comment on a Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed by the Edison Electric Institute asking the Commission to declare that: (1) when the Commission determines that a pole attachment rate, term, or condition is unjust and unreasonable and orders a refund pursuant to section 1.1407(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, the applicable statute of limitations” is the same as the two-year period prescribed by section 415(b) of the Act; and (2) refunds in pole attachment complaint proceedings are not appropriate” for any period preceding good-faith notice of a dispute. Deadlines for filing comments and reply comments were set for August 23, 2021, and September 10, 2021, respectively.
In March 2022, the Commission began the rulemaking contemplated by the January 2021 Declaratory Ruling, by adopting a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on several issues relating to pole replacements, including (1) whether and to what extent utilities directly benefit from various types of pole replacements in situations where a pole replacement is not necessitated solely” by a new attachment request; (2) whether requiring utilities to pay a portion of the costs of a pole replacement would positively or negatively affect negotiations of pole attachment agreements and broadband deployment; (3) what measures the Commission could adopt to expedite the resolution of pole replacement disputes; and (4) what scope of refunds the Commission should order when it determines that a pole attachment rate, term, or condition is unjust and unreasonable. Comments on the Second FNPRM were due on June 27, 2022, while reply comments were due on August 26, 2022.
The Order requires interconnected VoIP providers obtaining numbers to comply with the same requirements applicable to carriers seeking to obtain numbers. These requirements include any State requirements pursuant to numbering authority delegated to the States by the Commission, as well as industry guidelines and practices, among others. The Order also requires interconnected VoIP providers to comply with facilities readiness requirements adapted to this context, and with numbering utilization and optimization requirements. As conditions to requesting and obtaining numbers directly from the numbering administrators, interconnected VoIP providers are also required to: (1) provide the relevant State commissions with regulatory and numbering contacts when requesting numbers in those states; (2) request numbers from the numbering administrators under their own unique OCN; (3) file any requests for numbers with the relevant State commissions at least 30 days prior to requesting numbers from the numbering administrators; and (4) provide customers with the opportunity to access all abbreviated dialing codes (N11 numbers) in use in a geographic area.
The Order also modifies Commission's rules in order to permit VoIP Positioning Center (VPC) providers to obtain pseudo-Automatic Number Identification (p-ANI) codes directly from the numbering administrators for purposes of providing E911 services.
Based on experiences and review of the direct access authorization process established by the 2015 Order, the Commission adopted a FNPRM which proposes clarifications and revisions to the Commission's rules to better ensure that interconnected VoIP providers that obtain direct access authorization to not facilitate illegal robocalls, spoofing, or fraud, pose national security risks, or evade or abuse intercarrier compensation requirements. The FNPRM proposes to require additional certifications as part of the direct access authorization applications process, that would include certification of compliance with anti-robocalling obligations. The FNPRM also proposes to clarify that applicants disclose foreign ownership information on their direct access application. It would also propose to generally refer those applications with 10% or greater foreign ownership to the Executive Branch agencies for their review, consistent with the Commission's referral of other types of applications. The FNPRM also propose to clarify that holders of a direct access authorization must update the Commission and applicable states within 30 days of changes to ownership information submitted to the Commission. The FNPRM further proposes to clarify that Commission staff retain the authority to determine when to accept filings as complete and proposes to direct Commission staff to reject an application if an applicant has engaged in behavior contrary to the public interest or has been found to originate or transmit illegal robocalls. Finally, the FNPRM seeks comment on whether to expand the direct access authorization to one-way VoIP providers or other entities that use numbering resources.
The Universal Service Fund is paid for by contributions from telecommunications carriers, including wireline and wireless companies, and interconnected Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) providers, including cable companies that provide voice service, based on an assessment on their interstate and international end-user revenues. The Universal Service Administrative Company, or USAC, administers the four programs and collects monies for the Universal Service Fund under the direction of the FCC.
On October 28, 2022, the Commission proposed extending Universal Service support for mobile and fixed providers beyond 2023.
On November 23, 2022, the Commission sought comments on petitions that permit the use of E-Rate funds to support advanced or next-generation firewalls, services and network security services.
On February 17, 2023, the Commission proposed simplifying rules for accessing program offering High Speed internet for Schools and Libraries.
