Forest Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Utilities Service
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Nuclear Security Administration
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Health Resources and Services Administration
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory guide: withdrawal.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is withdrawing Regulatory Guide (RG) 8.21, “Health Physics Surveys for Byproduct Material at NRC-Licensed Processing and Manufacturing Plants.” This RG is being withdrawn because there is more up-to-date guidance in NUREG-1556, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses,” making RG 8.21 obsolete.
The effective date of the withdrawal of RG 8.21 is January 2, 2024.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2023-0218 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:
•
•
•
Don Lowman, telephone: (301) 415-5452; email:
The NRC is withdrawing RG 8.21, “Health Physics Surveys for Byproduct Material at NRC-Licensed Processing and Manufacturing Plants.” The NRC staff issued RG 8.21 in 1979 to describe the methods and procedures considered acceptable by the NRC staff to comply with the survey requirements found in part 20 of title 10 of the
Since the staff had consolidated and followed the latest guidance pertinent to materials licensees found in NUREG-1556, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses,” RG 8.21 became outdated. Specifically, guidance for the advanced survey/measurement techniques and other more recent survey procedures are currently included in NUREG-1556, Volume 12, Revision 1 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18136A704). Issues identified during the periodic reviews of RG 8.21 in 2012 and 2023 include: 1) the citations to the regulations described in RG 8.21 were not consistent with those listed in the 1991 revision of 10 CFR 20, 2) several of the references were outdated (
Withdrawal of an RG means that the guide no longer provides useful information or has been superseded by other guidance, technological innovations, congressional actions, or other events. The withdrawal of RG 8.21 does not alter any prior or existing NRC licensing approval or the acceptability of licensee commitments to RG 8.21. Although RG 8.21 is withdrawn, current licensees may continue to use it, and withdrawal does not affect any existing licenses or agreements. However, RG 8.21 should not be used in future requests or applications for NRC licensing actions.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Election Commission.
Final rule.
The Commission is revising its regulations concerning the use of campaign funds by a candidate's principal campaign committee to pay compensation to the candidate. The Commission is issuing these rules in response to a Petition for Rulemaking filed by a former candidate for the United States House of Representatives.
The effective date is March 1, 2024.
Amy L. Rothstein, Assistant General Counsel for Policy, Joseph P. Wenzinger, Attorney, or Cheryl A.
The Commission is revising its regulations at 11 CFR part 113 concerning the use of campaign funds by a candidate's principal campaign committee to pay compensation to the candidate. Specifically, the Commission is revising the criteria for determining whether a candidate is eligible to receive compensation from campaign funds, the maximum amount of compensation that a candidate may receive from campaign funds, and the period during which a candidate may receive compensation from campaign funds. The Commission is also making miscellaneous changes to its regulations on candidate compensation for purposes of continuity, clarity, and administration. The Commission is not, at this time, addressing the use of campaign funds to pay a candidate's health insurance premiums and dependent care costs. The Commission's advisory opinions addressing the use of campaign funds to pay a candidate's dependent care costs remain in effect. Members of the public may also submit requests for additional advisory opinions on those subjects.
Before promulgating rules or regulations to carry out the provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the “Act”),
The Act prohibits a candidate's authorized committee from converting campaign funds to “personal use.”
The Act does not identify the use of campaign funds to pay candidate salaries as
In 2002, the Commission proposed to codify this conclusion in a regulation.
The Commission “agree[d] with the commenters that the payment of a salary to a candidate is not a prohibited personal use as defined under Commission regulations.”
The Commission included in the final regulation various safeguards against abuse. To be a permissible use of campaign funds, the salary paid to a candidate must not exceed the lesser of the minimum salary paid to a “Federal officeholder holding the Federal office that the candidate seeks” or the earned income received by the candidate the year before becoming a candidate.
The Act and Commission regulations do not include the use of campaign funds to pay candidates' childcare expenses as a
The Act and Commission regulations do not include the use of campaign funds to pay candidates' medical insurance premiums as a
On March 23, 2021, the Commission received a Petition for Rulemaking from Ms. Nabilah Islam, a former candidate for the United States House of Representatives in Georgia.
The Petition asserted that ballot access deadlines for state primaries, which “vary wildly based on state law,”
The Petition asked the Commission to “lower the barriers for working Americans to run for Federal office” by amending its personal use regulations at 11 CFR 113.1(g) to:
(1) Extend the date on which a candidate may begin drawing a campaign salary to at least 180 days before the primary election;
(2) Establish a minimum candidate salary of no less than the annualized salary of $15 per hour;
(3) Expressly permit a candidate to use campaign funds to pay the costs of any health benefit plan already provided to other campaign employees beginning on the date the candidate is eligible to receive a campaign salary.
On May 23, 2021, the Commission published a Notification of Availability (“NOA”) seeking public comment on the Petition.
On December 12, 2022, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) in the
In the NPRM, the Commission proposed several changes to its personal use regulations, including a reorganization of the Commission's current regulations at 11 CFR 113.1(g)(1) through (8) addressing personal use, and the candidate salary regulation at 11 CFR 113.1(g)(1)(i)(I). The Commission proposed to remove, reserve, and redesignate several paragraphs
The Commission proposed the new paragraph 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6) to have seven subparagraphs as follows, each of which is explained further below:
• New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(i), to prohibit federal officeholders from receiving compensation as candidates from campaign funds. This prohibition already appears in the Commission's regulation.
• New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(ii), to limit the amount of compensation that a candidate could receive from campaign funds. The Commission proposed six alternative compensation caps, each of which would have enabled principal campaign committees to compensate
• New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(iii), to define “compensation” for purposes of the regulation. This definition does not currently appear in Commission regulations. The Commission proposed three alternative definitions, each of which would have defined compensation to include direct payments to the candidate and payments for at least some other employee-related benefits, such as health insurance premiums or dependent care costs. The Commission is adopting a modified version of these proposals.
• New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(iv), to require a candidate's committee to reduce the maximum amount of compensation that the candidate could receive from campaign funds by the amount of any earned income the candidate received while also receiving compensation from campaign funds. This provision would have revised a requirement already in the Commission's regulation.
• New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(v), to establish the period during which a candidate would be eligible to receive compensation from campaign funds. This provision would have increased the length of the eligibility period already in Commission regulations.
• New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(vi), to prohibit a candidate's principal campaign committee that seeks to settle debts for less than their full value from paying compensation to the candidate or satisfying a debt to the candidate for compensation, and to prohibit any debt settlement plan created under 11 CFR 116.7 from providing for the payment of compensation to the candidate before all other creditors are paid. These prohibitions do not currently appear in the Commission's regulations. The Commission is adopting a modified version of this proposal.
• New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(vii), to require a candidate who receives compensation from campaign funds to provide evidence of prior earned income upon the request of the Commission in certain circumstances, and to require a candidate to maintain and preserve such evidence for three years, pursuant to the Commission's regulations on the preservation of records. This provision would have revised a requirement currently appearing in the Commission's regulation.
The Commission received 62 written comments in response to the NPRM. Ten comments were submitted by or on behalf of 15 organizations, 3 were submitted by former candidates for federal office, and 49 were from other individuals.
As explained further below, these comments unanimously supported some version of the Commission's proposals to permit principal campaign committees to compensate candidates who did not receive income in the year prior to becoming a candidate, although the comments varied widely in the alternatives they supported. These comments echoed the Petition and comments on the Petition in pointing out that the current regulation does not allow full-time caregivers, or those who have had a recent gap in employment, to receive compensation from campaign funds. The comments also supported allowing candidates to obtain compensation from campaign funds at the start of their campaigns. These comments cited, as did the Petitioner and comments on the Petition, the wide disparity among state ballot access deadlines and the demands that modern campaigns place on candidates as early as the start of their campaigns. The comments also supported allowing winning candidates to accept compensation from campaign funds until they are sworn into office; some comments additionally urged the Commission to extend the eligibility period for losing candidates by allowing them to continue accepting campaign funds for a short period after the end of their candidacies to wind down their campaign committees. The comments also generally agreed that a candidate's campaign committee should be able to use campaign funds to pay the candidate's health insurance premiums or dependent care costs.
On March 22, 2023, the Commission held a public hearing on Candidate Salaries. The Commission heard testimony from 11 witnesses, all but one of whom supported making changes to the Commission's regulations on candidate compensation. The witnesses included one Member of Congress, five former congressional candidates, a legal academic, and representatives from four organizations: a national labor organization, a national party committee, and two public interest organizations that advocate for campaign finance reform. After the hearing, four witnesses submitted additional information to the Commission.
As explained further below, the Member of Congress and former congressional candidates testified to the hardships they faced in running for federal office, due to the limited time period that candidates are eligible to receive compensation from campaign funds under the current regulation. These witnesses also expressed support for many of the Commission's proposals. The legal academic and most of the witnesses representing organizations generally argued that the cap on candidate compensation should be untethered from previous earnings, that the date of eligibility should be moved to the start of candidacy, and that candidates should be able to receive benefits from campaign funds.
One witness argued that the payment of any candidate compensation violates the Act's “irrespective” test because it allows candidates to pay indirectly for personal living expenses. The witness suggested that the Commission should either repeal the current regulation or not increase the ability of candidates to receive compensation under it.
Considering the issues raised in the Petition, public comments, and witness testimony,
As proposed in the NPRM, the Commission is also reorganizing its
The Commission's current regulations prohibit a federal officeholder who is also a federal candidate from receiving a salary from campaign funds.
In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to maintain this prohibition at 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(i) by providing that a federal officeholder may not receive compensation as a candidate from campaign funds. The Commission received no comments on this proposal. The Commission is maintaining this prohibition and moving it to new 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(i).
Under the current regulation, salary payments from campaign funds to a candidate are limited to the lesser of the minimum salary for the federal office that the candidate seeks, or the earned income that the candidate received during the year prior to becoming a candidate.
In the NPRM, the Commission proposed six alternatives (Proposed Compensation Cap Alternatives A through F) for revising the cap on the amount of compensation a candidate may receive from campaign funds. The Commission proposed these alternatives because, as indicated in the Petition and comments on the Petition, the current regulation does not adequately address “income that is forgone due to becoming a candidate,”
For each alternative, the Commission proposed to require principal campaign committees to calculate the compensation and cap at the daily rate, rounded to the nearest dollar. Under this approach, the compensation and cap would be allocated based on the number of days per year that the candidate spent campaigning.
In addition to comments on specific alternatives as described below, the comments supporting the NPRM's proposals agreed that the Commission should expand the pool of candidates eligible to receive compensation from campaign funds to include people who otherwise might be prevented from campaigning due to a lack of funds, such as students, caregivers, and those who lost jobs before becoming a candidate. Several comments also agreed that no candidate should be able to accept compensation from campaign funds exceeding the salary for the federal office sought by the candidate.
Proposed Compensation Cap Alternatives A, B, and C did not consider a candidate's prior earned income in setting a cap on the amount of compensation the candidate could receive from campaign funds.
Proposed Compensation Cap Alternative A (50% minimum officeholder salary approach) would have capped the amount of campaign funds that a candidate's principal campaign committee could use to pay compensation to the candidate at 50% of the minimum salary for the federal office sought. This cap would have applied to all candidates for the same office, regardless of the amount of income they earned the year before becoming a candidate. Five comments generally supported the approach taken in Alternative A, but differed as to whether the cap should be set at 50% or 100% of the salary for the office sought by the candidate.
Proposed Compensation Cap Alternative B (hourly minimum wage approach) would have capped a candidate's compensation from campaign funds at the daily rate of the annualized hourly minimum wage.
Proposed Compensation Cap Alternative C ($15 per hour approach) would have capped candidate compensation based on the amount an individual receiving $15 per hour would earn by working 40 hours per week for 52 weeks—calculated at the daily rate—rather than the federal or state minimum wage. Three comments opposed Alternative C, arguing that this alternative was too low to provide a living wage to candidates, not objectively justifiable, and would neither compensate candidates for their services to a campaign nor reasonably account for their opportunity costs incurred in running for office. No comments supported this alternative.
Proposed Compensation Cap Alternatives D, E, and F, like the current regulation, would have considered the candidate's previous earned income, but in different ways.
Proposed Compensation Cap Alternative D (prior 12-month income approach) would have capped a candidate's compensation from campaign funds at the candidate's earned income in the 12-month period before becoming a candidate or the annualized hourly minimum wage, whichever was greater, but not to exceed the minimum annual salary for the office sought by the candidate. One comment supported Alternative D, because it would ensure that all candidates could receive at least the annualized minimum wage and enable candidates who had earned more during the relevant period to receive commensurately more compensation from campaign funds.
Proposed Compensation Cap Alternative E (three-year income approach) would have enabled a candidate to receive compensation from campaign funds up to the average annual income that the candidate had earned during the most recent three calendar years in which the candidate earned income prior to becoming a candidate, capped by the salary for the office sought by the candidate. No comments supported this alternative.
Proposed Compensation Cap Alternative F (three-year income with minimum wage approach) would have been the same as Alternative E, while also offering candidate committees the option of paying candidates up to the annualized minimum wage if the minimum wage was greater than the candidate's prior average earned income. Two comments supported Alternative F with modifications and two comments opposed it.
After considering the comments, the Commission is adopting a variation of Proposed Compensation Cap Alternative E. Under new 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(ii), the use of campaign funds by a candidate's principal campaign committee to pay compensation to the candidate is not personal use, provided that the compensation does not exceed the lesser of 50% of the minimum annual salary paid to a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives (regardless of the specific office sought), and the average annual income that the candidate earned during the most recent five calendar years in which the candidate earned income prior to becoming a candidate. The new regulation requires the average annual income and 50% of the minimum House Member salary to be calculated at the daily rate, rounded to the nearest dollar.
Like Proposed Compensation Cap Alternative E and the current regulation, the revised compensation cap allows a candidate's principal campaign committee to use campaign funds to pay the candidate compensation up to the lesser of the candidate's pre-candidacy earned income and a percentage of the minimum annual salary paid to a federal officeholder. The revised cap, however, allows the principal campaign committee to consider the candidate's prior earned income over a period of five years, instead of three years as proposed in the NPRM and one year as in the current regulation. The Commission intends this longer look-back to provide a more realistic estimate of the income a candidate forgoes in running for office; averaging income earned over a longer period is intended to moderate any aberrations in the candidate's prior annual earnings.
The Commission's revised regulation also differs from Proposed Compensation Cap Alternative E and the Commission's current regulation in that it places an upper-level cap at 50% of the minimum annual salary paid to a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, rather than 100% of the minimum annual salary paid to a federal officeholder holding the office that the candidate seeks. These changes are intended to better reflect substantial differences between running for federal office and holding federal office, especially in a higher-level position such as the presidency or a leadership position in Congress. Officeholders have significant duties under the Constitution, and their salaries are set by the political branches subject to Constitutional restraints.
The Commission is not adopting the other alternative cap proposals presented in the NPRM or comments. Although several comments presented policy arguments in favor of the other proposals (such as the desirability of providing a fair living wage, enhancing the diversity of candidates, and reducing bias that favors incumbents), these proposals would have enabled candidates to receive an amount of compensation from campaign funds that was divorced from the candidate's prior earnings history, and therefore did not reflect the candidate's demonstrated earning potential and income forgone by running for office. As the Commission has stated previously, the payment of campaign funds to a candidate is not personal use when it “compensate[s] candidates for lost income that is forgone due to becoming a candidate.”
In the Commission's view, a candidate's earned income history over the most recent five years that the candidate earned income, capped by 50% of the minimum House Member salary, provides a better picture of the income forgone by a candidate running for office.
As explained above, the Act does not specifically address compensation to candidates in its provisions on the personal use of campaign funds. While the Commission's current regulations permit the use of campaign funds to pay a “salary” to a candidate in certain circumstances, the regulations do not define “salary” or explicitly address the use of campaign funds to pay such
In the NPRM, the Commission proposed three alternative definitions of “compensation,” each of which included “direct payments to the candidate,” as well as payments for at least some other employment-related benefits. Several comments on the NPRM generally supported these proposals. One comment was concerned that the proposed definitions could be read to encompass payments to candidates for non-compensation purposes, such as campaign expense reimbursements and loan repayments.
The Commission agrees with this concern. The term “compensation” is intended to include only payments to a candidate to make up for salary forgone by becoming a candidate and is not intended to make otherwise permissible payments, such as candidate expense reimbursements and candidate loan repayments, subject to the compensation cap. Accordingly, new 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(iii) defines “compensation” as “direct payments to the candidate unless the payments are otherwise permitted by law, such as candidate expense reimbursements and candidate loan repayments under 11 CFR part 116.”
The Commission is not addressing the payment of a candidate's health insurance premiums and dependent care costs in these final rules. Although several comments supported including payments for these benefits in the definition of “compensation,” arguing that such benefits are inextricably linked to employment and requiring candidates to forgo those benefits while campaigning could prevent some individuals from running for federal office, the advisory opinion process is better suited to addressing this use of campaign funds. Determining whether an impermissible conversion of campaign funds to personal use would result from a campaign committee's payment of a candidate's health insurance premiums or dependent care costs is a fact-specific inquiry.
As noted above, the Commission's current regulation caps the amount of campaign funds that a candidate may receive in salary from the candidate's principal campaign committee at either (1) the amount of income earned by the candidate in the 12-month period immediately preceding candidacy, or (2) the minimum annual salary for the federal office that the candidate seeks, whichever amount is lower. For purposes of this calculation, the current regulation further requires the minimum salary of the office that the candidate seeks to be reduced by the amount of any earned income that the candidate receives from salaries or wages from any source other than the candidate's principal campaign committee.
In the NPRM, the Commission proposed new 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(iv) to rectify the apparent imbalance in the salary cap reduction by requiring the amount earned by a candidate from other sources to count against the maximum amount of compensation that a candidate can receive from campaign funds, rather than counting against only the minimum annual salary for the office sought by the candidate. Although these final rules incorporate a standard tied to the minimum House Member salary even if the candidate is not seeking that office, the NPRM's proposal regarding the reduction for outside earned income remains otherwise unchanged.
Three comments supported the proposed regulation. They indicated that it would enhance oversight of candidates receiving compensation from campaign funds and was particularly apt considering the Commission's proposed expansion of candidates' ability to accept compensation from campaign funds and the period during which they may do so. No comment opposed the proposal.
The Commission agrees that earned income a candidate receives from non-campaign sources should count against the maximum amount of compensation that the candidate can receive from campaign funds. If a candidate earns income from outside sources while campaigning for federal office, that income has not been lost to campaigning, and the Commission discerns no reason for treating outside earned income differently based on whether the applicable compensation cap is set by the candidate's pre-candidacy earned income or the minimum House Member salary. Therefore, the Commission is adopting the proposal at new 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(iv) to require a candidate's principal campaign committee to reduce the maximum amount of permissible candidate compensation from campaign funds by the amount of income earned by the candidate from other sources after the candidate files a Statement of Candidacy.
The Commission's current regulation prohibits the use of campaign funds to pay a candidate's salary before the filing deadline for access to the primary election ballot for the federal office that the candidate seeks, as determined by state law, or January 1 of each even-numbered year in states that do not conduct primaries.
In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to allow candidates to begin receiving compensation from campaign funds on the date the candidate's principal campaign committee files a Statement of Organization with the Commission, regardless of when the candidate is required to file for ballot access under state law. This proposal was intended to reflect more accurately when a candidate may start to forgo salary because of the campaign, and to apply uniform criteria for when candidates' principal campaign committees may start using campaign funds to compensate the candidate.
The comments generally supported this proposal. Echoing the Petition, several comments argued that ballot access deadlines are an inaccurate means of determining when a candidate begins losing income due to campaigning, and the lack of uniformity in state ballot access deadlines militates against using those deadlines to trigger candidates' eligibility to receive compensation from campaign funds. The comments largely agreed with the Commission's proposal to allow candidates to begin drawing compensation from campaign funds on the date that their principal campaign committee files a Statement of Organization with the Commission, but two comments suggested that the eligibility period should begin when the candidate files the Statement of Candidacy.
The Commission is adopting new 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(v) to allow candidates to begin receiving compensation from campaign funds on the date they file their Statement of Candidacy, rather than on the date of the state's filing deadline for ballot access as under the current regulation or when a principal campaign committee files a Statement of Organization with the Commission as proposed. The comments indicate that campaigns often start well before the state's filing deadline for ballot access under state law. Moreover, under the Act and Commission regulations, each candidate must file a new Statement of Candidacy with the Commission for each election in which the candidate runs for office, but a principal campaign committee is not required to file a new Statement of Organization for each election. The Statement of Candidacy is the first document that a campaign must file with the Commission.
The current regulation prohibits the use of campaign funds to pay a candidate's salary after the date the candidate loses the primary election, withdraws from the race, or otherwise ceases to be a candidate or, if the candidate wins the primary, after the date of the general election or general election runoff.
In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to extend the eligibility period for candidates who win the general election, general election runoff, special election, or special election runoff by allowing them to continue receiving compensation from campaign funds up to the date they are sworn into office, rather than on the date of the election as under the current regulation. For losing candidates and any other individual who ceases to be a candidate, such as by withdrawing from the race, the Commission proposed to continue the approach under the current regulation and prohibit compensation from being paid beyond the date of losing the election or otherwise ceasing to be a candidate.
Many of the comments supported the Commission's proposal to permit winning candidates to receive compensation from campaign funds up to the date they are sworn into office, rather than the date of the election, and two suggested lengthening the period for losing candidates as well. One comment argued that losing candidates should be permitted to receive compensation for a reasonable period, such as 60 days after the election, and another organization suggested 1 or 2
The Commission is adopting new 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(B) to enable all candidates to accept compensation from campaign funds for 20 calendar days after winning or losing the election or otherwise ceasing to become a candidate. As the comments pointed out, all candidates must spend time after a campaign winding down their campaigns, and a 20-day period reflects the timelines of reportable activity for post-general election reports.
To prevent candidates from enriching themselves at the expense of other campaign creditors, the Commission proposed in the NPRM to prohibit any principal campaign committee seeking to settle debts for less than full value from paying compensation to the candidate or satisfying a debt to the candidate for compensation. In addition, under the proposal, any debt settlement plan created under 11 CFR 116.7 would be prohibited from providing for the payment of compensation to the candidate before all other creditors are paid.
The Commission received two comments supporting this proposal, at least in part. One comment said the proposed revision is necessary for sufficient oversight of candidates receiving compensation from campaign funds. The other agreed that a principal campaign committee's debt to a candidate for compensation should be subordinated to debts owed to the committee's other creditors in any debt settlement plan, but suggested that committees seeking to settle debts for less than the full value should also be permitted to settle a debt for compensation with the candidate.
The Commission does not agree with the latter comment's suggestion. New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(vi) is intended to prevent a principal campaign committee from paying compensation to a candidate at the expense of the committee's other creditors. When a principal campaign committee seeks to settle debts for less than the full amount owed, any campaign funds that the committee pays to the candidate for compensation are funds that could have been, but are not being, paid to help make other creditors whole. Accordingly, new 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(vi) prohibits a principal campaign committee from settling or satisfying a debt for compensation to the candidate, or otherwise paying compensation to the candidate, when seeking to settle debts to others for less than the full amount owed.
The Commission's current regulations require any candidate receiving a salary from campaign funds to provide income tax records and other evidence of earned income upon request of the Commission.
The Commission is also adopting a proposal from the NPRM to require candidates to maintain and preserve evidence of earned income for three years after their principal campaign committees file reports disclosing the payment of compensation to the candidates, pursuant to 11 CFR 102.9 and 104.14(b). The Commission received no comments on this proposal. Sections 102.9 and 104.14(b) already require political committees and their authorized agents to keep certain records of committee disbursements
The Commission certifies that the final rules do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The final rules provide flexibility to principal campaign committees that choose to use campaign funds to pay their candidates compensation. Any final rule that could be construed as placing an obligation on a principal campaign committee would apply only to campaigns that choose to pay their candidates compensation. The final rules would not impose any new recordkeeping, reporting, or financial obligations on principal campaign committees that do not choose to pay their candidates compensation, and any such new obligations that are imposed on principal campaign committees that do choose to pay compensation to their candidates would be minimal. Thus, to the extent that any entities affected by these final rules might fall within the definition of “small businesses” or “small organizations,” the economic impact of complying with these rules is not significant.
Campaign funds.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Federal Election Commission amends 11 CFR chapter 1 as follows:
52 U.S.C. 30102(h), 30111(a)(8), 30114, and 30116.
The addition reads as follows:
(6)
(ii) The use of campaign funds by a candidate's principal campaign committee to pay compensation to the candidate is not personal use, provided that the compensation does not exceed the lesser of: 50% of the minimum annual salary paid to a Member of the
(iii) For the purposes of this paragraph,
(iv) The candidate's principal campaign committee must reduce the maximum amount of candidate compensation permissible under this paragraph (g)(6) by the amount of any earned income the candidate receives from any other source after filing a Statement of Candidacy under 11 CFR 101.1(a).
(v)(A) Compensation shall not accrue or be paid to a candidate before the date the candidate files a Statement of Candidacy with the Commission.
(B) A candidate's principal campaign committee may pay the candidate compensation from campaign funds up to 20 days after the candidate wins the general election, general election runoff, special election, or special election runoff, or otherwise ceases to be a candidate, such as by losing an election or withdrawing from the race.
(vi) Any principal campaign committee seeking to settle debts for less than the full value may not pay compensation to the candidate or settle or satisfy a debt to a candidate for compensation.
(vii) The candidate must provide evidence of earned income from the relevant years upon the request of the Commission. Any such evidence of earned income must be maintained and preserved for three years after the report disclosing the disbursement is filed, pursuant to 11 CFR 102.9 and 104.14(b).
On behalf of the Commission,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports that the nose wheel steering selector valve (SSV) can be slow to deactivate under low temperature conditions. This AD requires replacing the affected SSV with a re-designed SSV that has an improved response time. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective February 6, 2024.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of February 6, 2024.
• For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier Business Aircraft Customer Response Center, 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-2999; email
• You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available at
Gabriel Kim, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; email
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacing the affected SSV with a re-designed SSV that has an improved response time. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA received a comment from NetJets. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response.
NetJets suggested adding Bombardier part numbers GW415-6275-1 & GW415-6275-3 to paragraph (g) of the proposed AD, in addition to Safran part numbers, as stated in SB 700-32-6021, paragraph 3., MATERIAL INFORMATION. NetJets stated that, at new aircraft delivery, the Bombardier part numbers are provided in the documentation of the aircraft. The FAA infers that NetJets would like to ensure the proper identification of the parts.
The FAA concurs with the suggestion. To aid in identifying the parts, paragraph (g) of this AD has been changed to add the referenced Bombardier part numbers.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.
The FAA reviewed the following Bombardier service information.
• Service Bulletin 700-32-044, Revision 01, dated December 7, 2022.
• Service Bulletin 700-32-6021, Revision 01, dated December 7, 2022.
• Service Bulletin 700-32-6507, Revision 01, dated December 7, 2022.
• Service Bulletin 700-1A11-32-031, Revision 01, dated December 7, 2022.
• Service Bulletin 700-32-5021, Revision 01, dated December 7, 2022.
• Service Bulletin 700-32-5507, Revision 01, dated December 7, 2022.
This service information specifies procedures for replacing the affected SSV with a re-designed SSV. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane configurations. 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 the
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 442 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective February 6, 2024.
None.
This AD applies to the Bombardier, Inc., airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this AD.
(1) Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes, as identified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-32-044, Revision 01, dated December 7, 2022.
(2) Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes, as identified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-32-6021, Revision 01, dated December 7, 2022.
(3) Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes, as identified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-32-6507, Revision 01, dated December 7, 2022.
(4) Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes, as identified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-32-031, Revision 01, dated December 7, 2022.
(5) Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes, as identified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-32-5021, Revision 01, dated December 7, 2022.
(6) Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes, as identified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-32-5507, Revision 01, dated December 7, 2022.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.
This AD was prompted by reports that the nose wheel steering selector valve (SSV) can be slow to deactivate under low temperature
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 66 months or 3,200 flight hours, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD: Replace SSV part number (P/N) 23600-101 (Bombardier P/N GW415-6275-1) with SSV P/N 23600-103 (Bombardier P/N GW415-6275-3) in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Bombardier service bulletin listed in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable Bombardier service bulletin listed in figure 2 to paragraph (h) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF-2023-02, dated January 11, 2023, for related information. This Transport Canada AD may be found in the AD docket at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Gabriel Kim, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; email
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-32-044, Revision 01, dated December 7, 2022.
(ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-32-6021, Revision 01, dated December 7, 2022.
(iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-32-6507, Revision 01, dated December 7, 2022.
(iv) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-32-031, Revision 01, dated December 7, 2022.
(v) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-32-5021, Revision 01, dated December 7, 2022.
(vi) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-32-5507, Revision 01, dated December 7, 2022.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier Business Aircraft Customer Response Center, 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-2999; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2022-08-04, which applied to all Airbus SAS Model A300 series airplanes. AD 2022-08-04 required revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. Since the FAA issued AD 2022-08-04, the FAA has determined new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. This AD continues to require the actions of AD 2022-08-04, and requires new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective January 17, 2024.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 17, 2024.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of June 16, 2022 (87 FR 29037, May 12, 2022).
The FAA must receive comments on this AD by February 16, 2024.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For material incorporated by reference in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
• You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available at
Dan Rodina, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 206-231-3225; email
The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. 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 AD 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 AD, 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 AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Dan Rodina, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 206-231-3225; email
The FAA issued AD 2022-08-04, Amendment 39-22007 (87 FR 29037, May 12, 2022) (AD 2022-08-04), for all Airbus SAS Model A300 series airplanes. AD 2022-08-04 was prompted by an MCAI originated by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued AD 2021-0134, dated June 1, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0134), to correct an unsafe condition.
AD 2022-08-04 required revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations described in Airbus A300
Since the FAA issued AD 2022-08-04, EASA superseded EASA AD 2021-0134 and issued EASA AD 2023-0104, dated May 24, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0104) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A300 series airplanes. The FAA has removed Airbus SAS Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, and B2-203 airplanes from the FAA type certificate. Therefore, this AD does not include those airplanes in the applicability.
The MCAI states that since EASA AD 2021-0134 was issued, Airbus published Airbus A300 ALS Part 2 DT-ALI Revision 03, Variation 3.4 (Variation 3.4), which supersedes Variation 3.2. Variation 3.4, as defined in EASA AD 2023-0104, contains new and more restrictive tasks and introduces Maintenance Program Publication Triggers (MPPT), reflecting the limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that supports the structural maintenance program. Therefore, EASA AD 2023-0104 takes over the requirements of EASA AD 2021-0134 and requires accomplishment of the actions and compliance with the new MPPT specified in Variation 3.4.
The MCAI also stated it had previously issued AD 2017-0207, dated October 12, 2017 (EASA AD 2017-0207); AD 2020-0110R1, dated May 27, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0110R1); AD 2021-0134; and AD 2021-0181, dated July 30, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0181); requiring the actions described in Airbus A300 Airbus A300 ALS Part 2 DT-ALI Revision 03, Variation 3.1, Variation 3.2, and Variation 3.3, respectively. EASA AD 2017-0207 corresponds to FAA AD 2018-19-17, Amendment 39-19417 (83 FR 48207, September 24, 2018). EASA AD 2020-0110R1 corresponds to certain actions in FAA AD 2020-23-11, Amendment 39-21327 (85 FR 75838, November 27, 2020). EASA AD 2021-0181 corresponds to FAA AD 2022-05-06, Amendment 39-21957 (87 FR 10956, February 28, 2022). After those EASA ADs were issued, Airbus published Variation 3.4, as defined in EASA AD 2023-0104. The MCAI states that it does not supersede EASA ADs 2017-0207, 2020-0110R1, and 2021-0181. However, the MCAI does affect EASA AD 2017-0207 and specifies that where it requires a task (limitation) that is required by EASA AD 2017-0207 (which corresponds to FAA AD 2018-19-17), the instructions of Variation 3.4 invalidate (terminate) the instructions of Airbus A300 Airbus A300 ALS Part 2 DT-ALI Revision 03. Therefore, accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD terminates the corresponding requirements of AD 2018-19-17 for the tasks identified in the service information referenced in EASA AD 2023-0104 only. This AD also replaces the LOVs specified in paragraph 1.3 of Airbus A300 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Revision 03, dated August 28, 2017, as required by FAA AD 2018-19-17.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address possible reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
EASA AD 2023-0104 specifies procedures for new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, which includes updated airplane LOV language and MPPTs.
This AD also requires EASA AD 2021-0134, dated June 1, 2021, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of June 16, 2022 (87 FR 29037, May 12, 2022).
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, which are specified in EASA AD 2023-0104 described previously, as incorporated by reference.
This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the incorporation by reference of EASA AD 2021-0134 is retained and EASA AD 2023-0104 is incorporated by reference in this AD. This AD requires compliance with EASA AD 2021-0134 and EASA AD 2023-0104 in their entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2021-0134 or EASA AD 2023-0104 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2021-0134 or EASA AD 2023-0104. Service information required by EASA AD 2021-0134 and EASA AD 2023-0104 for compliance will be available at
The FAA's process of incorporating by reference MCAI ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with corresponding FAA ADs has been limited to certain MCAI ADs (primarily those with service bulletins as the primary source of information for accomplishing the actions required by the FAA AD). However, the FAA is now
For these ADs that incorporate by reference an MCAI AD that changes airworthiness limitations, the FAA requirements are unchanged. Operators must revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in the new airworthiness limitation document. The airworthiness limitations must be followed according to 14 CFR 91.403(c) and 91.409(e).
The previous format of the airworthiness limitation ADs included a paragraph that specified that no alternative actions (
Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551
There are currently no domestic operators of these products. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). In addition, for the forgoing reason(s), the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
The requirements of the RFA do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.
Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. For any affected airplane that may be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, the FAA provides the following cost estimates to comply with this AD:
The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained actions from AD 2022-08-04 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).
The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.
The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new action to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective January 17, 2024.
This AD replaces AD 2022-08-04, Amendment 39-22007 (87 FR 29037, May 12, 2022) (AD 2022-08-04). This AD affects AD 2018-19-17, Amendment 39-19417 (83 FR 48207, September 24, 2018) (AD 2018-19-17).
This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance.
This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address possible reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2022-08-04, with no changes. Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions
This paragraph restates the exceptions specified in paragraph (h) of AD 2022-08-04, with no changes.
(1) Where EASA AD 2021-0134 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using June 16, 2022 (the effective date of AD 2022-08-04).
(2) Where paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2021-0134 specifies “This AD invalidates the LOV [limit of validity] as specified in Airbus A300 ALS Part 2 Revision 03 [EASA AD 2017-0207],” this AD replaces the LOVs specified in paragraph 1.3 of Airbus A300 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Revision 03, dated August 28, 2017, as required by FAA AD 2018-19-17.
(3) Paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2021-0134 specifies revising “the approved AMP” within 12 months after its effective date, but this AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, within 90 days after June 16, 2022 (the effective date of AD 2022-08-04).
(4) The “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2021-0134 does not apply to this AD.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2022-08-04, with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph (j) of this AD, after the existing maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
Except as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, EASA AD 2023-0104, dated May 24, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0104). Accomplishing the revision of the existing maintenance or inspection program required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) This AD does not adopt the requirements specified in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of EASA AD 2023-0104.
(2) Where paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2023-0104 specifies “Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the AMP,” this AD requires replacing those words with “Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable.”
(3) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2023-0104 is at the associated thresholds as incorporated by the requirements of paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2023-0104, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(4) This AD does not adopt the provisions specified in paragraph (5) of EASA AD 2023-0104.
(5) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2023-0104.
(1) Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD replaces the LOVs specified in paragraph 1.3 of Airbus A300 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2-Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Revision 03, dated August 28, 2017, as required by AD 2018-19-17.
(2) Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD terminates the corresponding requirements of AD 2018-19-17 for the tasks identified in the service information referenced in AD 2023-0104 only.
After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (j) of this AD, no alternative actions (
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 206-231-3225; email
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on January 17, 2024.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2023-0104, dated May 24, 2023.
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on June 16, 2022 (87 FR 29037, May 12, 2022).
(i) EASA AD 2021-0134, dated June 1, 2021.
(ii) [Reserved]
(5) EASA ADs 2023-0104 and 2021-0134, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
(6) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. This material may be found in the AD docket at
(7) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain MHI RJ Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of a passenger seat Y-belt (lap belt) re-installed in the wrong orientation, due to an incorrect maintenance manual. This AD requires inspecting certain Y-belts for correct installation and damage and corrective actions if necessary. This AD also prohibits the use of certain revisions of a maintenance task. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective February 6, 2024.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 6, 2024.
• For MHI RJ service information identified in this final rule, contact MHI RJ Aviation Group, Customer Response Center, 3655 Ave. des Grandes-Tourelles, Suite 110, Boisbriand, Québec J7H 0E2 Canada; North America toll-free telephone 833-990-7272 or direct-dial telephone 450-990-7272; fax 514-855-8501; email
• You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available at
Fatin Saumik, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain MHI RJ Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The NPRM published in the
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require inspecting certain Y-belts for correct installation and damage and corrective actions if necessary. The FAA also proposed to prohibit the use of certain revisions of a maintenance task. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.
The FAA reviewed MHI RJ Service Bulletin 670BA-25-135, Revision B, dated November 25, 2022. This service information specifies procedures to inspect for correct installation (as shown in certain maintenance tasks) of each passenger seat Y-belt. This service information also specifies corrective actions, which include re-installing each incorrectly installed Y-belt per certain maintenance tasks and addressing damage (includes dents or misshapen hooks that attach the belt to the seat).
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 the
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 606 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective February 6, 2024.
None.
This AD applies to MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate previously held by Bombardier, Inc.) airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this AD.
(1) Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702) and CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550) airplanes, serial numbers (S/N) 10001 through 10348 inclusive.
(2) Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, S/N 15001 through 15499 inclusive.
(3) Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes, S/N 19001 through 19064 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code: 25, Equipment/Furnishings.
This AD was prompted by a report of a passenger seat Y-belt (lap-belt) re-installed in the wrong orientation, due to an incorrect maintenance manual. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and address Y-belts that are incorrectly installed. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in passenger injury due to head impact on the front monument during an emergency landing.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect each Y-belt for correct installation and damage and, if any incorrect installation or damage is found, within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with paragraph B, “Procedure,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of MHI RJ Service Bulletin 670BA-25-135, Revision B, dated November 25, 2022. For this AD, damage includes dents or misshapen hooks that attach the belt to the seat.
Y-belts are also known as lap belts.
Where paragraph B, “Procedure,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of MHI RJ Service Bulletin 670BA-25-135, Revision B, dated November 25, 2022, specifies to “refer to AMM” replace those words with “in accordance with AMM.”
As of the effective date of this AD, it is prohibited to use MHI RJ Aviation ULC Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) task 25-21-04-400-801, revision 69 or earlier.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information
(1) MHI RJ Service Bulletin 670BA-25-135, dated June 1, 2022.
(2) MHI RJ Service Bulletin 670BA-25-135, Revision A, dated August 30, 2022.
The following provisions also apply to this AD.
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF-2023-10, dated February 17, 2023, for related information. This Transport Canada AD may be found in the AD docket at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Fatin Saumik, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; email:
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (m)(3) and (4) of this AD.
(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) MHI RJ Service Bulletin 670BA-25-135, Revision B, dated November 25, 2022.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For MHI RJ Aviation ULC service information identified in this AD, contact MHI RJ Aviation Group, Customer Response Center, 3655 Ave. des Grandes-Tourelles, Suite 110, Boisbriand, Québec J7H 0E2 Canada; North America toll-free telephone 833-990-7272 or direct-dial telephone 450-990-7272; fax 514-855-8501; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus SAS Model A310 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. This AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective February 6, 2024.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 6, 2024.
• For EASA material incorporated by reference in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available in the AD docket at
Dan Rodina, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3225; email
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model A310 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in EASA AD 2023-0092. The FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking, damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA received comments from FedEx who supported the NPRM without change.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
EASA AD 2023-0092 describes new or more restrictive airworthiness tasks for airplane structures. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1 airplane of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the FAA recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past, the FAA has estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the FAA estimates the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective February 6, 2024.
This AD affects AD 2019-20-06, Amendment 39-19759 (84 FR 55859, October 18, 2019) (AD 2019-20-06).
This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code: 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking, damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2023-0092, dated May 5, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0092).
(1) This AD does not adopt the requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA AD 2023-0092.
(2) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2023-0092 specifies revising “the AMP” within 12 months after its effective date, but this AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
(3) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in paragraph (3) of EASA 2023-0092 is at the applicable “associated thresholds” as incorporated by the requirements of paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2023-0092, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(4) This AD does not adopt the provisions specified in the “Recording AD compliance” section of EASA AD 2023-0092.
(5) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2023-0092.
After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
Accomplishing the actions required by this AD terminates the corresponding requirements of AD 2019-20-06 for the tasks identified in the service information referenced in EASA AD 2023-0092 only.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3225; email
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2023-0092, dated May 5, 2023.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA AD 2023-0092, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Maritime Commission.
Final rule.
The Federal Maritime Commission (Commission) amends its regulations governing Carrier Automated Tariffs. The final rule removes the option for common carriers to charge a fee to access their tariff; allow non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOCCs) to cross-reference certain aspects of other carriers' terms in their tariffs; clarify the ability for NVOCCs to reflect increases in certain charges passed-through by other entities without notice; revise regulations to specify permissible relationships between NVOCCs for the co-loading of cargo, and makes other miscellaneous updates and clarifications to the regulation, including removing outdated citations.
This final rule is effective on February 1, 2024.
You may use the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Amy Strauss, Acting Secretary; Phone: (202) 523-5725; Email:
On May 10, 2022, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking comment on proposed changes to Commission regulations in 46 CFR part 520.
With one exception, commenters that addressed the proposed rule requiring common carriers to provide free access to their tariff systems supported the rule. Kintetsu World Express favored continuing to allow a fee to be assessed, asserting that tariff publishers that currently charge an access fee to the public will likely attempt to recover lost revenue from their common carrier customer if they can no longer charge a third party for tariff access. Kintetsu at 2.
With respect to its proposal regarding the cross-referencing of tariffs that would be part of 46 CFR 520.7(a)(3)(iv), commenters NYNJFF&BA; NCBFAA; C.H. Powell; Ascent Global Logistics; and Mohawk Global expressed concern with allowing an NVOCC to cross-reference an ocean common carrier tariff in its own tariff for the purpose of charging its shipper the ocean common carrier's surcharges and assessorial charges. These concerns centered on two main issues. First, the asserted burden placed on the NVOCC to list in its tariff all named VOCC surcharges and provide links to those VOCC tariffs would be too great. Second, NVOCC commenters expressed an unwillingness to disclose to their shippers the identities of the VOCCs they use.
The Commission addresses these comments by clarifying that under the new § 520.7(a)(3)(iv), when an NVOCC cross-references a VOCC tariff, the requirement to list the charges which may be passed through is satisfied by publishing in the NVOCC tariff a list of names which may encompass a category of charges—for example, a “Bunker Surcharge” may include Low Sulphur Fuel Charges and Fuel Recovery Surcharges. In addition, the NVOCC tariff need only reference that these charges may be assessed at cost per the underlying VOCC's governing tariff, rather than cite a specific VOCC name and/or tariff. To ensure the clarity of the filing requirement, the Commission has revised the wording of the new rule to state that categories of charges may be listed in the NVOCC's tariff.
The Commission also notes the comment by NYNJFF&BA that shipper transparency would be served by including a statement on a Negotiated Rate Arrangement (NRA) quotation, or in the NVOCC Rules tariff that verification of pass-through charges can be provided upon request. NYNJFF&BA at 3. While not in the scope of this rulemaking, the Commission nonetheless encourages NVOCCs to implement this practice as a means of providing confirmation of the type and amount of charge(s) passed through for payment by the shipper.
A comment received by NYNJFF&BA with respect to charges passed through by NVOCCs to their shipper after being imposed on a VOCC by an outside entity reflects the same concern in reference to the name and type of VOCC-originated charges passed through to NVOCCs discussed in Section B. NYNJFF&BA at 3-4. The Commission therefore is making the same revision to the new rule at § 520.7(h) to state that categories of charges may be listed.
As discussed in the NPRM, the Commission has historically classified General Rate Increases (GRIs) as a component of the base ocean freight assessed by the common carrier, not a charge or surcharge, and therefore would not be subject to an exemption under § 520.7(a)(3)(iv) as proposed in the NPRM. In its comments, the NYNJFF&BA opposed the exclusion of GRIs as a charge that may be passed through by an NVOCC. NYNJFF&BA at 4-5. The NYNJFF&BA asserted that VOCC GRIs should be allowed to be passed through in the same way as other “rapidly changing and proliferating VOCC charges.” NYNJFF&BA also notes that current regulations governing NRAs allow an NVOCC to apply GRIs in the same way as surcharges and accessorial charges. NYNJFF&BA at 4. Comments from the NYNJFF&BA and NCBFAA added that VOCC GRIs are often announced with the required 30-day notice but are reduced or delayed just prior to the effective date. NYNJFF&BA at 4-5; NCBFAA ANPRM Comment at 6. These comments also indicated that, should the NVOCC publish an increase in line with the VOCC's published GRI, the underlying shipper may be subject to the increase, regardless of a last-minute reduction or delay in effective date by the VOCC, if the NVOCC does not file a coinciding reduction or delay in its own tariff. Based on comments received and the current regulation at § 532.5(d)(2), which allows VOCC GRIs to apply to an NRA, the Commission is revising its regulation at § 520.7(a)(3)(iv) to specify that an NVOCC has the option to pass through a VOCC GRI to its shipper.
In its NPRM, the Commission stated that regulations that would allow an NVOCC to pass through increases in certain charges without advance notice under specified conditions are not intended to allow a markup of charges above what the third party has billed. Several commenters asserted that NVOCCs should be allowed to charge a “nominal” fee to recover the cost of the outlay of charges assessed by an outside entity.
The Commission received comments on its proposal to revise the definition of “co-loading” to limit this term to the act of combining of less-than-container-loads (LCL) of cargo.
The Commission recognizes that the term co-loading has come to encompass both (1) the combining of LCL cargo by two or more NVOCCs in a container, and (2) the re-selling of space for FCL cargo by one NVOCC to another NVOCC. In proposing to limit the
The Commission notes that the requirement to annotate already applies to co-loaded cargo pursuant to § 520.11(c)(2). The final rule does not change Commission regulations in this regard. However, regulations that govern the co-loading of cargo will be augmented to clarify the types of relationships that are allowable for the co-loading of cargo among NVOCCs. Specifically, current regulations make reference to carrier-to-carrier relationships and shipper-to-carrier relationships between NVOCCs in a co-loading situation. These relationships establish the responsibility of each NVOCC as they relate to each other and to the beneficial cargo owner. In a shipper-to-carrier relationship, a master NVOCC receives cargo from a tendering NVOCC and acts as carrier to the tendering NVOCC in issuing its house bill of lading and assuming legal responsibility as carrier for the cargo. The revisions to new paragraph 520.11(c)(2) clarify that this arrangement may be used for the shipment of either LCL or FCL cargo. In a carrier-to-carrier relationship, the NVOCCs enter into an agreement which establishes the terms under which the NVOCCs will share container space for consolidated cargo. Each NVOCC will issue its house bill of lading for its portion of the cargo and act as carrier to its own customer. The revisions to new paragraph 520.11(c)(2) clarify that carrier-to-carrier arrangements will limit this type of arrangement to LCL cargo only.
In addition to these changes, the Commission also made a number of other changes to 46 CFR 520.2-520.14 as detailed below.
The Commission is removing legacy parallel citations that provided the public with useful information after the codification of the Commission's authorities in Title 46 of the United States Code. The Commission is also deleting the definition of “Act” from the definition section. These citations and definition are no longer necessary or accurate, and the Commission is removing them.
The Commission revises several provisions within part 520 to clarify when the regulations are expressing a requirement or obligation. Among these changes include replacing the term “shall” with the term “must” to clearly indicate that certain acts are required and to identify regulatory obligations. Similarly, the Commission also replaces certain usages of the term “may” with the term “must” to identify requirements or obligations. In addition, the Commission made other clarifying edits.
