I. Background

The Inflation Adjustment Act, 1 as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996  2 and further amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, 3 directs Federal agencies to adjust the civil penalty amounts within their jurisdictions for inflation not later than July 1, 2016, and then not later than January 15 every year thereafter. 4 Each agency was required to make the 2016 one-time catch-up adjustments through an interim final rule published in the Federal Register . On June 14, 2016, the CFPB published its interim final rule (IFR) to make the initial catch-up adjustments to civil penalties within the CFPB's jurisdiction. 5 The June 2016 IFR created a new part 1083 and in § 1083.1 established the inflation-adjusted maximum amounts for each civil penalty within the CFPB's jurisdiction. 6 The CFPB finalized the IFR on January 31, 2019. 7

The Inflation Adjustment Act also requires subsequent adjustments to be made annually, not later than January 15, and notwithstanding section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 8 The CFPB annually adjusted its civil penalty amounts, as required by the Act. 9

Specifically, the Inflation Adjustment Act directs Federal agencies to adjust annually each civil penalty provided by law within the jurisdiction of each agency by the “cost-of-living adjustment.”  10 The “cost-of-living adjustment” is defined as the percentage (if any) by which the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October preceding the date of the adjustment, exceeds the CPI-U for October of the prior year. 11 The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required to issue guidance (OMB Guidance) every year by December 15 to agencies on implementing the annual civil penalty inflation adjustments. Pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment Act and OMB Guidance, agencies must apply the multiplier reflecting the “cost-of-living adjustment” to the current penalty amount and then round that amount to the nearest dollar to determine the annual adjustments. 12 The adjustments are designed to keep pace with inflation so that civil penalties retain their deterrent effect and promote compliance with the law. 13

For the 2024 annual adjustment, the multiplier reflecting the “cost-of-living adjustment” is 1.03241.

Pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment Act and OMB Guidance, the CFPB multiplied each of its civil penalty amounts by the “cost-of-living adjustment” multiplier and rounded to the nearest dollar. 14 The new penalty amounts that apply to civil penalties assessed after January 15, 2024 are as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bedford County Airport, Bedford, PA, to support IFR operations at this airport.

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2023-2114 in the Federal Register (88 FR 76155; November 6, 2023) proposing to amend the Class E airspace at Bedford, PA. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within an 8-mile (decreased from a 12.5-mile) radius of Bedford County Airport, Bedford, PA; and within 2 miles each side of the 128° bearing from the airport extending from the 8-mile radius to 13 miles southeast of the airport; and within 2 miles each side of the 308° bearing from the airport extending from the 8-mile radius to 14. 8 miles northwest of the airport.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would increase the efficiency and safety of the flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System (NAS).

The FAA published a NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2023-1548 in the Federal Register (88 FR 46121; July 19, 2023), proposing to amend RNAV route T-302 in the vicinity of Acequia, ID. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

The NPRM published for Docket No. FAA-2023-1548 in the Federal Register (88 FR 46121; July 19, 2023) contained a typographical error in the table listing the route points that describe the airway. The table stated that the UKAYI waypoint (WP) was in Idaho (ID). The UKAYI WP is in Oregon (OR). This rule corrects this error.

United States Area Navigation routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending RNAV route T-302 in the vicinity of Acequia, ID, to increase the RNAV route's lateral separation from R-3203 and from parachute activities at Nampa Municipal Airport and Caldwell Executive Airport in Idaho. The amendment is described below.

T-302: This rule adds the ALKAL, ID, Fix to the airway description. Additionally, the CANEK, ID, Fix is added between the ADEXE, ID, WP and the ALKAL, ID, Fix. Lastly, this rule removes the PARMO, ID, Fix from the airway. As amended T-302 extends between the CUKIS, OR, WP and the GRIFT, IL, WP.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this airspace action of amending RNAV route T-302 in the vicinity of Acequia, ID, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points), and paragraph 5-6.5i, which categorically excludes from further environmental review the establishment of new or revised air traffic control procedures conducted at 3,000 feet or more above ground level (AGL); procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not cause traffic to be routinely routed over noise sensitive areas; modifications to currently approved procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not significantly increase noise over noise sensitive areas; and increases in minimum altitudes and landing minima. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hutchinson Municipal Airport/Butler Field, Hutchinson, MN, to support IFR operations at this airport.

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2023-2116 in the Federal Register (88 FR 76153; November 6, 2023) proposing to amend the Class E airspace at Hutchinson, MN. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.4-mile (decreased from a 6.6-mile) radius of Hutchinson Municipal Airport/Butler Field, Hutchinson, MN; and updates the name (previously Hutchinson Municipal Airport-Butler Field) of airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register (88 FR 88528; December 22, 2023) for Docket FAA-2023-1006, which modified Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at the Minden-Tahoe Airport, Minden, NV. Subsequent to publication, the FAA identified that line one of the Class E airspace legal description contained the two-letter abbreviation for the state as “CA”, which was incorrect. The two-letter abbreviation of the state in line one of the legal description should be “NV”. This action corrects the error.