By using an auction, the FCC will ensure that sought-after numbers are awarded to the parties that value them most. In addition, the FCC will reserve certain 833 numbers for distribution to government and non-profit entities that request them for public health and safety purposes. The FCC will study the results of the auction to determine how to best use the mechanism to distribute toll-free numbers equitably and efficiently in the future as well. Revenues from the auction will be used to defray the cost of toll-free numbering administration, reducing the cost of numbering for all users. The Order establishing the toll-free number auction will also authorize and accommodate the use of a secondary market for numbers awarded at auction to further distribute these numbers to the entities that value them most. The Order also adopted several definitional and technical updates to improve clarity and flexibility in toll-free number assignment.
The Commission sought comment and then adopted auctions procedures and deadlines on August 2, 2019. Bidding for the auction occurred on December 17, 2019, and Somos issued an announcement of the winning bidders on December 20, 2019. On December 16, 2019, to facilitate the preparation of its study of the auction, the Bureau charged the North American Numbering Council, via its Toll Free Access Modernization Working Group, to issue a report evaluating various aspects of the 833 Auction, and recommending improvements for any future toll free number auctions.
On January 16, 2020, Somos released all of the 833 Auction data for public review. On March 13, 2020, the Bureau invited public comment on the 833 Auction in preparation for issuing a report on the lessons learned from the Auction. Comments were due on April 13, 2020. On July 14, 2020, the North American Numbering Council approved the Toll Free Assignment Modernization Working Group's report, Perspectives on the December 2019 Auction of Numbers in the 833 Numbering Plan Area.
On January 15, 2021, the Bureau released a report that examined various aspects of this toll free number assignment experiment, including lessons learned, examination of auction outcomes, and recommendations for future toll free number assignment. The Bureau concluded that the 833 Auction was a successful experiment that provided invaluable experience and data that can facilitate further
Matthew Collins, Deputy Division Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554,
On March 23, 2020, the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability Act (Broadband DATA Act) was signed into law requiring the Commission to create a new set of broadband availability maps. Among other things, the Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission to collect standardized, granular data on the availability and quality of both fixed and mobile broadband internet access services, to create a common dataset of all locations where fixed broadband internet access service can be installed (the Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric or Fabric), and to create publicly available coverage maps. The Act further requires the Commission to establish processes for members of the public and other entities to (1) provide verified data for use in the coverage maps; (2) challenge the coverage maps, the broadband availability data submitted by broadband internet access service providers (providers), and the Fabric; and (3) submit specific crowdsource information about the development and availability of broadband service.
In July 2020, implementing the Broadband DATA Act and building off of an August 2019 Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission adopted a Second Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that adopted rules for the collection and verification of improved, more precise data on both fixed and mobile broadband availability. In January 2021, the Commission released a Third Report and Order that established new requirements for the BDC and took additional steps to implement the Broadband DATA Act. The Commission adopted rules to specify which fixed and mobile providers are required to report broadband availability data and expanded the reporting and certification requirements for filing data in the BDC. It also adopted standards for collecting verified broadband data from State, local, and Tribal entities and certain third parties, and for identifying locations that would be included in the Fabric. Importantly, in the Third Report and Order, the Commission also established processes for verifying the accuracy of provider-submitted data and the Fabric, including a third party challenge process.
Implementing the Broadband DATA Act and these new rules, the Commission created a complex data platform and system to collect and map availability data collected from over 2500 providers and for consumers and other stakeholders to submit challenges to that data; established the Fabric dataset of locations upon which to overlay provider availability data; and established a dedicated help center to provide technical assistance to providers, consumers and other stakeholders.
In July 2021, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA), and Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) released a Public Notice seeking comment on the technical requirements for the mobile challenge, verification, and crowdsourcing processes required under the Broadband DATA Act for the new Broadband Data Collection (BDC). In March 2022, the Broadband Data Task Force (Task Force), WTB, OEA, and OET released a detailed order, technical appendix, rules, and technical data specifications setting forth technical requirements and specifications for the mobile challenge, verification, and crowdsource processes required by the Act.
To help facilitate the mobile challenge process, in April 2022, the Task Force and OET issued a Public Notice announcing the technical requirements and procedures for approving third-party mobile speed test procedures for use in collecting and submitting mobile network performance data as part of the BDC. To assist entities that choose to file mobile challenges in bulk, in September 2022 the Task Force and WTB established a process for entities to use their own software and hardware to collect on-the-ground mobile speed test data for use in the BDC mobile challenge process.