To clarify the definitions in § 520.2, the Commission: adds clarifying language to the definition of “bulk cargo” to explain that bulk “containerized cargo tendered by the shipper” is subject to mark and count and is, therefore, subject to the requirements of this part; amends the definition of combination rate to spell out the abbreviation for Tariff Rate Item; amends the definition of commodity description to require the description to be identified by a specific number; amends the definition of “harmonized system” to remove an outdated reference to the U.S. Customs Service; amends the definition of “publisher” to mean a person rather than an organization, and specify that a publisher is authorized to act by a common carrier; amends the definition of “retrieval” to remove outdated references to dial-up telecommunications and a network link; amends the definition of “rules” to clarify that a common carrier or a conference of common carriers set the tariff terms and conditions; amends the definition of “shipper” to specify that ocean transportation refers to the transportation of cargo, to specify that the person to whom delivery is to be made may be a consignee, and to include the meaning of shippers' association; and amends the definition of “through transportation” to make it consistent with the Shipping Act's revised definition. The Commission also adds definitions for “destination scope” and “inland division” to its regulations. Finally, the Commission removes as unnecessary the definitions of “joint rates,” “commodity description number,” “local rates,” “point of rest,” and “shippers' association.”
Pursuant to § 520.3(d), the Commission requires that all common carriers publish a tariff in an automated tariff system and provide the location of that tariff to the Commission prior to the commencement of common carrier service. However, some NVOCCs will publish a tariff upon initially being licensed, but later allow the tariff to lapse and fall out of compliance. The Commission stated its belief that adding notice in § 520.3 of the consequences which already exist pursuant to 46 CFR 515.1 and 515.14 for failure to maintain a tariff could improve tariff compliance. 87 FR 27971, 27974 (May 10, 2021). To this end, the Commission adds a provision to § 520.3 to specify that failing to maintain a tariff will result in the revocation of an NVOCC's license or
The Commission received one comment regarding this proposal. That comment stated that the proposed rule seemed excessively harsh, since tariffs are quite complex and to subject a carrier to the penalty of a loss of operating authority for an inadvertent updating error would be excessive.
The Commission also received general comments regarding the requirement to publish and maintain a tariff. These comments argued that tariffs are no longer relevant in light of the prevalence of privately negotiated agreements, and that tariffs are complex and difficult to navigate and do not provide transparency of rates and surcharges.
The Commission revises § 520.4(a)(3) to clarify that the ocean transportation intermediary that may receive compensation paid by a common carrier or conference is an ocean freight forwarder as defined by 46 U.S.C. 40102(19). In addition, the Commission uses plain language to reword the regulation at § 520.4(a)(4) requiring that a tariff state each charge separately; revises § 520.4(a)(5) to state that sample copies of bills of lading must be legible; and revises § 520.4(a)(8) to state that commodity tariffs must contain a retrievable commodity index.
The Commission also deletes § 520.4(e)(1), which describes voluntary coding for commodity descriptions. To streamline the rule and remove a non-mandatory regulation, the Commission deletes paragraph (e)(1). The Commission notes that, even with the adoption of this change to section 520.4, tariff publishers are still not required to use any numeric code to identify commodities and the Commission still encourages the use of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States for both the commodity coding and associated terminology (definitions). In addition, the regulations still address the use of numeric codes to identify commodities.
The Commission also makes a variety of other changes to sections 520.5 through 520.14. These changes are listed below:
Except for those comments already noted in the preceding paragraphs in this section (Section E), the Commission received no comments opposing these proposed changes, and one comment supporting the proposed changes.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, provides that whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, the agency must prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA)
The rule is not a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act, codified at 5 U.S.C. 801
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) requires Federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of proposed major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, as well as the impacts of alternatives to the proposed action. When a Federal agency prepares an environmental assessment, the NEPA implementing regulation requires it to “include brief discussions of the need for the proposal, of alternatives [. . .], of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and a listing of agencies and persons consulted.” 40 CFR 1508.9(b). After an environmental assessment, the Commission issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) which became final 10 days after publication of the NPRM as the Commission received no petition for review. The FONSI and environmental assessment are available for inspection on the docket at
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) (PRA) requires an agency to seek and receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before collecting information from the public. 44 U.S.C. 3507. The agency must submit collections of information in proposed rules to OMB in conjunction with the publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking. 5 CFR 1320.11.
The information collection requirements in part 520 are currently authorized under OMB Control Number 3072-0064. In compliance with the PRA, the Commission submitted the proposed revised information collection to the OMB. Notice of the revised information collections was published in the
This rule meets the applicable standards in E.O. 12988 titled, “Civil Justice Reform,” to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 requires agencies to make every reasonable effort to ensure that each new regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly 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. This document is consistent with that requirement.
The Commission assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda). The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda, available at
Freight, Intermodal transportation, Maritime carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Maritime Commission amends 46 CFR part 520 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 553; 46 U.S.C. 40101-40102, 40501-40503, 40701-40706, 41101-41109, 46105.
(a) * * * They implement the tariff publication requirements of 46 U.S.C. 40501-40503.
(b) * * *
(2) Carriers and conferences to meet their publication requirements pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 40501-40503;
(3) The Commission to ensure that carrier tariff publications are accurate and accessible and to protect the public from violations by carriers of 46 U.S.C. 41101-41106; and
(4) The Commission to review and monitor the activities of controlled carriers pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 40701-40706.
The revisions and additions read as follows.:
(1) A cargo owner;
(2) The person for whose account the ocean transportation of cargo is provided;
(3) The person to whom delivery is to be made (
(4) A shippers' association, meaning a group of shippers that consolidates or distributes freight on a nonprofit basis for the members of the group to obtain carload, truckload, or other volume rates or service contracts; or
(5) An NVOCC that accepts responsibility for payment of all charges applicable under the tariff or service contract.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) The common carrier and conference must include on Form FMC-1 its organization name, organization number, home office address, name and email address and telephone number of the firm's representative, the location of its tariffs, and the publisher, if any, used to maintain its tariffs.
(3) Any changes to the above information must be transmitted to BTA within 30 calendar days.
(4) The Commission will provide a unique organization number to new entities operating as common carriers or conferences in the U.S. foreign commerce.
(e)
(f)
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) State the level of compensation, if any, to be paid by a carrier or conference to an ocean freight forwarder, as defined by 46 U.S.C. 40102(19);
(4) State separately each terminal or other charge, privilege, or facility under the control of the carrier or conference and any rules that in any way change, affect, or determine any part or the total of the rates or charges;
(5) Include sample copies of any bill of lading showing legible terms and conditions, contract of affreightment, and/or other document evidencing the transportation agreement;
(8) For commodity tariffs, also contain a retrievable commodity index, commodity descriptions, and tariff rate items.
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Common carriers or their publishers must have at least one similar index entry which will logically represent the commodity within the alphabetical index for each commodity description it creates under this section. Common carriers or their publishers must create multiple entries in the index for articles with equally valid common use names, such as “Sodium Chloride,” “Salt, common,” etc.
(f) * * *
(5) Origin and destination scopes or location groups;
(g)
(i)
(a)
(b)
The revisions read as follows:
(b)
(e)
(f)
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) An NVOCC may cross-reference an ocean common carrier tariff for the purpose of charging its shipper the ocean common carrier's published and effective surcharges, assessorial charges, and general rate increases, but the NVOCC must clearly list the named charges or categories of charges in the NVOCC's tariff, and must not mark them up above cost. Any fee associated with services provided by the NVOCC to its shipper should be separate and distinguished from the vessel-operating common carrier's surcharges, assessorial charges, and general rate increases, and specify the service for which the shipper is being charged.
(e)
(2) New conference agreements have ninety (90) days within which to publish a new tariff.
(f)
(2) The acceptance of any overcharge claim cannot be conditioned upon the payment of a fee or charge.
(3) A tariff must not require that overcharge claims based on alleged errors in weight, measurement, or description of cargo be filed before the cargo has left the custody of the common carrier.
(h)
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(3) The addition of a port or point to a previously existing origin or destination scope; or
(4) Changes in charges which are not under the control of the common carrier or conference (including terminal services, canal tolls, additional charges, or other provisions) for which the carrier or conference merely acts as a collection agent for such charges and the agency making such changes does so without notifying the common carrier or conference. Ocean common carriers and NVOCCs must not mark up these charges above cost.
(a)
(b)
(2) Carriers or conferences must ensure that their internet service providers provide static internet addresses.
(c)
(2) Carriers and conferences must provide free access to their tariff publication system.
(3) Tariff publication systems must provide user instructions for access to tariff information.
(d)
(e)
(a)
(b)
(d)
(a)
(1) That it has furnished the Commission proof of its financial responsibility in the manner and amount required by part 515 of this chapter;
(2) The manner of its financial responsibility;
(3) Whether it is relying on coverage provided by a group or association to which it is a member;
(4) The name and address of the surety company, insurance company, or guarantor issuing the bond, insurance policy, or guaranty;
(5) The number of its bond, insurance policy, or guaranty; and
(6) Where applicable, the name and address of the group or association providing coverage.
(b)
(c)
(1) If two or more NVOCCs enter into an agreement which establishes a carrier-to-carrier relationship for the co-loading of cargo, then the existence of such agreement must be noted in the tariff. Carrier-to-carrier relationships apply to the co-loading of less than container loads of cargo only.
(2) If two NVOCCs enter into a co-loading arrangement which results in a shipper-to-carrier relationship, the tendering NVOCC must describe its co-loading practices and specify its responsibility to pay any charges for the transportation of the cargo. A shipper-to-carrier relationship is presumed to exist where the receiving NVOCC issues a bill of lading to the tendering NVOCC for carriage of the co-loaded cargo. Shipper-to-carrier relationships may apply to the co-loading of full container loads or less than container loads of cargo.
(3) An NVOCC which tenders cargo to another NVOCC for co-loading, whether under a shipper-to-carrier or carrier-to-carrier relationship, shall annotate each applicable bill of lading with the identity of any other NVOCC to which the shipment has been tendered for co-loading. Such annotation shall be shown on the face of the bill of lading in a clear and legible manner.
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(c)
(e)
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(b) * * *
(2)
(3)
(c) * * *
(4)
(d) * * *
(2)
(ii) * * *
(A)
(B) * * *
(
(
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c) * * *
(1) Applications for special permission to establish rate increases or decreases on less than statutory notice or for waiver of the provisions of this part must be made by the common carrier, conference, or agent for publishing. Every such application must be submitted to the Bureau of Trade Analysis and be accompanied by a filing fee of $313.
(2) Applications for special permission must be made by letter, submitted via mail or email, followed promptly by electronic payment of the filing fee.
(3) Applications for special permission must contain the following information:
(iv) A statement that identifies any part(s) of the application for which confidential treatment is sought and a justification for such confidential treatment. In such cases, the applicant must provide both a confidential version and a public version of the application.
(d)
By the Commission.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; quota transfer.
NMFS announces that the State of North Carolina is transferring a portion of its 2023 commercial summer flounder quota to the State of New York. This adjustment to the 2023 fishing year quota is necessary to comply with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP) quota transfer provisions. This announcement informs the public of the revised 2023 commercial quotas for North Carolina and New York.
Effective December 28, 2023, through December 31, 2023.
Laura Deighan, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9184.
Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.100 through 648.111. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.102 and final 2023 allocations were published on January 3, 2023 (88 FR 11).
The final rule implementing Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder FMP, as published in the
North Carolina is transferring 100,000 pounds (lb; 43,359 kilograms (kg)) to New York through a mutual agreement between the states. This transfer was requested to ensure New York would not exceed its 2023 quota. The revised summer flounder quotas for 2023 are North Carolina, 3,031,074 lb (1,374,872 kg), and New York, 1,537,768 lb (697,520 kg).
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 648.102(c)(2)(i) through (iv), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final action.
NMFS issues final Atlantic bluefish specifications for the 2024 fishing year and projects specifications for fishing year 2025, as recommended by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. This action is necessary to establish allowable harvest levels for the stock to prevent overfishing and promote rebuilding, using the best scientific information available. This action also informs the public of the expected specifications for fishing year 2025.
Effective January 1 2024.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for these specifications that describes the action, other considered alternatives, and analyses of the impacts of all alternatives. Copies of the specifications document, including the EA, are available on request from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 North State Street, Dover, DE 19901. These documents are also accessible via the internet at
Laura Hansen, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9225.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) jointly manage the Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The FMP requires the specification of annual regulatory limits for up to 3 years at a time, including: acceptable biological catch (ABC), commercial and recreational annual catch limits (ACL), commercial and recreational annual catch targets (ACT), a commercial quota, a recreational harvest limit (RHL), and other management measures. This action implements bluefish specifications for the 2024 fishing year, and projects specifications for 2025, based on Council and Commission recommendations.
Recent research track (December 2022) and management track (June 2023) assessments for bluefish have determined that the stock is no longer overfished and overfishing is not occurring. However, the spawning stock biomass has not yet reached its target (
The proposed rule for this action was published in the
This action implements the Council and Commission's recommended 2024 and projected 2025 bluefish catch specifications, as outlined in the proposed rule (table 1). These final specifications decrease all catch limits in 2024 based on best available information from the recent assessments and the rebuilding plan, but project increases to all limits in 2025. As previously mentioned, this action makes no changes to recreational management measures (such as bag limits), as the expected recreational landings under the existing measures are likely to achieve the 2024 RHL without exceeding it.
The final coastwide commercial quota is allocated among the coastal states from Maine to Florida based on percent shares specified in the FMP, and the phased-in changes to these share allocations specified in Amendment 7 to the FMP (86 FR 66977, November 24, 2021). The final 2024 and projected 2025 state-allocated commercial quotas are shown below in table 2. No states exceeded their allocated quota in 2022 or are projected to do so in 2023; therefore, no accountability measures for the commercial fishery are required for the 2024 fishing year based on the data available at this time.
Although catch limits are decreasing, neither the recreational nor the commercial sector of the fishery is expected to be substantially impacted by this action. Harvest in both sectors has been decreasing in recent years. Coastwide commercial landings have not exceeded 2.2 million lb (998 mt) in the last 3 years, and recreational harvest
The public comment period for the proposed rule ended on December 1, 2023, and NMFS received two comments from the public. No changes were made to this final action as a result of these comments. The first comment asked that NMFS raise the recreational bag limit for for-hire vessels from five fish per person to six or seven fish per person. The commenter explained that the perception of a possible higher catch is important to attract and maintain business, but that most customers are unlikely to take home more than four or five fish anyway, so the requested increase would have little impact on the bluefish population. Based on recent recreational data, the expected recreational landings under the current bag limit for for-hire vessels of five fish per person are likely to come very close to the 2024 RHL. Any liberalization in the bag limit would substantially increase the risk of a recreational overage, and the Council did not find a compelling reason to make changes to existing measures at this time.
The next commenter supported the catch limit reductions in 2024, as they and their colleagues have personally seen fewer bluefish available for recreational fishing recently. They also questioned the projected increases in 2025, but trust the expert opinions of the scientists involved. NMFS agrees that the proposed reductions are necessary to prevent overfishing and promote continued rebuilding based on the 2023 assessment and best available science. The 2025 specifications will also be reviewed before their publication to ensure the fishery can support the projected future increases.
There are no substantive changes from the proposed rule.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(3) of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined that these final specifications are necessary for the conservation and management of the Atlantic bluefish fishery, and that they are consistent with the Atlantic Bluefish FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effective date for this action to ensure that the final specifications are in place as close as practicable to the start of the bluefish fishing year on January 1, 2024. This action establishes the final specifications (
This action is being issued at the earliest possible date. To ensure that the action is based on the best available science and in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the rulemaking process is dependent on the EA which is prepared by the Council. The proposed rule was prepared in October 2023 upon receipt of the EA from the Council, and published in November 2023 once proper reviews could be completed. The public comment period ended on December 1, 2023, and this final action was written and reviewed as quickly as possible with the intent to publish in time to be effective for the January 1 start of the fishing year.
Furthermore, regulated parties do not require any additional time to come into compliance with this action, and thus, a 30-day delay before it becomes effective does not provide any benefit. Unlike actions that require an adjustment period, vessels fishing for bluefish will not have to purchase new equipment or otherwise expend time or money to comply with these management measures. Rather, complying with this final action simply means adhering to the new catch limits set for the 2024 fishing year. Fishery stakeholders have also been involved in the development of this action and are anticipating this action.
Finally, a 30-day delay in effectiveness would postpone implementation of these catch limits well beyond the start of this fishing year, which is contrary to the public interest as it could create confusion in the bluefish industry around current state quotas. The longer these specifications are delayed, the longer it will take for some state agencies to implement respective regulations and annual management measures, which causes further industry confusion, and tension with state partners. A delay in effectiveness could also compromise the efficacy of the new, lower limits to promote the growth and rebuilding of the stock, by limiting the time they are in place during fishing year 2024.
For these reasons, NMFS finds that a 30-day delay in effectiveness would be contrary to the public interest, and, therefore, waives the requirement consistent with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). As a result, there is good cause to implement this action upon filing in the
This final action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 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 and the initial certification remains unchanged. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none was prepared.
This action would not establish any new reporting or record-keeping requirements.
This final action does not duplicate, conflict, or overlap with any existing Federal rules.
This action contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed airworthiness criteria.
The FAA announces the availability of, and requests comments on, the proposed airworthiness criteria for the Blackshape S.p.A., Model BK160-200 Very Light Airplane (VLA). This document proposes the airworthiness criteria that the FAA finds to be appropriate and applicable for the VLA design.
Send comments on or before February 1, 2024.
Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2022-1135 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Tara Fitzgerald, Certification Coordination Section, AIR-613, Certification Engagement Branch, Policy and Standards Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration; telephone 781-238-7130; email
The FAA invites interested people to take part in the development of these airworthiness criteria by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the airworthiness criteria, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. Comments on operational, pilot certification, and maintenance requirements would address issues that are beyond the scope of this document.
Except for Confidential Business Information as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 11.35, the FAA will file in the docket all comments received, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning these proposed airworthiness criteria. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA may consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring delay. The FAA may change these proposed airworthiness criteria based on received comments.
Confidential Business Information (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 these proposed airworthiness criteria contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to these proposed airworthiness criteria, 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 the indicated comments will not be placed in the public docket of these proposed airworthiness criteria. Send submissions containing CBI to the individual listed under For Further Information Contact. Comments that the FAA receives, which are not specifically designated as CBI, will be placed in the public docket for these proposed airworthiness criteria.
The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) submitted an application to the FAA, on behalf of Blackshape S.p.A., on February 10, 2020, for a special class type certificate under 14 CFR 21.17(b) for the Model BK160-200 VLA.
The BK160-200 is a single reciprocating engine airplane (Lycoming IO-320-D1B with constant speed Hartzell propeller), full carbon composite low wing design, with a retractable tri-cycle landing gear. It has conventional control systems (elevator, aileron, rudder, flaps, and longitudinal trim) and provides seats for two persons in a tandem seat configuration with a maximum takeoff gross weight (MTGW) of 850 kilograms (kg) (1,874 pounds). It also has advanced avionic displays, a stall speed of 50 knots, a rechargeable lithium-ion battery, and will perform night visual flight rules (VFR) operations.
The FAA establishes airworthiness criteria to ensure the safe operation of aircraft in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 44701(a) and 44704. VLA are eligible for type certification under 14 CFR part 23 or can be type certificated by the FAA as special class aircraft under 14 CFR 21.17(b). Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17(b), the airworthiness standards for special class aircraft are those the FAA finds to be appropriate and applicable to the specific type design.
In 1992, the FAA published advisory circular (AC) 21.17-3,
The FAA issued its “Policy for Type Certification of Very Light Airplanes as a Special Class of Aircraft” on October 11, 2023 (88 FR 70344). This policy states that the FAA will continue to allow the type certification of VLA as a special class of aircraft under 14 CFR 21.17(b) using CS-VLA or JAR-VLA requirements, while also allowing eligibility for certification as a normal category airplane in accordance with part 23 using accepted means of compliance. The FAA accepts CS-VLA and JAR-VLA airworthiness criteria as providing an equivalent level of safety under § 21.17(b) for special class type certification of VLA airplanes. The policy explains the FAA will consider proposals for airplane designs that differ from the VLA limits defined in AC 21.17-3 for type certification as a special class of aircraft under § 21.17(b), provided the VLA would be certified to the JAR-VLA or CS-VLA requirements plus additional airworthiness criteria the FAA finds appropriate and applicable for the proposed design. The policy includes additional acceptable airworthiness criteria for certain design features that differ from those defined in AC 21.17-3 and that provide an equivalent level of safety under § 21.17(b) for special class type certification of VLA airplanes.
The FAA is proposing to certify the Blackshape S.p.A. Model BK160-200 VLA to CS-VLA, Amendment 1, dated March 5, 2009, with additional requirements for advanced avionic displays, VFR night operations, MTGW of 850 kg (1,874 pounds), a stall speed of 50 knots, and a rechargeable lithium-ion battery.
These proposed airworthiness criteria, established under the provisions of § 21.17(b), are applicable to the Blackshape S.p.A. Model BK160-200 VLA. Should Blackshape S.p.A. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model, these airworthiness criteria would apply to that model as well, provided the FAA finds them appropriate in accordance with the requirements of subpart D to part 21.
This action affects only the airworthiness criteria for one model VLA. It is not a rule of general applicability.
The authority citation for these airworthiness criteria is as follows:
The FAA proposes to establish the airworthiness criteria for type certification of the Blackshape S.p.A. Model BK160-200 as EASA Certification Specifications (CS) for Very Light Aeroplanes CS-VLA, Amendment 1, dated March 5, 2009, with additional requirements identified in “Policy for Type Certification of Very Light Airplanes as a Special Class of Aircraft” (88 FR 70344, October 11, 2023) for Advanced Avionic Displays, Night-VFR Operations, Increased Maximum Certificated Takeoff Weight and Increased Stall Speed, and Rechargeable Lithium Ion Battery.
Federal Trade Commission
Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) is extending the deadline for filing comments on its notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) concerning its trade regulation rule entitled the “Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees.”
For the NPRM published November 9, 2023 (88 FR 77420), the comment deadline is extended from January 8, 2024, to February 7, 2024.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the
Janice Kopec or Stacy Cammarano, Division of Advertising Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 202-326-2550 (Kopec), 202-326-3308 (Cammarano),
On November 9, 2023 (88 FR 77420), the Commission published in the
Interested parties have subsequently requested an extension of the public comment period to give them additional time to respond to the NPRM's request for comment. While the original comment period affords the public a meaningful opportunity to provide the Commission with comments regarding its rulemaking proposal, the Commission will extend the period for public comment on its NPRM an additional 30 days to February 7, 2024.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) invites interested parties to submit data, views, and arguments on the proposed Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees and, specifically, on the questions set forth in Section X of the NPRM. The comment period will remain open until February 7, 2024.
By direction of the Commission.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Cancellation of a notice of public hearing on a proposed rulemaking.
This document cancels a public hearing on proposed regulations concerning the statutory disallowance rule enacted by the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 to disallow a Federal income tax deduction for a qualified conservation contribution made by a partnership or an S corporation after December 29, 2022, if the amount of the contribution exceeds 2.5 times the sum of each partner's or S corporation shareholder's relevant basis.
The public hearing scheduled for January 3, 2024, at 10 a.m. ET is cancelled.
Vivian Hayes of the Publications and Regulations Section, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration) at (202) 317-6901 (not a toll-free number).
A notice of proposed rulemaking and a notice of public hearing that appeared in the
The public comment period for these regulations expired on December 20, 2023. The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to submit a request to testify and an outline of the topics to be addressed by December 20, 2023. We did not receive a request to testify at the Public Hearing. Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for January 3, 2024, at 10 a.m. ET is cancelled.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve two revisions to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). In this action, we are proposing to approve revisions submitted by the ADEQ governing the issuance of permits for stationary sources in accordance with changes that the EPA has made to its New Source Review (NSR) program regulations under the Clean Air Act (CAA or “the Act”). We are also proposing to determine that with these revisions, the ADEQ's NSR program satisfies the requirements for the preconstruction review and permitting of major sources and major modifications under part D of title I of the Act for areas designated nonattainment with the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) with a Marginal classification, for areas and sources within the ADEQ's permitting jurisdiction. We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
Comments must be received on or before February 1, 2024.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R09-OAR-2023-0620 at
Camille Cassar, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105; by phone: (415) 947-4164; or by email to
Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
The rules that are the subject of the EPA's current proposed action were adopted by the ADEQ and submitted to the EPA on December 6, 2022 (“December 2022 NSR submittal”). The ADEQ is the governor's designee for submitting official revisions of the Arizona SIP to the EPA. Table 1 below identifies the rules reviewed in this action for approval into the Arizona SIP.
The ADEQ's December 2022 NSR submittal was determined to be complete by operation of law, according to Appendix V of 40 CFR part 51, on June 6, 2023.
The SIP-approved versions of the submitted rules are identified below in Table 2. The ADEQ's December 2022 NSR submittal also requests that, as part of this action, we remove from the ADEQ portion of the Arizona SIP the previous SIP-approved versions of the same rules. The rules requested for removal from the SIP are listed in Table 2 below.
The purpose of these submitted revisions for the ADEQ's NSR program is to update its rules to ensure consistency with certain changes that the EPA has made to its NSR program rules, and to address the CAA's statutory and regulatory requirements for Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) permit programs in areas designated nonattainment with the 2015 ozone NAAQS with a Marginal classification, for areas and sources within the ADEQ's permitting jurisdiction.
This action focuses on the preconstruction permitting requirements for stationary sources, also called New Source Review, in title I of the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations addressing the SIP requirements for state NSR programs at 40 CFR part 51, subpart I.
The action focuses on two necessary revisions to the ADEQ's SIP-approved NSR program rules in accordance with changes that the EPA has made to its NSR program rules and provides the EPA's findings on whether these SIP revisions submitted by the ADEQ meet federal NSR requirements.
Submitted Rule Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R18-2-101 (except 20) contains a change to the definition of categorical sources for “municipal incinerators” as compared with the prior version of the rule that is currently included in the Arizona SIP. The ADEQ amended its definition of “categorical sources” to include municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 50 tons of refuse per day, as compared with the previous version of the definition, which applied only to those capable of charging more than 250 tons per day. This change was made to ensure consistency with CAA section 169(a) and federal regulatory requirements related to major NSR applicability for municipal incinerators in the EPA's regulations governing state Major NSR programs at 40 CFR 51.165-51.166, as updated by the EPA's 2021 Error Corrections Rule.
Submitted Rule A.A.C. R18-2-404 eliminates the ozone interprecursor trading provision that was included in the prior version of the rule that is currently included in the Arizona SIP. This change was made to ensure consistency with the federal rules governing NNSR programs regulating ozone precursors in 40 CFR 51.165, which were also updated as part of the EPA's Error Corrections Rule.
The ADEQ requested that the EPA replace the current SIP-approved versions of R18-2-101 and R18-2-404 with the submitted revised versions.
The December 2022 NSR submittal also addresses state NNSR program requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. On October 26, 2015, the EPA issued a final rule revising the NAAQS for ozone, reducing the standards to a level of 0.070 ppm.
The EPA reviewed the December 2022 NSR submittal for compliance with CAA requirements for SIPs in general as set forth in CAA section 110(a)(2), the requirements for state stationary source preconstruction permitting programs in 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, including certain changes made to those rules in the Error Corrections Rule, and the requirements related to SIP revisions in CAA sections 110(l)
With respect to procedural requirements, CAA sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) require that revisions to a SIP be adopted by the state after reasonable notice and public hearing. Based on our review of the public process documentation included in the December 2022 NSR submittal, we find that the ADEQ has provided sufficient evidence of public notice, opportunity for comment and a public hearing prior to adoption and submittal of the rules to the EPA.
We have evaluated the rule revisions in the December 2022 NSR submittal with respect to the CAA requirements for SIPs in general as set forth in CAA section 110(a)(2), the requirements for state stationary source preconstruction permitting programs in 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, including recent changes to the requirements for State stationary source preconstruction permitting programs in 40 CFR part 51, subpart I, made in the EPA's Error Corrections Rule, as described above, and we find that the submittal satisfies these requirements. In addition, we have evaluated the ADEQ's NNSR program, as revised by the submitted revised rules, for compliance with the NNSR requirements applicable to ozone nonattainment areas with a Marginal classification, and have determined that this program satisfies the applicable CAA and regulatory requirements for NNSR permit programs under part D of title I of the Act for all relevant ozone NAAQS, specifically including the requirements applicable to areas designated nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS with a Marginal classification, for the areas and sources within the ADEQ's permitting jurisdiction.
Regarding the additional substantive requirements of CAA sections 110(l) and 193, our action will result in a more stringent SIP, while not relaxing any existing provision contained in the SIP. We have concluded that our action would comply with section 110(l) because our approval of these rules will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other CAA applicable requirement. In addition, our approval of these rules will not relax any pre-November 15, 1990 requirement in the SIP, and therefore changes to the SIP resulting from this action ensure greater or equivalent emission reductions of the nonattainment pollutants and their precursors in the District; accordingly, we have concluded that our action is consistent with the requirements of CAA section 193.
Our TSD contains a more detailed discussion of our analysis of the December 2022 NSR submittal.
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is proposing to fully approve the submitted rules into the Arizona SIP because they fulfill all relevant CAA requirements, and to remove the prior version of these rules from the SIP. We have concluded that our approval of the submitted rules would comply with the relevant provisions of CAA sections 110(a)(2), 110(l), 165, 172(c)(5), 173, and 193, and 40 CFR 51.160-51.166. We are also proposing to find that with the submitted rule revisions, the ADEQ's NSR program satisfies the requirements for the preconstruction review and permitting of major sources and major modifications under part D of title I of the Act for areas designated nonattainment with the 2015 ozone NAAQS with a Marginal classification, for the areas and sources within the ADEQ's permitting jurisdiction. If we finalize this action as proposed, our action will be codified through revisions to 40 CFR 52.220a (Identification of plan-in part).
We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until February 1, 2024.
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the following the ADEQ rules: A.A.C. R18-2-101 (except 20) and R18-2-404, as described in Table 1 of this proposal. These rules are intended to address the CAA's statutory and regulatory requirements for New Source Review permit programs for major sources emitting nonattainment air pollutants and their precursors under parts C and D of title I of the CAA. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 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 proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 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 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); and
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) (E.O. 12898) 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 ADEQ 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 action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
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, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
In notice document 2023-27742 beginning on page 87393 in the issue of Monday, December 18, 2023, make the following correction:
On page 87393, in the second column, in the third and fourth lines from the bottom, “January 29, 2024” should read “February 1, 2024”.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBCS, Agency), a Rural Development (RD) agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), invites applications under the Rural Innovation Stronger Economy (RISE) program for fiscal year (FY) 2024, subject to the availability of funding. The Agency estimates $2,000,000 will be available for the RISE Program for FY 2024. Selected applicants will use Agency grant funds to provide financial assistance in support of innovation centers and job accelerator programs that improve the ability of distressed rural communities to create high wage jobs, accelerate the formation of new businesses, and help rural communities identify and maximize local assets. All applicants are responsible for any expenses incurred in developing their applications.
Completed applications must be submitted electronically no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time April 1, 2024, through
Entities wishing to apply for a RISE grant, or to submit a Concept Proposal for their project, may download the application documents and requirements delineated in this Notice from the RD RISE website:
Rachel Reister, Program Management Division, RBCS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mail Stop-3226, Washington, DC 20250-3226, (202) 720-1400 or email:
Potential applicants may submit a concept proposal for review by the Agency to
• Assisting rural communities to recover economically through more and better market opportunities and through improved infrastructure;
• Ensuring all rural residents have equitable access to RD programs and benefits from RD funded projects; and
• Reducing climate pollution and increasing resilience to the impacts of climate change through economic support to rural communities.
(a) Individuals and individual entities such as businesses are not eligible applicants for the RISE program.
(b) An applicant is not eligible if they have been debarred or suspended or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs under Executive Order 12549, “Debarment and Suspension.” The Agency will check the System for Award Management (SAM) at the time of application, prior to funding any grant award, and disbursement of funds to determine if the applicant has been debarred or suspended. In addition, an applicant will be considered ineligible for a grant due to an outstanding judgment obtained by the U.S. in a Federal Court (other than U.S. Tax Court), is delinquent on the payment of Federal income taxes, or is delinquent on Federal debt. See 7 CFR 4284.1109. The applicant must certify as part of the application that they do not have an outstanding judgment against them. The Agency will check the Do Not Pay System at the time of application, prior to funding any grant award and each disbursement of funds to verify this information.
(c) Any corporation that has been convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the past 24 months or that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, is not eligible for financial assistance unless a Federal agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and has made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
Applications that fail to meet any of these requirements by the application deadline will be deemed ineligible and will not be evaluated further.
A written commitment of matching funds must be provided to verify that all matching funds are available during the grant period and this documentation should be included in the application in accordance with requirements identified in Section D.2 of this Notice. If an applicant is awarded a grant, additional verification documentation may be required to confirm the availability of matching funds for the duration of the grant term.
Matching funds must meet all of the following criteria:
(a) They must be spent on eligible expenses during the grant period.
(b) They must be from eligible sources.
(c) They must be spent in advance or as a pro-rata portion of grant funds being spent.
(d) They must be provided by either the applicant or a third party in the form of cash or an in-kind contribution.
(e) They cannot include other Federal grants unless provided by authorizing legislation.
(f) They cannot include cash or in-kind contributions donated outside of the grant period.
(g) They cannot include over-valued, in-kind contributions.
(h) They cannot include any project costs that are ineligible under the RISE program.
(i) They cannot be used for ineligible grant purposes as stated in 7 CFR 4284.1114, 2 CFR part 200, subpart E, “Cost Principles,” and the most current Federal Acquisition Regulation (for-profits) or successor regulations.
(j) They can include reasonable and customary travel expenses for staff delivering the RISE program if written policies explaining how these costs are normally reimbursed, including rates, have been established. An explanation of this policy must be included in the application, or the contributions will not be considered as eligible matching funds.
(k) Applicants must be able to document and verify the number of hours worked and the value associated with any in-kind contribution being used to meet a matching funds requirement.
(l) In-kind contributions provided by individuals, businesses, or cooperatives which are being assisted by the Applicant cannot provide any direct benefit to their own projects as the Agency considers this to be a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(i) The rural jobs accelerator partnership must have a lead applicant who is responsible for the administration of the grant proceeds and activities. A lead applicant will be the named applicant on Agency documents and must be one of the following entities listed in 7 CFR 4284.1112(b), which is as follows:
(1) A district organization;
(2) An Indian Tribe or a political subdivision of a Tribe, including a special purpose unit of a tribal government engaged in economic development activities, or a consortium of Indian Tribes;
(3) A State or a political subdivision of a State, including a special purpose unit of a State or local government engaged in economic development activities, or a consortium of political subdivisions;
(4) An institution of higher education (as defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001)) or a consortium of institutions of higher education; or
(5) A public or private nonprofit organization.
(ii) The Lead Applicant must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to submitting an application. The Lead Applicant must also maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application under consideration by the Agency. All other restrictions in this Notice will apply.
(iii) Applications will be deemed ineligible if the application includes any funding restrictions identified under Section D.6 of this Notice. Inclusion of funding restrictions outlined in Section D.6 of this Notice precludes the Agency from making a federal award.
(d)
The Application Template provides specific, detailed instructions for each item of a complete application. The Agency strongly encourages the Applicant to use the examples and illustrations in the Application Template to assist in developing a complete application package.
Potential applicants may submit a concept proposal for review by the Agency to
Only one application can be submitted per applicant, who is defined as a lead applicant as found in 7 CFR 4284.1112(b). If two applications are submitted by the same lead applicant, both applications will be deemed ineligible for funding. Applications must be submitted electronically through
(a) At the time of application, each applicant must have an active registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) before submitting its application in accordance with 2 CFR part 25. In order to register in SAM, entities will be required to obtain a Unique Entity Identifier (UEI). Instructions for obtaining the UEI are available at
(b) Applicant must maintain an active SAM registration, with current, accurate and complete information, at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application under consideration by a Federal awarding agency.
(c) Applicant must ensure they complete the Financial Assistance General Certifications and Representations in SAM.
(d) Applicant must provide a valid UEI in its application, unless determined exempt under 2 CFR 25.110.
(e) The Agency will not make an award until the applicant has complied with all SAM requirements including providing the UEI. If an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time the Agency is ready to make an award, the Agency may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another applicant.
(a)
(b)
Late or incomplete applications will not be eligible for funding under this grant opportunity. The Agency will not solicit or consider new scoring or eligibility information that is submitted after the application deadline. The Agency also reserves the right to ask applicants for clarifying information and additional verification of assertions in the application.
(a) Please note that no assistance or funding from this grant can be provided to a hemp producer unless they have a valid license issued from an approved State, Tribal or Federal plan as defined by the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Public Law 115-334. Verification of valid hemp licenses will occur at the time of award.
(b) Grant funds may be used to pay for up to 80 percent of eligible project activity costs. Grant funds may be used to pay for costs directly related to the purchase or construction of an innovation center located in a low-income rural area; costs directly related to operations of an innovation center including purchase of equipment, office supplies, and administrative costs including salaries directly related to the project; costs directly associated with support programs to be carried out at or in direct partnership with job accelerators; reasonable and customary travel expenses directly related to job accelerators and at rates in compliance with 2 CFR 200.474; utilities, operating expenses of the innovation center and job accelerator programs and associated programs; and administrative costs of the grantee not exceeding 10% of the grant amount for the duration of the project.
(c) Applications must include a cost and performance plan for no more than a four-year grant period, or it will not be considered for funding. The grant period should begin no earlier than September 15, 2024, and no later than January 1, 2025. Applications that request funds for a project with a performance period ending after December 31, 2028, will not be considered for funding. Projects must be completed within a four-year timeframe. Prior approval is needed from the Agency if applicants are awarded a grant and desire the grant period to begin earlier or later than previously discussed or approved.
The Agency may approve requests to extend the grant period for up to an additional two-year period at its discretion. Further guidance on grant period extensions will be provided in the award document.
(d) Project funds, including grant and matching funds, cannot be used for ineligible grant purposes as stated in 7 CFR 4284.1114, 2 CFR part 200, subpart E, “Cost Principles,” and the most current Federal Acquisition Regulation (for-profits) or successor regulations.
(e) In addition, an application will not be considered for funding if it does any of the following:
(i) Focuses assistance on only one business;
(ii) Requests less than the minimum grant amount or more than the maximum grant amount;
(iii) Includes administrative costs in excess of 10 percent of the grant amount for the project budget; or
(iv) Funds that pass through to a member of the partnership in the form of lease payments or other activities with a conflict of interest or appearance thereof.
(a) Applications should not be submitted in more than one format or in more than one submission. Applications should be submitted electronically through
(b) To submit an application electronically, applicants must follow instructions provided at
(c) There are no specific limitations on the number of pages or other formatting requirements of an application, but a complete application should be in a narrative form using a minimum of 11-point font. The narrative must clearly describe the jobs accelerator partnership, characteristics of the targeted region and targeted industry cluster(s), and how the project meets the RISE program initiatives.
(d) The Agency also reserves the right to ask applicants for clarifying information and additional verification of assertions made in the application.
Priority will be given to projects that will leverage next generation gigabit broadband service to promote entrepreneurship and entities based in geographical areas with established agriculture and technology sectors which are focused on the development of precision and autonomous agriculture technologies as a way to strengthen rural economies and create jobs.
To focus investments in areas resulting in the greatest opportunity for growth in prosperity, the Agency encourages applications that serve the smallest communities with the lowest incomes, with an emphasis on areas where at least 20 percent of the
The Agency encourages energy communities to utilize the RISE program to support workforce development; identify and maximize local assets; spur job creation; and connect to regional opportunities, networks, and industry clusters.
The Agency will award RISE grants in accordance with 7 CFR 4284.1119. Applicants awarded funding will receive a signed notice of Federal award by postal or electronic mail from the USDA RD State Office located where the application was submitted, containing instructions and requirements necessary to proceed with execution and performance of the award. Applicants must comply with all applicable statutes, regulations, and Notice requirements before the grant award will be funded.
If an application is not selected for funding, the Applicant will be notified in writing via postal or electronic mail and informed of any review and appeal rights. See 7 CFR part 11 for USDA National Appeals Division procedures. We anticipate that there will be no available funds for successful appellants once all FY 2024 funds, if available, are awarded and obligated.
In addition, all recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation (see 2 CFR part 170). Applicants will be required to have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-282) reporting requirements (see 2 CFR 170.200(b), unless exempt under 2 CFR 170.110(b)).
The following additional requirements apply to grantees selected for awards within this program:
(a) Execution of an Agency-approved financial assistance agreement;
(b) Acceptance of a written letter of conditions; and submission of the following Agency forms:
(1) Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”
(2) Form RD 1942-46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions.”
(3) Form RD 400-1 for construction projects.
If you have questions about this Notice, please see the contact provided in the
Funding to Non-Federal Entities. Awardees that are Non-Federal Entities, defined pursuant to 2 CFR 200.1 as any State, local government, Indian tribe, Institution of Higher Education, or nonprofit organization, shall be governed by the requirements of Section 70914 of the Build America, Buy America Act (BABAA) within the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58), and its implementing regulations at 2 CFR part 184. Any requests for waiver of these requirements must be submitted pursuant to USDA's guidance available online at
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,
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBCS or Agency), a Rural Development (RD) agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), is issuing this notice to invite applications for grants to provide technical assistance for passenger Rural Transportation (RT) systems under the Rural Business Development Grant (RBDG) program and the terms for such funding. Grant funds will provide technical assistance for RT systems including designated funds to provide technical assistance to RT systems operating within Tribal lands of Federally Recognized Native American Tribes (FRNAT) (collectively “Programs”). This notice is being issued in order to allow applicants sufficient time to leverage financing, prepare and submit their applications and give the Agency time to process applications within fiscal year (FY) 2024. Based on FY 2023 appropriated funding, the Agency estimates that approximately $750,000 will be made available for FY 2024. Successful applications will be selected by the Agency for funding and subsequently awarded to the extent that funding may ultimately be made available through appropriations. All applicants are responsible for any expenses incurred in developing their applications.
Completed applications may be submitted in paper or electronic format and must be received in the USDA RD State Office no later than 4:30 p.m. (local time) on April 1, 2024, to be eligible for FY 2024 grant funding. Applications received after the deadline will be ineligible for funding.
This funding announcement will also be announced on
Cindy Mason at
For further information on submitting program applications under this notice, please contact the USDA RD office for the State in which the applicant is located. A list of USDA RD Office contacts is provided at the following link:
• Creating More and Better Markets: Assist rural communities to recover economically through more and better market opportunities and through improved infrastructure;
• Addressing Climate Change and Environmental Justice: Reduce climate pollution and increase resilience to the impacts of climate change through economic support for rural communities; and
• Advancing Racial Justice, Place-Based Equity, and Opportunity: Ensure all rural residents have equitable access to RD programs and benefits from RD funded projects.
1.
2.
Section 736 of Title VII of Division A of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, designated funding for projects in Persistent Poverty counties. Persistent Poverty counties is defined in Section 736 as “any county that has had 20 percent or more of its population living in poverty over the past 30 years, as measured by the 1990 and 2000 decennial censuses, and 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-year average, or any territory or possession of the United States”. Another provision in Section 736 expands the eligible population in Persistent Poverty counties to include any county seat of such a persistent poverty county that has a population that does not exceed the authorized population limit by more than 10 percent. This provision expands the current 50,000 population limit to 55,000 for only county seats located in Persistent Poverty counties. Therefore, beneficiaries of technical assistance services located in Persistent Poverty
3.
4.
1.
For the funding for Technical Assistance for RT systems, applicants must be qualified national organizations with experience in providing technical assistance and training to rural communities nationwide for the purpose of improving passenger transportation services or facilities. To be considered “national,” RBCS requires a qualified organization to provide evidence that it can operate RT assistance programming nationwide. An entity can qualify if they can work in partnership with other entities to fulfill the national requirement as long as the applicant will have ultimate control of the grant administration. For the funding for RT systems to FRNATs, an entity can qualify if they can work in partnership with other entities to support all federally recognized Tribes, as long as the applicant will have ultimate control of the grant administration. There is not a requirement to use the grant funds in a multi-State area. Grants will be made to qualified national organizations for the provision of technical assistance and training to rural communities for the purpose of improving passenger transportation services or facilities.
For the FRNAT grant, which must benefit FRNATs, at least 75 percent of the benefits of the Project must be received by members of FRNATs.
2.
3.
1.
2.
• Environmental documentation in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970, “Environmental Policies and Procedures;”
• SF LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities;”
• RD 400-1, “Equal Opportunity Agreement;”
• RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement;” and
• Letter providing Board authorization to obtain assistance.
Each application received in a USDA RD State Office will be reviewed to determine if it is consistent with the eligible purposes contained in section 310B(c) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(c)). Each selection scoring criterion outlined in 7 CFR 4280.435 must be addressed in the application. Failure to address any of the criteria will result in a zero-point score for that criterion and will impact the overall evaluation of the application. The regulation governing this program, 7 CFR part 4280, subpart E, is available at
All projects to receive technical assistance through these passenger transportation grant funds are to be identified when the applications are submitted to the USDA RD State Office. Multiple project applications must identify each individual project, indicate the amount of funding requested for each individual project, and address the criteria as stated above for each individual project.
3.
(a) At the time of application, each applicant must have an active registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) before submitting its application in accordance with 2 CFR part 25 (
(b) Applicant must maintain an active SAM registration, with current, accurate and complete information, while it has an active Federal award or an application under consideration by a Federal awarding agency.
(c) Applicant must ensure they complete the Financial Assistance General Certifications and Representations in SAM.
(d) Applicants must provide a valid UEI in its application, unless determined exempt under 2 CFR 25.110 (
(e) The Agency will not make an award until the applicant has complied with all SAM requirements including providing the UEI. If an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time the Agency is ready to make an award, the Agency may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another applicant.
4.
(a)
(b)
The Agency will not solicit or consider scoring or eligibility information that is submitted after the application deadline. The Agency reserves the right to contact applicants to seek clarification information on materials contained in the submitted application. The deadline date means that the completed application package must be received in the USDA RD State Office by the deadline date established above. If the due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the application is due the next business day. All application documents identified in this notice and in 7 CFR part 4280, subpart E, are required to be considered a complete application.
(c)
5.
6.
None of the funds made available may be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to:
(a) Any corporation that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability.
(b) Any corporation that was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the preceding 24 months where the awarding agency is aware of the unpaid tax liability and/or conviction, unless a Federal agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and has determined that further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
7.
There is no limit on the number of applications an applicant may submit under this announcement. There are no specific formats, specific limitations on number of pages, font size and type face, margins, paper size, number of copies, sequence, or assembly requirements. The component pieces of this application should contain original signatures on the original application.
All forms requiring signatures must include an original signature. If the applicant wishes to hand deliver its application, the addresses for these deliveries are in the
1.
2.
The Agency reserves the right to award additional discretionary points under 7 CFR 4280.435(k). Discretionary points may only be assigned to initial grants. Assignment of discretionary points must include a written justification. Permissible justifications include projects that meet special Secretary of Agriculture initiatives such as projects:
(a)
(b)
• Project is located in or serving a community with score 0.75 or above on the SVI;
• Applicant is a Federally recognized tribe, including Tribal instrumentalities and entities that are wholly owned by Tribes; or
• Applicant has a project where at least 50 percent of the project beneficiaries are members of Federally Recognized Tribes and non-Tribal applicants include a Tribal Resolution of Consent from the Tribe or Tribes that the applicant is proposing to serve.
(c)
• If a project is located in or serves a
• If the project is located in or serves an
• Applicants demonstrate through written narrative how proposed climate-impact projects improve the livelihoods of community residents and meet pollution mitigation or clean energy goals.
1.
2.
All successful applicants will be notified by letter, which will include a Letter of Conditions, and a Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions. This letter is not an authorization to begin performance. If the applicant wishes to consider beginning performance prior to the grant being officially closed, all pre-award costs must be approved in writing and in advance by the Agency. The grant will be considered officially awarded when all conditions in the Letter of Conditions have been met and the Agency obligates the funding for the Project.
Additional requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program can be found in 7 CFR part 4280, subpart E; the Grants and Agreements regulations applicable to USDA in 2 CFR part 400, which incorporates the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 2 CFR part 200, and successor regulations. In addition, all recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to report information about first tier subawards and executive compensation (see 2 CFR part 170). You will be required to have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-282) reporting requirements (see 2 CFR 170.200(b), unless you are exempt under 2 CFR 170.110(b)).