In FR Doc 2023-28228 at 88529, published in the Federal Register on December 22, 2023, the FAA makes the following corrections:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it expands the availability of RNAV in California and improves the efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System by lessening the dependency on ground-based navigation.

The FAA published a NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2023-1338 in the Federal Register (88 FR 39382; June 16, 2023), establishing RNAV route T-401 in the vicinity of Paynesville, CA. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting comments on the proposal. One comment was received in support of this action. The commentor stated “I support this action because establishing more low altitude airways within the NAS enhances the safety of general aviation pilots who would otherwise have to operate at higher altitudes off airways when IFR.”

The NPRM published for Docket No. FAA-2023-1338 in the Federal Register (88 FR 39382; June 16, 2023) contained an error in the table listing the route points that describe the airway. The table listed the route points in order of north to south, this rule corrects this error and lists the route points in order of south to north.

United States Area Navigation routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by establishing RNAV route T-401 in the vicinity of Paynesville, CA. The amendment is described below.

T-401: T-401 extends between EXTRA, CA, Fix and MARRI, CA, Fix.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this airspace action of establishing RNAV route T-401 in the vicinity of Paynesville, CA, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points), and paragraph 5-6.5i, which categorically excludes from further environmental review the establishment of new or revised air traffic control procedures conducted at 3,000 feet or more above ground level (AGL); procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not cause traffic to be routinely routed over noise sensitive areas; modifications to currently approved procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not significantly increase noise over noise sensitive areas; and increases in minimum altitudes and landing minima. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the Air Traffic Service (ATS) route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2023-1528 in the Federal Register (88 FR 44744; July 13, 2023), proposing to amend VOR Federal airways V-20, V-222, V-289, V-552, V-569, and V-574, and establish United States RNAV routes T-483 and T-485 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Beaumont, TX, VOR/DME NAVAID. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) and United States Area Navigation Routes (T-routes) are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending VOR Federal airways V-20, V-222, V-289, V-552, V-569, and V-574, and establishing RNAV routes T-483 and T-485. The ATS route amendments and establishments are due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Beaumont, TX, VOR/DME. The ATS route actions are described below.

V-20: Prior to this final rule, V-20 extended between the Mc Allen, TX, VOR/DME and the Palacios, TX, VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC); between the Beaumont, TX, VOR/DME and the Montgomery, AL, VORTAC; and between the Athens, GA, VOR/DME and the Richmond, VA, VORTAC. The airspace on the main airway above 14,000 feet MSL from Mc Allen to 49 miles northeast and the airspace within Mexico was excluded. The airway segment between the Beaumont VOR/DME and the Lake Charles, LA, VORTAC is removed. Additionally, the exclusion for the airspace on the main airway above 14,000 feet MSL from Mc Allen to 49 miles northeast is also removed as it has not been required since the V-20 south alternate airway was removed in 1994 and there is no operational requirement to retain it. Further, the exclusion for the airspace within Mexico is removed as the airway does not extend into Mexico's airspace. As amended, the airway now extends between the Mc Allen VOR/DME and the Palacios VORTAC, between the Lake Charles VORTAC and the Montgomery VORTAC, and between the Athens VOR/DME and the Richmond VORTAC.

V-222: Prior to this final rule, V-222 extended between the El Paso, TX, VORTAC and the intersection of the LaGrange, GA, VORTAC 048° and Rome, GA, VORTAC 166° radials (TIROE fix). The airway segment between the Humble, TX, VORTAC and the Lake Charles, LA, VORTAC is removed. As amended, the airway now extends between the El Paso VORTAC and the Humble VORTAC and between the Lake Charles VORTAC and the intersection of the LaGrange VORTAC 048° and Rome VORTAC 166° radials (TIROE fix).

V-289: Prior to this final rule, V-289 extended between the Beaumont, TX, VOR/DME and the Vichy, MO, VOR/DME. The airway segment between the Beaumont VOR/DME and the Lufkin, TX, VORTAC is removed. As amended, the airway now extends between the Lufkin VORTAC and Vichy VOR/DME.

V-552: Prior to this final rule, V-552 extended between the Beaumont, TX, VOR/DME and the Monroeville, AL, VORTAC. The airspace within restricted area R-4403F was excluded during its times of use. The airway segment between the Beaumont VOR/DME and the Lake Charles, LA, VORTAC is removed. As amended, the airway now extends between the Lake Charles VORTAC and the Monroeville VORTAC.