Also in April 2022, the Task Force, WCB, WTB, OEA, and OET released a Public Notice providing details on the procedures for state, local, and Tribal governmental entities to submit verified availability data through the BDC system.
Seeking to clarify the Commission's rules for filing data in the BDC, in July 2022 WCB, WTB, OEA, and the Task Force issued a Declaratory Ruling on certain aspects of a rule regarding the engineering certification in BDC filings and issued a limited waiver of the requirement that providers have an engineer certification their biannual BDC filings for the first three filing cycles of the BDC.
On June 15, 2022, the FCC Enforcement Bureau issued an Enforcement Advisory reminding all facilities-based providers of their duty to timely file complete and accurate data in the BDC by September 1, 2022.
In February 2022, the Commission announced the opening of the initial filing window of the BDC would open on June 30, 2022, and was due no later than September 1, 2022. In December 2022, the Commission announced that the second filing window of the BDC would open on January 3, 2023, and required all fixed and mobile providers to submit broadband availability data as of December 31, 2022, and was due no later than March 1, 2023.
In November 2022, the Commission released a pre-production draft of its new National Broadband Map based on version 1 of the Fabric and the availability data submitted by providers as of June 30, 2022. The new map is the most comprehensive, granular, and standardized data the Commission has ever published on broadband availability.
The Commission adopted an Order in December 2022, to sunset the Form 477 broadband deployment data collection and eliminate a largely duplicative requirement on providers. As a result, providers will no longer be required to submit Form 477 broadband deployment data, but must still submit broadband and voice subscription data using the FCC Form 477; those filers will submit their data through the BDC system.
On December 30, 2019, Congress enacted the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED) Act. Along with numerous other provisions directed at addressing robocalls, the TRACED Act directs the Commission to require all voice service providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN in the Internet Protocol (IP) portions of their networks, and to implement an effective caller ID authentication framework in the non-IP portions of their networks. The TRACED Act further creates processes by which voice service providers may be exempt from this mandate if the Commission determines they have achieved certain implementation benchmarks, and by which voice service providers may be granted a delay in compliance based on a finding of undue hardship because of burdens or barriers to implementation or based on a delay in development of a caller ID authentication protocol for calls delivered over non-IP networks.
On March 31, 2020, the Commission adopted a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (WC Docket Nos. 17-97, 20-67). The Report and Order mandated that all originating and terminating voice service providers implement the STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication framework in the IP portions of their networks by June 30, 2021. In the Further Notice the Commission sought comment on proposals to further promote caller ID authentication and implement the TRACED Act.
On September 29, 2020, the Commission adopted a Second Report and Order (WC Docket No. 17-97). The Second Report and Order implemented rules (1) granting extensions for compliance with the STIR/SHAKEN implementation mandate for small voice service providers, voice service providers that cannot obtain a SPC token from the Governance Authority, services scheduled for section 214 discontinuance, for those portions of a voice service provider's network that rely on non-IP technology, and establishing a process for individual voice service providers to seek provider specific extensions; (2) requiring voice service providers using non-IP technology either to upgrade their networks to IP to enable STIR/SHAKEN implementation, or work to develop non-IP caller ID authentication technology and implement a robocall mitigation program in the interim; (3) establishing a process where by a voice service provider may be exempt from the STIR/SHAKEN implementation mandate if the provider has achieved certain implementation benchmarks; (4) prohibiting voice service providers from imposing line item charges on consumer and small business subscribers for caller ID authentication; and (5) requiring intermediate providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN. On May 20, 2021, the Commissioned released a Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to shorten the small provider extension from two years to one for a subset of small voice service providers that are at a heightened risk of originating an especially large amount of robocall traffic.
On January 13, 2021, the Commission adopted a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing and seeking comment on a limited role for the Commission to oversee certificate revocation decisions by the private STIR/SHAKEN Governance Authority that would have the effect of placing providers in noncompliance with the Commission's rules. On August 5, 2021, the Commission adopted a Third Report and Order which adopted rules creating this oversight role.
On September 30, 2021, the Commission adopted a Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to require gateway providers to apply STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication to, and perform robocall mitigation on, foreign-originated calls with U.S. numbers, seeking comment on revisions to the information that filers must submit to the Robocall Mitigation Database, and clarifying the obligations of voice service providers and intermediate providers with respect to calls to and from Public Safety Answer Points and other emergency services providers.