The following additional requirements apply to grantees selected for this program:
(a) Form RD 4280-2 “Rural Business-Cooperative Service Financial Assistance Agreement.”
(b) Letter of Conditions.
(c) Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”
(d) Form RD 1942-46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions.”
(e) Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement.” Each prospective recipient must sign Form RD 400-4 which assures USDA that the recipient is in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 7 CFR part 15, and other Agency regulations. Form RD 400-4 also provides that no person will be discriminated against based on race, color, or national origin, in regard to any program or activity for which the recipient receives Federal financial assistance. The grant recipient must include the required nondiscrimination statements in any of their advertisements and brochures.
Program participants will be required to collect and maintain data provided by recipients on race, sex, and national origin and ensure recipients collect and maintain this data. Race and ethnicity data will be collected in accordance with OMB
The applicant and the ultimate recipient must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Executive Order 12250, Executive Order 13166 regarding Limited English Proficiency (LEP), and 7 CFR part 1901, subpart E.
(f) SF LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” if applicable.
(g) Form SF 270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement.”
3.
(a) A comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives established for that period;
(b) Problems, delays, or adverse conditions, if any, which have affected or will affect attainment of overall Project objectives, prevent meeting time schedules or objectives, or preclude the attainment of Project work elements during established time periods. This disclosure shall be accompanied by a statement of the action taken or planned to resolve the situation;
(c) Objectives and timetable established for the next reporting period;
(d) Any special reporting requirements, such as jobs supported and created, businesses assisted, or Economic Development which results in improvements in median household incomes, and any other specific requirements, should be placed in the reporting section in the Letter of Conditions; and
(e) Within 90 days after the conclusion of the Project, the grantee will provide a final Project Evaluation Report. The last quarterly payment will be withheld until the final report is received and approved by the Agency. Even though the grantee may request reimbursement monthly, the last three months of reimbursements will be withheld until a final Project, Project Performance, and Financial Status Report are received and approved by the Agency.
For general questions about this announcement, please contact your USDA RD State Office provided in the
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
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 Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which can be obtained online at
(1)
(2)
(3)
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO).
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS or the Agency), a Rural Development agency of the United
Completed applications must be electronically received by RUS no later than 5 p.m. eastern time (ET) on March 4, 2024. Applicants intending to submit applications must have their applications received by the closing deadline.
Completed applications must be submitted electronically to Amy McWilliams, Branch Chief, Policy and Outreach Branch, Office of Customer Service and Technical Assistance, Electric Program, RUS at
Amy McWilliams, Branch Chief, Policy and Outreach Branch, Office of Customer Service and Technical Assistance, Electric Program, Rural Utilities Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mail Stop 1560, Room 4121—South, Washington, DC 20250-1560, by email at
• Addressing Climate Change and Environmental Justice; Reducing climate pollution and increasing resilience to the impacts of climate change through economic support to rural communities
• Advancing Racial Justice, Place-Based Equity, and Opportunity; Ensuring all rural residents have equitable access to RD programs and benefits from RD funded projects.
• Creating More and Better Market Opportunities; Assisting rural communities recover economically through more and better market opportunities and through improved infrastructure.
The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill) modified the 313A Program by amending the RE Act to allow proceeds of guaranteed bonds awarded under this NOFO to be used to make broadband loans, or to refinance broadband loans made to a borrower that has received, or is eligible to receive, a broadband loan under title VI of the RE Act.
The 2018 Farm Bill has also modified the 313A Program to allow the proceeds of guaranteed loans made under this NOFO to be used by the Guaranteed Lender to fund projects for the generation of electricity.
2.
1.
All applications must be prepared and submitted in accordance with this NOFO and 7 CFR part 1720 (
2.
In addition to the required application specified in 7 CFR 1720.6, all applicants must submit the following additional required documents and materials:
a.
Applicants must comply with the requirements relating to restrictions on lobbying activities (See 2 CFR part 418). This form is available at
b.
Applicants must comply with 49 CFR part 24, which implements the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. (See 7 CFR 1710.124.) This form (Assurances Required by 49 CFR 2.2(a)) is available at
c.
This report indicates whether the applicants are delinquent on any Federal debt (See 7 CFR 1710.126 and 7 CFR 1710.501(a) (12)). This form (the Federal Debt Delinquency Certification) is available at
d.
Applicants must submit a non-discrimination assurance commitment to comply with certain regulations on non-discrimination in program services and benefits and on equal employment opportunity as set forth in 7 CFR part 15, 12 CFR part 202, 7 CFR part 1901, subpart E, DR 4300-003, DR 4330-0300, and DR 4330-005. This form is available at
e.
See 7 CFR 1710.501(b)(1). These are required if either document has been amended since the last loan application was submitted to RUS, or if this is the applicant's first application for a loan under the RE Act.
f.
Each applicant must include five-year pro forma income statements, balance sheets and cash flow projections or business plans and clearly state the assumptions that underlie the projections, demonstrating that there is reasonable assurance that the applicant will be able to repay the guaranteed loan in accordance with its terms (See 7 CFR 1720.6(a)(4)).
g.
A statement from the applicant's counsel listing any pending litigation, including levels of related insurance coverage and the potential effect on the applicant, must be submitted to RUS.
3.
a. At the time of application, each applicant must have an active registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) before submitting its application in accordance with 2 CFR part 25 (
b. Applicants must maintain an active SAM registration, with current, accurate and complete information, at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application under consideration by a Federal awarding agency.
c. Applicant must ensure it completes the Financial Assistance General Certifications and Representations in SAM.
d. Applicants must provide a valid UEI in its application, unless determined exempt under 2 CFR 25.110.
e. The Agency will not make an award until the applicant has complied with all SAM requirements including providing the UEI. If an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time the Agency is ready to make an award, the Agency may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another applicant.
4.
5.
Funds from loans guaranteed under this program may only be used in accordance with this notice, the program regulations, and the RE Act.
6.
1.
Each application will be reviewed by the Secretary to determine whether it is eligible under 7 CFR 1720.5, the information required under 7 CFR 1720.6 is complete, and the proposed guaranteed bond complies with applicable statutes and regulations. The Secretary can at any time reject an application that fails to meet these requirements.
2.
Applications will be subject to a substantive review, on a competitive basis, by the Administrator based upon the evaluation factors listed in 7 CFR 1720.7(b). The Administrator may limit the number of guarantees made to a maximum of five per year, to ensure a sufficient examination is conducted of applicant requests. RUS will notify the applicant in writing of the Administrator's approval or denial of an application. Approvals for guarantees will be conditioned upon compliance with 7 CFR 1720.4 and 7 CFR 1720.6. The Administrator reserves the discretion to approve an application for an amount that was less than requested.
Before a guarantee decision is made by the Administrator, the Administrator shall request that FFB review the rating agency determination required by 7 CFR 1720.5(b)(2) as to whether the bond or note to be issued would receive an investment grade rating without regard to the guarantee.
1.
RUS will send a commitment letter to an applicant once the guaranteed loan has been approved. Applicants must accept and commit to all terms and conditions of the guaranteed loan which are requested by RUS and FFB before the loan guarantee award can be obligated.
The requirements under 7 CFR 1720.8 must be met by the applicant prior to the endorsement of a guarantee by the Administrator. Each Guaranteed Lender will be required to enter into a Guarantee Agreement with RUS that contains the provisions described in 7 CFR 1720.8 (Issuance of the Guarantee), 7 CFR 1720.9 (Guarantee Agreement), and 7 CFR 1720.12 (Reporting Requirements). The Guarantee Agreement will also obligate the Guaranteed Lender to pay, on a semi-annual basis, a guarantee fee equal to 30
2.
Applicants must accept and commit to all terms and conditions of the guaranteed loan which are requested by RUS and FFB as follows:
a.
In addition to the standard conditions placed on the 313A Program or conditions requested by RUS to ensure loan security and statutory compliance, applicants must comply with the following conditions:
(1) Each Guaranteed Lender selected under the 313A Program will be required to post collateral for the benefit of RUS in an amount at least equal to the aggregate amount of loan advances made to the Guaranteed Lender under the 313A Program.
(2) The pledged collateral (the Pledged Collateral) shall consist of outstanding notes or bonds payable to the Guaranteed Lender (the Eligible Instruments) and shall be placed on deposit with a collateral agent for the benefit of RUS. To be deemed Eligible Instruments that can be pledged as collateral, the notes or bonds to be pledged (i) cannot be classified as non-performing, impaired, or restructured under generally accepted accounting principles; special mention loans as defined by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; or any other elevated risk categories used by the Guaranteed Lender, (ii) must be free and clear of all liens other than the lien created for the benefit of RUS, (iii) cannot be comprised of more than 30 percent of bonds or notes from generation and transmission borrowers, (iv) cannot have more than 5 percent of bonds and notes be from any one particular borrower and (v) cannot be unsecured notes.
(3) The Guaranteed Lender will be required to place a lien on the Pledged Collateral in favor of RUS (as secured party) at the time that the Pledged Collateral is deposited with the collateral agent. RUS will have the right, in its sole discretion, within 14 business days of the Guaranteed Lender's written request to pledge Pledged Collateral, to reject any of the Pledged Instruments and require the Guaranteed Lender to substitute other Pledged Instruments as collateral with the collateral agent. Prior to receiving any advances under the 313A Program, the Guaranteed Lender will be required to enter into a pledge agreement, satisfactory to RUS, with a banking institution serving as collateral agent.
(4) The Guaranteed Lender will be required to agree not to take any action that would have the effect of reducing the value of the pledged collateral below the level described above.
(5) Applicants must certify to the RUS, the portion of their loan portfolio that is:
i. Refinanced RUS debt;
ii. Debt of borrowers for whom both RUS and the applicants have outstanding loans;
and
iii. Debt of borrowers for whom both RUS and the applicant have outstanding concurrent loans pursuant to Section 307 of the RE Act, and the amount of Eligible Loans.
b.
The amortization method for the repayment of the guaranteed loan shall be repaid by the Guaranteed Lender: (i) in periodic installments of principal and interest, (ii) in periodic installments of interest and, at the end of the term of the bond or note, as applicable, by the repayment of the outstanding principal, or (iii) through a combination of the methods described in (i) and (ii) above. The amortization method will be agreed to by RUS and the Guaranteed Lender.
3.
Applicants must comply with all applicable Federal laws and regulations.
a. This loan guarantee will be subject to the provisions contained in the appropriations act for FY 2024, once enacted by Congress. Prior appropriations acts have included prohibitions against RUS making awards to applicants having corporate felony convictions within the past 24 months or to applicants having corporate Federal tax delinquencies. It is possible that such provisions will be included in the appropriations act for FY 2024.
b. An authorized official within your organization must execute, date, and return the loan commitment letter to RUS within, no later than 14 calendar days from the date of the letter, otherwise the commitment will be voided.
4.
Guaranteed Lenders are required to comply with the financial reporting requirements and Pledged Collateral review and certification requirements set forth in 7 CFR 1720.12.
For general questions about this announcement, please contact your USDA Rural Development contact provided in the
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
In accordance with 7 CFR 1970.53(a)(7), any proceeds to be used to refinance bonds or notes previously issued by the Guaranteed Lender for RE Act purposes are classified as categorical exclusions. However, for any new projects using 313A Program funds, applicants must consult with RUS and comply with the Agency regulations at 7 CFR part 1970.
All applicants, in accordance with 2 CFR part 25 (
All loan guarantees made under this notice are subject to title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as required by the USDA (7 CFR part 15, subpart A—Nondiscrimination in Federally-Assisted Programs of the Department of Agriculture—Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, title IX, Executive Order 13166 (Limited English Proficiency), Executive Order 11246, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974.
In accordance with Federal civil rights laws and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Mission Areas, agencies, staff offices, employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color,
To file a program discrimination complaint, a complainant should complete a Form AD-3027, USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which can be obtained online at
The completed AD-3027 form or letter must be submitted to USDA by:
(1)
(2)
(3)
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice of request for nominations.
The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) requests nominations of individuals to the Census Scientific Advisory Committee (CSAC or Committee). The Census Bureau will consider nominations received in response to this notice, as well as from other sources. The
Please submit nominations by February 2, 2024. The Census Bureau will retain nominations received after this date for consideration should additional vacancies occur.
Please submit nominations to the
Shana Banks, Chief, Advisory Committee Branch, Office of Program, Performance and Stakeholder Integration (PPSI), Census Bureau, by telephone at 301-763-3815 or by email at
The Census Scientific Advisory Committee was established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.), app. The following provides information about the Committee, membership, and the nomination process.
1. The Census Scientific Advisory Committee advises the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau on the full range of Census Bureau programs and activities including communications, demographic, economic, field operations, geography, information technology, and statistics.
2. The Census Scientific Advisory Committee will address census policies, research and methodology, tests, operations, communications/messaging, and other activities to ascertain needs and best practices to improve censuses, surveys, operations, and programs.
3. The Census Scientific Advisory Committee will provide formal review and feedback on internal and external working papers, reports, and other documents related to the design and implementation of census programs and surveys.
4. The Census Scientific Advisory Committee will function solely as an advisory body and shall comply fully with the provisions of the FACA.
5. The Census Scientific Advisory Committee reports to the Director of the Census Bureau.
1. The Census Scientific Advisory Committee consists of up to 21 members who are appointed by and serve at the discretion of the Director of the Census Bureau.
2. Members will serve for a three-year term. All members will be evaluated at the conclusion of their first term with the prospect of renewal, pending Committee needs. Active attendance and participation in meetings and activities will be factors considered when determining term renewal or membership continuance. Members may be appointed for a second three-year term at the discretion of the Director.
3. Members shall serve as Special Government Employees (SGEs) and will be subject to the ethics rules applicable to SGEs.
4. The Census Scientific Advisory Committee aims to have balanced representation among its members, considering such factors as geography, scientific expertise, community involvement, and knowledge of census programs and/or activities, and, where possible the Census Bureau will consider the ethnic, racial, and gender diversity and various abilities of the United States population.
5. No employee of the Federal Government can serve as a member of the Census Scientific Advisory Committee.
1. The Census Bureau will not compensate members of the Committee for their services, but shall, upon request, reimburse travel expenses as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5703.
2. The Census Scientific Advisory Committee will convene twice per year, budget and environmental conditions permitting. The Committee will use formal advisory committee meetings, webinars, working groups, and other means of review to accomplish its goals, consistent with the requirements of FACA.
1. Nominations are requested as described above.
2. Nominees must have scientific and technical expertise in such areas as communications, demographic, economic, field operations, geography, information technology, and statistics. Such knowledge and expertise are needed to provide advice and
3. The Census Bureau is especially interested in receiving applications from persons with expertise in survey methodology, information technology, computer science and engineering, geography, psychology, business/finance, sociology, and marketing.
4. Individuals, groups, and/or organizations may submit nominations on behalf of individual candidates. A summary of the candidate's qualifications (resumé or curriculum vitae) must be included along with the nomination letter. Nominees must be able to actively participate in the tasks of the Census Scientific Advisory Committee, including, but not limited to, regular meeting attendance, Committee meeting discussant responsibilities, review of materials, as well as participation in conference calls, webinars, working groups, and/or special Committee activities.
5. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks diverse Committee membership.
Robert L. Santos, Director, Census Bureau, approved the publication of this notice in the
On September 28, 2023, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Brunswick and Glynn County Development Authority, grantee of FTZ 144, requesting an expansion of Subzone 144C subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 144, on behalf of Orgill, Inc., in Tifton, Georgia.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are not being provided to producers and exporters of mattresses from Indonesia. The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Applicable January 2, 2024.
Natasia Harrison or Harrison Tanchuck, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1240 or (202) 482-7421, respectively.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation on August 23, 2023.
For a complete description of events that followed the initiation of this investigation,
The products covered by this investigation are mattresses from Indonesia. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations,
Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each subsidy program found to be countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy,
In accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), Commerce is aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determination in the concurrent AD investigations of mattresses from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burma, India, Italy, Kosovo, Mexico, the Philippines, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, and Taiwan based on a request made by the petitioners.
For this preliminary determination, Commerce calculated
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated net countervailable subsidy rates exist:
Consistent with
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of the publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Because Commerce preliminarily determines that no countervailable subsidies are being provided to the production or exportation of subject merchandise, Commerce will not direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of any such entries.
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.
All interested parties will have the opportunity to submit scope case and rebuttal briefs on the preliminary decision regarding the scope of the AD and CVD investigations. The deadlines to submit scope case and rebuttal briefs will be provided in the preliminary scope decision memorandum. For all scope case and rebuttal briefs, parties must file identical documents simultaneously on the records of the ongoing AD and CVD investigations. No new factual information or business proprietary information may be included in either scope case or rebuttal briefs.
Case briefs or other written comments on non-scope issues may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Interested parties will be notified of the timeline for the submission of case briefs and written comments at a later date. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this investigation, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing.
In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the U.S.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The products covered by this investigation are all types of youth and adult mattresses. The term “mattress” denotes an assembly of materials that at a minimum includes a “core,” which provides the main support system of the mattress, and may consist of innersprings, foam, other resilient filling, or a combination of these materials. Mattresses also may contain: (1) “upholstery,” the material between the core and the top panel of the ticking on a single-sided mattress, or between the core and the top and bottom panel of the ticking on a double-sided mattress; and/or (2) “ticking,” the outermost layer of fabric or other material (
The scope of this investigation is restricted to only “adult mattresses” and “youth mattresses.” “Adult mattresses” are frequently described as “twin,” “extra-long twin,” “full,” “queen,” “king,” or “California king” mattresses. “Youth mattresses” are typically described as “crib,” “toddler,” or “youth” mattresses. All adult and youth mattresses are included regardless of size and size description or how they are described (
The scope encompasses all types of “innerspring mattresses,” “non-innerspring mattresses,” and “hybrid mattresses.” “Innerspring mattresses” contain innersprings, a series of metal springs joined together in sizes that correspond to the dimensions of mattresses. Mattresses that contain innersprings are referred to as “innerspring mattresses” or “hybrid mattresses.” “Hybrid mattresses” contain two or more support systems as the core, such as layers of both memory foam and innerspring units.
“Non-innerspring mattresses” are those that do not contain any innerspring units. They are generally produced from foams (
Mattresses covered by the scope of this investigation may be imported independently, as part of furniture or furniture mechanisms (
Excluded from the scope of this investigation are “futon” mattresses. A “futon” is a bi-fold frame made of wood, metal, or plastic material, or any combination thereof, that functions as both seating furniture (such as a couch, love seat, or sofa) and a bed. A “futon mattress” is a tufted mattress, where the top covering is secured to the bottom with thread that goes completely through the mattress from the top through to the bottom, and it does not contain innersprings or foam. A futon mattress is both the bed and seating surface for the futon.
Also excluded from the scope are airbeds (including inflatable mattresses) and waterbeds, which consist of air- or liquid-filled bladders as the core or main support system of the mattress.
Also excluded is certain multifunctional furniture that is convertible from seating to sleeping, regardless of filler material or components, where such filler material or components are upholstered, integrated into the design and construction of, and inseparable from, the furniture framing, and the outermost layer of the multifunctional furniture converts into the sleeping surface. Such furniture may, and without limitation, be commonly referred to as “convertible sofas,” “sofabeds,” “sofa chaise sleepers,” “futons,” “ottoman sleepers,” or a like description.
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are any products covered by the existing antidumping duty orders on uncovered innerspring units from the People's Republic of China, South Africa, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are bassinet pads with a nominal length of less than 39 inches, a nominal width of less than 25 inches, and a nominal depth of less than 2 inches.
Additionally, also excluded from the scope of this investigation are “mattress toppers.” A “mattress topper” is a removable bedding accessory that supplements a mattress by providing an additional layer that is placed on top of a mattress. Excluded mattress toppers have a height of four inches or less.
The products subject to this investigation are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 9404.21.0010, 9404.21.0013, 9404.21.0095, 9404.29.1005, 9404.29.1013, 9404.29.1095, 9404.29.9085, 9404.29.9087, and 9404.29.9095. Products subject to this investigation may also enter under HTSUS subheadings: 9401.41.0000, 9401.49.0000, and 9401.99.9081. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Every five years, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission automatically initiate and conduct reviews to determine whether revocation of a countervailing or antidumping duty order or termination of an investigation suspended under section 704 or 734 of the Act would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the case may be) and of material injury.
Pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, the following Sunset Reviews are scheduled for initiation in February 2024 and will appear in that month's
No Sunset Review of suspended investigations is scheduled for initiation in February 2024.
Commerce's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Review are set forth in 19 CFR 351.218. The
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), Commerce will maintain and make available a service list for these proceedings. To facilitate the timely preparation of the service list(s), it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding contact Commerce in writing within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.
Please note that if Commerce receives a Notice of Intent to Participate from a member of the domestic industry within 15 days of the date of initiation, the review will continue.
Thereafter, any interested party wishing to participate in the Sunset Review must provide substantive comments in response to the notice of initiation no later than 30 days after the date of initiation. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f).
This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Kumar Industries, India (Kumar), a producer/exporter of glycine from India, received countervailable subsidies during the period of review (POR), January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021.
Applicable January 2, 2024.
Scarlet Jaldin or Harrison Tanchuck AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4275 or (202) 482-7421, respectively.
On June 30, 2023, Commerce published the
The merchandise covered by the
All issues raised by interested parties in their case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the topics discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is provided in Appendix I 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 the comments received from interested parties and of the record, we made certain changes from 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 countervailable, we find that there is a subsidy,
In this review, the final rate calculated for Kumar, the mandatory respondent, is not zero,
For the period January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, we determine that the following net countervailable subsidy rates exist:
Commerce intends to disclose to the calculations performed in connection with the final results of review within five days of a public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final results in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise covered by 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 review in the
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts indicated above on 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. For all non-reviewed firms subject to the
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an 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 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.
We are issuing and publishing these final results 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) is amending the preliminary affirmative determination of sales at less-than-fair-value on boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale (boltless steel shelving) from Thailand to correct a significant ministerial error.
Applicable January 2, 2024.
Fred Baker, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-6274.
On November 29, 2023, Commerce published its preliminary affirmative determination in the less-than-fair-value investigation of boltless steel shelving from Thailand.
The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2022, through March 31, 2023.
The products covered by this investigation are boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from Thailand. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
Commerce will analyze any comments received and, if appropriate, correct any significant ministerial error by amending the preliminary determination according to 19 CFR 351.224(e). A ministerial error is defined in 19 CFR 351.224(f) as “an error in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.”
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(e) and (g)(1), Commerce is amending the
As a result of correcting this ministerial error, Commerce determines the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exits:
The collection of cash deposits and suspension of liquidation will be revised according to the rates calculated in this amended preliminary determination, in accordance with section 773(d) of the Act. Because we are now making a negative determination of sales at LTFV for Siam Metal, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to discontinue the suspension of liquidation of entries of subject merchandise made by Siam Metal and to liquidate all suspended entries without regard to antidumping duties. Because the all-others rate decreased as a result of this amended preliminary determination, the all others rate will be effective retroactively to November 29, 2023, the date of publication of the
We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days after public announcement of the amended preliminary determination, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission of our amended preliminary determination.
This amended preliminary determination is issues and published pursuant to sections 773(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e).
The scope of this investigation covers boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale, with or without decks (boltless steel shelving). The term “prepackaged for sale” means that, at a minimum, the steel vertical supports (
The scope includes all boltless steel shelving meeting the description above, regardless of: (1) vertical support or post type (including but not limited to open post, closed post and tubing); (2) horizontal support or beam/brace profile (including but not limited to Z-beam, C-beam, L-beam, step beam and cargo rack); (3) number of supports; (4) surface coating (including but not limited to paint, epoxy, powder coating, zinc and other metallic coating); (5) number of levels; (6) weight capacity; (7) shape (including but not limited to rectangular, square, and corner units); (8) decking material (including but not limited to wire decking, particle board, laminated board or no deck at all); or (9) the boltless method by which vertical and horizontal supports connect (including but not limited to keyhole and rivet, slot and tab, welded frame, punched rivet and clip).
Specifically excluded from the scope are:
• Wall-mounted shelving, defined as shelving that is hung on the wall and does not stand on, or transfer load to, the floor. The addition of a wall bracket or other device to attach otherwise freestanding subject merchandise to a wall does not meet the terms of this exclusion;
• Wire shelving units, which consist of shelves made from wire that incorporates both a wire deck and wire horizontal supports (taking the place of the horizontal beams and braces) into a single piece with tubular collars that slide over the posts and onto plastic sleeves snapped on the posts to create the finished shelving unit;
• Bulk-packed parts or components of boltless steel shelving units; and
• Made-to-order shelving systems.
Subject boltless steel shelving enters the United States through Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) statistical subheading 9403.20.0075. While the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Brenda E. Brown, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.
Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.
All deadlines for the submission of comments or actions by Commerce discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting date.
In the event Commerce limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, Commerce intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties having an APO within five days of publication of the initiation notice and
In the event Commerce decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:
In general, Commerce finds that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that requests a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that Commerce may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. Determinations by Commerce to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.
Section 504 of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 amended the Act by adding the concept of particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of constructed value under section 773(e) of the Act.
Neither section 773(e) of the Act nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v) set a deadline for the submission of PMS allegations and supporting factual information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should an interested party wish to submit a PMS allegation and supporting new factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later than 20 days after submission of initial Section D responses.
None.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding or an antidumping or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review. In addition, a domestic interested party or an interested party described in section 771(9)(B) of the Act must state why it desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters. If the interested party intends for the Secretary to review sales of merchandise by an exporter (or a producer if that producer also exports merchandise from other suppliers) which was produced in more than one country of origin and each country of origin is subject to a separate order, then the interested party must state specifically, on an order-by-order basis, which exporter(s) the request is intended to cover.
Note that, for any party Commerce was unable to locate in prior segments, Commerce will not accept a request for an administrative review of that party absent new information as to the party's location. Moreover, if the interested party who files a request for review is unable to locate the producer or exporter for which it requested the review, the interested party must provide an explanation of the attempts it made to locate the producer or exporter at the same time it files its request for review, in order for the Secretary to determine if the interested party's attempts were reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(ii).
As explained in
Commerce no longer considers the non-market economy (NME) entity as an exporter conditionally subject to an antidumping duty administrative reviews.
All requests must be filed electronically in Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) on Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS website at
Commerce will publish in the
For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the period of review.
On September 20, 2021, Commerce published the final rule titled “
In accordance with the
As mentioned in the
Interested parties have 30 days after the date of this notice to submit new or amended entries of appearance. Commerce will then finalize the annual inquiry service lists five business days thereafter. For ease of administration, please note that Commerce requests that law firms with more than one attorney representing interested parties in a proceeding designate a lead attorney to be included on the annual inquiry service list.
Commerce may update an annual inquiry service list at any time as needed based on interested parties' amendments to their entries of appearance to remove or otherwise modify their list of members and representatives, or to update contact information. Any changes or announcements pertaining to these procedures will be posted to the ACCESS website at
In the
This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In accordance with the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is automatically initiating
Applicable January 2, 2023.
Commerce official identified in the
Commerce's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its
In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset Reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty order(s) and suspended investigation(s):
As a courtesy, we are making information related to sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statute and Commerce's regulations, Commerce's schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on Commerce's website at the following address:
In accordance with section 782(b) of the Act, any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information. Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g). Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), Commerce will maintain and make available a public service list for these proceedings. Parties wishing to participate in any of these five-year reviews must file letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d). To facilitate the timely preparation of the public service list, it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding submit an entry of appearance within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation. Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties who want access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (APO) to file an APO application immediately following publication in the
Domestic interested parties, as defined in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the
If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, Commerce's regulations provide that
This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public online meeting.
The Groundfish Subcommittee of the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council's) Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will hold a virtual meeting to review the 2023 groundfish stock assessment process and discuss process improvements for the next stock assessment cycle, review proposed revisions to the Terms of Reference for the Groundfish Stock Assessment Review Process for 2025 and 2026, review proposed revisions to the Terms of Reference for the Groundfish Rebuilding Analysis for 2025 and 2026, and update the Accepted Practices Guidelines for Groundfish Stock Assessments document. The SSC Groundfish Subcommittee meeting is open to the public.
The SSC Groundfish Subcommittee's online meeting will be held Wednesday, January 17, 2024 beginning at 8 a.m. and continuing until 5 p.m. Pacific time or until business for the day has been completed. The Subcommittee will reconvene on Thursday, January 18, 2024 beginning at 8 a.m. and ending at 5 p.m. or when business for the day has been completed.
The SSC Groundfish Subcommittee's meeting is being conducted online. Specific meeting information, materials, and instructions for how to connect to the meeting remotely will be provided in the meeting announcement on the Pacific Council's website (see
Marlene A. Bellman, Staff Officer, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2414, email:
The purpose of the SSC Groundfish Subcommittee's meeting includes, (a) review proposed changes to the Terms of Reference for the Groundfish Stock Assessment Review Process for 2025 and 2026, and Terms of Reference for the Groundfish Rebuilding Analysis for 2025 and 2026, that will inform the process for conducting and reviewing groundfish assessments and rebuilding analyses in the next cycle, (b) review proposed changes to the Accepted Practices Guidelines for Stock Assessments in 2025 and 2026, which is a compilation of guidelines for groundfish stock assessment scientists, and (c) to review and evaluate the 2023-2024 groundfish stock assessment review process to solicit process improvements for future reviews. Stock assessment teams and review participants are encouraged to attend, as well as members of the Pacific Council's groundfish advisory bodies in order to prepare their recommendations to the Pacific Council.
No management actions will be decided by the SSC Groundfish Subcommittee. Process improvement recommendations and proposed changes to the Terms of Reference and Accepted Practices Guidelines documents will first be considered during this online meeting, with a Groundfish Subcommittee post-meeting report to the full SSC at their March 2024 meeting and their recommended changes to the Terms of Reference scheduled for preliminary Pacific Council adoption for public review. The Pacific Council is scheduled to adopt a final Terms of Reference for the 2025-2026 stock assessment cycle at their June 2024 meeting in San Diego, California.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agendas may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt (
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of web conference.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Joint Groundfish Plan Teams will meet on January 17, 2024.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, January 17, 2024, from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m., Alaska time.
The meeting will be a web conference. Join online through the link at
Sara Cleaver, Council staff; email:
For technical support, please contact our administrative staff; email:
The Joint Groundfish Plan Teams will be reviewing research priorities to provide recommendations to the SSC at the February 2024 meeting. The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
You can attend the meeting online using a computer, tablet, or smart phone; or by phone only. Connection information will be posted online at:
Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted electronically to
Grid Deployment Office; U.S. Department of Energy.
Record of decision.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its decision to award credits to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) under the Civil Nuclear Credit (CNC) Program for the continued operation of Diablo Canyon Power Plant Units 1 and 2 (DCPP) under DCPP's current operating licenses issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). This decision is pursuant to the
For further information on this record of decision (ROD), contact Mr. Jason Anderson, Document Manager, by mail at U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, 1955 Fremont Avenue, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415; or by email to
Mr. Jason Anderson, Document Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, 1955 Fremont Avenue, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415; by email to
DOE's mission ensures America's security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions. As described at
Under the CNC Program, owners or operators of U.S. commercial power reactors can apply for certification to bid on credits to support nuclear reactors' continued operation. An application must demonstrate that the nuclear reactor is projected to close for economic reasons and that closure will lead to a rise in air pollutants and carbon emissions, among other conditions. An owner or operator of a certified nuclear reactor whose bid for credits is selected by DOE is then eligible to receive payments from the Federal Government in the amount of the credits awarded to the owner or operator, provided it continues to operate the nuclear reactor for the four-year award period (for DCPP, January 2023 to December 2026) and subject to its satisfaction of other specified payment terms. PG&E submitted its application for certification and its bid for credits under the CNC Program on September 9, 2022. DOE made a conditional award of credits to PG&E on November 21, 2022.
NEPA requires Federal agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts of proposals for major Federal actions with the potential to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Awarding credits for continued operation of a commercial nuclear power reactor under the CNC Program is subject to NEPA. Therefore, DOE conducted a review of the existing NEPA documentation for continued operation of the DCPP reactors in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and DOE NEPA regulations, 40 CFR 1506.3 and 10 CFR 1021.200(d), respectively. DOE also considered non-NEPA documents, such as available licensing basis documents, the 2021 Safety Analysis Report, Federal and State permits, site reports and documents, and relevant public information to inform DOE's evaluation of the existing NEPA documents.
The NRC has principal regulatory authority over the licensing of commercial nuclear power reactors, and DOE conducted a review of the NRC environmental documents and those of their predecessor, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), related to the licensing of Diablo Canyon. DOE determined that the project analyzed in the NRC NEPA documents was substantially the same as the project that would be covered by the DOE CNC Program. DOE determined that continued operation of DCPP Units 1 and 2 as NRC licensed commercial nuclear power reactors would have environmental consequences that have been adequately analyzed in the existing NEPA documentation for the purposes of adoption in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.3. Further, DOE determines that continued operation of DCPP would have beneficial impacts to air quality when compared against construction and operation of alternative energy generation methods that would be available to replace the electrical energy currently generated by DCPP if the plant were to shut down.
Because DCPP is one of the few operating nuclear plants that has not completed a license renewal process with the NRC, the NEPA documentation available for DCPP includes some documents that are more dated than for other plants expected to apply to the CNC Program. The first NEPA document is from 1973, the
In addition to reviewing the NRC NEPA documents, DOE reviewed various other reports and more recent sources of information to evaluate the adequacy of the NRC NEPA documents, including the following: (1) the
The NRC has principal regulatory authority over the licensing of commercial nuclear power reactors. DOE conducted a review of the NRC environmental documents related to the licensing of Diablo Canyon, in accordance with 10 CFR 1021.200(d). DOE conducted an independent review of the NRC NEPA documents and related documents for the purpose of determining whether DOE could adopt them pursuant to CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1506.3. DOE did not participate as a cooperating agency in preparation of the DCPP NEPA documents and subsequently adopted them as a DOE environmental impact statement (EIS) (DOE/EIS-0555). Formal announcements of adoption were published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DOE in the
DOE's review and adoption of the NRC NEPA documents covers only the period that DCPP's current operating licenses remain in effect. That is to say, so long as the DCPP operating licenses continue in effect by operation of law, DOE will continue to pay credits during the four-year award period. PG&E submitted its application for DCPP operating license renewal on November 7, 2023, which is currently undergoing NRC review. If the NRC denies renewal of the DCPP operating licenses, DOE will stop payment of credits. If the NRC grants renewal of the DCPP operating licenses during the January 2023-December 2026 award period, DOE will stop payment of credits and initiate a process to satisfy DOE's NEPA obligations with respect to continuing payments.
The present DOE decision is whether to approve the proposed action described in the cover memorandum to DOE/EIS-0555: an award of credits to PG&E under the CNC Program to support continued operation of DCPP as constructed, licensed, and authorized under current NRC operating licenses DPR-80 and DPR-82. Accordingly, the alternatives considered by DOE include (1) the proposed action of awarding CNC Program credits to PG&E, which is substantially the same as the primary proposed DCPP plant design analyzed in the 1973 Environmental Statement; and (2) the alternative of not awarding CNC Program credits to PG&E, which is substantially the same as the Alternative Sources of power generation discussed in the 1973 Environmental Statement. Unlike NRC/AEC, DOE is not deciding whether to authorize construction of DCPP or whether to license its operations. However, DOE's proposed action is
The alternative of not awarding credits to PG&E could result in PG&E discontinuing operation of DCPP Unit 1
DOE finds that despite the age of some of the NRC/AEC NEPA documents, there is sufficient available information to complete DOE's analysis of the proposed action. In DOE/EIS-0555, DOE considered changes to the affected environment and environmental impacts of DCPP operation since the publication of the 1973 ES, through available licensing basis documents, Federal and State permits, site reports and documents, and relevant public information. Changes to the affected environment include the following resource topics:
Meteorology and Air Quality: The region surrounding the DCPP currently attains all national ambient air quality standards but does not attain the California air quality standards for ozone and respirable particulates (PM10). DCPP operates under several San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District Permits to Operate and submits Annual Air Emissions Reports that identify annual fuel usages for permitted sources. As air emissions from DCPP are regulated by site-specific permits in order to comply with the State's air quality standards, air quality impacts from continued operation are anticipated to be small.
In addition, continued operation of DCPP would result in fewer air pollutants emissions (including greenhouse gases) compared to those that would occur with potential replacement power generation sources. As described in the cover memorandum for the DOE EIS, DOE reviewed three independent studies (DOE/EIS-0555 pg. 6) examining the potential impact of DCPP's retirement. Each study indicates that while deployment of renewable energy generation would continue, partially driven by existing State laws and policies, natural gas generation and the associated carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions would increase if DCPP were to cease operations. All three studies project that a substantial proportion of DCPP's lost generation between 2024 and 2030 would be covered largely by increased utilization of gas-fired units rather than newly constructed renewable electric sources. DOE found nothing to refute that emissions would increase during the credit award period were DCPP to cease operations.
A review of the permitted emission sources at DCPP, the diesel-fired auxiliary steam boiler and seven emergency diesel-fired generators, determined that the combined annual emissions of all current sources would be much less than the major source threshold of 100 tons per year of an air pollutant. Therefore, emissions from the continued operation of DCPP would be substantially less than the emissions estimated for increased utilization of natural gas-fired power generation.
Finally, if an alternative generating technology were to be constructed to replace generation as a result of DCPP ceasing operations, the construction process would be an additional source of air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from construction equipment and transportation vehicles.
Overall, the adverse environmental impacts to air quality of continued operation of DCPP would be expected to be smaller than such impacts of construction and operation of an equivalent gas-powered electrical power generation facility or facilities.
Geologic Environment: Section 2.4.2 of the 1973 ES discusses seismology of the plant and that DCPP has been designed to safely withstand the earthquakes as discussed in the staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER). In Chapter 5 of the 2009 ER, Assessment of New and Significant Information, PG&E described its notification to the NRC that preliminary results from ongoing studies by PG&E and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) indicated the presence of a new fault, which has since been referred to as the “Shoreline Fault.” The NRC staff subsequently undertook several independent reviews of possible implications of the potential Shoreline Fault to DCPP and concluded that the Shoreline Fault will not likely cause ground motions that exceed those for which DCPP has already been analyzed (DOE/EIS-0555, pg. 7).
In 2013 the NRC established an Ad Hoc Review Panel in response to a Differing Public Opinion (DPO) raised by an NRC employee regarding the NRC's consideration of the new fault information near DCPP. The Ad Hoc Review Panel conducted a thorough review of the new fault information and concluded that the “Los Osos, San Luis Bay, and the Shoreline faults do not exceed the level of ground motion already considered in the design and licensing of DCPP.” (DOE/EIS-0555, pg. 7).
The issue of the Shoreline Fault was again raised in 2017 through public petition. The NRC Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation reviewed the prior information, including that of the Ad Hoc Review Panel, and concluded that, “the NRC Staff determines that DCPP is safe to continue operating and is able to safely shut down following an earthquake caused by the Shoreline, San Luis Bay, or Los Osos faults” and that it “did not find that the continued operation of DCPP would adversely affect public health and safety.” (DOE/EIS-0555, pg. 7).
In 2012, the NRC issued a letter to all nuclear power plant licensees requiring that they reevaluate the seismic and flooding hazard at their sites using present-day NRC requirements and guidance, which PG&E did. The NRC reviewed the information and in 2020, issued a letter to PG&E finding no further regulatory actions were required related to the seismic hazard reevaluation activities (DOE/EIS-0555, pgs. 7-8).
DOE determined that the analysis of seismological effects, soil effects, and other aspects of the geologic environment including the Shoreline Fault which the NRC found was “already considered in the design and licensing of DCPP,” remain adequate for adoption through the current operating licenses.
Water Resources: DCPP utilizes a desalination system for potable water and a once-through cooling water system using Pacific Ocean water. DOE reviewed the impacts of the resulting discharge into the ocean. Section 2.5 and Table 5.13 of the 1973 ES shows the minimum ambient ocean water temperature recorded at Diablo Cove between January 1970 and December 1971 was 45 °F and the maximum ambient ocean water temperature was 63.5 °F. The 1976 Addendum described the coordinated jurisdiction over water effluents between the NRC and the State of California, noting “the exclusive jurisdiction over plant effluent discharges and water quality matters resides with the State of California and [U.S.] EPA” and thus while NRC “lacks jurisdiction to regulate liquid effluent discharged into Diablo Cove or to alter the design of the intake or discharge structures, the NRC has a mandated responsibility to assess the environmental effects of discharges proposed by the applicant or permitted by those agencies that have jurisdiction.”
Water discharges from the DCPP once-through cooling water system continue to be regulated and monitored in accordance with a Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB) National Pollutant
The DOE concluded that continued operation of the DCPP would not result in any new or substantially different environmental impacts related to water resources that have not been assessed by previous NEPA documents. In addition, in accordance with DCPP's NRC operating license, radionuclide monitoring in groundwater is routinely conducted and reported in the publicly available Diablo Canyon Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports. In particular the latest reports from 2022, 2021, 2020 have supported the original NEPA analyses by finding that “the ambient direct radiation levels in DCPP offsite environs did not change and were within the pre-operational background range.” (DOE/EIS-0555, pg. 15). Therefore, DOE determined that the impact findings in the existing NEPA documentation remain adequate for DOE's adoption through the current operating licenses.
Ecological Resources: DOE reviewed the impacts to the ecological resources due to the operation of DCPP as analyzed in the existing NEPA documents. The 1973 ES identified that operation of the plant was expected to result in a number of impacts, including that thermal discharge from the plant “will cause an ecological shift in benthic organisms and fish that will result in an increase in the number of warmwater-tolerant forms. The higher temperatures will also increase the feeding activity of the giant sea urchin, which competes with the abalone for the existing food supply (mainly kelp); this may lead to a decline in the abalone population unless measures are taken to control the urchin. A total of 110,000 abalone may be lost as a result of the station operation.”
The NRC Staff subsequently issued the 1976 ES Addendum which considered impacts that differed in extent and/or intensity from those described in the 1973 ES, noting that “extensive changes have occurred in the baseline conditions on which the [1973 ES] impacts were based . . . brought about mainly by the southward migration of the sea otter, increased commercial harvesting in the Diablo Canyon region, red tides, and to a lesser extent toxicity problems associated with the plant's cooling water system.” The 1976 ES Addendum summary identified that “major changes have been the decline of abalone and sea urchin populations.”
Section 5.2.1 of the 1976 ES Addendum found that releases of copper in the concentrations that occurred during the startup of the cooling water system for DCPP Unit 1 were not anticipated, and that the State of California concluded that the release of copper during DCPP startup operations in the 1970s contributed to “significant abalone mortality in Diablo Cove.” After the copper discharge, PG&E took measures to eliminate the release of copper from the main condensers, and NRC Staff concluded that the very low concentration of copper should have no detrimental effect on the biota of Diablo Cove. With respect to the effects of thermal temperature on the benthic environment, section 5.3.2 noted that the population of red abalone had declined 95 percent at subtidal stations, and that Diablo Cove “will not afford a viable habitat in those areas where the thermal plume remains in constant contact with the bottom.”
The 2003 ISFSI EA notes that, “[t]he marine ecology in the area of Diablo Cove has been studied since 1976 under the Thermal Effects Monitoring Program (TEMP). This program includes periodic monitoring of intertidal and subtidal algae, invertebrates and fish and several physical parameters. Two marine species that frequent near-shore areas around the DCPP and are listed as threatened by the Federal Endangered Species Act are the southern sea otter and green sea turtle. However, the proposed ISFSI activities will not result in discharges to the marine environment, and thus, there will be no impact on these species.”
In 2005, the NRC prepared a Biological Assessment (BA) that addressed the effects of the continued operation of DCPP on threatened and endangered marine species in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service. Based on this BA, the NRC determined that continued operation of DCPP may adversely affect the green sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, and olive ridley sea turtle. The NRC also determined that continued operation of DCPP would have no effect on the southern California or the southcentral coast stocks of steelhead, the Guadalupe fur seal, Steller sea lion, the blue whale, fin whale, Sei whale, sperm whale, or the humpback whale. No critical habitat for any of these species would be affected by the continued operation of DCPP nor is any critical habitat present in the vicinity of DCPP. Although the NRC has determined that individuals of the four species of sea turtles may be adversely affected by the continued operation of DCPP, the NRC also determined that DCPP does not contribute to the overall mortality of these species nor jeopardize the continued existence of any of these species.
In 2006, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement for Continued Operations for green sea turtles, leatherback sea turtles, loggerhead sea turtles, and olive ridley sea turtles. NMFS found hat that the continued operation of DCPP “is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened green, leatherback, loggerhead, or olive ridley sea turtles.” The incidental take statement noted that the “consultation will cover the plant until the expiration of its existing operating license in 2026” and that “that the levels of anticipated take are not likely to result in jeopardy to green, leatherback, loggerhead, or olive ridley sea turtles.” As part of the incidental take statement, DCPP reports all sea turtle entrainments to NMFS via the NMFS Stranding Reports.
In 2021, PG&E and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB) reached a settlement agreement to resolve alleged thermal discharge permit violations from 2003. A public review and comment period was completed in early 2021 for the settlement agreement, which had been negotiated between PG&E and CCRWQCB during 2020. The settlement agreement addressed impacts on receiving waters from past and ongoing power plant cooling water discharges. The funds generated by the settlement are to be used for regional water quality projects. In addition to this settlement, PG&E has been making annual payments since 2015 to mitigate the potential impacts of its discharges, in accordance with the California State Water Board's Once-through Cooling Water Policy Requirements. Regardless of the thermal discharge impacts settlement resolution, the plant NPDES permit remains under administrative extension.
Environmental monitoring continues to be conducted at DCPP under the Receiving Water Monitoring Program and includes monitoring tasks such as temperature monitoring, State Mussel Watch activities, and intertidal and subtidal surveys.
PG&E is required to comply with Federal, State, and local environmental regulations, agreements, and mechanisms (
Historic and Cultural Resources: DOE's proposed action would not add to or alter the undertaking that would be subject to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) section 106 review process, as DOE's proposed action does not change the operational configuration of any facility, and it would not add to or alter the undertaking (see 36 CFR 800.16(y)) that would be subject to the section 106 review process.
Accordingly, DOE determined that the impact findings in the existing NEPA documentation remain adequate through the current operating licenses and DOE's section 106 compliance requirements for the proposed credit allocation for the Project have been met.
Cumulative Impacts: Cumulative impacts were not evaluated in the 1973 ES and the 1976 ES. Addendum but were evaluated in the 2003 ISFSI EA and 2014 ER Amendment 1. The 2003 ISFSI EA contains a partial assessment of cumulative impacts, stating: “The impact of the proposed Diablo Canyon ISFSI, when combined with previously evaluated effects from the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, is not anticipated to result in any significant cumulative impact at the site. The offsite radiation exposure limits for an ISFSI specified in 10 CFR 72.104(a) explicitly include any contribution to offsite dose from other uranium fuel cycle facilities in the region.” Therefore, the offsite dose contribution from the DCPP has been included in the evaluation of radiological impacts from the proposed Diablo Canyon ISFSI. In addition, the 2014 ER Amendment 1 evaluated cumulative impacts for all resources areas except Noise, Environmental Justice, Waste Management, and Global Climate Change. For the evaluated resources areas, the ER Amendment 1 found impacts to be small.
With respect to overall cumulative impacts, DCPP's continued operation is governed by Federal and State permits, licenses and plans which ensure that any impact from DCPP's continued operation are minimized. This includes the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) which is part of the NRC licenses for operation of DCPP. PG&E is required to report “unreviewed environmental questions” which “may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the final environmental statement.” Implementation of such changes are subject to prior approval by the NRC in the form of a license amendment incorporating the appropriate revision into the EPP. PG&E's compliance with NPDES permit conditions would ensure no changes in the temperature differential of DCPP's existing thermal discharge. Further, PG&E's conformity with requirements to avoid incidental intake of protected species helps assure impacts to the environment are mitigated.
Therefore, DOE has determined the NEPA documentation and other supporting documents adequately address cumulative impacts for continued operation through the period DCPP's current NRC licenses remain in effect.
DOE also considered whether license renewal is a reasonably foreseeable future action. PG&E applied for a license renewal from NRC on November 7, 2023, which is currently undergoing NRC review. While the license renewal application is for a 20-year life extension per NRC regulations, in Senate Bill 846 (SB846) the State of California limited DCPP's life extension to just five years (no later than October 31, 2029 for Unit 1 and no later than October 31, 2030, for Unit 2). DOE cannot at this time reasonably ascertain the scope or terms of any license that NRC might grant to PG&E in the future. Due to this uncertainty, DOE cannot meaningfully analyze the potential impacts of any license renewal without undue speculation. Further, if and when NRC acts on PG&E's application, DOE would consider the need for further NEPA review prior to deciding whether to issue any credits or make any payments during the period of operation under an NRC license renewal.
In summary, DOE's review of the NRC NEPA documents and other available information for DCPP, indicates that the impacts of continued DCPP operation for the duration of the current licenses would be consistent with the impacts of current and historic operations as described in DOE/EIS-0555.
In addition, DCPP complies with Federal, State, and local environmental regulations, requirements, and agreements, and operates using best management practices. Based upon DCPP's ongoing compliance requirements, and that an award under the CNC Program does not change the existing operating configuration of DCPP facilities or result in significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns, therefore a Supplemental EIS does not need to be prepared.
The Proposed Action, providing credits for continued operation of DCPP, would be the Environmentally Preferable Alternative. This alternative offers environmental benefits consistent with the statutory objectives of the IIJA, which include consideration of air pollutant emissions including greenhouse gases. Compared to natural gas-fired sources producing the same amount of base-load power, annual GHG emission rates from nuclear power plants (including the fuel cycle processes) are considerably less.
DOE received two letters from the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility (A4NR) during the 30-day waiting period for DOE/EIS-0555. No other comments were received. DOE has considered all comments submitted, including any alternatives, information, analyses, and objections included in or attached to the comment letters. A summary of the comments and DOE's responses are as follows:
The amendments change a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR part 20. The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding on October 11, 2005 (70 FR 59087). Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
While the NRC's intervening decision to permit plants to recapture low-power testing time resulted in an operating license extension of approximately 37 months for Unit 1 and 4 months for Unit 2, the environmental impacts of this change were encompassed in the original NRC NEPA documents, which assumed environmental impacts from a 40-year period of full-power operation. Thus, this intervening change in NRC policy did not result in significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns. Indeed, the 1973 ES reviewed 40 years of full power operation, but as NRC noted in granting the LAR, the revised expiration dates equate to 35.2 effective full power years (EFPY) of power operations for Unit 1 and 35.8 EFPY for Unit 2.
The NRC will prepare an environmental impact statement before making any decision to renew PG&E's licenses for a new term, which the Exemption Decision does not do. And in the event PG&E is able to temporarily continue operating the reactors past their current expiration dates while in timely renewal, permitting such operation to occur under the terms of the existing licenses would not be a new `major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.' The possibility of such continued operation inheres in every license granted by the NRC, by nature of the Administrative Procedures Act and its incorporation into the Atomic Energy Act.
On October 3, 2023, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) published a public notice of an application by PG&E (SPL-2023-00468-LM) for a Clean Water Act section 404 permit authorizing dredging of accumulated material at the intake structure located at the north end of the intake cove of DCPP, and placement of dredge material at the Corps Nearshore Placement Area. The notice stated that “[t]he depth of the center portions of the Intake Cove varies from -16 FT mean lower low water (MLLW) in the back (eastern) part of the cove to -33 FT MLLW in front of the intake structure.” Although 16-20 feet of sediment have accumulated in certain parts of the Intake Cove away from the intake structure, other areas of the Intake Cove remain near the target average base depth. Based upon the Corps' preliminary review of relevant factors, including water quality, coastal zone management, essential fish habitat, cultural resources, and endangered species, the Corps made a preliminary determination that “an environmental impact statement is not required for the proposed work.”
DOE does not have primary jurisdiction or control over PG&E's proposed dredging activity. At this time, whether the Corps will grant the requested permit and what conditions (
DOE has reviewed the Corps' notice of permit application and an Administrative Draft Environmental Assessment dated August 21, 2023, prepared for PG&E by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. and attached as Appendix A to the Summary of Staff Recommendation of the California Coastal Commission filed September 15, 2023. DOE finds persuasive the Corps' preliminary determination that the proposed dredging activity will not require an environmental impact statement. DOE also finds that the changes in depth in certain portions of the Intake Cove, which the Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee agrees can be remedied by dredging the shallow areas, do not represent significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns that might require preparation of an EIS supplement.
DOE has decided to implement the Proposed Action to issue credits to PG&E for continued operation of DCPP, as identified in DOE/EIS-0555 and authorized under NRC licenses DPR-80 and DPR-82.
Approval of credits responds to the DOE purpose and need pursuant to the IIJA, which authorizes the Secretary of Energy to provide credits for nuclear reactors that meet certain minimum requirements: (1) a determination that the nuclear reactor is projected to close for economic reasons; (2) a determination that pollutants would increase if the nuclear reactor were to cease operations and be replaced with other types of power generation; and (3) that the NRC has reasonable assurance that the nuclear reactor will continue to be operate in accordance with its current license and poses no significant safety hazards (42 U.S.C. 18753). DOE also considered the environmental impacts and public comments when making its decision.
The Project for which DOE has decided to issue credits includes all mitigation measures, terms, and conditions applied by the NRC in licenses DPR-80 and DPR-82. The mitigation measures, terms, and conditions represent practicable means by which to avoid or minimize environmental impacts from operation of DCPP. NRC is responsible for ensuring compliance with all adopted mitigation measures, terms, and conditions for the Project set forth by NRC in licenses DPR-80 and DPR-82.
DOE's issuance or payment of any credits awarded to PG&E beyond the period that DCPP's current NRC operating licenses are in effect—that is, operations under a renewed license and not the current license—would be conditioned on PG&E's compliance with NRC requirements applicable to license renewal. DOE would stop payment of credits and initiate a process to satisfy DOE's NEPA obligations with respect to continuing payments during the period of operation under an NRC license renewal.
Habitat monitoring of the DCPP is continuous and ongoing due to mitigation measures put in place in the DCPP license terms after the 1976 ES Addendum, which required as a license condition that, “[b]efore engaging in additional construction or operational activities which may result in a significant adverse environmental impact that was not evaluated or that is significantly greater than that evaluated in this Environmental Statement, the applicant shall provide written notification to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.” This license condition continues in the current NRC license, which states, “[a]s a condition of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) which is part of the NRC licenses for operation of DCPP, PG&E is required to report “unreviewed environmental questions” which “may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the final environmental statement.” Implementation of such changes are subject to prior approval by the NRC in the form of a license amendment incorporating the appropriate revision into the EPP. PG&E is required to submit an annual report identifying if any of these events [which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated] occurred.
Environmental monitoring continues to be conducted at DCPP under the Receiving Water Monitoring Program (RWMP) and includes monitoring tasks such as temperature monitoring, State Mussel Watch activities, and intertidal and subtidal surveys.
DOE's form credit award agreement for the CNC Program, which is publicly available,
Finally, the award agreement requires recipients to attest to their compliance with all applicable laws, including environmental laws, in all material respects at the time of award agreement and each time the awardee requests payment. Environmental laws include any laws in effect as of the date of the award agreement and in the future which regulate or impose obligations relating to environmental impacts, and necessarily include any associated environmental mitigation measures in the terms of NRC licenses DPR-80 and DPR-82 and the associated mitigation measures contained therein. Future requirements imposed by the NRC would also be required by the credit award agreement for the Project. A recipient's misstatement or omission in representation of its compliance with all applicable laws may constitute an event of default, upon which DOE would have the right to exercise remedies, including withholding the payment of any credits.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on December 21, 2023, by Maria D. Robinson, Director, Grid Deployment Office, 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
National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy.
Notice of request for comments.
The Department of Energy (DOE) invites public comment on a proposed extension for three years of a collection of information that DOE with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before March 4, 2024. If you anticipate any difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed in the
Written comments to Laura Fellow, Foreign Affairs Specialist, by mail at Office of Nonproliferation and Arms Control, National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, or by fax at (865) 203-3946 or by email at
For other questions, contact Laura Fellow, Foreign Affairs Specialist, Office of
DOE published in the
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
DOE published in the
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on December 20, 2023, by Corey Hinderstein, Deputy Administrator for Defense Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Security Administration, pursuant to delegated authority from the Acting 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
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 February 1, 2024.
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.”
Text Blocking Report and Order, FCC 23-21, para. 16.
We adopt our proposal to require mobile wireless providers to block text messages at the network level (
The new information collection for which OMB approval is sought comes from the affirmative obligation adopted in the Text Blocking Report and Order that all mobile wireless providers must block calls using a reasonable DNO list. Currently, the Commission requires gateway providers to block voice calls purporting to originate on a reasonable DNO list, under section 47 CFR 64.1200(o) of the Commission's rules, but this is the first time that the Commission has required mobile wireless providers to block texts. The Commission is also ensuring that any erroneous blocking can be quickly remedied by requiring mobile wireless providers and other entities to maintain a point of contact for texters to report erroneously blocked texts.
In document FCC 16-169, the Commission adopted measures requiring the following:
(a) Each wireless provider and manufacturer that voluntarily transitions from TTY technology to RTT over wireless IP-based networks and services is encouraged to develop consumer and education efforts that include (1) the development and dissemination of educational materials that contain information pertinent to the nature, purpose, and timelines of the RTT transition; (2) internet postings, in an accessible format, of information about the TTY to RTT transition on the websites of covered entities; (3) the creation of a telephone hotline and an online interactive and accessible service that can answer consumer questions about RTT; and (4) appropriate training of staff to effectively respond to consumer questions. All consumer outreach and education should be provided in accessible formats including, but not limited to, large print, Braille, videos in American Sign Language and that are captioned and video described, emails to consumers who have opted to receive notices in this manner, and printed materials. Service providers and manufacturers are also encouraged to coordinate with consumer, public safety, and industry stakeholders to develop and distribute education and outreach materials. The information will inform consumers of alternative accessible technology available to replace TTY technology that may no longer be available to the consumer through their provider or on their device.
(b) Each wireless provider that requested or will request and receive a waiver of the requirement to support TTY technology over wireless IP-based networks and services must apprise its customers, through effective and accessible channels of communication, that (1) until TTY is sunset, TTY technology will not be supported for calls to 911 services over IP-based wireless services, and (2) there are alternative PSTN-based and IP-based accessibility solutions for people with disabilities to reach 911 services. These notices must be developed in coordination with public safety answering points (PSAPs) and national consumer organizations, and include a listing of text-based alternatives to 911, including, but not limited to, TTY capability over the PSTN, various forms of PSTN-based and IP-based TRS, and text-to-911 (where available). The notices will inform consumers on the loss of the use of TTY for completing 911 calls over the provider's network and alert them to alternatives service for which TTY may be used.
(c) Once every six months, each wireless provider that requests and receives a waiver of the requirement to support TTY technology must file a report with the Commission and inform its customers regarding its progress toward and the status of the availability of new IP-based accessibility solutions. Such reports must include (1) information on the interoperability of the provider's selected accessibility solution with the technologies deployed or to be deployed by other carriers and service providers, (2) the backward compatibility of such solution with TTYs, (3) a showing of the provider's efforts to ensure delivery of 911 calls to the appropriate PSAP, (4) a description of any obstacles incurred towards achieving interoperability and steps taken to overcome such obstacles, and (5) an estimated timetable for the deployment of accessibility solutions. The information will inform consumers of the progress towards the availability of alternative accessible means to replace TTY, and the Commission will be able to evaluate the reports to determine if any changes to the waivers are warranted or of any impediments to progress that it may be in a position to resolve.
Government Accountability Office.
Request for letters of nomination and resumes.
The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA) established MACPAC to review Medicaid and CHIP access and payment policies and to advise Congress on issues affecting Medicaid and CHIP. CHIPRA gave the Comptroller General of the United States responsibility for appointing MACPAC's members. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is now accepting nominations for MACPAC appointments that will be effective May 2024. Nominations should be sent to the email address listed below. Acknowledgement of receipt will be provided within a week of submission.
Letters of nomination and resumes should be submitted no later than January 25, 2024, to ensure adequate opportunity for review and consideration of nominees prior to appointment.
Submit letters of nomination and resumes to
Corissa Kiyan-Fukumoto at (206) 287-4808 or
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
This notice announces our decision to approve the Community Health Accreditation Program (CHAP) for continued recognition as a national accrediting organization for home health agencies (HHAs) that wish to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs.
The decision announced in this notice is applicable March 31, 2024, to March 31, 2030.
Caecilia Andrews, (410) 786-2190.
Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services from a home health agency (HHA), provided certain requirements are met. Sections 1861(m) and (o), 1891 and 1895 of the Social Security Act (the Act) establish distinct criteria for an entity seeking designation as an HHA. Regulations concerning provider agreements are at 42 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 489 and those pertaining to activities relating to the survey and certification of facilities and other entities are at 42 CFR part 488. The regulations at 42 CFR parts 409 and 484 specify the conditions that an HHA must meet to participate in the Medicare program, the scope of covered services and the conditions for Medicare payment for home health care.
Generally, to enter into a provider agreement with the Medicare program, an HHA must first be certified by a state survey agency as complying with the conditions or requirements set forth in 42 CFR part 484 of our regulations. Thereafter, the HHA is subject to regular surveys by a state survey agency to determine whether it continues to meet these requirements.
However, there is an alternative to surveys by state agencies. Section 1865(a)(1) of the Act provides that, if a provider entity demonstrates through accreditation by a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) approved national accrediting organization (AO) that all applicable Medicare requirements are met or exceeded, we will deem those provider entities as having met such requirements. Accreditation by an AO is voluntary and is not required for Medicare participation.
If an AO is recognized by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (the Secretary) as having standards for accreditation that meet or exceed Medicare requirements, any provider entity accredited by the national accrediting body's approved program would be deemed to meet the Medicare requirements. A national AO applying for approval of its accreditation program under 42 CFR part 488, subpart A, must provide CMS with reasonable assurance that the AO requires the accredited provider entities to meet requirements that are at least as stringent as the Medicare requirements.
Our regulations concerning the approval of AOs are at §§ 488.4 and 488.5. The regulations at § 488.5(e)(2)(i) require an AO to reapply for continued approval of its accreditation program every 6 years or sooner, as determined by CMS. This notice is to announce our continued approval of CHAP's HHA accreditation program for a period of 6 years.
Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act provides a statutory timetable to ensure that our review of applications for CMS-approval of an accreditation program is conducted in a timely manner. The Act provides us 210 days after the date of receipt of a complete application, with any documentation necessary to make the determination, to complete our survey activities and application process. Within 60 days after receiving a complete application, we must publish a notice in the
In the August 8, 2023
• An administrative review of CHAP's—
++ Corporate policies;
++ Financial and human resources available to accomplish the proposed surveys;
++ Procedures for training, monitoring, and evaluation of its surveyors;
++ Ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited facilities; and
++ Survey review and decision-making process for accreditation.
• A comparison of CHAP's accreditation to our current Medicare HHA conditions of participation (CoPs).
• A documentation review of CHAP's survey process to do the following:
++ Determine the composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and CHAP's ability to provide continuing surveyor training.
++ Compare CHAP's processes to those of state survey agencies, including survey frequency, and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited facilities.
++ Evaluate CHAP's procedures for monitoring HHAs out of compliance with CHAP's program requirements. The monitoring procedures are used only when CHAP identifies noncompliance. If noncompliance is identified through validation reviews, the state survey agency monitors corrections as specified at § 488.7(d).
++ Assess CHAP's ability to report deficiencies to the surveyed facilities and respond to the facility's plan of correction in a timely manner.
++ Establish CHAP's ability to provide CMS with electronic data and reports necessary for effective validation and assessment of the organization's survey process.
++ Determine the adequacy of staff and other resources.
++ Confirm CHAP's ability to provide adequate funding for performing required surveys.
++ Confirm CHAP's policies with respect to whether surveys are unannounced.
++ Obtain CHAP's agreement to provide CMS with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as we may require, including corrective action plans.
++ Review CHAP's policies and procedures to avoid conflicts of interest, including the appearance of conflicts of interest, involving individuals who conduct surveys or participate in accreditation decisions.
In accordance with section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the August 8, 2023 proposed notice also solicited public comments regarding whether CHAP's requirements met or exceeded the Medicare CoPs for HHAs. We received no comments in response to our proposed notice.
We compared CHAP's HHA requirements and survey process with the Medicare CoPs and survey process as outlined in the State Operations Manual (SOM). Our review and evaluation of CHAP's HHA application were conducted as described in section III. of this notice and have yielded the following areas where, as of the date of this notice, CHAP has completed revising its standards and certification processes to meet the standard's requirements of all the following regulations:
• Section 484.50(c)(8), to clarify under Patient Right's that the HHA must also comply with the requirements of 42 CFR 405.1200 through 405.1204 when providing the patient with written notice, in advance of a specific service being furnished.
• Section 484.75(c)(2), to specify that when rehabilitative therapy services are provided under the supervision of an occupational therapist or physical therapist, the qualified professional meets the requirements of § 484.115(f) or (h), respectively.
• Section 484.75(c)(3), to specify that when medical social services are provided under the supervision of a social worker, the requirements of § 484.115(m) are met.
• Section 484.100(a), to appropriately cross-reference the Medicare conditions of §§ 420.201, 420.202, and 420.206 or corresponding comparable CHAP standards.
• Section 484.102(d)(2)(iii), to include the requirement for HHAs to analyze the HHA's response to and maintain documentation of all drills, tabletop exercises, and emergency events, and revise the HHA's emergency plan, as needed.
• Section 484.105(g), to appropriately cross-reference the Medicare conditions of §§ 485.713, 485.715, 485.719, 485.723, and 485.727 or corresponding comparable CHAP standards.
In addition to the standards review, CMS also reviewed CHAP's comparable survey processes, which were conducted as described in section III. of this notice, and yielded the following areas where, as of the date of this notice, CHAP has completed revising its survey processes, in order to demonstrate that it uses survey processes that are comparable to state survey agency processes by removing references to “blackout dates,” by allowing facilities to select dates which suggested the facility would be unavailable for surveys, as CMS expects all Medicare-participating facilities to be survey ready at all times.
Based on our review and observations described in sections III. and V. of this notice, we approve CHAP as a national AO for HHAs that request participation in the Medicare program. The decision announced in this final notice is effective March 31, 2024, through March 31, 2030 (6 years).
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Chyana Woodyard, who is the
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
This is the second of two planned notices informing the public of the availability of the complete lists of all geographic areas, population groups, and facilities designated as primary medical care, dental health, and mental health professional shortage areas (HPSA). This notice includes the lists of HPSAs in a designated status as of December 2, 2023. The lists are available on the shortage area topic page on HRSA's
Complete lists of HPSAs designated as of December 2, 2023, are available on the website at
For further information on the HPSA designations listed on the website or to request additional designation, withdrawal, or reapplication for designation, please contact Anthony Estelle, Chief, Shortage Designation Branch, Division of Policy and Shortage Designation, Bureau of Health Workforce (BHW), HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 11W16, Rockville, Maryland 20857,
Section 332 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, 42 U.S.C. 254e, provides that the Secretary shall designate HPSAs based on criteria established by regulation. HPSAs are defined in section 332 to include (1) urban and rural geographic areas with shortages of health professionals, (2) population groups with such shortages, and (3) facilities with such shortages. Section 332 further requires that the Secretary annually publish lists of the designated geographic areas, population groups, and facilities. The lists of HPSAs are to be reviewed at least annually and revised as necessary.
Final regulations (42 CFR part 5) were published in 1980 that include the criteria for designating HPSAs. Criteria were defined for seven health professional types: primary medical care, dental, psychiatric, vision care, podiatric, pharmacy, and veterinary care. The criteria for correctional facility
HPSA designation offers access to potential federal assistance. Public or private nonprofit entities are eligible to apply for assignment of National Health Service Corps personnel to provide primary medical care, mental health, or dental health services in or to these HPSAs. National Health Service Corps health professionals enter into service agreements to serve in federally designated HPSAs. Entities with clinical training sites located in HPSAs are eligible to receive priority for certain residency training program grants administered by HRSA's BHW. Other federal programs also utilize HPSA designations. For example, under authorities administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, certain qualified providers in geographic area HPSAs are eligible for increased levels of Medicare reimbursement.
The three lists of designated HPSAs are available on the HRSA Data Warehouse shortage area topic web page and include a snapshot of all geographic areas, population groups, and facilities that were designated HPSAs as of December 2, 2023. This notice incorporates the most recent annual reviews of designated HPSAs, which can be located on HRSA's
In addition, all Indian Tribes that meet the definition of such Tribes in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976, 25 U.S.C. 1603, are automatically designated as population groups with primary medical care and dental health professional shortages. Further, the Health Care Safety Net Amendments of 2002 provides eligibility for automatic facility HPSA designations for all federally qualified health centers (FQHC) and rural health clinics that offer services regardless of ability to pay. Specifically, these entities include FQHCs funded under section 330 of the PHS Act, FQHC Look-Alikes, and Tribal and urban Indian clinics operating under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 450) or the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. Many, but not all, of these entities are included on this listing. Since they are automatically designated by statute, absence from this list does not exclude them from HPSA designation; facilities eligible for automatic designation are included in the database when they are identified.
Each list of designated HPSAs is arranged by state. Within each state, the list is presented by county. If only a portion (or portions) of a county is (are) designated, a county is part of a larger designated service area, or a population group residing in a county or a facility located in the county has been designated, the name of the service area, population group, or facility involved is listed under the county name. A county that has a whole county geographic or population group HPSA is indicated by the phrase “County” following the county name.
Requests for designation or withdrawal of a particular geographic area, population group, or facility as a HPSA are received continuously by BHW. Under a Cooperative Agreement between HRSA and the 54 state and territorial Primary Care Offices (PCO), PCOs conduct needs assessments and submit applications to HRSA to designate HPSAs. BHW also receives other requests for designation from other sources and refers them to PCOs for review. As part of the HPSA designation process, interested parties, including Governors, state Primary Care Associations, and state professional associations, are notified of requests so that they may submit their comments and recommendations.
BHW reviews each recommendation for possible addition, continuation, revision, or withdrawal. Following review, BHW notifies the appropriate agency, individuals, and interested organizations of each designation of a HPSA, rejection of recommendation for HPSA designation, revision of a HPSA designation, and/or advance notice of pending withdrawals from the HPSA list. Designations (or revisions of designations) are effective as of the date on the notification from BHW and are updated daily on the HRSA Data Warehouse website. While this list is a snapshot of HPSAs at a point in time, HPSA designations are regularly being updated so the best source of current designation status is the HRSA Data Warehouse website at (
In 2024, BHW will publish two
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-0361.
In 1973, in response to a substantial lack of ethnic and racial minorities in the mental health professions, the Center for Minority Health at the National Institute of Mental Health established the MFP. Since the MFP's transition to SAMHSA in 1992, the program has continued to facilitate the entry of graduate students and psychiatric residents into mental health careers and has increased the number of psychology, psychiatry, nursing, and social work professionals trained to provide mental health and substance abuse services to minority groups. The traditional MFP offers sustained grants to six national behavioral health professional associations: the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT), American Nurses Association (ANA), American Psychiatric Association (APsychA),
This data collection includes two survey instruments, the Survey of Current SAMHSA MFP Fellows and the Survey of Alumni SAMHSA MFP Fellows. The two online surveys (with the option for a hard copy mailed through the U.S. Postal Service) will be used with the following stakeholders in the MFP grant programs:
1.
a.
2.
a.
The information gathered by these two surveys will be used to document contributions and impacts of current and former MFP fellows. The current fellows survey includes questions to assess the following measures: background items on training specialty and demographics, practicum and internship experiences, professional development activities (
This request amends the OMB approval that expired August 31, 2019, by omitting questions that gathered information on number of mentors and total mentored hours; as well as self-reported impacts on current and alumni fellows such as increased knowledge, skills, and aptitude. Both the current and alumni fellows' surveys are revised accordingly. For the alumni survey, the respondent pool has been limited only to those who have completed the MFP within the past five years. Additionally, to further streamline this data collection SAMHSA has also deleted eleven other questions that are not critical to assessing the program's progress. In turn, the following questions have been added to the survey instruments to help better assess the program's progress with meeting stated goals and plan for future cohorts of fellows:
Response choices were modified and added to align with position titles in HRSA's annual behavioral workforce survey.
Items and response choices were added or revised to align with how these are asked in federal national data collections (
The next set of questions will help SAMHSA understand the variation in responses based on characteristics of MFP fellows.
The following items will help us understand the immigrant status of our trainees and the extent to which we are diversifying our trainees to respond to the growing needs of immigrant families.
Added items or response choices (
Additional items were added to better understand how the stress and burnout being witnessed in the health care workforce generally and behavioral health workforce in particular (due to COVID-19 pandemic) may have impacted alumni fellows' intentions to stay in or leave the field.
The total annual burden estimate for conducting the surveys is shown below:
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are proposing to renew an information collection without change.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 1, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Madonna L. Baucum, Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
On July 26, 2023, we published in the
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
On behalf of the Secretary, we implemented regulations at 50 CFR 18.23(f) for Alaska Natives harvesting polar bears, northern sea otters, and Pacific walruses. These regulations enable us to gather data on the Alaska Native subsistence and handicraft harvest and on the biology of polar bears, northern sea otters, and Pacific walruses in Alaska to determine what effect such take may be having on these populations. The regulations also provide us with a means of monitoring the disposition of the harvest to ensure that any commercial use of products created from these species meets the criteria set forth in section 101(b) of the MMPA.
We collect harvest information related to Alaska Native harvest to provide a chronology of the harvest in population modeling, determining which cohorts are being killed, determining the status of populations, and predicting population trends. We will use the collected information to gain insight into the distribution and relative abundance of the three species, the level and intensity of the harvest, and the harvest impacts on the species and their subpopulations. We use three Service forms to collect the following information from Alaska Natives as part of the harvest reporting requirement:
A.
• Date and location of tagging;
• Hide and skull tag number;
• Village hunted from (if different from tagging location);
• Age class and sex;
• Whether sex could be verified by tagger and, if yes, sex identification information;
• Skull measurements (length, width, or not provided);
• Whether cubs were present with sow and, if yes, how many cubs;
• Bear condition (obese, average, skinny);
• Specimens collected (tooth, hair, skin, liver, fat, muscle, skin/muscle, baculum/penis bone, or other);
• Research marks/tags (collar, ear tag number, lip tattoo, or other);
• Date and location of kill (to include latitude/longitude);
• Whether it was a conflict or problem bear and whether it was taken in defense of life;
• Additional remarks; and
• Whether hunter is available for post-hunt interview and, if yes, phone number, with the following post-hunt interview questions for problem bear situations:
a. Was there a food source/attractant that the bear was interested in? What was the attractant?
b. Was there any attempt to haze the bear to get it to leave?
c. Was it believed that the bear could be a threat to people?
B.
• Date and location of tagging;
• Village hunted from (if different than tagging location);
• Marine Mammals Management Marking, Tagging, and Reporting Program (MTRP) tag number of plastic-headed wire tag used for left or right tusk;
• Type of take for walrus (LK = live killed, BF = beach found)—This information increases the accuracy of the known mortality and harvest data by discriminating between a walrus killed for subsistence purposes or found dead and salvaged. Requiring all ivory that has been taken or collected (pursuant to the Alaska Native exemption) to be marked, tagged, and reported simplifies Service enforcement efforts.
• Date and location killed/found;
• Age and sex;
• Walrus tusk length and circumference;
• Number of walrus harvested without tusks; and
• Additional remarks.
C.
• Date and location of tagging;
• Hide and skull tag number;
• FWS permit number;
• Age class and sex;
• Details identification information;
• Specimens collected (tooth, muscle vial, whisker, carcass, or other);
• Number of otters present in pod and number harvested from pod;
• Date and location of kill (to include latitude and longitude); and
• Additional remarks.
We also require non-Native collectors to use
• Date and location of tagging;
• MTRP tag number of plastic-headed wire tag used for left or right tusk;
• Date found;
• Age and sex;
• Tusk circumference at gum line and tusk length from gum line to tip along front side following the curve of the tusk;
• Exact location of kill or find;
• Tag number for skull (polar bear or sea otter) or other part;
• Any information of interest about the beach-found hard part collected;
• Other remarks; and
• Name, address, phone number, and date of birth of the person who collected the hard part.
You may request copies of all forms in this information collection by submitting a request to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, using one of the methods identified in the
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are proposing to renew an information collection without change.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 1, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Madonna L. Baucum, Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
On June 30, 2023, we published in the
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
• The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (Administration Act, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to negotiate and award contracts and issue regulations to carry out the Administration Act.
• The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C.460k-460k-3) allows the use of refuges for public recreation when such use is not inconsistent with or does not interfere with the primary purpose(s) of the refuge.
• The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. 715s) authorizes the Secretary to grant privileges and collect revenues from leases for public accommodations or facilities established for the System.
Specifically, the Administration Act provides that, with respect to the Refuge System, it is the policy of the United States that—
a. Each refuge shall be managed to fulfill the mission of the System, as well as the specific purposes for which that refuge was established;
b. Compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a legitimate and appropriate general public use of the System, directly related to the mission of the System and the purposes of many refuges, and which generally fosters refuge management and through which the American public can develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife;
c. Compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority general public uses of the System and shall receive priority consideration in refuge planning and management; and
d. When the Secretary determines that a proposed wildlife-dependent recreational use is a compatible use within a refuge, that activity should be facilitated, subject to such restrictions or regulations as may be necessary, reasonable, and appropriate.
The Administration Act also provides that, in administering the Refuge System, the Secretary shall—
a. Recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general public uses of the System, through which the American public can develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife;
b. Ensure that opportunities are provided within the System for
c. Ensure that priority general public uses of the System receive enhanced consideration over other general public uses in planning and management within the System; and
d. Provide increased opportunities for families to experience compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, particularly opportunities for parents and their children to safely engage in traditional outdoor activities, such as fishing and hunting.
Private businesses and non-profit organizations under contract to the Service provide recreational, educational, and interpretive enjoyment of our lands and waters by managing lodging, food, transportation, and supplies and equipment for the enjoyment of the visiting public. These services gross approximately $3,000,000 every year and provide jobs for more than 100 people annually.
The regulations at 50 CFR subpart F (section 25.61) primarily implement the authorities governing public use facilities operated by concessionaires or cooperators under appropriate contact or legal agreement on national wildlife refuges where there is a demonstrated justified need for services or facilities, including but not limited to boat rentals, swimming facilities, conducted tours of special natural attractions, shelters, tables, trailer lots, food, lodging, and related services.
Service Manual chapters 630 FW 6-8 discuss the Service's current policy for concession management and provide guidance for permitting and administering concessions operations on Service lands. We use concessions contracts to assist us in providing wildlife-dependent recreation activities to the visiting public by using contracts between the Service and private entities, where each private entity is allowed to charge a fee for services provided at a field station to the visiting public.
We collect information in a narrative (non-form) format. Details concerning the specific information required are contained in 50 CFR 25.61 and the recently updated Service Manual chapters available to the public on the Service's website at
Below are examples of types of information the Service collects from a potential or current concessionaire.
• Description of how the respondent will conduct operations to minimize disturbance to wildlife; protect refuge resources; and provide visitors with a high-quality, safe, and enjoyable visitor experience.
• Proposal to protect, conserve, and preserve resources of the refuge. The proposal must respond to specific resource management objectives and issues at the refuge and regarding the contract in question.
• Proposal to provide necessary and appropriate visitor services at reasonable rates. This proposal must respond to specific visitor service questions at the refuge and regarding the contract in question.
• Experience and related background of the offeror, including past performance and expertise of the offeror in providing the same or similar visitor services as those to be provided under the draft concession contract.
• Financial capability of the offeror to carry out its proposal. In particular, we require projected financials, including initial investments, startup expenses, income statement, operating assumptions, cash flow statement, recapture of investments, and all associated assumptions.
• The amount of the proposed minimum franchise fee and other forms of financial consideration.
• Offeror's transmittal letter, including the name and contact information of the entity offering a proposal to operate a concession contract.
• Business type of the offeror, such as corporation, limited liability company, partnership, etc.
• Business history information, including adverse history that could impact future operations under a concession contract.
• Credit report, so that we can understand the offeror's credit history and any risks of contracting with the entity.
• Proposed staffing/management operation information, including organization charts and delegations of authority, to ensure adequate staffing.
• Proof of indemnification, including public liability insurance that co-names the Government as co-insured.
• Annual financial reports providing concessioner financial information, as required by each concession contract.
• Quarterly and annual progress reports to monitor performance.
• Inspections and inspection reports conducted in concert with the on-site concession manager.
• Information to assess the transferee's ability to manage the business successfully and fulfill the terms of the concession contract, in order for the Regional Director to grant approval.
• In accordance with Service Manual chapter 630 FW 8.3, a concessioner (and any subconcessioner) must keep and make available to the Service records for the term of the concession contract.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
December 21, 2023.
Nitin Joshi ((202) 708-1669), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
Effective June 8, 2023, the Commission established a general schedule for the conduct of the final phase of its countervailing duty and antidumping duty investigations on gas powered pressure washers from China and Vietnam (88 FR 40865, June 22, 2023), following preliminary determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) that imports of gas powered pressure washers from China were being subsidized by the government of China (88 FR 36531, June 5, 2023) and that imports of gas powered pressure washers from Vietnam are being sold in the United States at less than fair value (88 FR 39221, June 15, 2023). Subsequently, on August 3, 2023, Commerce issued a preliminary affirmative antidumping duty determination with respect to gas powered pressure washers from China (88 FR 51279). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigations and of a public hearing held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
Commerce issued a final affirmative antidumping duty determination with respect to gas powered pressure washers from Vietnam (88 FR 59503, August 29, 2023). The Commission subsequently issued its final determination that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of imports of gas powered pressure washers from Vietnam provided for in subheadings 8424.30.90 and 8424.90.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) that have been found by Commerce to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (88 FR 71885, October 18, 2023).
Commerce has issued a final affirmative antidumping duty determination (88 FR 88365, December 21, 2023) and a final affirmative countervailing duty determination (88 FR 88578, December 22, 2023) with respect to gas powered pressure washers from China. Accordingly, the Commission currently is issuing a supplemental schedule for its countervailing duty and antidumping duty investigations on imports of gas powered pressure washers from China.
This supplemental schedule is as follows: the deadline for filing supplemental party comments on Commerce's final countervailing duty and antidumping duty determinations is 5:15 p.m. on January 5, 2024. Supplemental party comments may address only Commerce's final countervailing duty and antidumping duty determinations regarding imports of gas powered pressure washers from China. These supplemental final comments may not contain new factual information and may not exceed five (5) pages in length. The supplemental staff report in the final phase of the current investigations will be placed in the nonpublic record on January 17, 2024, and a public version will be issued thereafter.
For further information concerning this proceeding see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings during this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS,
By order of the Commission.
International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), as amended, to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on rubber bands from China and the antidumping duty orders on rubber bands from China and Thailand would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission.
Instituted January 2, 2024. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is February 1, 2024. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by March 11, 2024.
Alec Resch (202-708-1448), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) The
(6) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post-employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission
Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings at this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS,
No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117 0016/USITC No. 23-5-586, expiration date June 30, 2026. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436.
Those responding to this notice of institution are encouraged, but not required, to visit the USITC's website at
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is an interested party under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, including whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3-5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the
By order of the Commission.
International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), as amended, to determine whether revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on truck and bus tires from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission.
Instituted January 2, 2024. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is February 1, 2024. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by March 11, 2024.
Peter Stebbins (202-205-2039), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) The
(6) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post-employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Charles Smith, Office of the General Counsel, at 202-205-3408.
Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings at this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS,
No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117 0016/USITC No. 23-5-587, expiration date June 30, 2026. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436.
Those responding to this notice of institution are encouraged, but not required, to visit the USITC's website at
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is an interested party under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, including whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3-5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), as amended, to determine whether revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission.
Instituted January 2, 2024. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is February 1, 2024. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by March 11, 2024.
Caitlyn Hendricks (202-205-2058), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) The
(6) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post-employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Charles Smith, Office of the General Counsel, at 202-205-3408.
Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings at this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS,
No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117 0016/USITC No. 23-5-585, expiration date June 30, 2026. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436.
Those responding to this notice of institution are encouraged, but not required, to visit the USITC's website at
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is an interested party under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, including whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3-5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the
By order of the Commission.
Judicial Conference of the United States.
Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules; notice of cancellation of open hearing.
The following public hearing on proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure has been canceled: Appellate Rules Hearing on January 24, 2024.
January 24, 2024.
H. Thomas Byron III, Esq., Chief Counsel, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 20544, Phone (202) 502-1820,
The announcement for this hearing was previously published in the
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until February 1, 2023.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Scott A. Brinks, Regulatory Drafting and Policy Support Section, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (571) 362-3261; email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
DOJ seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOJ notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
1. Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.
2. Title of the Form/Collection: Registrant Record of Controlled Substances Destroyed.
3. Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: DEA From 41. The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the Drug Enforcement Administration, Diversion Control Division.
4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until February 1, 2023.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Scott A. Brinks, Regulatory Drafting and Policy Support Section, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (571) 362-3261, email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
DOJ seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOJ notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued an exemption in response to a request from Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC (HDI), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Holtec International, that would allow HDI and Holtec Palisades, LLC, regarding certain emergency planning (EP) requirements. The exemption eliminates the requirements to maintain an offsite radiological emergency preparedness plan and reduce the scope of onsite EP activities at the Palisades Nuclear Plant, based on the reduced risks of accidents that could result in an offsite radiological release at a decommissioning nuclear power reactor.
The exemption was issued on December 22, 2023.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2023-0200 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:
•
•
• NRC's PDR: The PDR, where you may examine and order copies of publicly available documents, is open by appointment. To make an appointment to visit the PDR, please send an email to
Tanya E. Hood, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1387; email:
The text of the exemption is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
By letter dated October 19, 2017 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML17292A032), Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (ENOI) certified to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, or Commission) that it planned to permanently cease power operations at the Palisades Nuclear Plant (Palisades) no later than May 31, 2022. On May 20, 2022, ENOI permanently ceased power operations at Palisades, and by letter dated June 13, 2022 (ML22164A067), ENOI certified to the NRC that the fuel was permanently removed from the Palisades reactor vessel and placed in the spent fuel pool (SFP) on June 10, 2022.
By application dated December 23, 2020 (ML20358A075), as supplemented
Based on the docketing of the certifications for permanent cessation of operations and permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessel, as specified in section 50.82(a)(2) of title 10 of the
Many of the accident scenarios postulated in the updated safety analysis reports (USARs) for operating nuclear power reactors involve failures or malfunctions of systems, which could affect the fuel in the reactor core and, in the most severe postulated accidents, would involve the release of some fission products. With the permanent cessation of power operations at Palisades and the permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessel, many accidents are no longer possible. The reactor, reactor coolant system, and supporting systems are no longer in operation and have no function related to the storage of the spent fuel. Therefore, the emergency planning (EP) provisions for postulated accidents involving failure or malfunction of the reactor, reactor coolant system, or supporting systems are no longer applicable.
The EP requirements of 10 CFR 50.47, “Emergency plans,” and appendix E, “Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities,” to 10 CFR part 50 continue to apply to nuclear power reactors that have provided certification that they have permanently ceased operations and have permanently removed all fuel from the reactor vessel. There are no explicit regulatory provisions distinguishing EP requirements for a power reactor that is permanently shut down and defueled from those for a reactor that is authorized to operate. To reduce or eliminate EP requirements that are no longer necessary due to the decommissioning status of the facility, the licensee must obtain exemptions from those EP regulations. Only then can HDI modify the Palisades emergency plan to reflect the reduced risk associated with the permanently shutdown and defueled condition of Palisades.
By letter dated July 11, 2022 (ML22192A134), HDI requested exemptions from specific portions of the EP requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 and appendix E to 10 CFR part 50 for Palisades. More specifically, HDI requested exemptions from certain planning standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b) regarding onsite and offsite radiological emergency preparedness plans for nuclear power reactors; from certain requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2) for establishment of plume exposure pathway and ingestion pathway emergency planning zones (EPZs) for nuclear power reactors; and from certain requirements in 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV, “Content of Emergency Plans.”
The exemptions requested by HDI would eliminate the requirements to maintain formal offsite radiological emergency plans, reviewed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under the requirements of 44 CFR, “Emergency Management and Assistance,” Part 350, “Review and Approval of State and Local Radiological Emergency Plans and Preparedness,” and would reduce the scope of the onsite EP activities at Palisades. HDI stated that application of all the standards and requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b), 10 CFR 50.47(c), and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E is not needed for adequate emergency response capability, based on the substantially lower onsite and offsite radiological consequences of accidents still possible at the permanently shutdown and defueled facility as compared to an operating facility.
If offsite protective actions were needed for a highly unlikely beyond design-basis accidents (DBAs) that could challenge the safe storage of spent fuel at Palisades, provisions exist for offsite agencies to take protective actions using a comprehensive emergency management plan (CEMP) under the National Preparedness System to protect the health and safety of the public. A CEMP in this context, also referred to as an emergency operations plan, is addressed in FEMA's Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101, “Developing and Maintaining Emergency Operations Plans,” which is publicly available at
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.12, “Specific exemptions,” the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when: (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) any of the special circumstances listed in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) are present. These special circumstances include, among other things, that the application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.
As noted previously, the EP regulations contained in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and appendix E to 10 CFR part 50 apply to both operating and shutdown power reactors. The NRC has consistently acknowledged that the risk of an offsite radiological release at a power reactor that has permanently ceased operations and permanently removed fuel from the reactor vessel is significantly lower, and the types of possible accidents are significantly fewer, than at an operating power reactor. However, current EP regulations do not recognize that once a power
In the past, EP exemptions similar to those requested by HDI, have been granted to licensees of permanently shutdown and defueled power reactors. However, the exemptions did not relieve the licensees of all EP requirements. Rather, the exemptions allowed the licensees to modify their emergency plans commensurate with the credible site-specific risks that were consistent with a permanently shutdown and defueled status. Specifically, the NRC's approval of these prior exemptions from certain EP requirements was based on the licensee's demonstration that: (1) the radiological consequences of DBAs would not exceed the limits of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Protective Action Guidelines (PAGs) at the exclusion area boundary, and (2) in the highly unlikely event of a beyond DBA resulting in a loss of all modes of cooling for the spent fuel stored in the SFP, there is sufficient time to initiate appropriate mitigating actions, and if needed, for offsite authorities to implement offsite protective actions using a CEMP approach to protect the health and safety of the public. In prior exemptions, sufficient time was demonstrated if the time exceeded 10 hours from the loss of coolant until the fuel temperature would be expected to reach 900 degrees Celsius (°C), assuming no air cooling. In this exemption request, the licensee provided an analysis demonstrating that after the spent fuel has decayed for 12 months, for beyond-design-basis events where the SFP is drained and air cooling is not possible, at least 10 hours would be available from the time spent fuel cooling is lost until the hottest fuel assembly reaches a temperature of 900 °C. This 10-hour minimum threshold provides sufficient time for the licensee to take mitigative actions, or if government officials deem warranted, for offsite protective actions to be initiated using a CEMP or “all-hazards” approach.
The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's justification for the requested exemptions against the criteria in 10 CFR 50.12(a) and determined, as described below, that the criteria in 10 CFR 50.12(a) are met, and that the exemptions should be granted. An assessment of the HDI EP exemptions is described in SECY-23-0043, “Request by Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC for Exemptions from Certain Emergency Planning Requirements for Palisades Nuclear Plant,” dated May 30, 2023 (ML23054A179). The Commission approved the NRC staff's recommendation to grant the exemptions in the staff requirements memorandum to SECY-23-0043, dated December 7, 2023 (ML23341A181). The exemptions are conditioned to make it clear that the exemptions will terminate if the status of the Palisades reactor changes such that the certifications of permanent cessation of operations and permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessel are no longer applicable. Descriptions of the specific exemptions requested by HDI and the NRC staff's basis for granting each exemption are provided in SECY-23-0043. The staff's detailed review and technical basis for the approval of the specific EP exemptions, requested by HDI, are provided in the NRC staff's safety evaluation dated December 22, 2023 (ML23263A977).
The licensee has proposed exemptions from certain EP requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b), 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2), and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV, which would allow HDI to revise the Palisades Emergency Plan to reflect the submittal of the certification of the permanently shutdown and defueled condition of the facility. As stated above, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50. The NRC staff has determined that granting of the licensee's proposed exemptions will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the NRC's regulations. Therefore, the exemptions are authorized by law.
As stated previously, HDI provided analyses that show the radiological consequences of DBA will not exceed the limits of the EPA PAGs at the exclusion area boundary. Therefore, formal offsite radiological emergency plans required under 10 CFR part 50 are no longer needed for protection of the public beyond the exclusion area boundary, based on the radiological consequences of DBAs still possible at Palisades.
Although highly unlikely, there is one postulated beyond DBA that might result in significant offsite radiological releases. However, NUREG-1738 confirms that the risk of beyond DBAs is greatly reduced at permanently shutdown and defueled reactors. The NRC staff's analyses in NUREG-1738 concludes that the event sequences important to risk at permanently shutdown and defueled power reactors are limited to large earthquakes and cask drop events. For EP assessments, this is an important difference relative to the operating power reactors, where typically a large number of different sequences make significant contributions to risk. As described in NUREG-1738, relaxation of offsite EP requirements in 10 CFR part 50 a few months after shutdown resulted in only a small change in risk. The report further concludes that the change in risk due to relaxation of offsite EP requirements is small because the overall risk is low, and because even under current EP requirements for operating power reactors, EP was judged to have marginal impact on evacuation effectiveness in the severe earthquake event that dominates SFP risk. All other sequences including cask drops (for which offsite radiological emergency plans are expected to be more effective) are too low in likelihood to have a significant impact on risk. Therefore, granting exemptions to eliminate the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 to maintain offsite radiological emergency preparedness plans and to reduce the scope of onsite EP activities will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety.
The requested exemptions by HDI only involve EP requirements under 10 CFR part 50 and will allow HDI to revise the Palisades Emergency Plan to reflect the permanently shutdown and defueled condition of the facility. Physical security measures at Palisades are not affected by the requested EP exemptions. The discontinuation of formal offsite radiological emergency preparedness plans and the reduction in scope of the onsite EP activities at Palisades will not adversely affect the licensee's ability to physically secure the site or protect special nuclear material. Therefore, the proposed exemptions are consistent with common defense and security.
Special circumstances, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are present whenever application of the regulation in the particular circumstances is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.47(b), 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2), and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV, is to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency, to establish plume exposure and ingestion pathway emergency planning zones for nuclear power plants, and to ensure that licensees maintain effective offsite and onsite radiological emergency preparedness plans. The standards and requirements in these regulations were developed by considering the risks associated with operation of a nuclear power reactor at its licensed full-power level. These risks include the potential for a reactor accident with offsite radiological dose consequences.
As discussed previously in Section III, because Palisades is permanently shut down and defueled, there is no longer a risk of offsite radiological release from a DBA and the risk of a significant offsite radiological release from a beyond DBA is greatly reduced when compared to the risk at an operating power reactor. The NRC staff has confirmed the reduced risks at Palisades by comparing the generic risk assumptions in the analyses in NUREG-1738 to site-specific conditions at Palisades and determined that the risk values in NUREG-1738 bound the risks presented for Palisades. As indicated by the results of the research conducted for NUREG-1738, and more recently for NUREG-2161, “Consequence Study of a Beyond-Design-Basis Earthquake Affecting the Spent Fuel Pool for a U.S. Mark I Boiling Water Reactor,” dated September 2014 (ML14255A365), while other consequences can be extensive, accidents from SFPs with significant decay time have little potential to cause offsite early fatalities, even if the formal offsite radiological EP requirements were relaxed. HDI's analysis of a beyond DBA involving a complete loss of SFP water inventory, based on an adiabatic heatup analysis of the limiting fuel assembly for decay heat, shows that 12 months after permanent cessation of power operations at Palisades, the time for the limiting fuel assembly to reach 900 °C is at least 10 hours after the assemblies have been uncovered assuming a loss of all cooling means.