On December 9, 2021, the Commission adopted a Fourth Report and Order adopting rules requiring non-facilities based small voice providers implement SITR/SHAKEN by June 30, 2022, and requiring small voice providers of any kind suspected of originating illegal robocalls to implement STIR/SHAKEN on an accelerated timeline.
On May 19, 2022, the Commission adopted a Fifth Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, Order, and Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Fifth Report and Order and Order required gateway providers to submit a certification to the Robocall Mitigation Database, implement STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication as well as several other requirements, including an obligation to mitigate illegal robocall traffic and submit a mitigation plan to the Robocall Mitigation Database regardless of their STIR/SHAKEN implementation status. The Order on Reconsideration expanded the obligation of domestic providers to block calls carrying US NANP numbers from foreign providers not listed in the
On March 16, 2023, the Commission adopted a Sixth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Sixth Report and Order required intermediate providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication for certain calls, expanded robocall mitigation requirements for all providers, and adopted more robust enforcement tools. The Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment on additional measures to combat illegal robocalls, including whether any changes should be made to the Commission's rules to permit, prohibit, or limit the use of third-party caller ID authentication solutions and whether to eliminate the STIR/SHAKEN implementation extension for providers that cannot obtain Service Provider Code tokens, which are necessary to participate in the STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication framework”.
On August 14, 2019, the Wireline Competition Bureau and Office of Economics and Analytics submitted its report to Congress recommending that: (1) a 3-digit dialing code be used for a national suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline system; and (2) the Commission should initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider designating 988 as the 3-digit code.
On December 12, 2019, the Commission released a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to designate 988 as a new, nationwide, 3-digit dialing code for a suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline. WC Docket No. 18-336. The NPRM proposes that calls made to 988 be directed to the existing National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, which is made up of an expansive network of over 170 crisis centers located across the United States, and to the Veterans Crisis Line. The NPRM also proposes to require all telecommunications carriers and interconnected VoIP service providers to make, within 18 months, any changes necessary to ensure that users can dial 988 to reach the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and Veterans Crisis Line.
On July 16, 2020, the Commission adopted an Order designating 988 as the 3-digit number to reach the Lifeline and Veterans Crisis Line (800-273-TALK or 800-273-8255) and requiring all telecommunications carriers, interconnected voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) providers, and one-way VoIP providers to make any network changes necessary to ensure that users can dial 988 to reach the Lifeline by July 16, 2022.
On October 16, 2020, the Communications Equality Advocates filed a petition for partial reconsideration of the FCC's July 16, 2020 Report and Order. In their petition, Communications Equality Advocates requested that the FCC revise the Order to mandate text-to-988 and direct video calling (DVC) requirements and to have such requirements be implemented on the same timeline as voice calls to 988, by July 16, 2022.
On October 17, 2020, Congress enacted the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act of 2020 (2020 Act). Public Law 116-172, 134 Stat. 832 (2020). The 2020 Act, among other things, designates 988 as the universal telephone number within the United States for the purpose of the national suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline system operating through the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline,” with designation occurring one year after enactment.
On November 9, 2020, pursuant to 2020 Act's requirements that the Commission submit a report on the feasibility and cost of attaching an automatic dispatchable location with 988 calls, the Commission issued a Public Notice that sought comment on these issues.
On April 22, 2021 the Commission adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) that proposes to require text service providers support text messages to 988 by routing texts to the toll free number.
On November 19, 2020, pursuant to 2020 Act's requirements that the Commission submit a report on the feasibility and cost of attaching an automatic dispatchable location with 988 calls, the Commission issued a Public Notice that sought comment on these issues. A Report to Congress regarding geolocation was released on April 15, 2021.
On April 22, 2021 the Commission adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) that proposes to require text service providers support text messages to 988 by routing texts to the toll free number. On November 19, 2021, the Commission adopted an Order requiring the industry to enable texting to 988 by the same deadline as for voice calls, July 16, 2022.
On May 24, 2022, the Commission, following up on its report to Congress, hosted a forum in coordination with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs that convened various stakeholders to discuss issues surrounding geolocation. Participants included state and local entities; suicide prevention and mental health experts and advocates; communications industry leaders; and technical experts. The Commission opened the event to the public via live feed on the Commission's website, and audience members submitted questions to panelists by email.
On October 14, 2022, in accordance with the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act of 2020, the Wireline Competition Bureau submitted its first 988 Fee Accountability Report to Congress reporting on the collection and distribution of 988 fees and charges by the states, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, and Tribal authorities for the period of January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021.