The NRC staff has verified the licensee's analyses and its calculations. The analyses provide reasonable assurance that in granting the requested exemptions to HDI, there is no DBA that will result in an offsite radiological release exceeding the EPA PAGs at the exclusion area boundary. In the highly unlikely event of a beyond DBA affecting the SFP that results in a complete loss of heat removal via all modes of heat transfer, there will be a minimum of 10 hours available before an offsite release might occur and, therefore, at least 10 hours to initiate appropriate mitigating actions to restore a means of heat removal to the spent fuel. If a radiological release were projected to occur under this highly unlikely scenario, a minimum of 10 hours is considered sufficient time for offsite authorities to implement protective actions using a CEMP approach to protect the health and safety of the public.
Exemptions from the offsite EP requirements in 10 CFR part 50 have previously been approved by the NRC when the site-specific analyses show that at least 10 hours is available following a loss of SFP coolant inventory with no air cooling (or other methods of removing decay heat) until cladding of the hottest fuel assembly reaches the rapid oxidation temperature. The NRC staff concluded in its previously granted exemptions, as it does with the licensee's requested EP exemptions, that if a minimum of 10 hours is available to initiate mitigative actions consistent with plant conditions or, if needed, for offsite authorities to implement protective actions using a CEMP approach, then formal offsite radiological emergency preparedness plans, required under 10 CFR part 50, are not necessary at permanently shutdown and defueled facilities.
Additionally, in its letter to the NRC dated July 11, 2022, HDI described the SFP makeup strategies that could be used in the event of a catastrophic loss of SFP inventory. The multiple strategies for providing makeup water to the SFP include: using various existing plant systems for inventory makeup and an internal strategy that relies on the portable FLEX pump manifold, and having available two installed diesel-driven fire pumps and one motor-driven fire pump that can provide 1,500 gallons per minute makeup water from the facility intake via hard pipe or hose stations. In addition, HDI states that two onsite FLEX pumper units with a capacity of 1,000 gallons per minute each can provide makeup water from the facility intake or from Lake Michigan directly. Further, Palisades procedures specify that the installation of the SFP spray monitor nozzles and direct fill should be given priority over the hard pipe fill connection due to expected SFP area high radiation levels if the SFP water level cannot be maintained. These strategies will continue to be required as License Condition 6.b of Renewed Facility License No. DPR-20 for Palisades. Considering the very low probability of beyond DBAs affecting the SFP, these diverse strategies provide multiple methods to obtain additional makeup or spray to the SFP before the onset of any postulated offsite radiological release.
For all of the reasons stated above, the NRC staff finds that the licensee's requested exemptions meet the underlying purpose of all of the standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b), as well as the requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2) and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, and satisfy the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) in view of the greatly reduced risk of offsite radiological consequences associated with the permanently shutdown and defueled state of the Palisades facility 12 months after the facility permanently ceases operation.
The NRC staff further concludes that the exemptions granted by this action will maintain an acceptable level of emergency preparedness at Palisades and provide reasonable assurance that adequate offsite protective measures, if needed, can and will be taken by State and local government agencies using a CEMP approach, in the highly unlikely event of a radiological emergency at Palisades. Since the underlying purposes of the rules, as exempted, would continue to be achieved, even with the elimination of the requirements under 10 CFR part 50 to maintain formal offsite radiological emergency plans and the reduction in the scope of the onsite EP activities at Palisades, the special
In accordance with 10 CFR 51.31(a), the Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment as discussed in the NRC staff's Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact published in the
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the licensee's request for exemptions from certain EP requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b), 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2), and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV, and as summarized in Enclosure 2 to SECY-23-0043, are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants HDI exemptions from certain EP requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b), 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2), and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV, as discussed and evaluated in detail in the NRC staff's safety evaluation dated December 22, 2023. The exemptions are effective 12 months after permanent cessation of power operations, which was May 20, 2023. Because this period had already elapsed, the exemption is effective upon issuance. These exemptions will terminate if the status of the Palisades reactor changes such that the certifications of permanent cessation of operations and permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessel are no longer applicable.
Dated: this 22nd day of December 2023.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) and accompanying environmental assessment (EA) regarding the NRC's consideration of a license amendment request by Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) to approve the License Termination Plan (LTP) for the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1 (FCS), located in Washington County, Nebraska. If approved, the amendment would add a license condition to the FCS license reflecting the NRC's approval of its LTP and establishing criteria for determining when changes to the LTP require prior NRC approval. OPPD would use the LTP to meet the requirements for terminating the license and releasing the site for unrestricted use. Based on the EA, the NRC staff has concluded that there will be no significant impacts to environmental resources from the requested license amendment, and therefore, a FONSI is appropriate.
The EA and FONSI referenced in this document is available on January 2, 2024.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2022-0127 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:
•
•
•
Marla Morales, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0715; email:
The NRC is considering issuance of a license amendment request to approve the LTP for the FCS, located in Washington County, Nebraska, as part of OPPD's part 50 of title 10 of the
Construction of FCS began in 1968, and the NRC issued an operating license to the OPPD in 1973. The FCS began commercial operation in September 1973. The OPPD submitted the Certification of Permanent Cessation of Power Operations in August 2016 in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82 (a)(1)(i) and shutdown on October 24, 2016. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(ii), on November 13, 2016, the OPPD certified to the NRC that as of November 2016, all fuel had been removed from the FCS reactor vessel and placed into the FCS spent fuel pool.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(4)(i), the OPPD submitted its initial Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) on March 30, 2017, and supplemented it by letter dated December 14, 2017. The PSDAR described OPPD's selection of the SAFSTOR method for decommissioning the FCS. The FCS reactor remained in SAFSTOR until December 16, 2019.
On December 16, 2019, as supplemented by letter dated July 16, 2020, the OPPD submitted a revised PSDAR to the NRC to reflect schedule changes and select a new method for decommissioning the FCS pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(7). The revised PSDAR described OPPD's selection of the DECON method for decommissioning the FCS.
By letter dated May 18, 2020, the OPPD certified to the NRC that as of May 13, 2020, all spent fuel assemblies had been permanently transferred out of the FCS spent fuel pool and placed in storage within the independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). The OPPD submitted the LTP on August 3, 2021, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(9).
The proposed action is the review and subsequent approval, if appropriate, of a license amendment to OPPD to approve the LTP for the FCS. If approved, the amendment would add a license condition to the FCS license reflecting the NRC's approval of the LTP and establishing criteria for determining when changes to the LTP require prior NRC approval.
The proposed action is described in the OPPD's 2021 LTP application and responses to requests for additional information dated June 15, 2022, and February 27, 2023.
The purpose of and need for the proposed action is to allow for completion of decommissioning of the FCS site by the OPPD, termination of the FCS operating license by the NRC, and subsequent release of the FCS site for unrestricted use. The NRC regulation at 10 CFR 50.82 sets forth the process for the licensee to decommission its nuclear power plant, including submission of the LTP. The NRC will approve the LTP, provided that the LTP meets the criteria in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(10).
The NRC staff considered the potential impacts of the proposed action on land use, historical and cultural resources; visual and scenic resources; meteorology, climatology, and air quality; noise; geology and soils; water resources; ecological resources; socioeconomics; public and occupation health; transportation and traffic; environmental justice; and waste management. The Decommissioning Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) (NUREG-0586) generically addressed many of the potential environmental impacts of decommissioning at the FCS. During its review of the FCS LTP, the NRC concluded that the impacts for most resource areas—onsite land use; water resources; air quality; ecology, not including threatened and endangered species or outside the operational area; socioeconomics; historic and cultural resources within the operational area; aesthetics; noise; transportation; and nonradioactive waste management—were still bounded by the Decommissioning GEIS. Therefore, the NRC does not expect impacts associated with these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS, which concluded that the impact level for these issues was SMALL.
In the Decommissioning GEIS, the NRC staff concluded that it could not necessarily determine the environmental impacts of decommissioning generically for six environmental resource areas (offsite land use, threatened and endangered species, aquatic ecology beyond the operational area, terrestrial ecology beyond the operational area, environmental justice, and historic and cultural resources beyond the operational area). The Decommissioning GEIS determined that for these six resource areas a site-specific analysis would be required as was done in the FCS EA. In addition, topics not included in the Decommissioning GEIS that the NRC staff evaluated in the FCS EA include the affected environment, climate change, cumulative impacts, contamination of groundwater from decommissioning activities, and nonradioactive waste management.
In the FCS EA, the NRC staff evaluated the potential environmental impacts on the six site-specific environmental resource areas as well as the five resource areas not evaluated in the Decommissioning GEIS and did not identify any significant impacts. For the proposed action there are no planned activities outside of the operational area, and the OPPD commits to using best management practices and obtaining all necessary licenses from Federal or State agencies to protect the surrounding lands. Therefore, the proposed action would result in no significant impacts and there would be no significant cumulative effects when added to the past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions at the FCS site.
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered the “no-action” alternative. Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not approve the LTP or the license amendment request because regulatory requirements have not been met. If the NRC was unable to approve the LTP because the regulatory requirements were not met, the OPPD would need to take additional actions to prepare an LTP that meets the requirements in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(10). Under this scenario, until the OPPD resubmits the LTP, activities at FCS would likely continue and the environmental impacts would neither increase nor decrease as a result of the additional time required for the LTP resubmission.
On August 18, 2023, the NRC staff provided a copy of the draft EA to the State of Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services for its review and comment. In a letter dated October 12, 2023, the State provided comments on the State's applicable regulations for air quality, stormwater, water quality, and waste management. The comments were incorporated into the EA, as applicable.
The NRC completed consultation under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act by consulting with the Nebraska State Historic Preservation Office and 12 Federally recognized Indian Tribes in correspondence dated August 3, 2022. In addition, the NRC staff, consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and determined that the proposed action “may affect, but not likely to adversely affect” the Northern Long-eared Bat, Tricolored Bat, Piping Plover, Monarch Butterfly, and the Pallid Sturgeon, and would have “no effect” on critical habitat. The NRC staff provided its effect determinations to FWS on August 18, 2023, and FWS concurred with those findings on November 5, 2023, and provided no additional comments. Therefore, consultation has been completed under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Based on its review of the license amendment request, in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51, the NRC staff has determined that issuing the requested amendment, if appropriate, of a license termination to OPPD's DPR-40 license would not significantly affect the quality of human environment. No significant radiological or non-radiological impacts are
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through ADAMS.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of January 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, and February 5, 2024. The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Public.
Members of the public may request to receive the information in these notices electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555, at 301-415-1969, or by email at
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 1, 2024.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 8, 2024.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 29, 2024.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 5, 2024.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Wesley Held at 301-287-3591 or via email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment request; notice of opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order imposing procedures.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is considering approval of two amendment requests. The amendment requests are for Millstone Power Station, Unit 3 and Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. For each amendment request, the NRC proposes to determine that it involves no significant hazards consideration (NSHC). Because each amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI), an order imposes procedures to obtain access to SUNSI for contention preparation by persons who file a hearing request or petition for leave to intervene.
Comments must be filed by February 1, 2024. A request for a hearing or petitions for leave to intervene must be filed by March 4, 2024. Any potential party as defined in section 2.4 of title 10 of the
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Karen Zeleznock, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-1118; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2023-0207, facility name, unit number(s), docket number(s), application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information 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.
Pursuant to section 189a.(1)-(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the NRC is publishing this notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves NSHC, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This notice includes notices of amendments containing SUNSI.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve NSHC. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendments would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown as follows.
The Commission is seeking public comments on these proposed determinations. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendments until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue any of these license amendments before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue any of these amendments prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action on any of these amendments prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish a notice of issuance in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by any of these actions may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to that action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. If a petition is filed, the Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii).
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h) no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
For information about filing a petition and about participation by a person not a party under 10 CFR 2.315, see ADAMS Accession No. ML20340A053 (
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including documents filed by an interested State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof that requests to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases, to mail copies on electronic storage media, unless an exemption permitting an alternative filing method, as further discussed, is granted. Detailed guidance on electronic submissions is located in the “Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC” (ADAMS Accession No. ML13031A056) and on the NRC's public website at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(b)-(d). Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving their documents on all other participants. Participants granted an exemption under 10 CFR 2.302(g)(2) must still meet the electronic formatting requirement in 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1), unless the participant also seeks and is granted an exemption from 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1).
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is publicly available at
The following table provides the plant names, docket numbers, date of application, ADAMS accession number, and location in the application of the licensee's proposed NSHC determination. For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the applications for amendment, publicly available portions of which are available for public inspection in ADAMS. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI).
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing, any potential party who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may request access to SUNSI. A “potential party” is any person who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Deputy General Counsel for Licensing, Hearings, and Enforcement, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email addresses for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requestor's basis for the need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why publicly available versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraph C, the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2), the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order
F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that are based upon the information received as a result of the request made for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after receipt of (or access to) that information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the petitioner's receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline.
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff after a determination on standing and requisite need, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) the presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if this individual is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
(3) Further appeals of decisions under this paragraph must be made pursuant to 10 CFR 2.311.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requestor may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of access and must be filed with: (a) the presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if this individual is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. The attachment to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is soliciting nominations for appointment to the Advisory Committee of the PBGC.
Nominations must be received on or before February 16, 2024. Please allow three weeks for regular mail delivery to PBGC.
Nominations must be submitted electronically to
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC or the Corporation) administers the pension plan termination insurance program under title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Section 4002(h) of ERISA provides for the establishment of an Advisory Committee to the Corporation. The Advisory Committee consists of seven members appointed by the President from among individuals recommended by the PBGC Board of Directors, which consists of the Secretaries of Labor, Treasury, and Commerce. The Advisory Committee members are as follows:
• two representatives of employee organizations;
• two representatives of employers who maintain pension plans; and
• three representatives of the general public.
No more than four members of the Committee shall be members of the same political party. Anyone currently
Advisory Committee members must have experience with employee organizations, employers who maintain defined benefit pension plans, the administration or advising of pension plans, or in related fields. Appointments are for 3-year terms. Reappointments are possible but are subject to the appointment process.
The Advisory Committee's prescribed duties include advising the Corporation as to its policies and procedures relating to investment of moneys, and other issues as the Corporation may request or as the Advisory Committee determines appropriate. The Advisory Committee meets at least six times each year. At least one meeting is a joint meeting with the PBGC Board of Directors.
By February 19, 2024, the term of one of the Advisory Committee members, representing the general public, will have expired. Therefore, PBGC is seeking nominations for one seat.
PBGC is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse Advisory Committee.
If you or your organization wants to nominate one or more people for appointment to the Advisory Committee to represent the general public, you may submit nominations to PBGC. Nominations may be in the form of a letter, resolution or petition, signed by the person making the nomination. PBGC encourages you to include additional supporting letters of nomination. PBGC will not consider self-nominees who have no supporting letters. Please do not include any information that you do not want publicly disclosed.
Nominations, including supporting letters, should:
• state the person's qualifications to serve on the Advisory Committee (including any specialized knowledge or experience relevant to the nominee's proposed Advisory Committee position to represent the general public);
• state that the candidate will accept appointment to the Advisory Committee if offered;
• include the nominee's full name, work affiliation, mailing address, phone number, and email address;
• include the nominator's full name, mailing address, phone number, and email address; and
• include the nominator's signature, whether sent by email or otherwise.
PBGC will contact nominees for information on their political affiliation and their status as registered lobbyists. Nominees should be aware of the time commitment for attending meetings and actively participating in the work of the Advisory Committee. Historically, this has meant a commitment of at least 15 days per year. PBGC has a process for vetting nominees under consideration for appointment.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Notice is hereby given in accordance with Public Law 92-463 that the Actuarial Advisory Committee will hold a virtual meeting on January 19, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. (central standard time), on the conduct of the 29th Actuarial Valuation of the Railroad Retirement System. The agenda for this meeting will include a discussion of the assumptions to be used in the 29th Actuarial Valuation. A report containing recommended assumptions and the experience on which the recommendations are based will have been sent by the Chief Actuary to the Committee in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be open to the public. Persons wishing to submit written statements, make oral presentations, or attend the meeting should address their communications or notices to Patricia Pruitt (
New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or the “Exchange”) filed on September 26, 2023, with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The NYSE previously filed a proposed rule filing to amend Section 312.03(b) of the Manual to modify the circumstances under which a listed company must obtain shareholder approval of a sale of securities to a substantial security holder of the listed company.
Amendment No. 1 includes in the Purpose and Statutory Basis sections additional explanation of why the Exchange is proposing the rule change and believes that it is appropriate, specifically discussing the Exchange's belief that there is a lesser possibility that a substantial security holder may exercise influence over the terms of a transaction with the company if such substantial security holder does not have representation on the board or in management. In addition, Amendment No. 1 amends the rule text to adopt a new definition of an “Active Related Party” in Section 312.03(b)(i) and to retain the current definition of Related Party for purposes of Section 312.03(b)(ii).
Section 312.04(e) of the Manual provides that an interest consisting of less than either five percent of the number of shares of common stock or five percent of the voting power outstanding of a company or entity shall not be considered a substantial interest or cause the holder of such an interest to be regarded as a substantial security holder.
Section 312.03(b)(i) of the Manual provides that shareholder approval is required prior to the issuance of common stock, or of securities convertible into or exercisable for common stock, in any transaction or series of related transactions, to a director, officer or substantial security holder of the company if the number of shares of common stock to be issued, or if the number of shares of common stock into which the securities may be convertible or exercisable, exceeds either one percent of the number of shares of common stock or one percent of the voting power outstanding before the issuance.
The Manual provides an exception to the shareholder approval requirement if such transaction is a cash sale for a price that is at least the Minimum Price. Section 312.04(h) defines the Minimum Price as a price that is the lower of: (i) the Official Closing Price immediately preceding the signing of the binding agreement; or (ii) the average Official Closing Price for the five trading days immediately preceding the signing of the binding agreement. Section 312.04(i) defines the “Official Closing Price” of an issuer's common stock as the official closing price on the Exchange as reported to the Consolidated Tape immediately preceding the signing of a binding agreement to issue the securities.
Certain NYSE listed companies are significantly dependent on their ability to regularly raise additional capital to fund their operations or acquire new assets. For example, pre-revenue stage biotechnology companies regularly seek additional capital to fund their research and development activities and real estate investment trusts seek to fund the acquisition of new properties by selling equity securities in private placements or direct registered sales priced at a small discount to the prevailing market price. It is the Exchange's understanding that, in many cases, existing shareholders of the listed company are willing purchasers of securities in such circumstances, as they already understand the company's business and have a positive view of its future prospects. Sales to existing shareholders can also be advantageous to both the issuer and the shareholders because of the speed with which a direct sale to an existing shareholder can be completed if no shareholder approval is required. However, the benefits of low transaction costs and speed of execution that typically exist when conducting these transactions with existing shareholders face countervailing factors if the counterparty is deemed to be a substantial securityholder for purposes of Section 312.03(b)(i). In such cases, to mitigate potential conflicts of interest, Exchange rules require that any sale below the Minimum Price can relate to no more than one per cent of the shares of common stock or one percent of the voting power outstanding before the issuance. Any such transaction that relates to more than one per cent of the
The Exchange believes there are significant benefits from the protection provided to a listed company's investors by the shareholder approval requirements in Section 312.03(b)(i) when a purchaser of the securities in a transaction is an officer or director or other control person of the company. In such cases, the potential exists for a related party purchaser to use their influence within the company to obtain superior terms from the company to the detriment of the company's shareholders as a whole. However, the current definition of substantial security holder used in the rule also applies to holders of a company's common stock who do not participate in the governance or management of the company through board or management representation. The Exchange believes that transactions with these kinds of shareholders who do not participate in the governance or management of the company generally do not give rise to the potential conflicts of interest in the determination of transaction terms that exist where the purchaser has a role in the listed company's board or management. The Exchange believes that these shareholders that do not participate actively in the company in this way generally do not have the same ability to participate in and influence decision making as is the case with a related party that directly participates in the governance or management of the company.
In light of the foregoing, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 312.03(b)(i) to limit its application to related parties whose interest in the company is not passive in nature. As proposed, Section 312.03(b)(i) would be limited in application to sales to a director, officer, controlling shareholder or member of a control group or any other substantial security holder of the company that has an affiliated person
In addition to the proposed definition of Active Related Party in the proposed amended version of Section 312.03(b)(i), the Exchange proposes for purposes of Section 312.03(b)(ii) to retain the broader definition of a Related Party included in the current rule (
The Exchange also notes that any listed company selling securities in a private placement that does not meet the Minimum Price requirement will remain subject to the shareholder approval requirement of Section 312.03(c) if such transaction relates to 20 percent or more of the issuer's common stock. In addition, if the securities in such financing are issued in connection with an acquisition of the stock or assets of another company, shareholder approval will be required if the issuance of such securities alone or when combined with any other present or potential issuance of common stock, or securities convertible into common stock in connection with such acquisition, is equal to or exceeds either 20 percent of the number of shares of common stock or 20 percent of the voting power outstanding before the issuance. Sales of securities will also continue to be subject to all other shareholder approval requirements set forth in Section 312.03 (including limitations with respect to equity compensation under Section 312.03(a) and Section 303A.08) and the change of control requirement of Section 312.03(d). The Exchange notes that Section 312.04(a) provides that shareholder approval is required if any of the subparagraphs of Section 312.03 require such approval, notwithstanding the fact that the transaction does not require approval under one or more of the other subparagraphs. Finally, the Exchange notes that Section 312.03(b)(i) as proposed to be amended would continue to provide a significant protection to shareholders against conflicts of interest in sales of securities to Active Related Parties and that no other listing venue has such a protection in its rules. The Exchange notes that its shareholder approval requirements are as stringent in every respect as those of its competitor listing venues.
Under the proposal the Exchange will continue to require shareholder approval for below market sales (
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that proposed amended Section 312.03(b)(i) is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Specifically, the amended rule continues to provide for shareholder approval of below-market sales of securities to Active Related Parties of a listed company where a potential conflict of interest exists that Active Related Parties could use their influence within the company to obtain superior terms from the company to the detriment of the company's shareholders as a whole. The current definition of substantial security holder used in the rule extends to holders of a company's common stock who do not participate in the governance or management of the company through board or management representation. The Exchange believes that transactions with these kinds of shareholders who do not participate in the governance or management of the company (except by voting at shareholder meetings) in and of themselves generally do not give rise to the potential conflicts of interest in the determination of transaction terms that exist where the purchaser has a role in the listed company's board or management. The Exchange believes that these shareholders that do not participate actively in the company in this way do not generally have the same ability to participate in and influence decision making as is the case with a related party that directly participates in the governance or management of the company. The proposed rule only modifies the existing rule to permit sales to investors who are not a director, officer, a controlling shareholder or member of a control group or any other substantial security holder of the company that has an affiliated person who is an officer or director of the company and with respect to whom the Exchange therefore believes that the potential for such self-dealing does not exist.
The Exchange proposes to use definitions of “control” and “group” in the proposed amended rule that are used in the federal securities laws and the rules thereunder and, consequently, the Exchange believes that the use of such definitions is consistent with the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment would promote competition among listing venues by removing a limitation on capital raising by listed companies that does not exist for their peers on other listing exchanges.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment increases competition among listing venues by removing a limitation on capital raising by listed companies that does not exist for their peers on other listing exchanges.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The development and enforcement of meaningful corporate governance listing standards for a national securities exchange is of substantial importance to financial markets and the investing public, especially given investor expectations regarding the nature of companies that have achieved an exchange listing for their securities. The corporate governance standards embodied in the listing standards of national securities exchanges, in particular, play an important role in assuring that exchange-listed companies observe good governance practices, including safeguarding the interests of shareholders with respect to certain potentially dilutive transactions.
As discussed above, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 312.03(b)(i)
After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. As stated by the Exchange, the shareholder approval requirement in Section 312.03(b)(i) of the Manual protects against a potential conflict of interest when the acquirer of additional stock may have enough influence within the company to obtain superior terms from the company to the detriment of the company's shareholders as a whole.
To make it clear that there are no changes being made to the application of the other shareholder approval requirements in Section 312.03 of the Manual, the Exchange has specifically amended Section 312.03(b)(ii) of the Manual to retain the definition of Related Party in order to clarify that a listed company selling securities to a Related Party (that includes a substantial security holder)
The Commission also finds that the Exchange's proposed definitions of “group” and “control” in Sections 312.04(k) and (l) of the Manual for purposes of Section 312.03 of the Manual are consistent with the Act.
The Commission notes, in approving the proposal to amend the shareholder approval requirement in Section 312.03(b)(i) of the Manual, that the ability of listed companies to sell securities without shareholder approval continues to remain limited by other important Exchange rules.
Finally, the Exchange also states its belief that Section 312.03.(b)(i) as proposed to be amended would continue to provide a significant protection to shareholders against conflicts of interest in sales of securities to Active Related Parties and that no other listing exchange has such a requirement.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of Amendment No. 1 in the
Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Small Business Administration.
30-Day notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB procedures, SBA is publishing this notice to allow all interested member of the public an additional 30 days to provide comments on the proposed collection of information.
Submit comments on or before February 1, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection request should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
You may obtain a copy of the information collection and supporting documents from the Agency Clearance Office at
Small Business Administration collects this information from lenders who participate in the secondary market program. The information is used to facilitate and administer secondary market transactions in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 634(f)3 and to monitor the program for compliance with 15 U.S.C. 639(h).
Comments may be submitted on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of information described below. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires federal agencies to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before March 3, 2023.
Send all comments to Terrance Moultrie, Supervisor Business Operations Specialist, Government Contracting, Small Business Administration.
Terrance Moultrie, Supervisor Business Operations Specialist, Government Contracting, 202-389-6644,
In carrying out its statutory mandate in 15 U.S.C. 637(m) to provide oversight of certification related to the Women-Owned Small Business Federal Contract Program (WOSB Program), the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is currently approved to collect information from WOSB Program applicants or participants through its certification and information collection platform,
SBA is requesting comments on (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
The Small Business Administration publishes an interest rate called the Optional Peg Rate (13 CFR 120.214) on a quarterly basis. This rate is a weighted average cost of money to the Government for maturities similar to the average SBA direct loan. This rate may be used as a base rate for guaranteed fluctuating interest rate SBA loans. This rate will be 4.88 percent for the January-March quarter of FY 2024.
Pursuant to 13 CFR 120.921(b), the maximum legal interest rate for any Third Party Lender's commercial loan which funds any portion of the cost of a 504 project (see 13 CFR 120.801) shall be 6% over the Prime rate or, if that exceeds the maximum interest rate permitted by the constitution or laws of a given State, the maximum interest rate will be the rate permitted by the constitution or laws of the given State.
Determination.
The State Department is publishing a Determination signed by the Secretary of State on October 5, 2021.
Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State, signed the following “Determination and Certification with Respect to the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008” on October 5, 2021. The State Department maintains the original document.
(Begin summary.)
Determination and Certification with Respect to the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008 Pursuant to section 404 of the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008 (CSPA) (22 U.S.C. 2370c-1) and Presidential Memorandum dated October 14, 2020, I hereby:
(1) Determine that it is in the national interest of the United States to waive the application of the prohibition under section 404(a) of the CSPA with respect to Mali to allow for the issuance of licenses for direct commercial sales of military equipment; and
(2) Certify that the government of Mali is taking effective and continuing steps to address the problem of child soldiers.
Accordingly, I hereby waive such application of section 404(a) of the CSPA with respect to Mali for Fiscal Year 2022.
This Determination and Certification shall be published in the
(End summary.)
United States Trade and Development Agency.
Notice of information collection; submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) has submitted a request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review and approve an extension for a currently approved information collection for Evaluation of USTDA Performance.
Comments on this notice must be received on or before February 2, 2024.
To access and review all of the documents related to the data collection listed in this notice, please use
Contact Sheneé Turner, Administrative Officer, Attn: PRA, U.S. Trade and Development Agency, 1101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1100, Arlington, VA 22209-3901; Tel.: (703) 875-4357, Fax: (703) 775-4037; Email:
USTDA published its first
Comments are invited on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of public meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the TLTF.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, January 18, 2024, from 10 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET. Requests for accommodations for a disability must be received by Friday, January 12. Requests to submit written materials for consideration during the meeting must be received no later than Friday, January 12.
The meeting will be held virtually for its entirety. Please register in advance of the meeting at
Ms. Shannon L. Watson, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, TLTF, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, (202) 360-2925,
The TLTF was created under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) in accordance with section 23009 of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) (Pub. L. 117-58), which requires the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to establish the TLTF. The TLTF will examine the terms, conditions, and equitability of common truck leasing arrangements, particularly as they impact owner-operators and trucking businesses subject to such agreements and submit a report on the task force's identified issues and conclusions regarding truck leasing arrangements, including recommended best practices, to the Secretary, the Secretary of Labor, and the appropriate committees of Congress. The TLTF will work in coordination with, and be informed by, the United States Department of Labor.
The TLTF operates in accordance with FACA under the terms of the TLTF charter, filed February 11, 2022, and amended April 28, 2023.
TLTF will begin consideration of Task 24-1: Inequitable Leasing Agreements and Terms in the Motor Carrier industry and Whether They Affect the Frequency of Maintenance Performed on Subjected Vehicles and Whether a Vehicle is Kept in a General State of Good Repair. In addition, FMCSA will provide an ethics presentation to the TLTF members.
The meeting will be open to the public via virtual platform. Advance registration via the website is required by Friday, January 12.
DOT is committed to providing equal access to this meeting for all participants. If you need alternative formats or services due to a disability, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, please contact the person listed in the
Oral comments from the public will be heard during designated comment periods at the discretion of the TLTF chair and Designated Federal Officer. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for each commenter may be limited. Speakers are requested to submit a written copy of their remarks for inclusion in the meeting records and for circulation to TLTF members. All prepared remarks submitted on time will be accepted and considered as part of the record. Any member of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any time.
Office of the Secretary of Transportation, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The collection involves information required in an application to request Special Priorities Assistance. The information to be collected is necessary to facilitate the supply of civil transportation resources to promote the national defense. We are required to publish this notice in the
Written comments should be submitted by February 1, 2024.
Your comments should be identified by Docket No. DOT-OST-2015-0271 and may be submitted through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Anita Womack, 202-366-2250, Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an open meeting of the Community Development Advisory Board (the Advisory Board), which provides advice to the Director of the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund). This meeting will be conducted virtually. A link to view the meeting will be posted under the date of the meeting at
The meeting will be held from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 17, 2024.
In general, the CDFI Fund will make all statements available in their original format, including any business or personal information provided such as names, addresses, email addresses, or telephone numbers, for virtual public inspection and copying. The CDFI Fund is open on official business days between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. You can make arrangements to virtually inspect statements by emailing
Bill Luecht, Senior Advisor, Office of Legislative and External Affairs, CDFI Fund; (202) 653-0322 (this is not a toll-free number); or
Section 104(d) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-
The function of the Advisory Board is to advise the Director of the CDFI Fund (who has been delegated the authority to administer the CDFI Fund) on the policies regarding the activities of the CDFI Fund. The Advisory Board is not a governing board, and it does not advise the CDFI Fund on approving or declining any particular application for monetary or non-monetary awards.
In accordance with section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1009 and the regulations thereunder, Bill Luecht, Designated Federal Officer of the Advisory Board, has ordered publication of this notice that the Advisory Board will convene an open meeting, which will be conducted virtually, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 17, 2024. Members of the public who wish to view the virtual meeting will be required to register upon entering into the virtual meeting, which can be accessed 30 minutes prior to its scheduled start time. The link to view the meeting will be posted under the date of the meeting at
The Advisory Board meeting will include an update from Acting Director Sigal on the CDFI Fund's programs and CDFI Certification.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before February 1, 2024. (Inserted by the Clearance Officer.)
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise and Integration, Data Governance Analytics (008), 1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20006, (202) 266-4688 or email
The information collected under § 36.4333 is used by VA to ensure lenders and servicers who participate in VA's Loan Guaranty program follow statutory and regulatory requirements, such as those relating to credit information, loan processing requirements, underwriting standards, servicing requirements, and other applicable laws, regulations and policies. VA also uses data collected under this authority to provide annual feedback to lenders, through the Lender Scorecard, on certain loan characteristics such as interest rate, fees and charges, audit results, etc., as compared to the national average of all VA lenders.
The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise and Integration, Data Governance Analytics (008), 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 266-4688 or email
VA Form 10-320 will be used to collect information from Veterans seeking reimbursement for certain medical expenses. This claim form will be used to support payment of certain unauthorized non-VA medical services. Veterans may use this form to submit claims for reimbursement for a variety of services, such as pharmacy costs, training classes, emergent suicide care, and other medical expenses.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
We, NMFS, designate critical habitat for the threatened Nassau grouper (
This rule becomes effective February 1, 2024.
The final rule, maps, Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and Critical Habitat Report used in preparation of this final rule are available on the NMFS website at
Orian Tzadik, NMFS Southeast Region,
In accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and our implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12), this final rule is based on the best scientific data available concerning the range, biology, habitat, threats to the habitat, and conservation objectives for the Nassau grouper (
On June 29, 2016, we published a final rule that listed Nassau grouper as a threatened species (81 FR 42268). The listing rule identified fishing at spawning aggregations and inadequate law enforcement as the most serious threats to this species. No critical habitat was designated for the Nassau grouper at that time.
On October 17, 2022, NMFS proposed to designate critical habitat for Nassau grouper within U.S. jurisdictions throughout the range of the species. We requested public comment on the proposed designation and supporting reports during a 60-day comment period, which closed on December 15, 2022 (87 FR 62930). The essential features of the proposed Nassau grouper critical habitat consisted of (1) nearshore to offshore areas necessary for recruitment, development, and growth of Nassau grouper containing a variety of benthic types that provide cover from predators and habitat for prey, and (2) marine sites used for spawning and adjacent waters that support movement and staging associated with spawning. The final rule does not modify the definitions of these essential features but does identify several new areas containing these features. The proposed rule identified 19 specific areas, or units of critical habitat, in waters off the coasts of southeastern Florida, Puerto Rico, Navassa, and the USVI that contain the essential features. The area covered by the Naval Air Station Key West (NASKW) Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (INRMP) was found to be ineligible for designation pursuant to section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA due to the conservation benefits the INRMP affords the Nassau grouper. Pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the ESA, no areas were proposed for exclusion from the designation on the basis of economic, national security, and other relevant impacts. We did not propose to designate any unoccupied critical habitat.
This final rule relies on the ESA section 4 implementing regulations that are currently in effect, which include provisions that were revised or added in 2019. As explained in the proposed critical habitat rule, on July 5, 2022, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order vacating the ESA section 4 implementing regulations that were revised or added to 50 CFR part 424 in 2019, which included changes made to the definition of physical or biological feature and the criteria for designating unoccupied critical habitat (“2019 regulations”; 84 FR 45020, August 27, 2019). In the proposed rule, we determined that the critical habitat determination and designation would be the same under the 50 CFR part 424 regulations as they existed before 2019 and under the regulations as revised by the 2019 rule. On September 21, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted a temporary stay of the district court's July 5 order, and on November 14, 2022, the Northern District of California issued an order granting the government's request for voluntary remand without vacating the 2019 regulations. As a result, the 2019 regulations are once again in effect, and we are applying the 2019 regulations here. Following the remand of the 2019 regulations, on June 22, 2023, NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a proposed rule to revise the ESA section 4 implementing regulations (88 FR 40764). Thus, for purposes of this final rule, we also considered whether our analyses or conclusions would be any different under the regulations in effect prior to 2019 or under the recently proposed regulations (87 FR 62930). We have determined that while our analysis would differ in some respects, the conclusions ultimately reached and presented here would be the same under either set of regulations.
This final rule describes the critical habitat for Nassau grouper in waters off the coasts of Florida, and the U.S. Caribbean (
Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA defines critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)). Conservation is defined in section 3(3) of the ESA as the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary (16 U.S.C.1532(3)). Section 3(5)(C) of the ESA provides that, except in those circumstances determined by the Secretary, critical habitat shall not include the entire geographical area which can be occupied by the threatened or endangered species. Our regulations provide that critical habitat shall not be designated within foreign countries or in other areas outside U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR 424.12(g)).
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA prohibits designating as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department of Defense (DOD) or designated for its use that are subject to an INRMP prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a) if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is designated. Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires the Secretary to designate critical habitat for threatened and endangered species under the jurisdiction of the Secretary on the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. This section also grants the Secretary discretion to exclude any area from critical habitat if the Secretary determines the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat. However, the Secretary may not exclude areas if such exclusion will result in the extinction of the species (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)).
Once critical habitat is designated, section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal agencies to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to destroy or adversely modify that habitat (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)). This requirement is in addition to the section 7(a)(2) requirement that Federal agencies ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of ESA-listed species. Specifying the geographic area identified as critical habitat also facilitates implementation of section 7(a)(1) of the ESA by identifying areas where Federal agencies can focus their conservation programs and use their authorities to further the purposes of the ESA. See 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(1). The ESA section 7 consultation requirements do not apply to citizens engaged in actions on private land that do not involve a Federal agency, for example if a private landowner is undertaking an action that does not require a Federal permit or is not federally funded. However, designating critical habitat can help focus the efforts of other, non-federal, conservation partners (
Nassau grouper,
The Nassau grouper, like most large marine reef fishes, demonstrates a two-part life cycle with pelagic eggs and larvae but demersal juveniles and adults. It undergoes a series of shifts of both habitat and diet as it matures from larval to adult stage. Adults maintain resident home ranges (Randall, 1962 1963; Carter
In the following sections, we describe the natural history of the Nassau grouper as it relates to habitat needs from the egg and larval stage to settlement into nearshore habitats followed by a progressive offshore movement with increasing size and maturation.
Fertilized eggs are pelagic, measure about 1 mm in diameter, and have a single oil droplet about 0.22 mm in diameter (Guitart-Manday and Juárez-Fernandez, 1966). Data from eggs produced in an aquarium (Guitart-Manday and Juarez-Fernandez, 1966) and artificially fertilized in the laboratory (Powell and Tucker, 1992; Colin, 1992) indicate that spherical, buoyant eggs hatch 23-40 hours following fertilization. Eggs of groupers that spawn at sea require a salinity of about 30 parts per thousand (ppt) or higher for maximum survivorship and for them to float (Tucker, 1999). Both buoyancy and survivorship decrease as salinity declines below optimum levels, resulting in less than 50% hatching rates at salinities of 24 ppt (Ellis
The pelagic larvae begin feeding on zooplankton approximately 2-4 days after hatching (Tucker and Woodward, 1994). Newly hatched larvae in the laboratory measured 1.8 mm notochord length and were slightly curved around the yolk sac (Powell and Tucker, 1992). Nassau grouper larvae are rarely reported from offshore waters (Leis, 1987) and little is known of their movements or distribution. The pelagic larval period has been reported to range from 37 to 45 days based on otolith analysis of newly settled juveniles in the Bahamas (Colin
After spending about 40 days in the plankton, in the Bahamas Nassau grouper larvae have been found to recruit from the oceanic environment into demersal, bank habitats through tidal channels (Colin, 1992). This recruitment process can be brief and intense, occurring in short pulses during highly limited periods (often several days) each year, and has been found to be associated with prevailing winds, currents, and lunar phase (Shenker
Most of what is known about the earliest cryptic life stages is known from research in the Bahamas where recently settled Nassau grouper were found to be on average 32 mm TL when they recruit into the nearshore habitat and settle out of the plankton (Eggleston, 1995). Newly settled or post-settlement fish found by Eggleston (1995) ranged in size from 25-35 mm TL and were patchily distributed at 2-3 m depth in substrates characterized by numerous sponges and stony corals with some holes and ledges residing exclusively within coral clumps (
After settlement, Nassau grouper grow through three juvenile stages, defined by size, as they progressively move from nearshore areas adjacent to the coastline to shallow hardbottom areas and seagrass habitat. The size ranges for the three juvenile stages, which we discuss in more detail below, are approximations and are not always collected the same way between studies. Juvenile Nassau grouper reside within nearshore areas for about 1 to 2 years, where they are found associated with structure in both seagrass (Eggleston, 1995; Camp
Most of what is known about the earliest demersal life stages of Nassau grouper comes from a series of studies conducted from 1987-1994 near Lee Stocking Island in the Exuma Cays, Bahamas as reported by Eggleston (1995). These surveys and experiments in mangrove-lined lagoons and tidal creeks (1-4 m deep), seagrass beds, and sand or patch reef habitats helped identify the Nassau grouper's early life ontogenetic (
Eggleston (1995) found the functional relationship between percent algal cover and post-settlement density of Nassau grouper was linear and positive compared to other habitat characteristics such as algal displacement volume, and the numbers of holes, ledges, and corals. Recently-settled Nassau grouper have also been collected from tilefish (
Band transects performed near Lee Stocking Island, Bahamas, 4-5 months after the settlement period (June 1991-93) showed that early juveniles (8.5 ± 11.7 cm TL, n=65) demonstrated a subtle change in microhabitat; 88 percent were solitary within or adjacent to algal-covered coral clumps (Eggleston, 1991). As the early juveniles grew, reef habitats, including solution holes and ledges, took on comparatively greater importance as habitats (Eggleston, 1991). Low habitat complexity was associated with increased predation rates and lowered the survival of recruits (Dahlgren and Eggleston, 2000).
Early juveniles in the Bahamas have a disproportionately high association with the macroalgae
A conspicuous change in habitat occurs about 4-5 months post-settlement when Nassau grouper move
Juvenile fish are vulnerable to predation (large fish, eels, other groupers and sharks) and utilize refuges to protect themselves (Beets and Hixon, 1994; Eggleston 1995; Claydon and Kroetz, 2008) and to forage for crustaceans using ambush predation techniques (Eggleston
Camp
As late juveniles, Nassau grouper may occupy seagrass habitats for food and protection from predators (Claydon and Kroetz, 2008); they forage for crustaceans in seagrass beds (Eggleston
Juvenile Nassau grouper also rely on hardbottom structure for refuge from predation and ambush of potential prey. Nassau grouper residing on patch reefs use short bursts of speed that allow them to ambush crabs located up to 7 m away from a patch reef and return to a reef within 5 seconds (D. Eggleston pers. comm. as cited in Eggleston
As juveniles grow, they move progressively to deeper banks and offshore reefs (Tucker
Both male and female Nassau grouper typically mature between 40 and 45 cm SL (44 and 50 cm TL), with most individuals attaining sexual maturity by about 50 cm SL (55 cm TL) and about 4-5 years of age (see Table 1 and additional details in Hill and Sadovy de Mitcheson, 2013) and with most fish spawning by age 7+ years (Bush
Adults are found near shallow, high-relief coral reefs and rocky bottoms to a depth of at least 90 m (Bannerot, 1984; Heemstra and Randall, 1993). Reports from fishing activities in the Leeward Islands show that although Nassau grouper were fished to 130 m, the greatest trap catches were from 52-60 m (Brownell and Rainey, 1971). In Venezuela, Nassau grouper were cited as common to 40 m in the Archipelago Los Roques (Cervigón, 1966). Nassau groupers tagged with depth sensors in Belize exhibited marked changes in depth at specific times throughout the year: 15-34 m from May through December, followed by movement to very deep areas averaging 72 m with a maximum of 255 m for a few months during spawning periods, then returning to depths of about 20 m in April (Starr
Adults lead solitary lives outside of spawning periods and tend to be secretive, often seeking shelter in reef crevices, ledges, and caves; rarely venturing far from cover (Bardach, 1958; Starck and Davis, 1966; Bohlke and Chaplin, 1968; Smith, 1961, 1971; Carter, 1988, 1989). Although they tend to be solitary, individuals will crowd peacefully in caves or fish traps with some proclivity to re-enter fish traps resulting in multiple recaptures (Randall, 1962; Sadovy and Eklund, 1999; Bolden, 2001). Nassau grouper have the ability to home (Bardach
For many reef fishes, access to multiple, high-quality habitats and microhabitats represents a critical factor determining settlement rates, post-settlement abundances, mortality rates, and growth rates, because suitably sized refuges provide protection from predators and access to appropriate food (Shulman, 1984; Hixon and Beets, 1989; Eggleston
As Nassau grouper move from their nearshore settlement habitat, through hardbottom and seagrass mosaic habitats, to the offshore reefs they occupy as adults, shelter provides an essential life history function by reducing risk of predation and promoting successful ambush hunting. Availability of suitably sized shelters may be a key factor limiting successful settlement and survival for juvenile Nassau grouper and related species that settle and recruit to shallow, off-reef habitats (Hixon and Beets, 1989; Eggleston, 1995; Lindeman
In the planktonic stage, the yolk and oil in the egg sac nourish the early yolk-sac larva as it develops prior to hatching. The pelagic larvae begin feeding on zooplankton approximately 2-4 days after hatching when a small mouth develops (Tucker and Woodward, 1994). In the laboratory, grouper larvae eat small rotifers, copepods, and other zooplankton, including brine shrimp (Tucker and Woodward, 1994). Diet information for newly settled Nassau grouper is based on visual observations indicating that young fish (20.2-27.2 mm SL) feed on a variety of plankton, including pteropods, ostracods, amphipods, and copepods (Greenwood, 1991; Grover
More detailed diet information is available for juveniles and adults. Stomach contents of juvenile Nassau grouper (5-19 cm TL) collected from seagrass beds near Panama contained primarily porcellanid and xanthid crabs with minor amounts of fish (Heck and Weinstein, 1989). Four dominant prey were ingested by small (< 20 cm TL) Nassau grouper in the Bahamas: stomatopods, palaemonid shrimp, and spider and portunid crabs (Eggleston et al., 1998). Fish and spider crabs made up the bulk of the diet for both mid-size (20.0-29.9 cm TL) and large (>30 cm TL) Nassau grouper in opposite proportion: spider crabs dominated the diet of the mid-size fish, while fish were the most important prey for large Nassau grouper (Eggleston
As adults, Nassau grouper are unspecialized-ambush-suction predators (Randall, 1965; Thompson and Munro, 1978) that lie under shelter, wait for prey, and then quickly expand their gill covers to create a current to engulf prey by suction (Thompson and Munro, 1978; Carter, 1986) and swallow their prey whole (Werner, 1974, 1977). Numerous studies describe adult Nassau groupers as piscivores, with their diet dominated by reef fishes: parrotfish (Scaridae), wrasses (Labridae), damselfishes (Pomacentridae), squirrelfishes (Holocentridae), snappers (Lutjanidae), groupers (Epinephelidae) and grunts (Haemulidae) (Randall and Brock, 1960; Randall, 1965, 1967; Parrish, 1987; Carter
The most recognized Nassau grouper habitats are the sites where adult males and females assemble briefly at predictable times during winter full moons for the sole purpose of reproduction. These spawning aggregation sites are occupied by Nassau grouper during winter full moon
Spawning aggregation sites typically occur near the edge of insular platforms in a wide (6-50 m) depth range, as close as 350 m to the shore, and close to a drop-off into deep water. These sites are characteristically small, highly circumscribed areas, measuring several hundred meters in diameter, with a diversity of bottom types, including soft corals, sponges, stony coral outcrops, and sandy depressions (Craig, 1966; Smith 1990; Beets and Friedlander, 1992; Colin, 1992; Aguilar-Perera, 1994). Adults are known to travel hundreds of kilometers (Bolden, 2000) to gather at specific spawning aggregation sites. While aggregated, the Nassau grouper are extremely vulnerable to overfishing (Sadovy de Mitcheson
It is not known how Nassau grouper select and locate aggregation sites or why they aggregate to spawn. Variables that are considered to influence spawning site suitability include geomorphological characteristics of the seabed, hydrodynamics including current speed and prevailing direction of flow to disperse eggs and larvae, seawater temperature, and proximity to suitable benthic habitats for settlement (Kobara and Heyman, 2008). The link between spawning sites and settlement sites is not well understood. The geomorphology of spawning sites has led researchers to assume that offshore transport was a desirable property of selected sites. However, currents in the vicinity of aggregation sites do not necessarily favor offshore egg transport, leaving open the possibility that some stocks are at least partially self-recruiting. Additional research is needed to understand these spatial dynamics.
The biological cues known to be associated with Nassau grouper spawning include photoperiod (
“Spawning runs,” or movements of adult Nassau grouper from coral reefs to spawning aggregation sites, were first described in Cuba in 1884 by Vilaro Diaz, and later by Guitart-Manday and Juarez-Fernandez (1966). Nassau grouper migrate to aggregation sites in groups numbering between 25 and 500, moving parallel to the coast or along shelf edges or inshore reefs (Colin, 1992; Carter
Larger fish are more likely to return to aggregation sites and spawn in successive months than smaller fish (Semmens
Spawning occurs for up to 1.5 hours around sunset for several days (Whaylen
Repeated spawning occurs at the same site for up to three consecutive months generally around the full moon or between the full and new moons (Smith, 1971; Colin, 1992; Tucker
The best available information suggests that spawning in U.S. waters occurs at three sites: Bajo de Sico in waters off the coast of Puerto Rico (Scharer et al., 2012), Grammanik Bank in waters off the coast of the USVI (Nemeth et al., 2006), and Riley's Hump within the Tortugas South Ecological Reserve in Florida (Locascio and Burton 2015; J. McCawley, Pers. comm., December 9, 2022). These three sites are all at least partially protected under existing fishery regulations, as discussed below. For all three sites, it is unclear whether they are reconstituted (
Bajo de Sico, in waters off the coast of Puerto Rico, is a submerged offshore seamount located in the Mona Passage off the insular platform of western Puerto Rico approximately 29 km west of Mayaguez (Scharer-Umpierre
In 1996, NMFS approved a 3-month seasonal fishing closure (December 1 through February 28) in Federal waters at Bajo de Sico to protect spawning aggregations of red hind (61 FR 64485, December 5, 1996); the closure also partially protects Nassau grouper spawning aggregations (Scharer
In February 2012, a Nassau grouper spawning aggregation was identified at Bajo de Sico when at least 60 individuals were observed via video and audio recordings exhibiting reproductive behaviors (Scharer
Grammanik Bank, USVI is located approximately 4 km east of the Hind Bank Marine Conservation District (MCD), on the southern edge of the Puerto Rican Shelf. Grammanik Bank is a narrow deep coral reef bank (35-40 m) about 1.69 km long and 100 m wide at the widest point located on the shelf edge about 14 miles south of St. Thomas. It is bordered to the north by extensive mesophotic reef and to the south by a steep drop-off and a deep
Approximately 100 Nassau grouper were observed aggregating at the Grammanik Bank in 2004 between January and March (Nemeth
The behavior of Nassau grouper in the aggregation has also changed dramatically in the past few years. From 2004 to 2019, Nassau grouper were found aggregating in small groups of 10, 20, or maybe as high as 40 individuals, resting close to the bottom among the coral heads. Nassau grouper were also observed to swim down the slope to 60 to 80 m, presumably to spawn, to an extensive
Nemeth
It remains unknown whether the increasing abundance at the Nassau grouper aggregation at Grammanik Bank is a result of: (1) Remnant adults from the nearby overfished aggregation site (the historical Grouper Bank, now located within the Hind Bank Marine Conservation District) shifting spawning locations to the Grammanik Bank, a distance of about 5 km; (2) Larvae dispersed from distant spawning aggregations elsewhere in the Eastern Caribbean that have settled on the St. Thomas/St. John shelf, matured, and migrated to the Grammanik Bank spawning site; or (3) Self-recruitment by local reproduction from the remnant population. Each of these recovery scenarios is supported by various researchers who have observed these same phenomena in separate locations. The first scenario is supported by Heppel
Riley's Hump, Florida, is located approximately 16 km to the southwest of the Dry Tortugas National Park and is within the boundaries of the Tortugas South Ecological Reserve. The larger area of the Dry Tortugas—which encompasses the Dry Tortugas National Park, the Tortugas Bank, the Tortugas South Ecological Reserve, and the Tortugas North Ecological Reserve—includes a series of carbonate banks and sand shoals located southwest of the Florida continental margin. Riley's Hump is one of these carbonate banks, separated from the Tortugas Bank to the north by a deep trough, which is filled with thick sedimentary deposits. The bank crests at about 30 m, and has a 20 m escarpment at the shelf break on the south side of the bank (Mallinson
Riley's Hump is located within the boundaries of the Tortugas South Ecological Reserve, which has been closed to fishing since 2001, when both the North and South Ecological Reserves were established, adjacent to the Dry Tortugas National Park. The Tortugas South Ecological Reserve hosts several known annual spawning aggregations, including aggregations of mutton snapper, and likely black grouper, red grouper, red hind, and Nassau grouper (Locascio and Burton, 2015). The location and depth of Riley's Hump make it particularly difficult to conduct annual monitoring projects. However, visual surveys have documented higher densities of Nassau groupers at Riley's Hump than anywhere in Florida, and are estimated at roughly 1 adult per 0.04 acres (D. Morley, Pers. comm., September 6, 2023). Some observations have included individuals displaying colorations and producing sounds associated with spawning (Locascio and Burton, 2015, J. Locascio, Pers. comm., September 6, 2023).
The mechanism behind the spawning aggregation at Riley's Hump remains unclear. The southern Florida reef tract is near the northern extent of the range of Nassau grouper, and the species is extremely rare in this location. However, historical accounts suggest that the species was once more common in the area; this aggregation could be a remnant of a depleted historical aggregation, or a new aggregation that is being formed by individuals which have settled and matured in the area.
We evaluated the comments and new information received from the public during the public comment period. Based on our consideration of these comments and the best scientific information available (as noted below in the Summary of Comments and Responses section), we made the following substantive changes to the final rule:
1. Based on new information received during the public comment period, coupled with additional local ecological knowledge and baseline ecological studies we obtained following publication of the proposed rule, and as described above (see
2. We extended the offshore boundary of Puerto Rico Unit 1 out to the 50 m isobaths off the islands of Mona and Monito and modified the associated description to read as follows: Puerto Rico Unit 1—Isla de Mona and Monito—All waters surrounding the islands of Mona and Monito from the shoreline to the 50 m isobaths. This change was driven by years of monitoring data and scientific observations we received during the public comment period from an
3. We extended the offshore boundary for Puerto Rico Unit 2 out to the 50 m isobaths off the island of Desecheo and revised the associated textual description to read as follows: Puerto Rico Unit 2—Desecheo Island—All waters surrounding the island of Desecheo from the shoreline to the 50 m isobath. This change was driven by years of monitoring data and scientific observations we received from the same researcher regarding this specific habitat unit. See comment 8 and our response to the comment for a more detailed explanation of this change.
We updated the maps of Puerto Rico Units 1 and 2 to reflect the extension of these units' boundaries and have included a new map of Spawning Site Unit 3—Riley's Hump. As a result of these changes, the total area encompassed by this final designation has increased by 32.4 sq. km (12.51 sq. miles), compared to the proposed designation.
In addition to substantive changes in the final rule described above, we also made clarifying changes to the final rule, and to the Critical Habitat Report, in response to public comments and new information. Specifically, the economic values are updated and detailed in both the final rule and the Critical Habitat Report. We considered whether the extended boundaries for Puerto Rico Units 1 and 2 and the addition of Spawning Site Unit 3—Riley's Hump would alter the number and nature of ESA section 7 consultations included in the analysis and whether any additional economic, national security, other relevant impacts that were not previously considered could be identified. We confirmed that no additional section 7 consultations relevant to the expansion of Puerto Rico Units 1 and 2 or the addition of Spawning Site Unit 3—Riley's Hump are expected or should be incorporated into the economic analysis, and we received no additional information regarding future planned or expected federal activities within these areas. Therefore, we project no additional economic impacts as a result of these changes. Further, the added areas are already located within reserve areas and are not used for military purposes. For this reason, the newly added areas pose no impacts to national security. No other relevant impacts were identified as a result of these changes in the specific areas of the critical habitat. Therefore, while the specific areas under consideration changed slightly to include an additional 32.4 sq. km (12.51 sq. miles), no changes were made to the conclusions of our ESA section 4(b)(2) analysis.
We solicited comments on the proposed rule and the supporting Critical Habitat Report during a 60-day comment period (87 FR 62930, October 17, 2022). To facilitate public participation, the proposed rule was made available on our website and comments were accepted via both standard mail and through the Federal eRulemaking portal,
We received 18 comments; of these, 16 comments were generally supportive of the proposed rule. One comment opposed the proposed designation, but it provided no rationale or additional information to controvert our analysis or conclusions. Another comment was not relevant to the subject of Nassau grouper critical habitat and was likely submitted to the wrong comment docket. All public comments are posted on the Federal eRulemaking Portal (docket number: NOAA-NMFS-2022-0073). We reviewed and fully considered all relevant public comments and significant new information received in developing the final critical habitat designation. Where appropriate, we have combined similar comments from multiple commenters and addressed them together.
The peer-reviewed publication (Blincow
In the following sections, we describe the application of relevant definitions and requirements in the ESA and implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424 and the key information and criteria used to prepare this critical habitat designation. In accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the ESA, this critical habitat designation is based on the best scientific data available and takes into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Scientific data used to identify critical habitat includes the information contained in the Biological Report for the Nassau grouper (Hill and Sadovy de Mitcheson, 2013), the proposed and final rules to list the Nassau grouper under the ESA (79 FR 51929, September 2, 2014; 81 FR 42268, June 29, 2016), articles in peer-reviewed journals, other scientific reports and fishery management plans, and relevant Geographic Information System (GIS) data (
The phrase “geographical areas occupied by the species,” which appears in the statutory definition of critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(i)), is defined by regulation as “an area that may generally be delineated around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (
Nassau groupers are found in tropical and subtropical waters of the western North Atlantic. The 2016 listing rule identified the distribution or range of the Nassau grouper as “Bermuda and Florida (USA), throughout the Bahamas and Caribbean Sea” (81 FR 42268, 42271; June 29, 2016) based on existing literature (
We investigated the distribution of Nassau grouper in the Gulf of Mexico. As summarized in the 2016 listing rule, Nassau grouper is generally replaced ecologically in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, in areas north of Key West or the Tortugas, by red grouper (
The range of the Nassau grouper spans the wider Caribbean, and specifically the east coast of Florida including the Florida Keys, Puerto Rico, and USVI in the United States (Hill and Sadovy de Mitcheson, 2013). Because we cannot designate critical habitat areas outside of U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR 424.12(g)), the geographical area under consideration for this designation is limited to areas under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Within the geographical area occupied by the species, critical habitat consists of specific areas on which are found physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection (16 U.S.C. 1532(3). Features essential to the conservation of the species are defined as features that are essential to support the life-history needs of the species, including but not limited to, water characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey, vegetation, symbiotic species, or other
To assess habitat features that are “essential to the conservation” of Nassau grouper, we considered the physical and biological features that are essential to support the life history needs and are essential to the conservation of Nassau grouper within the areas they occupy within U.S. waters. As noted previously, section 3 of the ESA defines the terms “conserve,” “conserving,” and “conservation” to mean: “to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary” (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)).
Because the reduction in the number of Nassau grouper through historical harvest and fishing at spawning aggregations was a major factor in the listing determination (81 FR 42286, June 26, 2016), Nassau grouper conservation necessitates increasing the number of individuals, particularly the spawning population. Therefore, we have identified physical and biological features that support reproduction, recruitment, and growth as essential to the species' conservation. For the Nassau grouper, critical habitat includes physical and biological features to support adult reproduction at the spawning aggregations, settlement of larvae, and subsequent growth to maturity. These features are essential to the conservation of the species because long-term population recovery relies on successful recruitment and the existence of individuals across a broad size range. Nassau grouper populations are dependent on settlement of pelagic larvae to coastal locations and rely on a contiguous reef system to accommodate habitat shifts from inshore locations to nearshore patch reefs and hardbottom areas and subsequent movement into offshore reef habitats as the individuals mature. Both natural and artificial reefs are used. While in nursery habitats, juvenile grouper associate with a variety of microhabitats, including macroalgae, seagrass, empty conch shells, coral patches, sponges, rubble mounds produced by sand tilefish (
Within the habitats used by Nassau grouper as they progress through their life history stages, we have identified the following essential features, which remain unchanged from the proposed rule (87 FR 62930):
1.
a. Nearshore shallow subtidal marine nursery areas with substrate that consists of unconsolidated calcareous medium to very coarse sediments (>= 0.5 mm grain size, as per Wentworth 1922) and shell and coral fragments and may also include cobble, boulders, whole corals and shells, or rubble mounds, to support larval settlement and provide shelter from predators during growth and habitat for prey.
b. Intermediate hardbottom and seagrass areas in close proximity to the nearshore shallow subtidal marine nursery areas that provide refuge and prey resources for juvenile fish. The areas include seagrass interspersed with areas of rubble, boulders, shell fragments, or other forms of cover; inshore patch and fore reefs that provide crevices and holes; or substrates interspersed with scattered sponges, octocorals, rock and macroalgal patches, or stony corals.
c. Offshore linear and patch reefs in close proximity to intermediate hardbottom and seagrass areas that contain multiple benthic types; for example: coral reef, colonized hardbottom, sponge habitat, coral rubble, rocky outcrops, or ledges, to provide shelter from predation during maturation and habitat for prey.
d. Structures between the subtidal nearshore area and the intermediate hardbottom and seagrass area and the offshore reef area including overhangs, crevices, depressions, blowout ledges, holes, and other types of formations of varying sizes and complexity to support juveniles and adults as movement corridors that include temporary refuge that reduces predation risk as Nassau grouper move from nearshore to offshore habitats.
2.
Specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species at the time of listing may be designated as critical habitat only if they contain essential features that “may require special management considerations or protection” (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)(i)(II)). Special management considerations or protection are defined as any “methods or procedures useful in protecting the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of listed species” (50 CFR 424.02).
The essential feature components that support settlement, development, refuge, and foraging (essential feature 1, components a through d) are particularly susceptible to impacts from human activity because of the relatively shallow water depth range where these features occur as well as their proximity to the coast. As a result, these features may be impacted by activities such as coastal and in-water construction, dredging and disposal activities, beach nourishment, stormwater run-off, wastewater and sewage outflow discharges, point and non-point source pollutant discharges, and fishing activities. Coastal and in-water construction, dredging and disposal, and beach nourishment activities can directly remove the essential feature that supports settlement, development, refuge, and foraging by dredging or by depositing sediments, making habitat unavailable. These same activities can impact the essential feature by creating turbidity during operations. Stormwater
The spawning habitat essential feature (essential feature 2) is affected by activities that may make the sites unsuitable for reproductive activity, such as activities that inhibit fish movement to and from the sites or within the sites during the period the fish are expected to spawn or create conditions that deter the fish from selecting the site for reproduction. Pollution leading to significant declines in water quality may render spawning locations unusable or reduce adult or egg survival. Acoustic disturbances may also inhibit spawning activity due to the acoustic cues used by the animal during courtship and spawning behaviors. Further, because the spawning aggregation sites are so discrete and rare, and the species' reproduction depends on their use of these sites, the species is highly vulnerable at these locations and loss of an aggregation site could lead to significant population impacts.
Based on the above, we determined that the essential features may require special management considerations or protection.
To determine what areas qualify as critical habitat within the geographical area occupied by the species, we are required to identify “specific areas” within the geographical area occupied by the species that contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species (50 CFR 424.12(b)(1)(iii)). Delineation of the specific areas is done “at a scale determined by the Secretary [of Commerce] to be appropriate” (50 CFR 424.12(b)(1)). Our regulations also require that each critical habitat area be shown on a map with more-detailed information discussed in the preamble of the rulemaking documents in the
Available habitat and bathymetric data layers were examined with the help of databases from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) Unified Florida Reef Tract, the Nature Conservancy, and NOAA to determine the contiguous areas of appropriate habitat complexity that contain a combination of habitat characteristics relevant to the essential features supporting Nassau grouper development, refuge, and foraging. For example, we used information from the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science Benthic Habitat Mapping program that provides data and maps at
These resources provide maps and information on the location of habitat features important to Nassau grouper such as seagrass; unconsolidated calcareous sediment of medium to very coarse sediments (not fine sand) including shell and coral fragments interspersed with cobble, boulders, corals, and rubble mounds; continuous and discontinuous areas of seagrass and inshore patch and fore reefs; coral reef; and colonized hardbottom. Areas of these habitat types that were not sufficiently close to satisfy the need for contiguous habitat that could support nearshore to offshore movement of the species from larva to adult were excluded. Species presence or absence was also used to inform the decision making. Expert opinion was important to identifying areas that contain the feature. These experts included a NMFS regional GIS lead, a NMFS Nassau Grouper Recovery Coordinator with 30 years of protected species and Nassau grouper conservation research experience, and other Nassau grouper researchers. NMFS staff jointly reviewed all data prior to delineating proposed units, consulting with these experts.
To map these specific areas we reviewed available species occurrence, bathymetric, substrate, and water quality data. The highest resolution bathymetric data available were used for each geographic location. For areas in Florida and the FGBNMS, we used contours created from National Ocean Service Hydrographic Survey Data, NOAA ENCDirect bathymetric point data, National Park Service (NPS) data, and NOAA's Coastal Relief Model. For areas in Puerto Rico, we used contours derived from the National Geophysical Data Center's (NGDC) 2005 U.S. Coastal Relief Model. For areas in USVI, we used contours derived from NOAA's 2004-2015 Bathymetric Compilation. For areas in Navassa, we used contours derived from NOAA's NGDC 2006 bathymetric data. These bathymetric data were used with other geographic or management boundaries to draw the boundaries of each specific area on the maps in the critical habitat designation. Twenty specific areas, or units, were delineated based on these data, and are described later in this document (see
Within the geographical and depth ranges of the species, certain areas contain the appropriate substrates but, due to their consistently disturbed nature, do not provide the quality of substrate, structure, and often water quality, essential for the conservation of the threatened Nassau grouper. These disturbances are caused by human activities, such as dredging. While these areas may provide substrate for recruitment and growth, the periodic nature of direct human disturbance renders them unsuitable habitat to promote recruitment and growth. In some of these areas, the substrate has been persistently disturbed by planned management activities authorized by local, state, or Federal governmental entities at the time of critical habitat designation. For the purpose of this rule, we refer to the areas disturbed by planned management activities as “managed areas.” We expect that these areas will continue to be periodically disturbed by such planned management activities. Examples include dredged navigation channels, vessel berths, and
NMFS is aware that dredging may result in sedimentation impacts beyond the actual dredge channel. To the extent that these impacts are persistent, are expected to recur whenever the channel is dredged, and are of such a level that the areas in question have already been made unsuitable, we consider such areas to be included as part of the managed area and therefore are not designated as critical habitat.
GIS data of the locations of some managed areas were available and extracted from the maps of the specific areas considered for critical habitat designation. These data were not available for every managed area. Regardless of whether the managed area is extracted from the maps depicting the specific areas designated as critical habitat, no managed areas as defined above are part of the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species that contain the essential feature related to recruitment and development habitat (essential feature 1).
Spawning site locations were identified and mapped based on a review of relevant literature, including existing maps used in Caribbean Fishery Management Council management measures, codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and confirmation with species experts to determine the areas relevant to the Nassau grouper spawning habitat essential feature (essential feature 2). The identified marine sites used for spawning and adjacent waters that support movement and staging associated with spawning are: Bajo de Sico (waters encompassed by 100 m isobath bounded in the Bajo de Sico spawning area off the west coast of Puerto Rico); Grammanik Bank and Hind Bank (waters which make up the Grammanik Bank and the Hind Bank, interconnecting waters between these banks, and waters extending out to 366 m directly south from Grammanik Bank, located south of St. Croix); and Riley's Hump (waters encompassing Riley's Hump located southwest of the Dry Tortugas out to the 35 m isobath on the north, west, and east side of the hump and out to the 50 m isobath on the south side of the hump). The species has been known to spawn in the waters of the Grammanik Bank and to use the nearby Hind Bank for staging and movement to and from the spawning area. In addition, continuous monitoring at Riley's Hump, Florida by FWC indicates that Nassau grouper aggregate at the site during winter months and display typical spawning behaviors.
ESA section 3(5)(A)(ii) defines critical habitat to include specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing if the areas are determined by the Secretary to be essential for the conservation of the species. An area must logically be “habitat” in order for that area to meet the narrower category of “critical habitat” as defined in the ESA.
While the most serious threats to Nassau grouper are historical overutilization, fishing at spawning aggregations, and inadequate law enforcement (81 FR 42268, 42280-81, June 29, 2016), loss of the habitats used by groupers during various life stages can influence their distribution, abundance, and survival. For example, alterations or destruction of nearshore nursery areas and degradation of hardbottom habitat can affect Nassau grouper's ability to grow and survive. The designated critical habitat will help conservation of spawning areas within U.S. jurisdiction. The critical habitat identified in this final rule identifies key habitat necessary for promoting the recruitment, refuge, forage, and spawning habitat necessary for the conservation of the species. Based on our current understanding of the species' life history, status, and conservation needs, we have not identified any specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species that are essential for its conservation. The protection of the specific areas identified in this final rule from destruction and adverse modification stemming from federal actions will help support the species' habitat-based conservation needs.
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA prohibits designating as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department of Defense (DoD), or designated for its use, that are subject to an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is designated. Pursuant to our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(h), we consider the following when determining whether such a benefit is provided:
(1) The extent of the area and features present;
(2) The type and frequency of use of the area by the species;
(3) The relevant elements of the INRMP in terms of management objectives, activities covered, and best management practices, and the certainty that the relevant elements will be implemented; and
(4) The degree to which the relevant elements of the INRMP will protect the habitat from the types of effects that would be addressed through a destruction-or-adverse-modification analysis.
NASKW is the only installation controlled by the DoD, specifically the Department of the Navy (Navy) that coincides with any of the areas under consideration for critical habitat. On July 14, 2022, the Navy requested in writing that the areas covered by the 2020 INRMP for NASKW not be designated as critical habitat, pursuant to ESA section 4(a)(3)(B)(i).
The NASKW INRMP covers the lands and waters (generally out to 50 yards (45.7 m)) adjacent to NASKW, including several designated restricted areas. The total area of the waters covered by the INRMP that overlaps with areas identified as critical habitat is approximately 800 acres (3.2 sq km). Within this area, the species and the recruitment and developmental habitat essential feature are present, specifically young juvenile fish and nearshore shallow subtidal marine nursery and intermediate hardbottom and seagrass areas in close proximity to the nearshore shallow subtidal marine nursery areas. As detailed in the INRMP, the plan provides benefits to the threatened Nassau grouper and areas included in the designated critical habitat through the following NASKW broad programs and activities: wetlands management,
Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires that we consider the economic impact, impact on national security, and any other relevant impact of designating any particular area as critical habitat. Additionally, the Secretary has the discretion to exclude any area from critical habitat if the Secretary determines the benefits of exclusion (that is, avoiding some or all of the impacts that would result from designation) outweigh the benefits of designation. The Secretary may not exclude an area from designation if the Secretary determines, based upon the best scientific and commercial data available, exclusion will result in the extinction of the species. Because the authority to exclude is discretionary, exclusion is not required for any particular area under any circumstances.
The ESA provides the Secretary broad discretion in how to consider impacts. (See H.R. Rep. No. 95-1625, at 17, reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 9453, 9467 (1978)). Regulations at 50 CFR 424.19(b) specify that the Secretary will consider the probable impacts of the designation at a scale that the Secretary determines to be appropriate and that such impacts may be qualitatively or quantitatively described. The Secretary is also required to compare impacts with and without the designation (50 CFR 424.19(b)). In other words, we are required to assess the incremental impacts attributable to the critical habitat designation relative to a baseline that reflects existing regulatory impacts in the absence of the critical habitat. The consideration and weight given to any particular impact is determined by the Secretary, and the ESA does not contain requirements for any particular methods or approaches. See,
The following discussion of impacts is summarized from our Critical Habitat Report, which identifies the economic, national security, and other relevant impacts that we project would result from designating each of the specific areas as critical habitat. We considered these impacts when deciding whether to exercise our discretion to exclude particular areas from designation. Both positive and negative impacts were identified and considered (these terms are used interchangeably with benefits and costs, respectively). Impacts were evaluated in quantitative terms where feasible, but qualitative appraisals were used where that is more appropriate to particular impacts.
The primary impacts of a critical habitat designation result from the ESA section 7(a)(2) requirement that Federal agencies ensure their actions are not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat and that they consult with NMFS in fulfilling this requirement. Determining these impacts is complicated by the fact that section 7(a)(2) also requires that Federal agencies ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the species' continued existence. One incremental impact of designation is the extent to which Federal agencies modify their proposed actions to ensure they are not likely to destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat beyond any modifications the agencies would make because of listing and the requirement to avoid jeopardy to the listed Nassau grouper. When the same modification would be required due to impacts to both the species and critical habitat, there would be no additional or incremental impact attributable to the critical habitat designation beyond the administrative impact associated with conducting the critical habitat analysis.
Relevant, existing regulatory protections are referred to as the “baseline” for the analysis and are discussed in the Critical Habitat Report. In this case, notable baseline protections include the ESA listing of the species (81 FR 42268, June 29, 2016), and other species listings and critical habitat designations (
The Critical Habitat Report describes the projected future Federal activities that would trigger ESA section 7 consultation requirements if they are implemented in the future because the activities may affect the essential features. These activities and the ESA consultation consequently may result in economic costs or negative impacts. The report also identifies the potential national security and other relevant impacts that may arise due to the critical habitat designation, such as positive impacts that may arise from conservation of the species and its habitat, state and local protections that may be triggered as a result of designation, and educating the public about the importance of an area for species conservation.
Economic impacts of the critical habitat designations primarily occur through implementation of section 7 of the ESA in consultations with Federal agencies to ensure their proposed actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. The economic impacts of consultation may include both administrative and project modification costs; economic impacts that may be associated with the conservation benefits resulting from designation are described later.
To identify the types and geographic distribution of activities that may trigger section 7 consultation on Nassau grouper critical habitat, we first reviewed the NMFS Southeast Region's
• Activities consulted on in the areas being designated as critical habitat for the Nassau grouper and
• Activities that take place outside of the designated critical habitat but whose effects extend into the critical habitat and are therefore subject to consultation.
In addition, we conducted outreach to relevant agencies to identify future activities that may affect Nassau grouper critical habitat that may not have been captured by relying on the section 7 consultation history. Through this outreach, we did not identify any additional activities that may affect Nassau grouper critical habitat. Agencies included the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Air Force, the Department of the Navy, and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). We reviewed the USACE's Jacksonville District permit application database to identify all permit applications for projects located within the designated critical habitat area, including more recent consultation information provided by these or other agencies prior to the publication of this final rule. We determined all categories of the activities identified have potential routes of effects to both the threatened Nassau grouper and the designated Nassau grouper critical habitat, or to other species or designated critical habitat. We did not identify and we do not anticipate Federal actions that have the potential to affect only the Nassau grouper critical habitat.
We identified the following eight categories of activities implemented by seven different Federal entities as having the potential to affect the essential features of the Nassau grouper critical habitat:
• Coastal and in-water construction (
• Derelict Vessel and Marine Debris Removal (USCG, NOAA);
• Scientific Research and Monitoring (NOAA);
• Water quality management (revision of state water quality standards, issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and Total Maximum daily load (TMDL) standards under the Clean Water Act and ecological risk assessments associated with pesticide registrations under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act) authorized by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
• Protected area management (development of management plans for national parks, marine sanctuaries, wildlife refuges,
• Fishery management (development of fishery management plans under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act) conducted or approved by NMFS;
• Aquaculture (development of aquaculture facilities) authorized by EPA and USACE, and funded by NMFS; and
• Military activities (
Additionally, we considered the potential for oil and gas and renewable energy development activities to damage the critical habitat through various pathways in the Critical Habitat Report. These pathways include, but are not limited to, physical damage to coral reefs and colonized hardbottom by oil and gas platforms and ships and reduced water quality resulting from increased sedimentation and turbidity generated by oil and gas and renewable energy exploration and development activities. We considered potential effects of oil spills and USCG-led cleanup activities on the critical habitat in the section more broadly discussing derelict vessel and marine debris removal.
There are no active oil and gas leases within the Straits of Florida Planning Area, where the Florida units are located, and the area is excluded from consideration for leasing for purposes of exploration, development, or production through June 30, 2032. In addition, neither Puerto Rico nor the USVI has any crude oil production, refining, or proved reserves.
BOEM currently has no active offshore renewable energy leases in Florida, and the section 7 consultation record revealed no historical consultations related to renewable energy projects in Puerto Rico or the USVI. While the current Administration has announced a goal to deploy 17 gigawatts of offshore wind in the U.S. OCS by 2030, no potential lease sites are located offshore of Florida's Atlantic coast. A 2022 study published by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory found that wind has the potential to lower the cost of energy in Puerto Rico. However, the study excluded from consideration offshore wind energy development in potential use conflict areas, including the majority of waters comprising Nassau grouper critical habitat units around Puerto Rico. In addition, the timing of development of offshore wind energy projects in state and federal waters off of Puerto Rico is uncertain, and no specific offshore wind energy projects or sites have been identified for development. We therefore determined that no oil and gas or renewable energy activity within or affecting Nassau grouper critical habitat is anticipated over the next ten years.
Also, given the nearly complete overlap between Nassau grouper critical habitat and existing critical habitat for acropora and 5 Caribbean corals,*
* The exceptions are the Bajo de Sico spawning site unit and a portion of the Grammanik Bank/Hind Bank spawning site in the U.S. Caribbean, and Biscayne Bay in Florida.
Future consultations were projected based on the frequency and distribution of section 7 consultations conducted from 2011 to 2021, review of USACE permit applications over the same time frame, and outreach to Federal stakeholders. In the absence of other relevant information regarding future federal activities, we consider it a reasonable assumption that the breakdown of past consultations by type (into informal, formal, and programmatic consultations) and activity category (
As discussed in more detail in section 10 of the Critical Habitat Report, all categories of activities identified as having the potential to affect the essential features also have the potential
The effort required to address adverse effects to the proposed critical habitat is assumed to be the same, on average, across categories of activities. Informal consultations are expected to require comparatively low levels of administrative effort, while formal and programmatic consultations are expected to require comparatively higher levels of administrative effort. For all formal and informal consultations, we anticipate that incremental administrative costs will be incurred by NMFS, the consulting Federal action agencies, and, potentially, third parties. For programmatic consultations, we anticipate that costs will be incurred by NMFS and the consulting Federal action agencies. Incremental administrative costs per consultation effort are expected on average to be $13,000 for programmatic, $6,400 for formal consultations, and $3,100 for informal consultations (NMFS, 2023).
We estimate the incremental administrative costs of section 7 consultation by applying these per consultation costs to the forecasted number of consultations. We anticipate that there will be approximately 11 programmatic consultations, 11 formal consultations, and 114 informal consultations that will require incremental administrative effort. Incremental costs are expected to total approximately $440,000 over the next 10 years (discounted at 7 percent), at an annualized cost of $62,000. We conservatively assume that there will be approximately eight re-initiations of existing consultations to address effects to Nassau grouper critical habitat. We anticipate the re-initiations to be on consultations related to fishery management, military, construction, and scientific research and monitoring activities.
In summary, significant baseline protections exist in the areas proposed for the Nassau grouper critical habitat. The incremental impacts for the
Impacts to national security could occur if a designation triggers future ESA section 7 consultations because a proposed military activity “may affect” the physical or biological feature(s) essential to the listed species' conservation. Interference with mission-essential training or testing or unit readiness could result if the DoD or USCG were required to modify or delay their actions to prevent adverse modification of critical habitat or implement Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives. Whether national security impacts result from the designation also depends on whether future consultations and associated project modifications and/or implementation of Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions would otherwise be required due to potential effects to Nassau grouper or other ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat, regardless of the Nassau grouper critical habitat designation.
As described previously, we identified DoD military operations as a category of activity that has the potential to affect the essential features of the designated critical habitat. However, for the actions that may affect Nassau grouper critical habitat, designating critical habitat for Nassau grouper would not result in incremental impacts beyond administrative costs because the consultations would otherwise be required to address effects to either the Nassau grouper or other listed species or the substrate feature of designated critical habitat for corals. In 2022, we requested descriptions and locations of any geographical areas owned or controlled by the DoD or the USCG that may overlap with the areas under consideration for critical habitat that they would like considered for exclusion due to impacts to national security. The USCG responded that maintenance and replacement of fixed Aids to Navigation (AToNs) may affect the proposed habitat by generating sedimentation of the seafloor surrounding piling or other foundations. USCG further indicated that use of floating AToNs may result in removal of the essential feature related to development, refuge, and foraging through chain scouring and placement of the sinker. However, USCG already implements measures to mitigate the impacts of AToN operations to corals, hardbottom, and seagrass, per the programmatic biological opinion on USCG's AToN program (NMFS, 2023). NMFS developed a conference opinion for USCG's ATON program (NMFS, 2023) that considered proposed Nassau grouper critical habitat. NMFS anticipates adopting that conference opinion as the biological opinion once this rule is finalized. As part of that process, NMFS will consider whether and how changes in the final rule affect the determination in the conference opinion; however, NMFS does not anticipate USCG ATON actions in the additional areas designated in this final rule will result in destruction or adverse modification of Nassau grouper critical habitat in the action areas.
The Navy requested that NMFS exclude areas around Naval Air Station Key West from the critical habitat designation under ESA section 4(b)(2). However, the Navy's concerns have been addressed through the previously described INRMP exclusion. No areas managed by other DoD branches were identified as potentially of concern.
We identified three broad categories of other relevant impacts of this critical habitat designation: Conservation benefits, both to the species and to the ecosystem; impacts on governmental or private entities that are implementing existing management plans that provide benefits to the listed species; and educational and awareness benefits. Our Impacts Analysis discusses conservation benefits of designating the areas, and the benefits of conserving the species to society.
The primary benefit of critical habitat designation is the contribution to conservation and recovery. That is, in protecting the features essential to the conservation of the species, critical habitat directly contributes to the conservation and recovery of the species. This analysis contemplates two broad categories of conservation benefits of critical habitat designation:
(1) Increased probability of conservation and recovery of the species, and
(2) Ecosystem service benefits.
The most direct benefits of the critical habitat designations stem from the enhanced probability of conservation and recovery of the species. From an economic perspective, the appropriate measure of the value of this benefit is people's “willingness-to-pay” for the incremental change. While the existing economics literature is insufficient to provide a quantitative estimate of the extent to which people value incremental changes in recovery potential, the literature does provide evidence that people have a positive preference for listed species conservation, even beyond any direct (
In addition, designating critical habitat can benefit the ecosystem. Overall, coral reef and benthic ecosystems, including those comprising Nassau grouper critical habitat, provide important ecosystem services of value to individuals, communities, and economies. These include recreational opportunities (and associated tourism spending in the regional economy), habitat and nursery functions for recreationally and commercially valuable fish species, shoreline protection in the form of wave attenuation and reduced beach erosion, and climate stabilization via carbon sequestration. Critical habitat most directly influences the recovery potential of the species and protects ecosystem services through its implementation under section 7 of the ESA. Our analysis finds that the final rule is not anticipated to result in incremental project modifications. However, the inclusion of reefs and seagrasses as subcomponents of an essential feature of Nassau grouper critical habitat could increase awareness of the importance of these habitat features, which in turn could lead to additional conservation efforts.
In addition, critical habitat designation may generate ancillary environmental improvements and associated ecosystem service benefits (
Among other relevant impacts of the critical habitat designations that we considered under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA are impacts on the efforts of private and public entities involved in management or conservation efforts benefiting listed species. In cases where there is a federal nexus (
The critical habitat designation could potentially have benefits associated with education and awareness. The potential for such benefits stems from three sources: (1) entities that engage in section 7 consultation, including Federal action agencies and, in some cases, third party applicants; (2) members of the general public interested in conservation; and (3) state and local governments that take action to complement the critical habitat designation. Certain entities, such as applicants for particular permits, may alter their activities to benefit the essential features of the critical habitat because they were made aware of the critical habitat designation through the section 7 consultation process. Similarly, Federal action agencies that undertake activities that affect the critical habitat may alter their activities to benefit the critical habitat. Members of the public interested in conservation also may adjust their behavior to benefit critical habitat because they learned of the critical habitat designation through outreach materials or the regulatory process. In our experience, designation raises the public's awareness that there are special considerations to be taken within the area identified as critical habitat. Similarly, state and local governments may be prompted to enact laws or rules to complement the critical habitat designations and benefit the listed species. Those laws would likely result in additional impacts of the designations. However, it is not possible to quantify the beneficial effects of the awareness gained through, or the impacts from state and local regulations resulting from, the critical habitat designation.
We are not exercising our discretion to exclude any particular areas from designation based on economic, national security, and other relevant impacts. There are significant baseline protections that exist in the areas we are designating as the Nassau grouper critical habitat, and as a result, the incremental impacts of the designation are low and reflect the incremental administrative effort required for section 7 consultations to consider the critical habitat. Taking into consideration several assumptions and uncertainties, the total projected incremental costs are approximately $440,000 over the next 10 years ($62,000 annualized), applying a discount rate of 7 percent. Further, the analysis indicates that there is no particular area within the designated critical habitat units where these costs would be highly concentrated. Moreover, we anticipate that no particular industry would be disproportionately impacted. We are not excluding any areas on the basis of national security impacts as no national security concerns exist related to the critical habitat designation. We are not excluding any particular area based on other relevant impacts. Other relevant impacts include conservation benefits of the designation, both to the species and to the ecosystem. We expect that designation of critical habitat will support conservation and recovery of the species. Future section 7 consultations on some of the activities that may affect Nassau grouper will also consider effects to the critical habitat. While we do not expect these consultations to result in additional conservation measures, the additional consideration of effects to the critical habitat will increase overall awareness of the importance of Nassau grouper and its habitat. For these reasons, we are not excluding any areas as a result of these other relevant impacts.
Our critical habitat regulations state that we will show critical habitat on a map with more detailed information discussed in the preamble of the critical habitat rulemaking and made available from NMFS (50 CFR 424.12(c)). When several habitats, each satisfying the requirements for designation as critical habitat, are located in proximity to one another, an inclusive area may be designated as critical habitat (50 CFR 424.12(d)). The habitat containing the essential features and that may require special management considerations or protection is marine habitat of particular benthic composition and structure in the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea. The boundaries of each specific area were determined by the presence of the essential features and Nassau grouper, as described earlier within this document. Because the quality of the available GIS data varies based on collection method, resolution, and processing, the critical habitat boundaries are defined by the maps in combination with the textual information included in the regulation. This textual information clarifies and refines the location and boundaries of each specific area.
Based on the available data, we identified specific areas that contain the essential features. The specific areas or “units” can generally be grouped as the: Navassa Island unit, Puerto Rico units, USVI units, Florida units, and spawning units. The units and their general location are listed here (refer to the maps and regulation text for more details).
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal agencies, including NMFS, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Federal agencies are also required to confer with NMFS regarding any actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species for listing under the ESA, or likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, pursuant to section 7(a)(4).
A conference involves informal discussions in which NMFS may recommend conservation measures to minimize or avoid adverse effects (50 CFR 402.02). The discussions and conservation recommendations are documented in a conference report provided to the Federal agency (50 CFR 402.10(e)). If requested by the Federal agency and deemed appropriate by NMFS, the conference may be conducted following the procedures for formal consultation in 50 CFR 402.14, and NMFS may issue an opinion at the conclusion of the conference. This opinion may be adopted as the biological opinion when the species is listed or critical habitat designated if no significant new information or changes to the action alter the content of the opinion (50 CFR 402.10(d)).
When a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, Federal agencies must consult with NMFS on any agency actions that may affect a listed species or its critical habitat. During the consultation, we evaluate the agency action to determine whether the action may adversely affect listed species or critical habitat and issue our findings in a letter of concurrence or in a biological opinion. If we conclude in the biological opinion that the action would likely result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, we would also identify any reasonable and prudent alternatives to the action. Reasonable and prudent alternatives are defined in 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during formal consultation that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action, that can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and technologically feasible, and that we believe would avoid the likelihood of destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies that have retained discretionary involvement or control over an action, or where such discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law, to reinitiate consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where:
(1) Critical habitat is subsequently designated that may be affected by the identified action; or
(2) New information or changes to the action may result in effects to critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered.
Consequently, some Federal agencies may request re-initiation of consultation or conference with NMFS on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect designated critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy proposed critical habitat.
Activities subject to the ESA section 7 consultation process are those activities authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal action agencies, whether on Federal, state, or private lands or waters. ESA section 7 consultation would not be required for Federal actions that do not affect listed species or critical habitat and for actions that are not federally funded, authorized, or carried out.
Section 4(b)(8) of the ESA requires that we describe briefly and evaluate in any proposed or final regulation to designate critical habitat those activities, whether public or private, that may adversely modify such habitat or that may be affected by such designation. As described in our Critical Habitat Report, a wide variety of Federal activities may require ESA section 7 consultation because they may affect the essential features of Nassau grouper critical habitat. Specific future activities will need to be evaluated with respect to their potential to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, in addition to their potential to affect and jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. For example, activities may adversely modify the substrate portion of the development essential feature by removing or altering the substrate. These activities, whether public or private, would require ESA section 7
Questions regarding whether specific activities may constitute destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat should be directed to us (see
Identifying the extent or severity of an impact on the essential features at which the conservation value of habitat for the listed species may be affected is inherently complex. Consequently, the actual responses of the critical habitat to effects to the essential features resulting from future Federal actions will be case and site-specific, and predicting such responses will require case and site-specific data and analyses.
The data and analyses supporting this action have undergone a pre-dissemination review and have been determined to be in compliance with applicable information quality guidelines implementing the Information Quality Act (Section 515 of Pub. L. 106-554). On December 16, 2004, OMB issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (Bulletin). The Bulletin was published in the
The information in the Critical Habitat Report supporting this final critical habitat rule is considered influential scientific information and subject to peer review. To satisfy our requirements under the OMB Bulletin, we obtained independent peer review of the information used to draft this report and incorporated the peer review comments into the draft Critical Habitat Report prior to dissemination of the Final Critical Habitat Report and completion of this rule. Comments received from peer reviewers are available on our website at
Under E.O. 12630, Federal agencies must consider the effects of their actions on constitutionally protected private property rights and avoid unnecessary takings of private property. A taking of property includes actions that result in physical invasion or occupancy of private property and regulations imposed on private property that substantially affect its value or use. In accordance with E.O. 12630, this final rule would not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required. These designations would affect only Federal agency actions (
This rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of E.O. 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. Executive Order 14094, which amends E.O. 12866 and reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 and E.O 13563, states that regulatory analysis should facilitate agency efforts to develop regulations that serve the public interest, advance statutory objectives, and be consistent with E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, and the Presidential Memorandum of January 20, 2021 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Regulatory analysis, as practicable and appropriate, shall recognize distributive impacts and equity, to the extent permitted by law. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Based on the economic impacts evaluation in the Critical Habitat Report, total incremental costs resulting from the critical habitat are approximately $440,000 over the next 10 years ($62,000 annualized), applying a discount rate of 7 percent. These total impacts include the additional administrative efforts necessary to consider critical habitat in section 7 consultations. Overall, economic impacts are expected to be small and to be largely associated with the administrative costs borne by Federal agencies.
Pursuant to the Executive Order on Federalism, E.O. 13132, we determined that this final rule does not have significant federalism effects and that a federalism assessment is not required. The designation of critical habitat directly affects only the responsibilities of Federal agencies. As a result, this rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States or territories, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in E.O. 13132. State or local governments may be indirectly affected by this critical habitat designation if they require Federal funds or formal approval or authorization from a Federal agency as a prerequisite to conducting an action. In these cases, the State or local government agency may participate in the ESA section 7
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking an action expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation that is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. OMB Guidance on Implementing E.O. 13211 (July 13, 2001) states that significant adverse effects could include any of the following outcomes compared to a world without the regulatory action under consideration: (1) reductions in crude oil supply in excess of 10,000 barrels per day; (2) reductions in fuel production in excess of 4,000 barrels per day; (3) reductions in coal production in excess of 5 million tons per year; (4) reductions in natural gas production in excess of 25 million cubic feet per year; (5) reductions in electricity production in excess of 1 billion kilowatt-hours per year or in excess of 500 megawatts of installed capacity; (6) increases in energy use required by the regulatory action that exceed any of the thresholds above; (7) increases in the cost of energy production in excess of 1 percent; (8) increases in the cost of energy distribution in excess of 1 percent; or (9) other similarly adverse outcomes. A regulatory action could also have significant adverse effects if it: (1) adversely affects in a material way the productivity, competition, or prices in the energy sector; (2) adversely affects in a material way productivity, competition or prices within a region; (3) creates a serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with an action taken or planned by another agency regarding energy; or (4) raises novel legal or policy issues adversely affecting the supply, distribution or use of energy arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in E.O. 12866 and 13211.
As discussed above and in the Critical Habitat Report, the critical habitat designations are not expected to affect oil and gas or renewable energy production. Therefore, this rule will not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, we have not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
We prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) pursuant to section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
Our FRFA uses the best available information to identify the potential impacts of designating critical habitat on small entities. However, a number of uncertainties complicate quantification of these impacts. These include (1) the fact that the manner in which these potential impacts will be allocated between large and small entities is unknown; and (2) uncertainty regarding the potential effects of critical habitat designation, which requires some categories of potential impacts be described qualitatively. Absent specific knowledge regarding which small entities may be involved in consultations with NMFS over the next 10 years, this analysis relies on industry- and location-specific information on small businesses with North American Industry Classification System codes that were identified as relevant to the major activity categories considered in the economic analysis and which operate within counties or territories that share a coastline with the critical habitat. Activities considered in the economic analysis and the FRFA include in-water and coastal construction, water quality management, protected area management, fishery management, aquaculture, military, scientific research and monitoring, and derelict vessel and marine debris removal. Based on the relevant consultation history and forecast of future activities that may affect the determined critical habitat, only in-water and coastal construction activities are anticipated to involve third parties that qualify as small entities. Given the uncertainty regarding the proportion of consultations on construction activities that will involve third parties, the analysis conservatively assumes that all future consultations on these activities will involve third parties and that all of these third parties will be small entities. All of the counties and territories that share a coastline with the designated critical habitat have populations of more than 50,000, so no impacts to small governmental jurisdictions are expected as a result of the critical habitat designation.
The maximum total annualized impacts to small entities are estimated to be $4,221, which represents approximately 7 percent of the total quantified incremental impacts forecasted to result from the final rule. This estimate reflects incremental administrative costs, such as written and verbal communication with NMFS and other Federal action agencies, at a rate of $100/hour and ranging from approximately 1.5 hours providing technical assistance to approximately 10.25 hours engaging in formal consultation (see Exhibit C.1 and accompanying text, Summary of Estimated Impacts to Small Entities by Activity Type, in Appendix C of the Critical Habitat Report,
Given the uncertainty regarding which small entities in a given industry will need to consult with NMFS, the analysis estimates impacts to small entities under two different scenarios. These scenarios are intended to reflect the range of uncertainty regarding the number of small entities that may be affected by the designation and the potential impacts of critical habitat designation on their annual revenues. Under both scenarios, the FRFA assumes that entities conducting in-water and coastal construction activities in the Florida units are limited to those entities located in Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, entities conducting in-water and coastal construction activities in the Puerto Rico units are limited to those entities located in Puerto Rico, and entities conducting in-water and coastal construction activities in the USVI units are limited to those entities located in the USVI. Estimated annualized impacts for both scenarios are calculated by multiplying the forecasted number of annual consultations involving third parties by the administrative costs per
Under Scenario 1, the analysis assumes that all third parties involved in future consultations are small and that incremental impacts are distributed evenly across all of these entities. For the Florida units, where we estimate approximately 400 small entities participate in the in-water and coastal construction industry (see Exhibit B-1 in Appendix B of the Critical Habitat Report,
Under Scenario 2, the analysis assumes that all third parties participating in future consultations are small and that costs associated with each consultation action are borne each year by a single small entity within an industry. This method likely understates the number of small entities affected and overstates the likely impacts on an entity for the Florida units. As such, this method arrives at a low estimate of potentially affected entities in Florida units and a high estimate of potential effects on revenue, assuming that quantified costs represent a complete accounting of the costs likely to be borne by private entities. Under Scenario 2, $3,379 in annualized impacts would be borne by a single small entity in Florida. We maintain the assumption in Scenario 1 that 0.8 small entities per year bear the third party costs of consultation in Puerto Rico and 0.8 small entities per year bear the third party costs of consultation in USVI. This assumption reflects our forecast of eight consultations on construction projects over 10 years in both Puerto Rico and USVI. This scenario forecasts that annualized impacts to single entities in both Puerto Rico and USVI would be $513 and $549, respectively. Though this scenario almost certainly overstates the costs borne by a single small entity in Florida, the impact is nonetheless expected to represent less than 1 percent of the average annual revenues for the single entity. Impacts to single small entities in Puerto Rico and USVI are also anticipated to be less than 1 percent of average annual revenues. As with Scenario 1, this percentage would be higher for a small entity with annual revenues lower than the average of annual revenues of all potentially impacted small entities, and lower for a small entity with annual revenues higher than the average of annual revenues of all potentially impacted small entities.