On January 26, 2023, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to help ensure that the public has access to the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline if a service outage occurs.
On October 27, 2020, the Commission adopted a Report and Order (1) eliminating unbundling requirements, subject to a reasonable transition period, for enterprise-grade DS1 and DS3 loops where there is evidence of actual and potential competition, for broadband-capable DS0 loops and associated subloops in the most densely populated areas, and for voice-grade narrowband loops nationwide, but preserving unbundling requirements for DS0 loops in less densely populated areas and DS1 and DS3 loops in areas without sufficient evidence of competition; (2) eliminating unbundling requirements for network interface devices and multiunit premises subloops; (3) eliminating unbundled dark fiber transport provisioned from wire centers within a half-mile of competitive fiber networks, but providing an eight-year transition period for existing circuits so as to avoid stranding investment and last-mile deployment by competitive LECs that may harm consumers; (4) eliminating unbundling requirements for operations support systems, except where carriers are continuing to manage UNEs and for purposes of local interconnection and local number portability; and (5) eliminating remaining avoided-cost resale requirements. The Report and Order ended unbundling and resale requirements where they stifle technology transitions and broadband deployment, but preserved unbundling requirements where they are still necessary to realize the 1996 Act's goal of robust intermodal competition benefiting all Americans.
In the NPRM, the Commission begins the process of implementing the Safe Connections Act of 2022 (Safe Connections Act), enacted on December 7, 2022. The legislation amends the Communications Act of 1934 (Communications Act) to require mobile service providers to separate the line of a survivor of domestic violence (and other related crimes and abuse), and any individuals in the care of the survivor, from a mobile service contract shared with an abuser within two business days after receiving a request from the survivor. The Safe Connections Act also directs the Commission to issue rules, within 18 months of the statute's enactment, implementing the line separation requirement. Further, the legislation also requires the Commission to open a rulemaking within 180 days of enactment to consider whether to, and how the Commission should, establish a central database of domestic abuse hotlines to be used by service providers and require such providers to omit, subject to certain conditions, any records of calls or text messages to the hotlines from consumer-facing call and text message logs. The NPRM proposes rules as directed by these statutory requirements.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
The Board is issuing this agenda under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Board's Statement of Policy Regarding Expanded Rulemaking Procedures. The Board anticipates having under consideration regulatory matters as indicated below during the period May 1, 2023, through October 31, 2023. The next agenda will be published in fall 2023.
Comments about the form or content of the agenda may be submitted any time during the next 6 months.
Comments should be addressed to Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
A staff contact for each item is indicated with the regulatory description below.
The Board is publishing its spring 2023 agenda as part of the Spring 2023 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The agenda also identifies rules the Board has selected for review under section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and public comment is invited on those entries. The complete Unified Agenda will be available to the public at the following website:
The Board's agenda is divided into five sections. The first, Pre-rule Stage reports on matters the Board is considering for future rulemaking. The second section, Proposed Rule Stage, reports on matters the Board may consider for public comment during the next 6 months. The third section, Final Rule Stage, reports on matters that have been proposed and are under Board consideration. The fourth section, Completed Actions, reports on regulatory matters the Board has completed or is not expected to consider further. And a fifth section, Long-Term Actions, reports on matters where the next action is undetermined, 00/00/0000, or will occur more than 12 months after publication of the Agenda. A dot (•) preceding an entry indicates a new matter that was not a part of the Board's previous agenda.
Melissa Clark, Lead Financial Institution Policy Analyst, Federal Reserve System, Division of Supervision and Regulation, Washington, DC 20551,
Vivian Joel, Lead Financial Institution Policy Analyst, Federal Reserve System, Division of Supervision and Regulation, Washington, DC 20551,
Jay Schwarz, Assistant General Counsel, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division, Washington, DC 20551,
Claudia Von Pervieux, Senior Counsel, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division, Washington, DC 20551,
Victoria Szybillo, Senior Counsel, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division, Washington, DC 20551,
National Labor Relations Board.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
The following agenda of the National Labor Relations Board is published in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
The Board's agenda refers to
For further information concerning the regulatory actions listed in the agenda, contact Farah Z. Qureshi, Deputy Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street SE, Washington, DC 20570; telephone 202-273-1949, TTY/TDD 1-800-315-6572; email
Roxanne Rothschild, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street SE, Washington, DC 20570,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
We are publishing our semiannual regulatory agenda (the Agenda) in accordance with Public Law 96-354, “The Regulatory Flexibility Act,” and Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” The NRC's Agenda is a compilation of all rulemaking activities on which we have recently completed action or have proposed or are considering action. We have completed
Submit comments on rulemaking activities as identified in this Agenda by August 28, 2023.
Submit comments on any rulemaking activity in the Agenda by the date and methods specified in the
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Cindy K. Bladey, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-3280; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2023-0059 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
○ For completed rulemaking activities go to
○ For active rulemaking activities go to
○ For long-term rulemaking activities go to
Please include Docket ID NRC-2023-0059 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, 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 the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The Agenda is a compilation of all rulemaking activities on which an agency has recently completed action or has proposed or is considering action. The Agenda reports rulemaking activities in three major categories: completed, active, and long term. Completed rulemaking activities are those that were completed since publication of an agency's last Agenda; active rulemaking activities are those for which an agency currently plans to have an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, a Proposed Rule, or a Final Rule issued within the next 12 months; and long-term rulemaking activities are rulemaking activities under development but for which an agency does not expect to have a regulatory action within the 12 months after publication of the current edition of the Unified Agenda.
The NRC assigns a “Regulation Identifier Number” (RIN) to a rulemaking activity when the Commission initiates a rulemaking and approves a rulemaking plan, or when the NRC staff begins work on a Commission-delegated rulemaking that does not require a rulemaking plan. The Office of Management and Budget uses this number to track all relevant documents throughout the entire “lifecycle” of a particular rulemaking activity. The NRC reports all rulemaking activities in the Agenda that have been assigned a RIN and meet the definition
The information contained in this Agenda is updated to reflect any action that has occurred on a rulemaking activity since publication of our last Agenda on
The date for the next scheduled action under the heading “Timetable” is the date the next regulatory action for the rulemaking activity is scheduled to be published in the
Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires agencies to conduct a review within 10 years of issuance of those regulations that have or will have a
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is publishing the Chair's agenda of rulemaking actions pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164) (Sept. 19, 1980). The items listed in the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda for Spring 2023 reflect only the priorities of the Chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and do not necessarily reflect the views and priorities of any individual Commissioner.
Information in the agenda was accurate on April 10, 2023, the date on which the Commission's staff completed compilation of the data. To the extent possible, rulemaking actions by the Commission since that date have been reflected in the agenda. The Commission invites questions and public comment on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries.
The Commission is now printing in the
The Commission's complete RFA agenda will be available online at
Comments should be received on or before August 28, 2023.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments to Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File No. S7-09-23. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's website (
Sarit Klein, Office of the General Counsel, 202-551-5037.
The RFA requires each Federal agency, twice each year, to publish in the
The following abbreviations for the acts administered by the Commission are used in the agenda:
The Commission invites public comment on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries.
By the Commission.
Surface Transportation Board.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
The Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board is publishing the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda for spring 2023.
A contact person is identified for each of the rules listed below.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
(1) A brief description of the subject area of any rule that the agency expects to propose or promulgate, which is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
(2) A summary of the nature of any such rule under consideration for each subject area listed in the agenda pursuant to paragraph (1), the objectives and legal basis for the issuance of the rule, and an approximate schedule for completing action on any rule for which the agency has issued a general notice of proposed rulemaking; and
(3) The name and telephone number of an agency official knowledgeable about the items listed in paragraph (1).
Accordingly, a list of proceedings appears below containing information about subject areas in which the Board is currently conducting rulemaking proceedings or may institute such proceedings soon. It also contains information about existing regulations being reviewed to determine whether to propose modifications through rulemaking.
The agenda represents the Chairman's best estimate of rules that may be considered over the next 12 months but does not necessarily reflect the views of any other individual Board Member. However, section 602(d) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 602(d), provides: “Nothing in [section 602] precludes an agency from considering or acting on any matter not included in a Regulatory Flexibility Agenda or requires an agency to consider or act on any matter listed in such agenda.”
The Chairman is publishing the agency's Regulatory Flexibility Agenda for spring 2023 as part of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda). The Unified Agenda is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), pursuant to Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. The Board is participating voluntarily in the program to assist OMB and has included rulemaking proceedings in the Unified Agenda beyond those required by the RFA.
By the Board, Martin J. Oberman.
Francis O'Connor, Deputy Director, Office of Economics, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001,