While these scenarios present a range of potentially affected entities and the associated revenue effects in Florida, our analysis demonstrates that the greatest potential revenue effect is less than 1 percent across scenarios and jurisdictions. Moreover, although we cannot definitively determine the numbers of small and large entities that may be affected by this final rule, there is no indication that affected project applicants would be only small entities or mostly small entities. It is unclear whether small entities would be placed at a competitive disadvantage compared to large entities.
No Federal laws or regulations duplicate or conflict with this final rule. However, other aspects of the ESA may overlap with the critical habitat designations. For instance, listing of the Nassau grouper under the ESA requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS to ensure against jeopardy to the species. Overlap of the presence of other ESA-listed species, including listed corals, and coral critical habitat with the areas designated as critical habitat protects the essential features of the critical habitat to the extent that projects or activities that may adversely affect the critical habitat also pose a threat to the listed species or to coral critical habitat. Several fishery management plans, developed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, serve to prevent overfishing of Nassau grouper prey and promote the spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth to maturity of reef fish such as the Nassau grouper. Overlap of the final Nassau grouper critical habitat with several Federal protected areas affords the critical habitat extensive protections against potentially damaging activities. Some of these consultations on activities associated with these protections will need to be reviewed to consider potential effects to Nassau grouper critical habitat.
The RFA requires consideration of alternatives to the final rule that would minimize significant economic impacts to small entities. We considered the following alternatives when developing the final critical habitat rule.
Under this status quo alternative, we would not designate critical habitat for
Under this alternative, the areas designated are waters from the shoreline to depths ranging from 2 m to 30 m in seven units in Florida, six units in Puerto Rico, three units in USVI, and one unit at Navassa Island; and in deeper, offshore waters up to 200 fathoms (366 m) deep off the Riley's Hump, Bajo de Sico, Grammanik, and Hind Banks spawning sites. An analysis of the costs and benefits of the preferred alternative designation is presented in Section 10.1 of the Critical Habitat Report. Relative to the no action alternative, this alternative will likely result in an increase in administrative costs of section 7 consultations that would already occur absent designation. We have determined that no categories of activities would require consultation, and no project modifications would be required, in the future solely due to this rule and the need to prevent adverse modification of the designated critical habitat. However, due to the protections afforded the essential features of the designated critical habitat under this alternative, it is likely that consultations on future Federal actions within those categories of activities will require additional administrative effort to address specific impacts to Nassau grouper critical habitat. This additional administrative effort would be an incremental impact of this rule. Consultation costs associated with those projects with larger or more diffuse action areas,
The preferred alternative was selected because it best implements the critical habitat provisions of the ESA by including the well-defined environmental features that we can clearly state are essential to the species' conservation, and because this alternative would reduce the economic impacts on entities relative to an alternative that encompasses a larger geographical area (see Alternative 3). Also, as noted above, Alternative 1, would fail to meet statutory requirements for designation of critical habitat; and, as described below, Alternative 3, would not adequately reflect the best available science and our consideration of economic impacts.
We considered a third alternative that would have delineated the designation for all nearshore units containing the development, refuge, and foraging essential feature based a single depth contour of 30 m. We evaluated this alternative based on our experience with the 2008
In the final rule, we selected Alternative 2 because it provides for the conservation of the species while reducing the economic, national security, and other relevant impacts on affected entities.
We have determined that this action will have no reasonably foreseeable effects on the enforceable policies of approved coastal zone management plans in Florida, Puerto Rico, and USVI.
This rule does not contain any new or revised collection of information requirements. This rule will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. Therefore, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply.
This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally-binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. The only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7 of the ESA. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, permits or otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, but the Federal agency has the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. We do not anticipate that this rule will significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, a Small Government Action Plan is not required.
The longstanding and distinctive relationship between the Federal and tribal governments is defined by treaties, statutes, executive orders, judicial decisions, and agreements, which differentiate tribal governments from the other entities that deal with, or are affected by, the Federal government.
This relationship has given rise to a special Federal trust responsibility involving the legal responsibilities and obligations of the United States toward Indian Tribes and with respect to Indian lands, tribal trust resources, and the exercise of tribal rights. Pursuant to these authorities, lands have been
In developing this rule, we reviewed maps and did not identify any areas designated as critical habitat that overlap with tribal lands, nor do we anticipate impacts on tribal fisheries as a result of these critical habitat designations. Based on this, we found the critical habitat designations for Nassau grouper do not have tribal implications.
The designation of critical habitat is not expected to have a disproportionately high effect on minority populations or low-income populations. The purpose of this rule is to protect and conserve ESA-listed species through the designation of critical habitat and is expected to help promote a healthy environment; thus, we do not anticipate minority populations or low-income populations to experience disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental burdens. The designation of critical habitat is not expected to disproportionately affect minority populations, low-income populations, or populations otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality. Further, it is not expected to create any barriers to opportunity for underserved communities. The proposed rule was widely distrusted, including to the affected States and territorial governments. We did not receive any public comment suggesting the designation would result in effects these communities.
A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking can be found on our Website at
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Transportation.
Endangered and threatened species.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NOAA amends 50 CFR parts 223 and 226 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, § 223.201-202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361
(e) * * *
16 U.S.C. 1533.
Critical habitat is designated in the following state and territories as depicted in the maps below and described in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section. The maps as clarified by the textual descriptions in this section are the definitive sources for determining the critical habitat boundaries.
(a)
(1) Navassa Island—All waters surrounding Navassa Island, from the shoreline to the 30 m isobath.
(2) Puerto Rico Unit 1—Isla de Mona and Monito—All waters surrounding the islands of Mona and Monito from the shoreline to the 50 m isobath.
(3) Puerto Rico Unit 2—Desecheo Island—All waters surrounding the island of Desecheo from the shoreline to the 50 m isobath.
(4) Puerto Rico Unit 3—Southwest—All waters from the southwestern shoreline of Puerto Rico, between Playa Tres Tubos just south Mayaguez and Punta Ballena in Guanica, extending offshore to depths of about 10 m and, near La Parguera, to depths of about 15 m.
(5) Puerto Rico Unit 4—Northeast—All waters from the northeastern shoreline of Puerto Rico out to depths
(6) Puerto Rico Unit 5—Vieques Island—There are two areas that make up this unit. First, all waters from the southwestern shoreline out to the inner reef in depths of about 2 m between Punta Boca Quebrada and Punta Vaca. Second, all waters from the southeastern and northeastern shorelines out to the inner reef in depths of about 2 m between Punta Mulas and Ensenada Honda near Cayo Jalovita.
(7) Puerto Rico Unit 6—Isla de Culebra—There are two areas that make up this unit. First, all waters from the southeastern shoreline of Isla de Culebra out to the reef ledge in depths of about 15 m between Punta del Soldado and Cabeza de Perro, excluding the bays of Puerto del Manglar and Ensenada Honda. Second, all waters from the southern shoreline of Isla Culebrita out to the nearshore reef in depths of about 5 m between the western point of the island and Punta del Este.
(8) United State Virgin Islands Unit 1—St. Thomas—There are two areas that make up this unit. First, all waters off the southeast end of St. Thomas between Stalley Bay and Cabrita Point out to the reef ledge in depths of about 15 m and surrounding Great St. James, Little St. James, and Dog Islands. Second, all waters on the south side of Water Island from the shoreline out to the coral reef in depths of about 5 m between Druif Point and the south end of Sand Bay.
(9) United States Virgin Islands Unit 2—St. John—All waters on the east end of St. John from the shoreline out to the inner coral reef in depths of about 2 m between White Point on the south coast and Leinster Point on the north coast.
(10) United States Virgin Islands Unit 3—St. Croix—There are two areas that make up this unit. First, all waters on the east end of St. Croix from the shoreline to the outer coral reef edge in depths of about 10 m on the north coast and 15 m on the eastern point and south coast between Batiste Point and Pelican Cove Beach, excluding the Christiansted navigation channel. Second, all waters on the north side of Buck Island between the shoreline and the coral reef in depths of about 5 m.
(11) Florida Unit 1—Biscayne Bay/Key Largo—All waters of Biscayne Bay (bounded on the north by the Rickenbacker Causeway), Card Sound (bounded on the south by Card Sound Road), and the Atlantic Ocean out to the coral reef and hardbottom in depths of about 20 m between Stiltsville, south of Cape Florida, and Harry Harris Beach Park near the south end of Key Largo, excluding the Intracoastal Waterway; unit overlaps areas of Miami-Dade and Monroe County.
(12) Florida Unit 2—Marathon—All waters from the southern shoreline of the City of Marathon in Monroe County out to the 15 m isobath between Knights Key and Grassy Key, excluding the Boot Key navigation channel.
(13) Florida Unit 3—Big Pine Key to Geiger Key—All waters south of U.S. Highway 1 out to the 15 m isobath between the eastern point of Big Pine Key and Geiger Key in Monroe County.
(14) Florida Unit 4—Key West—All shoal waters south of Woman Key between 5 and 30 m depth that contain coral reef and hardbottom and seagrass habitat in Monroe County.
(15) Florida Unit 5—New Ground Shoal—All New Ground Shoal waters shown in the map below for this unit in Monroe County.
(16) Florida Unit 6—Halfmoon Shoal—All Halfmoon Shoal Waters shown in the map below for this unit in Monroe County.
(17) Florida Unit 7—Dry Tortugas—There are three areas which make up this unit located in Monroe County. First, all waters surrounding Loggerhead Key to depths of about 2 m. Second, all waters surrounding Garden Key to depths out to about 3.5 m. Third, all waters surrounding Bush Key to depths out to about 5.5 m.
(18) Spawning Site Unit 1—Bajo de Sico—All waters encompassed by the 100 m isobath in the Bajo de Sico area.
(19) Spawning Site Unit 2—Grammanik Bank/Hind Bank—All waters which make up the Hind Bank and the Grammanik Bank, interconnecting waters between these banks, and waters extending out to the 200 fathom line directly south from Grammanik Bank.
(20) Spawning Site Unit 3—Riley's Hump—All waters encompassing Riley's Hump located southwest of the Dry Tortugas out to the 35 m isobath on the north, west, and east side of the hump and out to the 50 m isobath on the south side of the hump.
(b)
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(2)
(c)
(1) Managed areas where the substrate is continually disturbed by planned management activities authorized by local, state, or Federal governmental entities at the time of critical habitat designation, and that will continue to be disturbed by such management. Examples include, but are not necessarily limited to, dredged navigation channels, shipping basins, vessel berths, and active anchorages.
(2) Pursuant to ESA section 4(a)(3)(B), all area subject to the Naval Air Station Key West Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan.
(d)
(2) Overview maps of each final critical habitat unit follow.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to disapprove a revision to Kansas's State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on July 28, 2021, to satisfy applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the program's second planning period. As required by section 169A of the Clean Air Act, the federal Regional Haze Rule calls for state and federal agencies to work together to improve visibility, including Regional Haze, in 156 national parks and wilderness areas. The rule requires the states, in coordination with the EPA, the National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the U.S. Forest Service (FS), and other interested parties, to develop and implement air quality protection plans in which states revise their long-term strategies (LTS) for making reasonable progress towards the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility in these mandatory Class I Federal Areas. Disapproval does not start a mandatory sanctions clock.
Comments must be received on or before February 1, 2024.
You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2023-0582 to
Jed D. Wolkins, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Permitting and Planning Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-7588; email address:
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2023-0582, at
The EPA is proposing to disapprove Kansas's Regional Haze plan for the second planning period. As required by section 169A of the CAA, the federal RHR calls for state and federal agencies to work together to improve visibility in 156 national parks and wilderness areas. The rule requires the states, in coordination with the EPA, the NPS, FWS, the FS, and other interested parties, to develop and implement air quality protection plans to reduce the pollution that causes visibility impairment in mandatory Class I Federal areas. Visibility impairing pollutants include fine and coarse particulate matter (PM) (
In the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's mandatory Class I Federal areas, which include certain national parks and wilderness areas.
Regional Haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude of anthropogenic sources and activities which are located across a broad geographic area and that emit pollutants that impair visibility. Visibility impairing pollutants include fine and coarse PM (
To address Regional Haze visibility impairment, the 1999 RHR established an iterative planning process that requires both states in which Class I Areas are located and states “the emissions from which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility” in a Class I Area to periodically submit SIP revisions to address such impairment. CAA section 169A(b)(2);
Much of the focus in the first implementation period of the Regional Haze program, which ran from 2007 through 2018, was on satisfying states' BART obligations. First implementation period SIPs were additionally required to contain LTS for making reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal, of which BART is one component. The core required elements for the first implementation period SIPs (other than BART) are laid out in 40 CFR 51.308(d). Those provisions required that states containing Class I Areas establish reasonable progress goals (RPGs) that are measured in deciviews and reflect the anticipated visibility conditions at the end of the implementation period including from implementation of states' LTS. The first planning period RPGs were required to provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same period. In establishing the RPGs for any Class I Area in a state, the state was required to consider four statutory factors: the costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. CAA section 169A(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
States were also required to calculate baseline (using the five year period of 2000-2004) and natural visibility conditions (
On January 10, 2017, the EPA promulgated revisions to the RHR, (82 FR 3078, January 10, 2017), that apply for the second and subsequent implementation periods. The 2017 rulemaking made several changes to the requirements for Regional Haze SIPs to clarify States' obligations and streamline certain Regional Haze requirements. The revisions to the Regional Haze program for the second and subsequent implementation periods focused on the requirement that States' SIPs contain LTS for making reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal. The reasonable progress requirements as revised in the 2017 rulemaking (referred to here as the 2017 RHR Revisions) are codified at 40 CFR 51.308(f). Among other changes, the 2017 RHR Revisions adjusted the deadline for States to submit their second implementation period SIPs from July 31, 2018, to July 31, 2021, clarified the order of analysis and the relationship between RPGs and the LTS, and focused on making visibility improvements on the days with the most
The EPA provided guidance to the states for their second implementation period SIP submissions in the preamble to the 2017 RHR Revisions as well as in subsequent, stand-alone guidance documents. In August 2019, the EPA issued “Guidance on Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period” (“2019 Guidance”).
As previously explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo, the EPA intends the second implementation period of the Regional Haze program to secure meaningful reductions in visibility impairing pollutants that build on the significant progress states have achieved to date. The Agency also recognizes that analyses regarding reasonable progress are state-specific and that, based on states' and sources' individual circumstances, what constitutes reasonable reductions in visibility impairing pollutants will vary from state-to-state. While there exist many opportunities for states to leverage both ongoing and upcoming emission reductions under other CAA programs, the Agency expects states to undertake rigorous reasonable progress analyses that identify further opportunities to advance the national visibility goal consistent with the statutory and regulatory requirements. See generally 2021 Clarifications Memo. This is consistent with Congress's determination that a visibility protection program is needed in addition to the CAA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs, as further emission reductions may be necessary to adequately protect visibility in Class I Areas throughout the country.
Because the air pollutants and pollution affecting visibility in Class I Areas can be transported over long distances, successful implementation of the Regional Haze program requires long-term, regional coordination among multiple jurisdictions and agencies that have responsibility for Class I Areas and the emissions that impact visibility in those Areas. In order to address Regional Haze, states need to develop strategies in coordination with one another, considering the effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in another. Five regional planning organizations (RPOs),
The Central Regional Air Planning Association (CenRAP), one of the five RPOs described above, that Kansas was a member of during the first planning period, was a collaborative effort of state governments, tribal governments, and Federal Agencies established to initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of Regional Haze, visibility, and other air quality issues in parts of the Great Plains, Midwest, Southwest, and South Regions of the United States.
After the first planning period SIPs were submitted, the planning was shifted to the Central State Air Resources Agencies (CenSARA). CenSARA is a collaborative effort of state governments established to initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of Regional Haze and other air quality issues in parts of the Great Plains, Midwest, Southwest, and South Regions of the United States. Member states include: Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas. Unlike CenRAP, CenSARA has solely state members. However, CenSARA does reach out to Tribal and Federal partners. The Federal partners of CenSARA are the EPA, the NPS, the FWS, and FS.
Under the CAA and EPA's regulations, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are required to submit Regional Haze SIPs satisfying the applicable requirements for the second implementation period of the Regional Haze program by July 31, 2021. Each state's SIP must contain a LTS for making reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of remedying any existing and preventing any future anthropogenic visibility impairment in Class I Areas. CAA section 169A(b)(2)(B). To this end, § 51.308(f) lays out the process by which states determine what constitutes their LTS, with the order of the requirements in § 51.308(f)(1) through (f)(3) generally mirroring the order of the steps in the reasonable progress analysis
In addition to satisfying the requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(f) related to reasonable progress, the Regional Haze SIP revisions for the second implementation period must address the requirements in § 51.308(g)(1) through (5) pertaining to periodic reports describing progress towards the RPGs, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5), as well as requirements for FLM consultation that apply to all visibility protection SIPs and SIP revisions. 40 CFR 51.308(i).
A state must submit its Regional Haze SIP and subsequent SIP revisions to the EPA according to the requirements applicable to all SIP revisions under the CAA and EPA's regulations. See CAA 169(b)(2); CAA 110(a). Upon EPA approval, a SIP is enforceable by the Agency and the public under the CAA. If the EPA finds that a state fails to make a required SIP revision, or if the EPA finds that a state's SIP is incomplete or if disapproves the SIP, the Agency must promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) that satisfies the applicable requirements. CAA 110(c)(1).
The first step in developing a Regional Haze SIP is for a state to determine which Class I Areas, in addition to those within its borders, “may be affected” by emissions from within the state. In the 1999 RHR, the EPA determined that all states contribute to visibility impairment in at least one Class I Area, 64 FR at 35720-22, and explained that the statute and regulations lay out an “extremely low triggering threshold” for determining “whether States should be required to engage in air quality planning and analysis as a prerequisite to determining the need for control of emissions from sources within their State.”
A state must determine which Class I Areas must be addressed by its SIP by evaluating the total emissions of visibility impairing pollutants from all sources within the state. While the RHR does not require this evaluation to be conducted in any particular manner, EPA's 2019 Guidance provides recommendations for how such an assessment might be accomplished, including by, where appropriate, using the determinations previously made for the first implementation period. 2019 Guidance at 8-9. In addition, the determination of which Class I Areas may be affected by a state's emissions is subject to the requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) to “document the technical basis, including modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information, on which the State is relying to determine the emission reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress in each mandatory Class I Federal Area it affects.”
As part of assessing whether a SIP submission for the second implementation period is providing for reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal, the RHR contains requirements in § 51.308(f)(1) related to tracking visibility improvement over time. The requirements of this subsection apply only to states having Class I Areas within their borders; the required calculations must be made for each such Class I Area. EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance
The RHR requires tracking of visibility conditions on two sets of days: the clearest and the most impaired days. Visibility conditions for both sets of days are expressed as the average deciview index for the relevant five-year period (the period representing baseline or current visibility conditions). The RHR provides that the relevant sets of days for visibility tracking purposes are the 20% clearest (the 20% of monitored days in a calendar year with the lowest values of the deciview index) and 20% most impaired days (the 20% of monitored days in a calendar year with the highest amounts of anthropogenic visibility impairment).
Using the data for the set of most impaired days only, states must plot a line between visibility conditions in the baseline period and natural visibility conditions for each Class I Area to determine the URP—the amount of visibility improvement, measured in deciviews, that would need to be achieved during each implementation period in order to achieve natural visibility conditions by the end of 2064. The URP is used in later steps of the reasonable progress analysis for informational purposes and to provide a non-enforceable benchmark against which to assess a Class I Area's rate of visibility improvement.
EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance can be used to help satisfy the 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) requirements, including in developing information on baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions, and in making optional adjustments to the URP. In addition, the 2020 Data Completeness Memo provides recommendations on the data completeness language referenced in § 51.308(f)(1)(i) and provides updated natural conditions estimates for each Class I Area.
The core component of a Regional Haze SIP submission is a LTS that addresses Regional Haze in each Class I Area within a state's borders and each Class I Area that may be affected by emissions from the state. The LTS “must include the enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress, as determined pursuant to (f)(2)(i) through (iv).” 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). The amount of progress that is “reasonable progress” is based on applying the four statutory factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) in an evaluation of potential control options for sources of visibility impairing pollutants, which is referred to as a “four-factor” analysis. The outcome of that analysis is the emission reduction measures that a particular source or group of sources needs to implement in order to make reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Emission reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress may be either new, additional control measures for a source, or they may be the existing emission reduction measures that a source is already implementing. See 2019 Guidance at 43; 2021 Clarifications Memo at 8-10. Such measures must be represented by “enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures” (
Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides the requirements for the four-factor analysis. The first step of this analysis entails selecting the sources to be evaluated for emission reduction measures; to this end, the RHR requires states to consider “major and minor stationary sources or groups of sources, mobile sources, and area sources” of visibility impairing pollutants for potential four-factor control analysis. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). A threshold question at this step is which visibility impairing pollutants will be analyzed. As the EPA previously explained, consistent with the first implementation period, the EPA generally expects that each state will analyze at least SO
While states have the option to analyze
The EPA explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo that each state has an obligation to submit a LTS that addresses the Regional Haze visibility impairment that results from emissions from within that state. Thus, source selection should focus on the in-state contribution to visibility impairment and be designed to capture a meaningful portion of the state's total contribution to visibility impairment in Class I Areas. A state should not decline to select its largest in-state sources on the basis that there are even larger out-of-state contributors. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4.
Thus, while states have discretion to choose any source selection methodology that is reasonable, whatever choices they make should be reasonably explained. To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that a state's SIP submission include “a description of the criteria it used to determine which sources or groups of sources it evaluated.” The technical basis for source selection, which may include methods for quantifying potential visibility impacts such as emissions divided by distance metrics, trajectory analyses, residence time analyses, and/or photochemical modeling, must also be appropriately documented, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
Once a state has selected the set of sources, the next step is to determine the emissions reduction measures for those sources that are necessary to make reasonable progress for the second implementation period.
EPA's 2021 Clarifications Memo provides further guidance on what constitutes a reasonable set of control options for consideration: “A reasonable four-factor analysis will consider the full range of potentially reasonable options for reducing emissions.” 2021 Clarifications Memo at 7. In addition to add-on controls and other retrofits (
After identifying a reasonable set of potential control options for the sources it has selected, a state then collects information on the four factors with regard to each option identified. The EPA has also explained that, in addition to the four statutory factors, states have flexibility under the CAA and RHR to reasonably consider visibility benefits as an additional factor alongside the four statutory factors.
As explained above, § 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to determine the emission reduction measures for sources that are necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four factors. Pursuant to § 51.308(f)(2), measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal must be included in a state's LTS and in its SIP.
As with source selection, the characterization of information on each of the factors is also subject to the documentation requirement in § 51.308(f)(2)(iii). The reasonable progress analysis, including source selection, information gathering, characterization of the four statutory factors (and potentially visibility), balancing of the four factors, and selection of the emission reduction measures that represent reasonable progress, is a technically complex exercise, but also a flexible one that provides states with bounded discretion to design and implement approaches appropriate to their circumstances. Given this flexibility, § 51.308(f)(2)(iii) plays an important function in requiring a state to document the technical basis for its decision making so that the public and the EPA can comprehend and evaluate the information and analysis the state relied upon to determine what emission reduction measures must be in place to make reasonable progress. The technical documentation must include the modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information on which the state relied to determine the measures necessary to make reasonable progress. This documentation requirement can be met through the provision of and reliance on technical analyses developed through a regional planning process, so long as that process and its output has been approved by all state participants. In addition to the explicit regulatory requirement to document the technical basis of their reasonable progress determinations, states are also subject to the general principle that those determinations must be reasonably moored to the statute.
The four statutory factors (and potentially visibility) are used to determine what emission reduction measures for selected sources must be included in a state's LTS for making reasonable progress. Additionally, the RHR at 40 CFR 51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately provides five “additional factors”
Because the air pollution that causes Regional Haze crosses state boundaries, § 51.308(f)(2)(ii) requires a state to consult with other states that also have emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a given Class I Area. Consultation allows for each state that impacts visibility in an Area to share whatever technical information, analyses, and control determinations may be necessary to develop coordinated emission management strategies. This coordination may be managed through inter- and intra-RPO consultation and the development of regional emissions strategies; additional consultations between states outside of RPO processes may also occur. If a state, pursuant to consultation, agrees that certain measures (
Reasonable progress goals “measure the progress that is projected to be achieved by the control measures states have determined are necessary to make reasonable progress based on a four-factor analysis.” 82 FR at 3091. Their primary purpose is to assist the public and the EPA in assessing the reasonableness of states' LTS for making reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii)-(iv). States in which Class I Areas are located must establish two RPGs, both in deciviews—one representing visibility conditions on the clearest days and one representing visibility on the most anthropogenically impaired days—for each Area within their borders. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i). The two RPGs are intended to reflect the projected impacts, on the two sets of days, of the emission reduction measures the state with the Class I Area, as well as all other contributing states, have included in their LTS for the second implementation period.
For the second implementation period, the RPGs are set for 2028. RPGs are not enforceable targets, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii); rather, they “provide a way for the states to check the projected outcome of the [long-term strategy] against the goals for visibility improvement.” 2019 Guidance at 46. While states are not legally obligated to achieve the visibility conditions described in their RPGs, § 51.308(f)(3)(i) requires that “[t]he long-term strategy and the RPG must provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days since the baseline period and ensure no degradation in visibility for the clearest days since the baseline period.” Thus, states are required to have emission reduction measures in their LTS that are projected to achieve visibility conditions on the most impaired days that are better than the baseline period and shows no degradation on the clearest days compared to the clearest days from the baseline period. The baseline period for the purpose of this comparison is the baseline visibility condition—the annual average visibility condition for the period 2000-2004. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i), 82 FR at 3097-98.
So that RPGs may also serve as a metric for assessing the amount of progress a state is making towards the national visibility goal, the RHR requires states with Class I Areas to compare the 2028 RPG for the most impaired days to the corresponding point on the URP line (representing visibility conditions in 2028 if visibility were to improve at a linear rate from conditions in the baseline period of 2000-2004 to natural visibility conditions in 2064). If the most impaired days RPG in 2028 is above the URP (
The 2017 RHR, 2019 Guidance, and 2021 Clarifications Memo also explain that projecting an RPG that is on or below the URP based on only on-the-books and/or on-the-way control measures (
Section 51.308(f)(6) requires states to have certain strategies and elements in place for assessing and reporting on visibility. Individual requirements under this subsection apply either to states with Class I Areas within their borders, states with no Class I Areas but that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I Area, or both. A state with Class I Areas within its borders must submit with its SIP revision a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting Regional Haze visibility impairment that is representative of all Class I Areas within the state. SIP revisions for such states must also provide for the establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to assess visibility conditions in Class I Areas, as well as reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the EPA at least annually. Compliance with the monitoring strategy requirement may be met through a state's participation in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring network, which is used to measure visibility impairment caused by air pollution at the 156 Class I Areas covered by the visibility program. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), (f)(6)(i), (f)(6)(iv). The IMPROVE monitoring data is used to determine the 20% most anthropogenically impaired and 20% clearest sets of days every year at each Class I Area and tracks visibility impairment over time.
All states' SIPs must provide for procedures by which monitoring data and other information are used to determine the contribution of emissions from within the state to Regional Haze visibility impairment in affected Class I Areas. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii), (iii).
Separate from the requirements related to monitoring for Regional Haze purposes under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), the RHR also contains a requirement at § 51.308(f)(4) related to any additional monitoring that may be needed to address visibility impairment in Class I Areas from a single source or a small group of sources. This is called “reasonably attributable visibility impairment.”
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires a state's Regional Haze SIP revision to address the requirements of paragraphs 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through (5) so that the plan revision due in 2021 will serve also as a progress report addressing the period since submission of the progress report for the first implementation period. The Regional Haze progress report requirement is designed to inform the public and the EPA about a state's implementation of its existing LTS and whether such implementation is in fact resulting in the expected visibility improvement. See 81 FR 26942, 26950 (May 4, 2016), (82 FR at 3119, January 10, 2017). To this end, every state's SIP revision for the second implementation period is required to describe the status of implementation of all measures included in the state's LTS, including BART and reasonable progress emission reduction measures from the first implementation period, and the resulting emissions reductions. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2).
A core component of the progress report requirements is an assessment of changes in visibility conditions on the clearest and most impaired days. For second implementation period progress reports, § 51.308(g)(3) requires states with Class I Areas within their borders to first determine current visibility conditions for each Area on the most impaired and clearest days, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(i)(B), and then to calculate the difference between those current conditions and baseline (2000-2004) visibility conditions in order to assess progress made to date. See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(ii)(B). States must also assess the changes in visibility impairment for the most impaired and clearest days since they submitted their first implementation period progress reports. See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(iii)(B), (f)(5). Since different states submitted their first implementation period progress reports at different times, the starting point for this assessment will vary state by state.
Similarly, states must provide analyses tracking the change in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and activities within the state over the period since they submitted their first implementation period progress reports. See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4), (f)(5). Changes in emissions should be identified by the type of source or activity. Section 51.308(g)(5) also addresses changes in emissions since the period addressed by the previous progress report and requires states' SIP revisions to include an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state. This assessment must include an explanation of whether these changes in emissions were anticipated and whether they have limited or impeded progress in reducing emissions and improving visibility relative to what the state projected based on its LTS for the first implementation period.
CAA section 169A(d) requires that before a state holds a public hearing on a proposed Regional Haze SIP revision, it must consult with the appropriate
Kansas submitted its Regional Haze SIP for the first implementation period to the EPA on October 26, 2009. The EPA approved Kansas's first implementation period Regional Haze SIP submission on December 27, 2011 (76 FR 80754, December 27, 2011). The requirements for Regional Haze SIPs for the first implementation period are contained in 40 CFR 51.308(d) and (e). Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g), Kansas was also responsible for submitting a five-year progress report as a SIP revision for the first implementation period, which it did on March 10, 2015. The EPA approved the progress report into Kansas's SIP on September 14, 2015 (80 FR 55030, September 14, 2015).
In accordance with CAA sections 169A and the RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f),51.308(g), and 51.308(i), on July 28, 2021, Kansas submitted a revision to Kansas's SIP to address its Regional Haze obligations for the second implementation period, which runs through 2028. Kansas made its 2021 Regional Haze SIP submission available for public comment on May 27, 2021. Kansas received and responded to public comments and included both the comments and responses to those comments in its submission.
The following sections describe Kansas's SIP submission. This document also contains EPA's evaluation to determine if Kansas's submission meets all of the applicable requirements of the CAA and RHR for the second implementation period of the Regional Haze program.
Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA requires each state in which any Class I Area is located or “the emissions from which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility” in a Class I Area to have a plan for making reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal. The RHR implements this statutory requirement at 40 CFR 51.308(f), which provides that each state's plan “must address Regional Haze in each mandatory Class I Federal Area located within the State and in each mandatory Class I Federal Area located outside the State that may be affected by emissions from within the State,” and (f)(2), which requires each state's plan to include a LTS that addresses Regional Haze in such Class I Areas.
The EPA explained in the 1999 RHR preamble that the CAA section 169A(b)(2) requirement that states submit SIPs to address visibility impairment establishes “an `extremely low triggering threshold' in determining which States should submit SIPs for regional haze.” 64 FR at 35721. In concluding that each of the contiguous 48 states and the District of Columbia meet this threshold,
Kansas contains no Class I Areas. However, in Kansas's Regional Haze plan, Kansas lists seven Class I Areas: Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area, Arkansas; Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area, Missouri; Mingo Wilderness Area, Missouri; Salt Creek Wilderness Area, New Mexico; Wheeler Peak Wilderness Area, New Mexico; White Mountain Wilderness Area, New Mexico; and Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area, Oklahoma; as “Kansas-related Class I Areas,
In their second planning period submission, Kansas also opted to analyze the visibility impacts from Kansas, and compare those to visibility impacts from other states also impacting the same seven Class I Areas. That analysis showed seventeen states having more visibility impact on the seven Class I Areas compared to Kansas. Kansas additionally states that its emissions have an insignificant visibility impact in the seven Class I Areas it identified. The EPA notes that while Kansas's analysis shows it has less of a visibility impact than other states in the seven Class I Areas it identified, Kansas also showed that its sources do, in fact, impact visibility in these seven Class I Areas. As stated previously, the threshold for visibility impact on Class I Areas is low. Therefore, a small visibility impact on any of the Class I Areas identified by Kansas as being impacted by its emissions is sufficient to trigger the regional haze requirements to evaluate sources for control measures considering the four factors.
As noted above, Kansas emissions potentially impact visibility in seven out-of-state Class I Areas. However, Kansas does not contain any Class I Areas. Therefore, a number of RHR provisions are not applicable to the Kansas SIP submission and the EPA will not evaluate the Kansas regional haze SIP submission for compliance with those provisions.
The following RHR provisions do not apply to the Kansas SIP:
• § 51.308(f)(1)—
• § 51.308(f)(3)—
• § 51.308(f)(4)—
• § 51.308(f)(6)—
• § 51.308(g)—
Section 51.308(f)(1) requires states to determine the following for “each mandatory Class I Federal Area located within the State”: baseline visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days, natural visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days, progress to date for the most impaired and clearest days, the differences between current visibility conditions and natural visibility conditions, and the URP. This section also provides the option for states to propose adjustments to the URP line for a Class I Area to account for visibility impacts from anthropogenic sources outside the United States and/or the impacts from wildland prescribed fires that were conducted for certain, specified objectives. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi)(B).
These requirements only apply to states with Class I Areas. Because Kansas does not have any Class I Areas, these statutory requirements do not apply to Kansas.
Each state having a Class I Area within its borders or emissions that may affect visibility in a Class I Area must develop a LTS for making reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal. CAA section 169A(b)(2)(B). As explained in the Background section of this document, reasonable progress is achieved when all states contributing to visibility impairment in a Class I Area are implementing the measures determined—through application of the four statutory factors to sources of visibility impairing pollutants—to be necessary to make reasonable progress. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Each state's LTS must include the enforceable emission limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). All new (
In its SIP submission, Kansas included information on the emissions impacts of numerous sources in Kansas on various Class I Areas, but did not select any sources, did not conduct any four-factor analysis, and did not analyze possible efficiency improvements for sources' existing measures. However, Kansas's own submission lists one hundred twenty-eight (128) sources in Kansas with non-zero visibility impacts on at least one Class I Area, and when SO
In its SIP submission, Kansas provides several reasons why it believes it is reasonable to not select sources for four-factor analyses, none of which are based in statute or the Regional Haze regulations. For example, Kansas believes there is an “emission control inequity” between Kansas and surrounding states. Therefore, Kansas suggests it is unfair to require the state to select sources and conduct four-factor analyses in order to determine if existing limits and/or controls are sufficient, or if additional controls are needed for reasonable progress. Kansas believes that surrounding states should first match Kansas's emission reductions before Kansas is required to consider further controls. However, there is ample information presented by the state to show that sources in Kansas do impact nearby Class I Areas and the state could have selected the visibility impairing sources in Kansas for further analysis. This fact remains true regardless of whether a neighboring state contributes more. Neither the statute nor the RHR contemplate “emission control inequity” as a justification for a state not to select sources and evaluate existing and potential control measures, considering the four statutory factors.
As stated above, impacts from individual Kansas's sources ranged from 0.01% to 0.84% of the total estimated impact.
Therefore, despite the fact that surrounding states contribute a larger percentage of visibility impairment to a specific Class I Area compared to Kansas, that does not mean that Kansas's contributions to visibility impairment are insignificant. On the contrary, the fact that Kansas contributes to visibility impacts to Class I Areas, even at the levels that it does, is evidence that sources in Kansas should be evaluated, including consideration of the four factors, to determine whether cost effective controls for those sources exist and to determine measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress.
Further, the national goal set by Congress outlines both the remedying of any existing visibility impairment, and also preventing any future visibility impairment. CAA section 169A(a). In addition to not selecting sources for a four-factor analysis, Kansas also did not evaluate whether the continued implementation of a source's existing measures is necessary for reasonable progress. Kansas therefore did not provide a reasonable rationale to support its conclusion that for the second planning period, no additional measures are necessary for its LTS, despite outlining seven Class I Areas where its emissions impact visibility.
Kansas also argues that because of the SO
A source's visibility impact relative to a state's total contribution to visibility impairment is relevant to ensuring that a state is addressing its own contribution regardless of what other states are doing.
Therefore, the EPA does not find it reasonable for Kansas to not select sources and evaluate potential control measures, without consider the four factors in the CAA and EPA's regulations to determine what cost-effective measures, if any, are necessary to make reasonable progress toward the national goal, and thus need to be a part of the state's LTS.
Kansas failed to “evaluate and determine the emission reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially affected anthropogenic source of visibility impairment,” as required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) and CAA section 169A(g)(1). The EPA outlined this fact during the public comment period of Kansas's draft SIP submittal.
The EPA further explained in the 2021 Clarification Memo that a state that brings no sources forward for analysis of control measures must explain how doing so is consistent with the statutory and regulatory requirements for SIPs to contain the measures necessary to make reasonable progress. In this case, the state is not merely asserting that its sources need no further controls to make reasonable progress, but that even identifying sources to analyze is a futile exercise because it is obvious that a four-factor analysis would not result in any new controls.
Kansas failed to consider the four statutory factors for any sources, thereby not providing the required analysis to support a conclusion that no additional measures are necessary for reasonable progress in its LTS. Therefore, Kansas does not establish that its second planning period SIP submission contains the emission limits, schedules of compliance, and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward meeting the national visibility goal.
The consultation requirements of § 51.308(f)(2)(ii) provides that states must consult with other states that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I Area to develop coordinated emission management strategies containing the emission reductions measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) require states to consider the emission reduction measures identified by other states as necessary for reasonable progress and to include agreed upon measures in their SIPs, respectively. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) speaks to what happens if states cannot agree on what measures are necessary to make reasonable progress.
Kansas included documentation of its CenSARA calls that occurred from January 2020 to July 2020. Kansas contacted the states of Colorado and New Mexico in May 2020. Kansas's consultation documentation is free of any state disagreeing with or providing comment on Kansas's approach on its LTS. However, for the reasons outlined throughout this document, the EPA cannot approve Kansas's consultation requirements because the consultation was based on a SIP that did not meet the required statutory elements.
Section 51.308(f)(2)(iii) also requires that the emissions information considered to determine the measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress include information on emissions for the most recent year for which the state has submitted triennial emissions data to the EPA (or a more recent year), with a 12-month exemption period for newly submitted data.
Kansas included emissions information from the most recent year in its submittal.
As summarized above, the state provided emissions inventory information by sector and for individual sources for multiple years, including the most recent year for which the state submitted emissions data to the EPA in compliance with the triennial reporting requirements of the AERR. However, because the State did not conduct the proper analyses to determine what measures are necessary for reasonable progress, it is not clear how this emissions data was used in the submission to fulfill the regional haze requirements, including documentation of the technical basis for determining the emissions measures that are necessary for reasonable progress. Therefore, as outlined throughout this document, the EPA cannot approve the regulatory requirements under § 51.308(f)(2)(iii) because Kansas's SIP did not meet the required statutory elements.
Section 51.308(f)(3) contains the requirements pertaining to RPGs for each Class I Area. As noted previously, most of regulatory requirements in § 51.308(f)(3) do not apply to states without Class I Areas. However, § 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) requires that if a state contains sources that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I Area in
At the time Kansas submitted its SIP, this provision did not apply because the states with Class I Areas that are affected by Kansas sources did not submit any RPGs that are above the respective URPs. Because we are disapproving the Kansas SIP, if Kansas chooses to submit a revised SIP to the EPA, it should re-evaluate whether 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) applies to Kansas.
Section 51.308(f)(6) specifies that each comprehensive revision of a state's Regional Haze SIP must contain or provide for certain elements, including monitoring strategies, emissions inventories, and any reporting, recordkeeping and other measures needed to assess and report on visibility. A main requirement of this subsection is for states with Class I Areas to submit monitoring strategies for measuring, characterizing, and reporting on visibility impairment. Section 51.308(f)(6)(ii) requires SIPs to provide for procedures by which monitoring data and other information are used in determining the contribution of emissions from within the state to Regional Haze visibility impairment at mandatory Class I Federal Areas both within and outside the state. As noted previously, most of regulatory requirements in § 51.308(f)(6) do not apply to states without Class I Areas.
However, § 51.308(f)(6)(iii) and (f)(6)(v) apply to all states that have emissions that contribute to a Class I Area, including Kansas. Section 51.308(f)(6)(iii) requires SIPs to provide procedures by which monitoring data and other information are used in determining the contribution of emissions from within the State to Regional Haze visibility impairment at mandatory Class I Federal Areas in other States.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) requires SIPs to provide for a statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment, including emissions for the most recent year for which data are available and estimates of future projected emissions. It also requires a commitment to update the inventory periodically. Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) also requires states to include estimates of future projected emissions and include a commitment to update the inventory periodically.
Kansas generally included details on the emissions and monitoring data they used to estimate their visibility contribution to out-of-state Class I Areas, to address § 51.308(f)(6)(iii). To address § 51.308(f)(6)(v), Kansas included emissions information from the most recent triennial inventory year available (2017)
However, as mentioned above, because the State did not conduct the proper analyses to determine what measures are necessary for reasonable progress, and did not satisfy the regional haze statutory requirements, the EPA is not approving these regulatory requirements at this time. The EPA is not approving these regulatory requirements because they do not contain measures that strengthen the existing regional haze SIP, or the SIP generally.
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires that periodic comprehensive revisions of states' Regional Haze plans also address
Section 51.308(g)(4) applies to all states and requires an analysis tracking changes in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and sectors since the period addressed by the first implementation period progress report. This provision further specifies the year or years through which the analysis must extend depending on the type of source and the platform through which its emission information is reported. Finally, § 51.308(g)(5), which also applies to all states, requires an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state have occurred since the period addressed by the first implementation period progress report, including whether such changes were anticipated and whether they have limited or impeded expected progress towards reducing emissions and improving visibility.
As noted previously, § 51.308(g)(3) does not apply to states without Class I Areas. With respect to the rest of the § 51.308(g) requirements, Kansas included a description of the status of the implementation of all measures included in Kansas's first implementation period Regional Haze Plan, a summary of the emissions reductions achieved from these measures, an analysis tracking changes in emissions, and an assessment of significant changes in emissions. However, as outlined throughout this document, because Kansas's SIP submission did not meet the required statutory or regulatory requirements, the EPA is not approving these regulatory requirements at this time. The EPA is not approving these regulatory requirements because they do not contain measures that strengthen the regional haze SIP, or the SIP generally.
Section 169A(d) of the CAA requires states to consult with FLMs before holding the public hearing on a proposed Regional Haze SIP, and to include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions and recommendations in the notice to the public.”
Section 51.308(i)(2)'s FLM consultation provision requires a state to provide FLMs with an opportunity for consultation that is early enough in the state's policy analyses of its emission reduction obligation so that information and recommendations provided by the FLMs' can meaningfully inform the state's decisions on its LTS. If the consultation has taken place at least 120 days before a public hearing or public comment period, the opportunity for consultation will be deemed early enough. Regardless, the opportunity for consultation must be provided at least sixty days before a public hearing or public comment period at the state level. Section 51.308(i)(2) also provides two substantive topics on which FLMs must be provided an opportunity to discuss with states: assessment of visibility impairment in any Class I Area and recommendations on the development and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment. Section 51.308(i)(3) requires states, in developing their implementation plans, to include a description of how they addressed FLMs' comments.
Kansas included summaries of its consultation with various FLMs. On January 14, 2021, the NPS deferred consultation to other FLMs. In February and March of 2021, Kansas had a video call and email exchanges with the FS. Kansas included the comments from the FS and its responses. On February 19, 2021, Kansas had a video call with the FWS. Kansas included the comments from FWS and its responses. While Kansas did take administrative steps to conduct consultation, if the EPA finalizes the disapproval of the SIP, in the process of correcting the deficiencies outlined above with respect to the RHR and statutory requirements, the state (or the EPA in the case of an eventual FIP) will be required to again satisfy the FLM consultation requirements under § 51.308(i)(2). Therefore, the EPA cannot approve Kansas's consultation requirements because Kansas's consultation was based on a SIP that did not meet the required statutory and regulatory requirements.
The EPA is proposing to disapprove the Kansas SIP submission relating to Regional Haze for the second planning period received on July 28, 2021, because the state's SIP submission fails to meet both the regulatory requirements of the Regional Haze Rule and the statutory requirements of the Clean Air Act. Specifically, because Kansas failed to consider the four statutory factors, thereby not including a LTS that includes measures necessary for reasonable progress in its second planning period SIP submission, Kansas's SIP submission does not contain the emission limits, schedules of compliance, and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward meeting the national visibility goal. Therefore, the SIP submission does not meet the regional haze requirements, nor requirements of the CAA. Specifically, as described in detail above, the SIP submission does not meet the statutory requirements in CAA section 169A(b)(2)(B) to contain a LTS for making reasonable progress; the CAA section 169A(g)(1) requirement to consider the four factors in determining reasonable progress; and the CAA section 169A(b)(2) requirement for the SIP to contain the emissions limits, schedules of compliance and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal. In addition, the lack of source selection, evaluation of emissions measures considering the four factors, and related inadequate documentation results in the Kansas submission not meeting the regulatory requirements in § 51.308(f)(2), 51.308(f)(2)(i), and 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
The EPA is not proposing a FIP at this time. If the EPA finalizes the disapproval, that will start a two-year clock for the EPA to propose and finalize a FIP. We are processing this as a proposed action because we are soliciting comments on this proposed action. Disapproval does not start a mandatory sanctions clock for Kansas. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of
• 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 the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and
• 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 Kansas Department of Health and the Environment did not evaluate EJ 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 action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
• This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action does not apply on any Indian reservation land, any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, or non-reservation areas of Indian country. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Federal Election Commission.
Final rule.
These final rules modernize Federal Election Commission regulations in light of technological advances in communications, recordkeeping, and financial transactions, such as the making of contributions and expenditures through internet-based payment processors or text messaging. These final rules also eliminate and update references to outdated technologies and address similar technological issues.
Effective March 1, 2024.
Ms. Amy Rothstein, Assistant General Counsel, or Ms. Joanna S. Waldstreicher or Mr. Tony Buckley, Attorneys, 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694-1650 or (800) 424-9530.
The Federal Election Commission is revising its regulations at 11 CFR chapter I to address electronic communications and transactions, such as contributions made using credit cards, by text messages, or through internet-based payment processors. The Commission is also making regulatory revisions to facilitate electronic accounting, recordkeeping, reporting, and redesignation by political committees. Additionally, as a retrospective assessment of Commission regulations,
Before promulgating rules or regulations to carry out the provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act, the Commission transmits the rules or regulations to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate for a thirty-legislative-day review period. 52 U.S.C. 30111(d). These final rules were transmitted to Congress on December 14, 2023.
On May 2, 2013, the Commission published in the
Electronic financial transactions are increasingly commonplace. According to a recent triennial study conducted by the Federal Reserve System, data collected in recent years “largely show a continuation of past payment trends, with card and ACH both gaining share at the expense of checks,” and increases in the use of newer ways to make payments, such as digital wallets and P2P payments.
Coinciding with the increased use of electronic payments is the regular use of electronic records, including transactional records, and electronic communications. A 2020 U.S. Government Accountability Office report on the U.S. Postal Service found that “[a]s online communication and payments have expanded, USPS continues to face decreases in mail volume, its primary revenue source. First-Class Mail volume has declined 44 percent since fiscal year 2006,” and “USPS Marketing Mail—which comprises most other mail volume—declined 27 percent from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2019, in part due to electronic advertising alternatives.”
At the same time, the federal government also has been transitioning to electronic records management and communication. In 2014, the Federal Records Act was amended to require the National Archive and Records Administration to establish “standards for the reproduction of records by photographic, microphotographic, or digital processes with a view to the disposal of the original records.”
The Commission has recognized this trend towards electronic records management and communication by
The statutes that the Commission is charged with implementing—the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, 26 U.S.C. 9001-13, and the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act, 26 U.S.C. 9031-42 (collectively, the “Funding Acts”), and the Federal Election Campaign Act, 52 U.S.C. 30101-45 (“FECA”)—largely predate this technological evolution, as do many of the Commission's regulations. For example, these statutes and regulations generally contemplate contributions and disbursements being made by cash, check, or “draft,” without addressing electronic transactions, records, or communications. Thus, to implement FECA and the Funding Acts in a manner that accounts for the increased use of and reliance on newer technologies, the Commission is updating its regulations, as described below.
Many of the Commission's current regulations do not account for technological developments in how electronic documents are created, maintained, and submitted, particularly in the context of electronic transactions. The Commission is therefore revising its regulations to encompass electronic documents and transactions. Specifically, the Commission is adding new general definitions to 11 CFR part 100—for the terms “record,” “written, writing, and a writing,” and “signature and signed”—and revising the existing definition of “file, filed, and filing” at 11 CFR 100.19. Each of these definitions will apply to all regulations implementing FECA and the Funding Acts in 11 CFR chapter 1, subchapters A-F (parts 100 through 300 and 9000 through 9042).
FECA requires each political committee to “keep an account of” its contributions and disbursements and to maintain and preserve certain records.
As proposed in the NPRM, the Commission now adds a general definition of “record” at 11 CFR 100.34 that expressly includes both paper and electronic records. New 11 CFR 100.34 has two components.
First, § 100.34(a) defines “record” broadly, as “information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in an electronic or other medium from which the information can be retrieved and reviewed in visual or aural form.” The definition draws on several sources that describe a variety of paper and electronic records. These sources include Black's Law Dictionary,
Similarly, the Commission intends the definition of “record” to be flexible with respect to the media in which information may be memorialized. Thus, the Commission is including in the definition information that is “inscribed on a tangible medium” or “stored in an electronic or other medium.” Similar language is used in the Black's Law Dictionary, E-Sign Act, UETA, and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure definitions of “record.” By including information stored in electronic “or other” media, the Commission intends the definition of “record” to be broad and flexible enough to address any new forms of media on which information may be stored as technology develops.
The new definition requires any information stored on “electronic or other” (non-tangible) media to be retrievable and reviewable in visual or aural form. Most of the source definitions noted above similarly require information to be both retrievable and perceivable. The new definition requires information to be retrievable in “visual or aural” form so that the Commission can review the record and, when appropriate, make it available to the public. In essence, therefore, the definition will enable any person to comply with the Commission's recordkeeping regulations through the use of tangible or intangible media, so long as the information stored in such records can be retrieved and reviewed.
Second, new 11 CFR 100.34(b) requires any person who provides an electronic (or otherwise non-tangible) record to the Commission to provide the equipment and software needed to retrieve and review the information in the record, upon request by, and at no cost to, the Commission. The new regulation specifies that the Commission may request such equipment and software when the Commission is unable to review the record using the Commission's existing equipment and software. A comparable requirement appears in 11 CFR 102.9(a)(4)(ii) for political committees that maintain digital images of checks or written instruments for contributions exceeding $50 and in 11 CFR 9036.2(b)(1)(vi) for publicly funded candidates submitting certain digital images. Because the Commission is adopting new § 100.34(b), it is removing the separate requirements in 11 CFR 102.9(a)(4)(ii) and 9036.2(b)(1)(vi).
In conjunction with the new definition, the Commission is making conforming amendments to a number of regulations.
First, the Commission is making conforming changes by replacing references to “copy,” “journal,” “document,” or “documentation” with references to “record” in the following provisions: 11 CFR 100.82(e)(1)(i), 100.82(e)(2)(ii), 100.93(j)(1) through (3), 100.142(e)(1)(i), 100.142(e)(2)(ii), 102.9(b)(2)(i)(B) and (b)(2)(ii), 102.9(f), 102.11, 104.10(a)(4), 104.10(b)(5), 104.14(b)(4)(iv) and (v), 104.17(a)(4), 104.17(b)(4), 106.2(a)(1), 106.2(b)(2)(ii), 106.2(b)(2)(v), 110.1(l)(1), 110.1(l)(4)(i), 110.1(l)(6), 111.4(d)(4), 111.12(a) and (b),
Second, the Commission is replacing the regulatory requirements that a committee receiving a check or other written instrument designated for a specific election must retain “a full-size photocopy of the check or written instrument.”
Finally, the Commission is making conforming revisions to two provisions that describe the administrative record in public finance matters. The Commission is adding “records” to the lists of materials that comprise the administrative record for final determinations in §§ 9007.7(a) and 9038.7(a).
The Commission has decided not to change the standalone definition of “records” in the lobbyist bundling rule at 11 CFR 104.22(a)(6)(ii)(A), as that provision is already relatively expansive and is consistent with the new general definition the Commission is adopting.
FECA requires certain reports, statements, and other materials to be “written” or “in writing.”
To clarify that “written” material or material “in writing” can be either tangible or electronic, the Commission is adding a new general definition at 11 CFR 100.35.
In conjunction with the new definition, the Commission is making conforming changes to a number of regulations, as described below.
First, the Commission is amending three regulations that refer to “electronic mail” as a “written method” of notification by which a political committee may notify a contributor that the committee has redesignated or reattributed a contribution.
Second, the Commission is making conforming changes regarding notifications, reports, and other communications that, under existing regulations, must be made by “letter.” In light of the new broad definition of “writing,” and to avoid implying that the communications described in those provisions must be on paper, the Commission is replacing each reference to “letter” with “writing” in the following provisions: 11 CFR 100.3(a)(3), 110.6(c)(1)(v), 111.9(a) and (b), 111.17(a) and (b), 111.18(d), 111.37(a) and (b), 111.40(a), 116.8(b), 9003.1(a)(1), 9032.2(d), 9033.1(b)(8), and 9033.5(a)(2).
Similarly, the Commission is revising several references to “letters” or “mailings” by replacing them with references to the type of information contained therein, such as “certification,” “report,” “notice,” or “agreement.” For example, 11 CFR 9003.2(d) currently states: “Major party candidates shall submit the certifications required under 11 CFR 9003.2 in a letter which shall be signed and submitted within 14 days after receiving the party's nomination for election,” and the provision makes several additional references to “such letter.” The Commission is now revising 11 CFR 9003.2(d) to read: “Major party candidates shall sign and submit the certifications required under 11 CFR 9003.2 within 14 days after receiving the party's nomination for election,” and to replace further references to “such letter” with the phrase “such certification.” The Commission is similarly replacing each reference to “letter” or “mailing” in the following provisions: 11 CFR 110.6(c)(1)(ii), 111.6(a), 111.23(a) and (b), 114.8, 116.8(b), 200.3(a)(2), 200.3(a)(3), 200.4(b), 201.3(b)(1), 201.3(b)(2)(i), 9003.1(a)(2), 9033.1(a)(1), and 9033.2(a)(1).
The Commission is also revising some uses of “letter” in administrative regulations to which the new definition of “writing” would not apply. Specifically, the Commission is making the following revisions to its public disclosure and Rehabilitation Act regulations: (1) replace “Letter requests” with “Requests” in 11 CFR 5.4(a)(5); (2) replace the reference to “a letter containing” certain Rehabilitation Act notifications with a requirement for the notifications to be “in writing,” 11 CFR 6.170(g); and (3) conform § 6.170(h) to the foregoing change by replacing that section's reference to “the letter” required by § 6.170(g) with “the notification.”
Third, the Commission is replacing the terms “written document” and “written documentation” with “writing” in 11 CFR 100.29(b)(6)(ii)(A) and 9034.2(c)(1)(i).
Finally, the Commission is making conforming changes to account for the fact that the new general definition of “written” may create confusion when applied to the use of that term in 11 CFR 300.64(c)(3). Section 300.64(c)(3) had provided that certain “written” material must satisfy the disclaimer requirements of 11 CFR 110.11(c)(2). Section 110.11, however, sets forth requirements such as font size and display type—requirements that, both on their face and under the explicit terms of the regulation, apply only to “printed” material.
The Commission has decided not to exclude the term “written instrument” from the new definition.
FECA and the Funding Acts require certain documents to be signed,
To clarify that the regulatory signature requirements may generally be met electronically, the Commission is adding a general definition of “signature” at 11 CFR 100.36. The new definition contains three paragraphs.
New paragraph (a) defines “signature” as “an individual's name or mark on a writing or record that identifies the individual and authenticates the writing or record.” This definition draws on legal and other dictionary definitions of “signature.”
New paragraph (b) of 11 CFR 100.36 in turn defines an “electronic signature” as “an electronic word, image, symbol, or process that an individual attaches to or associates with a writing or record to identify the individual and authenticate the writing or record.” This definition is drawn from several sources, including Black's Law Dictionary,
The new definition intentionally differs from the source definitions in certain respects. For example, the new definition does not include “sound” as a form of electronic signature because the Commission's current and anticipated reporting technologies would not enable it to receive and make public audio signatures. Further, the Commission does not distinguish between an “electronic signature” and a “digital signature.” Black's Law Dictionary defines the latter as having a heightened level of security, integrity, and authenticity compared to an electronic signature,
New paragraph (b) lists as examples of electronic signatures “a digital image of a handwritten signature” and “a secure, digital code attached to an electronically transmitted message that uniquely identifies and authenticates the sender.” These examples are drawn from the definition of “digital signature” and examples of “electronic signature” in Black's Law Dictionary; the Commission believes them to be the forms of electronic signature most likely to be used by political committees. However, the examples are intended to be illustrative only and not an exhaustive list.
As noted above, the new regulation provides that electronic signatures are valid signatures “unless otherwise specified.” This language allows the Commission to require more specific forms of electronic signatures, or even to prohibit electronic signatures, in certain circumstances. Preserving such flexibility is important because, as new technologies develop, some forms of electronic signatures may arise that are unreliable or otherwise not suitable for authenticating records.
In light of the new definition of “signature,” the Commission is making conforming changes to regulations that have more specific signature requirements. For example, 11 CFR 104.4(d)(2) and 109.10(e)(2)(ii) have specified that an independent expenditure report must be verified by one of two methods: by “handwritten signature” on reports filed on paper, or by “typing the treasurer's name” on reports filed by electronic mail. The Commission is revising these provisions to allow electronically filed independent expenditure reports to be verified by “electronic signature” (which might include, but would not be limited to, typing the treasurer's name on the reports). The Commission also is revising the electronic signature requirement at 11 CFR 9034.2(c), which defines “signature” for matchable presidential primary election payments made by credit or debit card, and is
New paragraph (c) of 11 CFR 100.36 provides that a “writing or record may be sworn, made under oath, or otherwise certified or verified under penalty of perjury, by electronic signature.” This tracks the corresponding provision of the E-Sign Act, which provides that a legal requirement for a signature to be “acknowledged, verified, or made under oath” is “satisfied if the electronic signature of the person authorized to perform those acts . . . is attached to or logically associated with the signature or record.”
Finally, new paragraph (c) also states that “[a] writing or record may be notarized electronically pursuant to applicable State law.” A number of states currently allow for electronic notarization.
The Commission is revising the definition of “file, filed, or filing” at 11 CFR 100.19 so that interested parties can more easily communicate electronically with the Commission. The Commission also is making conforming amendments throughout 11 CFR chapter I.
Section 100.19 has defined “file, filed or filing” to include certain forms of electronic submission, but only in the context of documents that must be filed with the Commission under 11 CFR parts 101, 102, 104, 105, 107, 108, and 109. As such, the rule has addressed the filing of reports and statements only regarding independent expenditures, electioneering communications, and the organization, contributions, and disbursements of political committees. But, as described in more detail below, the Commission's regulations also require or provide for the submission of numerous other documents to the Commission. Many of these current regulations regarding sending documents to the Commission specifically refer to
To provide the Commission with greater flexibility to accept documents electronically, the Commission is adding new paragraph (g) to 11 CFR 100.19. Under new paragraph (g), a document other than those already covered by paragraphs (a) through (f) may be filed “in person or by mail, including priority mail or express mail, or overnight delivery service, with the Federal Election Commission, or by any alternative means, including electronic, that the Commission may prescribe.” The Commission intends to build upon this change by adopting such procedures for receiving electronic submissions—such as through online forms
The Commission also is revising the introductory paragraph of 11 CFR 100.19 to explicitly note the scope of new paragraph (g). This change will not affect the existing rules on documents governed by paragraphs (a) through (f).
Given that neither FECA nor the Funding Acts require paper mailing addresses, the Commission is further amending 11 CFR 100.19(a) to delete the cross-reference to the street address for the Commission.
Similarly, the Commission is making conforming amendments corresponding to those discussed in the NPRM by replacing the references to the Commission's street address as set out in 11 CFR 1.2
For the same reasons, the Commission also is amending other regulatory requirements relating to communications by mail:
• Sections 4.5(a)(4)(i) and 4.8(b) require that certain information be included “on the envelope” in which a FOIA request or appeal is sent to the Commission. As revised, these regulations will state that such information must be clearly indicated on the “envelope or subject line, or in a similarly prominent location” of the communication.
• Section 112.4(g) provides that an advisory opinion must be “sent by mail, or personally delivered” by the Commission to the person who requested it. As revised, the provision will require only that the advisory opinion “be provided” by the Commission to the requestor, so as to encompass electronic transmission of the advisory opinion.
• Section 102.6(c)(2) provides that a solicitation of contributions to a separate segregated fund may be included “in” a bill for membership
• In § 114.1(g), which provides a non-exhaustive list of the manner in which a solicitation may be made, the Commission is adding “emails” to the existing list of “mailings, oral requests . . . , and hand distribution of pamphlets” to recognize that solicitations may be made electronically.
• In § 116.9(a)(2), which describes what constitutes a political committee's reasonable diligence in attempting to locate a creditor, the Commission is adding email as a valid means of attempting to contact the creditor.
• Sections 9003.1(b)(7) and 9033.1(b)(8) require submission of the “name and mailing address” of the person entitled to receive public fund payments on behalf of a candidate. The Commission is amending these to require the person's email address, as well.
To allow for electronic filing, notice, and service of documents and records in the Commission's enforcement process, the Commission is revising part 111 of its regulations. First, the Commission is removing or limiting requirements to file multiple copies of documents where multiple copies are no longer necessary. In 11 CFR 111.4(a), the Commission is clarifying that the requirement for a complainant to file three copies of a complaint applies to non-electronic filings only. In 11 CFR 111.15(a) and 111.16(c), the Commission is deleting the provisions that state that a respondent “should . . . if possible” file multiple copies of a motion or brief.
Second, the Commission is revising the following regulations that currently refer to “enclos[ing]” a copy of a document: 11 CFR 111.5(a), 111.5(b), and 111.16(b). As revised, the regulations state that the Commission shall “provide” a copy of the relevant document.
Third, the Commission is revising 11 CFR 111.13(c) and (d), which govern the service of subpoenas, orders, and notifications, to add explicit electronic service options. The regulations currently allow for service by a number of means, including by mail, in person, and “by any other method whereby actual notice is given.” The Commission is revising this last clause to read “by any other method, including electronically, whereby actual notice is given.”
Finally, at 11 CFR 111.23(a)(1), the Commission is adding “email address” to the list of information about respondent's counsel that must be provided to the Commission.
The Commission intends these revisions to simplify and modernize the process by which it interacts with respondents and complainants during the enforcement process by providing options for electronic communications.
The Commission is also revising its regulations to address electronic contributions. These revisions fall into three general categories that correspond to three stages in the electronic flow of funds from a contributor to a political committee: (1) when the contributor authorizes the transaction; (2) when the entity processing the payment (the “payment processor”)
For purposes of the contribution limits, Commission regulations specify that a contribution is made “when the contributor relinquishes control over the contribution”; control is relinquished when the contribution “is delivered by the contributor to the candidate, to the political committee, or to an agent of the political committee.”
Although the regulations are silent as to when electronic contributions are “made,” the Commission has addressed the issue of when credit card contributions are made in several advisory opinions.
The Commission is revising 11 CFR 110.1(b)(6) and 110.2(b)(6) by adding a description of when electronic contributions—credit card or otherwise—are considered to be “made.” As revised, the regulations build on the Commission's conclusions in the above-referenced advisory opinions by providing that a contribution made in an electronic transaction “is considered to be made when the contributor authorizes the transaction.” The revised regulations do not provide examples of specific types of “electronic transactions”—such as the physical presentation of a debit card; the entry of a credit or prepaid card number in an online form, in person, or by telephone; the transfer of a bitcoin; or the sending of a text message—because the Commission has
Like the existing regulations regarding when a contribution is “made,” the regulations concerning when a contribution is “received” focus on possession. The current regulations provide that the “date of receipt” of a contribution is the date a person “obtains possession of the contribution.”
Because a commercial payment processor or the recipient political committee may receive the contributor's authorization before obtaining actual possession of the contributor's funds, the Commission is revising 11 CFR 102.8(a) and (b)(2) to explicitly provide that the date of receipt is the date that a person either obtains possession of a contribution “or, for a contribution made in an electronic transaction in which the receipt of authorization precedes the receipt of funds, obtains the contributor's authorization of the transaction.” The Commission is not including in the regulatory text any technology-specific examples of when a contribution is “received” for the same reasons given above for not including technology-specific examples of when a contribution is “made.”
Many contributions are first received not by the ultimate recipient political committees, but by commercial entities that process the payments. In several advisory opinions, the Commission has addressed the application of its regulations to the receipt of contributions via commercial entities that process contributions electronically—including entities that process contributions made by text message
Section 102.8 implements FECA's requirement that “[e]very person who receives a contribution” for a political committee must forward the contribution and information about the contributor to the recipient political committee within either 10 or 30 days, depending on whether the recipient is an authorized or unauthorized committee and the amount of the contribution.
Because this scenario occurs frequently in modern electronic transactions,
The Commission is not adopting regulatory language to define “ordinary course of business,” but the term will be construed consistently with the definition of the same term in 11 CFR 116.3(c), which looks to the vendor's past practices, as well as industry custom, to determine whether the vendor acted in the ordinary course of business.
The Commission received a comment in response to the NPRM regarding direct carrier billing (“DCB”), which is a particular form of commercial payment processing that enables customers to pay for goods and services by charging them to a wireless bill. The comment asked the Commission to adopt a detailed rule specifically to address DCB, proposing, for example, that a contribution that is forwarded by DCB should be deemed “made” only “when a wireless company transfers funds from its accounts to a connection aggregator.”
FECA provides that, for purposes of contribution limitations, “all contributions made by a person, either directly or indirectly . . . , including contributions which are in any way earmarked or otherwise directed through an intermediary or conduit to such candidate, shall be treated as contributions from such person to such candidate.”
Commission regulations provide for certain exceptions to the earmarking rule,
In the NRPM, the Commission proposed two alternatives to amend 11 CFR 110.6(b) by exempting commercial payment processors from the definition of “conduit or intermediary” in 11 CFR 110.6(b)(2). Proposed alternatives A and B both would have exempted “commercial payment processors” from the earmarking rule, defining a “commercial payment processor” as any person whose usual and normal business is to process payments and who processes payments to candidates and authorized committees in the ordinary course of business; proposed alternative A would have additionally required that such a processor not exercise direction or control over the choice of the recipient candidate or authorized committee. The Commission also asked, though, whether it should bring § 110.6 in line with the flow of modern commerce by revising the definition of “earmarked” at 11 CFR 110.6(b)(1)—rather than revising the definition of “conduit or intermediary” at 11 CFR 110.6(b)(2)—by, for example, clarifying that the definition of “earmark” does not generally include a contributor's authorization to initiate an electronic transaction.
After further consideration, the Commission has decided to adopt this latter approach to revising the earmarking rule. Specifically, the Commission is revising § 110.6 to clarify in the definition of “earmarked” in 11 CFR 110.6(b)(1) that a “contributor's authorization that a commercial payment processor, whose usual and normal business is to process payments, transmit funds from the contributor to the designated candidate or authorized committee in the commercial payment processor's ordinary course of business does not in itself constitute an earmark.” This final rule adopts the description of “commercial payment processor” proposed in both alternatives A and B,
As mentioned in the NPRM, the new rule clarifies that a contributor's authorization to initiate an electronic transaction through a payment processor does not “in itself” constitute an earmark. This regulatory language is intended to recognize that a contribution that is otherwise earmarked within the meaning of the Commission's regulations is not excluded from treatment as an earmark merely because the transaction includes an authorization to a payment processor. The Commission anticipates that specific applications of the revised definition of “earmark,” including instances where a processor exercises direction or control over the contribution, will be informed by the Commission's existing precedents.
The term “commercial payment processors” is not intended to distinguish between persons who process contributions as a service to contributors and those who process contributions as a service to candidates and authorized committees. Thus, the term encompasses processors that transmit funds from wireless service providers to recipient committees, as well as online payment systems such as PayPal and Square, and the requestors in the advisory opinions in which the Commission has approved electronic payment processing.
The Commission intends the revision to 11 CFR 110.6(b)(1) to clarify and codify its existing guidance on the issue, and thus to encourage the use of evolving and emerging technological innovations to process contributions electronically.
Once a political committee has received a contribution, it must deposit that receipt in an account at a campaign depository within ten days.
The Commission is revising several regulations to address issues related to the deposit into campaign depositories of contributions made electronically. First, the Commission is revising 11 CFR 103.3(a) to clarify the campaign depository requirements for joint merchant accounts. Second, the Commission is revising 11 CFR 102.9(a)(4) and 9036.1(b)(4) to address recordkeeping related to the electronic transfer of contributions from a payment processor to a political committee's campaign depository.
Many political committees and payment processors use merchant accounts to process contributions. As one commenter noted in response to the ANPRM: “In order to accept credit card contributions, the committee must have a merchant account with the payment processor which is connected to the website on the contribution end and to a specific bank account on the processing end.”
Merchant accounts operated and controlled by a payment processor may contain contributions for several different political committees.
The Commission has now reconsidered its earlier guidance that political committees report the joint merchant accounts through which their contributions flow as their own campaign depository accounts. The Commission is not convinced of the disclosure or compliance value of reporting a third party's pass-through account, which the recipient political committee does not own, operate, or control, as the committee's own account.
The new merchant account regulation applies to merchant accounts held in
In conjunction with the change to 11 CFR 103.3(a), the Commission is superseding Advisory Opinion 1995-34 (Politechs), Advisory Opinion 1999-22 (Aristotle Publishing), and Advisory Opinion 2012-07 (Feinstein for Senate), to the extent that these advisory opinions interpreted FECA as requiring political committees to treat joint merchant accounts over which the recipient political committees exercise no control as their own campaign depository accounts.
As noted above, FECA and Commission regulations require any person who receives a contribution for or on behalf of a political committee to forward the contribution and information about the contributor to the political committee within a certain period of time.
To address these challenges, the Commission is revising 11 CFR 102.9(a)(4). Section 102.9(a)(4) currently requires political committees to maintain, for each contribution that they receive in excess of $50, either (i) a full-size photocopy of the check or written instrument, or (ii) a digital image of the check or written instrument. As revised, paragraphs (4)(i) and (4)(ii) are being replaced with a new paragraph (4), which requires political committees to maintain a “record” of each contribution received. For checks or written instruments in excess of $50, the revised rule still requires treasurers to maintain an image of the instrument. For all contributions, the revised rule adds a requirement that a record of the receipt must include sufficient information associating that contribution with its deposit in the political committee's campaign depository, such as a batch number. The revised rule also removes the requirement that committees provide the Commission with the electronic means to read such records because that requirement appears in the new definition of “record” discussed above.
The Commission is adopting a similar revision to the recordkeeping provision at 11 CFR 9036.1(b)(4), which applies to bank documentation of deposits of publicly matched contributions. Section 9036.1(b)(4) requires a candidate to submit “bank documentation, such as bank-validated deposit slips or unvalidated deposit slips accompanied by the relevant bank statements, which indicate that the contributions were deposited into a designated campaign depository.” The Commission is adding, after “relevant bank statements,” language that would apply to electronic deposits: “or, for deposits made electronically, information associating contributions to their deposit in the designated campaign depository, such as a batch number.”
The Commission is revising other regulations to modernize requirements concerning the receipt of “currency” and “cash”; the receipt, disbursement, and transfer of funds; the records of contributions eligible for public matching funds; and the designation and attribution of contributions in light of electronic transactions and records.
The term “contribution” includes gifts, advances, and deposits of “money” by any person for the purpose of influencing a federal election.
The legislative history of FECA indicates that Congress was particularly concerned about the role of cash in federal elections. As one legislator noted, “cash offers too facile a medium for unethical and illegal activities”; its “untraceability” and “easy transferability” were of particular concern.
The Commission invited comment several times on payment methods that share some of the characteristics of cash and received only a few comments addressing this topic. In the ANPRM, the Commission asked “whether prepaid debit, credit, banking, and gift cards are functionally the same as cash” and whether the Commission should amend its regulations to prohibit contributions in excess of $100 using those methods.
The Commission also asked in the NPRM whether it should restrict contributions of cryptocurrency such as bitcoin to the “cash” contribution limit at 11 CFR 110.4(c). Alternatively, the Commission asked whether it should
The Commission has determined not to amend its rules at this time to address prepaid cards or cryptocurrency. These payment methods involve potentially complex commercial and technological issues that are beyond the Commission's current expertise. To understand fully the potential effects that any regulatory changes might have on industry practices, it is important for the Commission to hear from those who regularly use and implement these payment methods. Few commenters have shared their perspectives on the feasibility or potential implications of amending Commission regulations to address prepaid cards or cryptocurrency. Because any regulatory changes concerning these payment methods would benefit from a more focused inquiry and expertise on these rapidly evolving technologies, the Commission has decided not to amend its regulations as proposed at this time.
FECA requires each political committee to maintain at least one checking account and to make all disbursements (other than from petty cash) “by check.”
In light of the regulatory revisions for disbursements by electronic transfer, and because current technology allows checks to be processed electronically without the creation of a canceled check (such as depositing a check using a smartphone app), the Commission is revising the recordkeeping requirements for political committee disbursements. Section 102.9(b) describes the records that political committees must keep of their disbursements. The Commission is revising 11 CFR 102.9(b)(2), (b)(2)(i)(B), and (b)(2)(ii), which currently require committees to keep a “cancelled check” to a payee or recipient (among other records of disbursements) to provide that a record of disbursement may consist of a “canceled check or record of electronic transfer” to the payee or recipient. The Commission also is removing 11 CFR 102.9(b)(2)(iii), which requires political committees to document disbursements made by share drafts or checks drawn on credit union accounts, because this provision is no longer necessary in light of changes to the recordkeeping provisions in other parts of § 102.9.
Sections 9003.5(b) and 9033.11(b) contain the disbursement documentation requirements for publicly financed candidates. The Commission is revising 11 CFR 9003.5(b)(1), 9003.5(b)(1)(iv), 9003.5(b)(2)(ii), 9033.11(b)(1), 9033.11(b)(1)(iv), and 9033.11(b)(2)(ii) to provide explicitly that a record of disbursement may consist of a “record of electronic transfer to the payee,” in addition to canceled checks negotiated by the payee.
The Commission is making similar revisions to two regulations relating to contributions by “check” to a separate segregated fund (“SSF”). First, the Commission is revising 11 CFR 102.6(c)(3), which provides that a contributor may “write a check” representing both a contribution to an SSF and a payment of dues or other fees “drawn on the contributor's personal checking account or on a non-repayable corporate drawing account of the individual contributor.”
Second, the Commission is revising 11 CFR 114.6(d)(2)(iii), which requires the custodian of an SSF to forward to the SSF funds from certain separate accounts “by check drawn on” such accounts. Consistent with the revisions concerning disbursements from campaign depositories, the Commission is revising 11 CFR 114.6(d)(2)(iii) to allow such funds to be forwarded “by check or similar draft, including electronic transfer.”
The Commission has determined not to revise 11 CFR 110.6(c)(1)(v) to address a conduit or intermediary's electronic forwarding of an earmarked contribution. Section 110.6(c)(1)(v) sets forth the mechanisms for reporting two categories of earmarked contributions: those that pass through a conduit or intermediary's account, and those that the conduit or intermediary forwards to
The Funding Acts allow public fund matching only for contributions “made by a written instrument which identifies the person making the contribution by full name and mailing address.”
Comments received on the ANPRM urged the Commission to bring the requirement that committees maintain the full card number of contributors in line with payment industry security standards.
Because § 9034.2(b) and (c) require publicly funded candidates to retain the card number for each contribution by credit or debit card, some committees have historically viewed these regulations as inconsistent with payment industry security practices and requirements. Accordingly, and in recognition of the security risks that are attendant upon storing credit card numbers, the Commission is revising 11 CFR 9034.2(b) and (c) by removing the requirements that the recipient must retain contributors' debit and credit card numbers to be eligible for matching funds. All of the regulation's other requirements will remain in effect, including the requirements that the recipient collect the full name and mailing address of each contributor and maintain a “record that can be reproduced on paper” of each electronic contribution.
At this time, the Commission is not revising 11 CFR 9034.2(c)(8)(i), which prohibits public fund matching of credit and debit card contributions “where the cardholder's name and card number are given . . . only orally.” When § 9034.2(c) was first adopted, the Commission explained the exclusion of credit card “signatures” made over the telephone as consistent with the “written instrument” limitation on the definition of “contribution” in 26 U.S.C. 9034(a).
Finally, the Commission is revising 11 CFR 9036.2(b)(1)(iii), which requires committees to provide the Commission with a list of contribution “checks returned unpaid” (
The Commission is revising several provisions concerning the written designation of contributions for particular elections and the attribution of contributions to particular contributors.
First, the Commission is revising 11 CFR 110.1(b)(4), 110.2(b)(4), and 9003.3(a)(1)(vi), which define when contributions are “designated in writing.” Each of these rules now allows a contribution to be designated for a particular election (or account, in the case of 11 CFR 9003.3(a)(1)(vi))
Similarly, the Commission is revising 11 CFR 110.1(k)(1) and 9034.2(c), which govern attribution of joint contributions. Section 110.1(k)(1) provides that any contribution made by more than one person, other than a contribution by a
In the matching-funds context, § 9034.2(c) details the manners in which joint contributions may be attributed, depending on the type of written instrument by which the contribution is made. The Commission is adding to this section a provision governing the attribution of matchable contributions made by credit and debit cards. Specifically, new § 9034.2(c)(8)(iii) parallels the joint attribution principles that apply to contributions by check,
The Commission is updating its regulations to reflect technological advances and to remove certain references to outmoded technologies. These revisions do not affect the substance of any of the revised regulations.
The Commission is removing the reference to “telegram” in 11 CFR 104.6(c)(1) because telegrams are obsolete and therefore not useful to include in the regulation's illustrative, non-exhaustive list of types of communications.
For the same reason, the Commission is replacing the reference to “typewriters” with “computers” in 11 CFR 114.9(d) and removing the references to “typewriters” (without substituting a new term) in 11 CFR 9004.6(a) and 9034.6(a). The word “computer” in these contexts includes not only PCs, but also tablets, smartphones, and similar devices.
Similarly, the Commission is adding “internet service” to non-exhaustive illustrative lists that include “telephone service” in 11 CFR 106.2(b)(2)(iii)(D), 9004.6(a) and (b), and 9034.6(a) and (b).
Because most recording is now digital rather than on magnetic tape, the Commission is replacing all regulatory references to “tapes,” as in, for example, “audio tapes,” with references to “recordings” in 11 CFR 200.6(a)(5), 9007.7(b)(2), and 9038.7(b)(2).
The Commission also is revising 11 CFR 108.6(b), which requires state officers to preserve certain reports concerning federal elections, by replacing the phrase “in facsimile copy by microfilm or otherwise” with “by copy.” The Commission is not, however, removing all references to “facsimile” from its regulations. For example, certain uses of “facsimile” in the regulations are grounded in the use of the word in FECA, such as the definition of “mass mailing” in 11 CFR 100.27, which is drawn from FECA's definition of “mass mailing” as including “a mailing by . . . facsimile.”
The Commission is removing most references to “microfilm,” “computer tape,” “magnetic tape,” and similar terms from the regulations because these technologies are, for most purposes, obsolete. These references are largely found in the rules implementing the Funding Acts, FOIA, the Privacy Act, and the Commission's Public Disclosure and Media Relations Division. Specifically, the Commission is making the following revisions, none of which is substantive:
• remove the references to “microform,” “computer tape or microfilm,” “computerized,” and “Computerized Magnetic Media Requirements” in 11 CFR 4.1(j), 4.9(c)(5), 9007.1(b)(1), 9036.2(b)(1)(vi), and 9038.1(b)(1);
• replace references to “machine readable documentation,” “magnetic tape or disk,” “computer disk,” “magnetic tapes or magnetic diskettes,” and “computerized magnetic media” with “digital storage device” in 11 CFR 4.1(j), 4.9(a)(3), 9003.1(b)(4), 9003.6(a), 9033.1(b)(5), 9033.12(a), and 9036.1(b)(2);
• delete 11 CFR 9003.6(b) and 9033.12(b), which concern the organization of computer information according to technical specifications of a computer system the Commission no longer uses;
• replace “computers” with “computers or other electronic devices” in 11 CFR 9004.6(a)(1) and 9034.6(a)(1); and
• replace “either solely in magnetic media from or in both printed and magnetic media forms” with “in printed or digital form or a combination of printed and digital forms” in 11 CFR 9036.2(b)(1)(ii).
The Commission also is revising and simplifying the fee structures at 11 CFR 4.9 and 5.6, which concern fees for FOIA and Public Disclosure. Specifically, the Commission is removing 11 CFR 4.9(a)(2) (imposing $25 per hour computer access FOIA fee); revising 11 CFR 4.9(c)(4) and 5.6(a) to reduce the fee for document certification; removing from 11 CFR 4.9(c)(4) and 5.6(a) the fees for “microfilm reader-printer” and “microfilm-paper” copies, “reels of microfilm,” publications, computer tapes and indexes, professional research time, and transcripts;
In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on two parallel provisions concerning accommodations for the hearing impaired in television commercials prepared and distributed by publicly financed candidates. The Funding Acts require such candidates to certify that any television advertisement “contains or is accompanied by closed captioning of the oral content of the commercial to be broadcast in line 21 of the vertical blanking interval, or is capable of being viewed by deaf and hearing impaired individuals via any comparable successor technology to line
The Commission is revising certain regulatory references to “websites” to accommodate newer technologies—such as mobile applications (“apps”) on smartphones and tablets, smart TV, interactive gaming dashboards, e-book readers, and wearable network-enabled devices such as smartwatches or headsets—that have taken many of the same roles and characteristics that the Commission previously ascribed to websites.
First, when the Commission initiated this rulemaking, the definition of “public communication” in 11 CFR 100.26 referred to communications placed for a fee on another person's “website.”
In both the NPRM for this rulemaking and in an NPRM published in 2018 addressing internet communications disclaimers and the definition of “public communication” (“internet Communications Disclaimers NPRM”), the Commission proposed updating the definition to include a reference to an “internet-enabled device or application.”
The Commission amended the definition of “public communication” in the Internet Communications Disclaimers rulemaking to include “communications placed for a fee on another person's website, digital device, application, or advertising platform.”
The Commission asked in the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in this rulemaking (“SNPRM”) whether the definitions of “public communication” and “internet public communication” should also include communications that are “promoted for a fee” on another person's website, digital device, application, or advertising platform, and whether such communications that are “promoted for a fee” should be subject to the Commission's disclaimer requirements.
The Commission received six substantive comments in response to the SNPRM. Three commenters supported the proposal and three opposed it. Those commenters that supported the proposal generally did so on the grounds that it better reflects the current advertising landscape and would increase the transparency of sponsored content, so that voters can more readily discern paid communications and determine the source of such messages. The commenters that opposed the proposal expressed concerns about chilling ordinary citizens' speech, and that the proposed language could be read to extend to political committees' internal staff and technology costs. One such commenter suggested modifying the proposed definition to cover communications “promoted for a fee paid to another person's website, digital device, application, or advertising platform.”
Based on the comments received, the Commission is amending the definition of “public communication” at 11 CFR 100.26 and the definition of “internet public communication” at 11 CFR 110.11(c)(5)(i) to include communications over the internet that are “placed or promoted for a fee on another person's website, digital device, application, or advertising platform. A public communication is promoted for a fee where a payment is made to a website, digital device, application, or advertising platform in order to increase the circulation, prominence, or availability of the communication on that website, digital device, application, or advertising platform.”
The updated definitions of “public communication” and “internet public communication” better reflect the wide and rapidly expanding array of paid internet advertising options. These amendments will increase transparency by helping to ensure that political committees and others properly disclose their paid internet communications.
The amended definitions will also help to prevent the circumvention of disclaimer requirements on paid internet communications.
Certain commenters opined that the definitions proposed in the SNPRM were too broad because they arguably expanded the definitions of “public communication” and “internet public communication” beyond paid advertising. The commenters were concerned that, as proposed, the definitions could be read to capture political communications placed or promoted for free on a third party's platform if the speaker incurs staffing, technology, or design costs to create the communication. The revised definitions, however, apply only where the speaker pays a third party's website, digital device, application or advertising platform to increase the communication's visibility on that website, device, application, or platform. They do not apply to communications where the speaker's only costs are to create the communication or to place or promote the communication “using a forum that he or she controls to establish his or her own audience.”
In the SNPRM, the Commission sought comments about whether any distinction should be made between several types of communications that are sometimes described as “promoted.” One type was a communication where “a website, digital device, application, or advertising platform is paid directly to `boost' or expand the scope of viewership of content containing express advocacy or soliciting a contribution in order to increase the circulation or prominence of that content.”
In contrast, the updated definitions of “public communication” and “internet public communication” do not apply to the other types of communications described in the SNPRM, where an individual is paid to create or share political content.
Some commenters were concerned that the amended definitions of “public communication” and “internet public communication” could affect individuals' political activity and speech on the internet more broadly. The Commission does not share this concern. Other than the disclaimer requirements discussed above, the amended definitions apply only to communications by entities that are already subject to Commission regulation or that coordinate with candidates or political parties already subject to regulation.
Second, the Commission also proposed to revise the disclaimer provision in 11 CFR 110.11, which refers to political committees' “internet websites” that are available to the general public.
Third, the Commission is updating the definition of “federal election activity” to exclude
Finally, the Commission is revising references to “World Wide Web site,” “Web site” or “web site” to read “website” in 11 CFR 4.4(g), 100.29(b)(6)(i) and (ii), 100.73, 100.94(b), 100.132, 104.22(b)(2)(i) and (ii), 110.1(c)(1)(iii), 110.2(e)(2), and 110.17(e)(1) and (2); “internet website” to read “website” in 11 CFR 104.22(a)(6)(ii)(A)(2); “World Wide Web address” to read “website address” in 11 CFR 110.11(b)(3); and “Web address” and “Web page” to read “website address” and “web page” in 11 CFR 300.2(m)(1)(iii). As with the other terminological updates discussed above, none of these proposed revisions affect a substantive change in the regulations.
The Commission certifies that the attached rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rules would clarify and update existing regulatory language, codify certain existing Commission precedent regarding electronic transactions and communications, and provide political committees and other entities with more flexibility in meeting FECA's recordkeeping and filing requirements. The rules would not impose new recordkeeping, reporting, or financial obligations on political committees or commercial vendors. The Commission therefore certifies that the rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Privacy.
Freedom of information.
Archives and records.
Civil rights, Individuals with disabilities.
Elections.
Political committees and parties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Banks and banking, Campaign funds, Political committees and parties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Campaign funds, Political committees and parties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Campaign funds, Political committees and parties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Elections, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Coordinated and independent expenditures.
Campaign funds, Political committees and parties.
Administrative practice and procedure, Elections, Law enforcement, Penalties.
Administrative practice and procedure, Elections.
Business and industry, Elections, Labor.
Administrative practice and procedure, Business and industry, Credit, Elections, Political candidates, Political committees and parties.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Campaign funds, Nonprofit organizations, Political committees and parties, Political candidates, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Campaign funds, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Campaign funds.
Administrative practice and procedure, Campaign funds.
Campaign funds.
Campaign funds, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Campaign funds, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Campaign funds, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Campaign funds, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Campaign funds.
Campaign funds, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Federal Election Commission amends 11 CFR chapter I as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552a.
5 U.S.C. 552, as amended.
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(4) For a paper photocopy of a record, the fee will be $.07 per page, which has been calculated to include staff time. For other forms of duplication, including copies produced by computer, the Commission will charge the direct costs, including staff time and the actual cost of any digital storage device provided. The Commission will charge $7.50 for certification of a document. The Commission will not charge a fee for ordinary packaging and mailing of records requested. When a request for special mailing or delivery services is received the Commission will package the records requested. The requestor shall make all arrangements for pick-up and delivery of the requested materials. The requestor shall pay all costs associated with special mailing or delivery services directly to the courier or mail service.
(5) The Commission will advise the requestor of the identity of any private contractor who will perform the duplication services. If fees are charged for such services, they shall be made payable to that private contractor and shall be forwarded to the Commission.
52 U.S.C. 30108(d), 30109(a)(4)(B)(ii), 30111(a); 31 U.S.C. 9701.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) Fees may be charged for copies of records which are furnished to a requester under this part and for the staff time spent in locating and reproducing such records at the rate of $.05 per page for paper copies, including paper copies from microfilm; $4.50 per half hour of staff time after the
(b) In the event the anticipated fees for all pending requests from the same requester exceed $25.00, records will not be searched, nor copies furnished, until the requester pays, or makes acceptable arrangements to pay, the total amount due. If any fee is not precisely ascertainable, an estimate will be made by the Commission and the requester will be required to forward the fee so estimated. In the event any advance payment differs from the actual fee, an appropriate adjustment will be made at the time the copies are made available by the Commission.
29 U.S.C. 794.
52 U.S.C. 30101, 30102(g), 30104, 30111(a)(8), and 30114(c).
With respect to documents required to be filed with the Commission under 11 CFR parts 101, 102, 104, 105, 107, 108, and 109, and any modifications or amendments thereto, the terms
(a)
(g) A document may be filed in person or by mail, including priority mail or express mail, or overnight delivery service, with the Federal Election Commission, or by any alternative means, including electronic, that the Commission may prescribe.
* * * The term
(a) A
(b) Any person who provides to the Commission a record stored in an electronic or other non-tangible medium shall, upon request of the Commission, provide at no cost to the Commission any equipment and software necessary to enable the Commission to retrieve and review the information in the record. The Commission may request such equipment and software when the Commission cannot retrieve and review the information using the Commission's existing equipment and software.
(a) A
(b) An
(c) A writing or record may be sworn, made under oath, or otherwise certified or verified under penalty of perjury, by electronic signature. A writing or record may be notarized electronically pursuant to applicable State law.
52 U.S.C. 30102, 30103, 30104(a)(11), 30111(a)(8), and 30120.
The revision reads as follows:
(c) * * *
(3)
(a) * * * Date of receipt shall be the date such person obtains possession of the contribution or, for a contribution made in an electronic transaction in which the receipt of authorization precedes the receipt of funds, obtains the contributor's authorization of the transaction.
(b) * * *
(2) * * * Date of receipt shall be the date such person obtains possession of the contribution or, for a contribution made in an electronic transaction in which the receipt of authorization precedes the receipt of funds, obtains the contributor's authorization of the transaction.
(d) Every person whose usual and normal business involves the processing and transmission of payments and who processes a contribution to a political committee in the ordinary course of its business will satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section if such person transmits funds and contributor information to the recipient political committee within the time periods prescribed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section for forwarding contributions.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(4) In addition to the account to be kept under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, for contributions in excess of $50, the treasurer of a political committee or an agent authorized by the treasurer shall maintain a record of each contribution received. A record of a contribution by check or written instrument must contain an image of that instrument. A record of the receipt of a contribution must include sufficient information to associate that contribution with its deposit in the political committee's campaign depository, such as, for example, a batch number.
(f) The treasurer shall maintain the records required by 11 CFR 110.1(l), concerning designations, redesignations, reattributions, and the dates of contributions. If the treasurer does not maintain these records, 11 CFR 110.1(l)(5) shall apply.
52 U.S.C. 30102(h), 30111(a)(8).
(a)(1) All receipts by a political committee shall be deposited in account(s) established pursuant to 11 CFR 103.2, except that any contribution may be, within 10 days of the treasurer's receipt, returned to the contributor without being deposited. The treasurer
(2) A committee shall make all disbursements by check or similar draft, including electronic transfer, from an account at its designated campaign depository, except for expenditures of $100 or less made from a petty cash fund maintained pursuant to 11 CFR 102.11. Funds may be transferred from the depository for investment purposes, but shall be returned to the depository before such funds are used to make expenditures.
52 U.S.C. 30101(1), 30101(8), 30101(9), 30102(g) and (i), 30104, 30111(a)(8) and (b), 30114, 30116, 36 U.S.C. 510.
52 U.S.C. 30111(a)(8), 30116(b), 30116(g).
52 U.S.C. 30102(g), 30104(a)(2), 30111(a)(8), 30113, 30143.
52 U.S.C. 30101(17), 30104(c), 30111(a)(8), 30116, 30120; Sec. 214(c), Pub. L. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81.
52 U.S.C. 30101(8), 30101(9), 30102(c)(2) and (g), 30104(i)(3), 30111(a)(8), 30116, 30118, 30120, 30121, 30122, 30123, 30124, and 36 U.S.C. 510.
The addition reads as follows:
(b) * * *
(6) * * * A contribution made in an electronic transaction is considered to be made when the contributor authorizes the transaction. * * *
The addition reads as follows:
(b) * * *
(6) * * *A contribution made in an electronic transaction is considered to be made when the contributor authorizes the transaction. * * *
The revision reads as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) For purposes of this section,
The revision reads as follows:
(c) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) For purposes of this section,
52 U.S.C. 30102(i), 30109, 30107(a), 30111(a)(8); 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 31 U.S.C. 3701, 3711, 3716-3719, and 3720A, as amended; 31 CFR parts 285 and 900-904.
The revision reads as follows:
(c) Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the General Counsel's brief, respondent may file a brief with the Commission Secretary, setting forth respondent's position on the factual and legal issues of the case.
52 U.S.C. 30108, 30111(a)(8).
52 U.S.C. 30101(8), 30101(9), 30102, 30104, 30107(a)(8), 30111(a)(8), 30118.
52 U.S.C. 30103(d), 30104(b)(8), 30111(a)(8), 30116, 30118, and 30141.
52 U.S.C. 30107(a)(8), 30111(a)(8); 5 U.S.C. 553(e).
52 U.S.C. 30107(a)(8), 30108, 30111(a)(8), and 30111(b); 26 U.S.C. 9007, 9008, 9009(b), 9038, and 9039(b).
52 U.S.C. 30104(e), 30111(a)(8), 30116(a), 30125, and 30143.
26 U.S.C. 9003 and 9009(b).
(d)
The revisions read as follows:
(b)
26 U.S.C. 9004 and 9009(b).
26 U.S.C. 9007 and 9009(b).
26 U.S.C. 9032 and 9039(b).
26 U.S.C. 9003(e), 9033 and 9039(b).
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) A candidate seeking to become eligible to receive Presidential primary matching fund payments shall agree in a writing signed by the candidate to the Commission that the candidate and the candidate's authorized committee(s) will comply with the conditions set forth in 11 CFR 9033.1(b). The candidate may submit the written agreement required by this section at any time after January 1 of the year immediately preceding the Presidential election year.
(b) * * *
(8) The candidate and the candidate's authorized committee(s) will submit the name, email address, and mailing address of the person who is entitled to receive matching fund payments on behalf of the candidate and the name and address of the campaign depository designated by the candidate as required by 11 CFR part 103 and 11 CFR 9037.3. Changes in the information required by this paragraph shall not be effective until submitted to the Commission in a writing signed by the candidate or the Committee treasurer.
The revisions read as follows:
(b)
26 U.S.C. 9034 and 9039(b).
The addition reads as follows:
(c) * * *
(8) * * *
(iii) To be attributed to more than one person, a signed written statement must accompany the credit or debit card contribution indicating that the contribution was made from each individual's personal funds in the amount so attributed.
26 U.S.C. 9035 and 9039(b).
26 U.S.C. 9036 and 9039(b).
The revision reads as follows:
26 U.S.C. 9038 and 9039(b).
26 U.S.C. 9039.
On behalf of the Commission,
(b) The scope of projects implemented pursuant to section 303 of the Act under the determination in this section is limited to drug and biologic essential medicines, medical countermeasures, and critical inputs identified, as of the date of this determination, pursuant to section 3(c) of Executive Order 13944 of August 6, 2020 (Combating Public Health Emergencies and Strengthening National Security by Ensuring Essential Medicines, Medical Countermeasures, and Critical Inputs Are Made in the United States).
(b) This determination shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This determination is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by
(d) You are authorized and directed to publish this determination in the