V-569: Prior to this final rule, V-569 extended between the Beaumont, TX, VOR/DME and the Cedar Creek, TX, VORTAC. The airway segment between the Beaumont VOR/DME and the Lufkin, TX, VORTAC is removed. As amended, the airway now extends between the Lufkin VORTAC and the Cedar Creek VORTAC.

V-574: Prior to this final rule, V-574 extended between the Centex, TX, VORTAC and the Lake Charles, LA, VORTAC. The airway segment between the Daisetta, TX, VORTAC and the Lake Charles VORTAC is removed. As amended, the airway now extends between the Centex VORTAC and the Daisetta VORTAC.

T-483: T-483 is established as a RNAV route extending between the SHWNN, TX, waypoint (WP), located near the Beaumont, TX, VOR/DME and the Lufkin, TX, VORTAC. The new T-483 provides mitigation for the removal of the V-289 airway segment between the Beaumont VOR/DME and the Lufkin VORTAC. The full T-483 route description is listed in the amendments to part 71 as set forth below.

T-485: T-485 is established as a RNAV route extending between the SHWNN, TX, WP, located near the Beaumont, TX, VOR/DME and the Lufkin, TX (LFK), VORTAC. The new T-485 provides mitigation for the removal of the V-569 airway segment between the Beaumont VOR/DME and the Lufkin VORTAC. The full T-485 route description is listed in the amendments to part 71 as set forth below.

The NAVAID radials listed in the VOR Federal airway descriptions in The Amendment section below are unchanged and stated in degrees True north.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action of amending VOR Federal airways V-20, V-222, V-289, V-552, V-569, and V-574, and establishing RNAV routes T-483 and T-485, due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Beaumont, TX, VOR/DME NAVAID, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph 5-6.5i, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review the establishment of new or revised air traffic control procedures conducted at 3,000 feet or more above ground level (AGL); procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not cause traffic to be routinely routed over noise sensitive areas; modifications to currently approved procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not significantly increase noise over noise sensitive areas; and increases in minimum altitudes and landing minima. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the Air Traffic Service (ATS) route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

On June 15, 2023, the FAA decommissioned the Quincy, IL, Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. As a result of the Quincy VOR being decommissioned, the RIVRS, IL, Fix was changed in the FAA NASR database to a WP and on all associated Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) enroute, Visual Flight Rules (VFR) sectional, and controller charts. The Part 71 editorial amendment of the T-251 description was overlooked at that time and the RIVRS, IL, route point is still reflected as a Fix. The correct type of point for the RIVRS, IL, route point is WP. This rule corrects that difference by changing the type of point for the RIVRS, IL, route point listed in the T-251 route description from “Fix” to “WP.”

United States Area Navigation Routes (T-routes) are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending U.S. RNAV route T-251 to change the type of point of the RIVRS, IL, route point from “Fix” to “WP.” This change to the T-251 description will match the FAA NASR database information and charted depiction of the point.

Since this action merely involves an editorial amendment in the Part 71 description of U.S. RNAV route T-251, and does not involve a change in the alignment, dimensions, or operating requirements of that route, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this editorial amendment action of U.S. RNAV route T-251, to reflect the RIVRS, IL, route point as a WP and match the FAA NASR database information and charts, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from full environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points; and paragraph 5-6.5k, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review publication of existing air traffic control procedures that do not essentially change existing tracks, create new tracks, change altitudes, or change concentration of aircraft on these tracks. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hardy-Anders Field/Natchez-Adams County Airport, Natchez, MS, to support IFR operations at this airport.

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2023-2115 in the Federal Register (88 FR 76150; November 6, 2023) proposing to amend the Class E airspace at Natchez, MS. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The NPRM stated that the geographic coordinates of the airport would be updated, however that update was omitted. The geographic coordinates are updated in this action.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.6-mile (decreased from a 7-mile) radius of Hardy-Anders Field/Natchez-Adams County Airport, Natchez, MS; updates the name (previously Hardy-Anders Field Natchez-Adams County Airport) and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and removes the city associated with the airport from the header to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2P, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

History

The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register on December 12, 2023 (88 FR 86039), for Docket No. FAA-2023-1352, updating the Class D airspace and Class E airspace for Fort Novosel, Ozark, AL, and Fort Moore, Columbus, GA, by updating each airport's name and replacing Notice to Airmen with Notice to Air Missions, and replacing the term Airport/Facility Directory with Chart Supplement in the appropriate descriptions. After publication, the FAA found the Class E surface description for Fort Novosel was inadvertently transposed. Also, the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Columbus, GA, was incorrectly transposed with the Columbus, MS description. This action corrects these errors.

In FR Doc 2023-27195 at 86039, published in the Federal Register on December 12, 2023, the FAA makes the following corrections:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at James A. Rhodes Airport, Jackson, OH, to support IFR operations at this airport.

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2023-2113 in the Federal Register (88 FR 76158; November 6, 2023) proposing to amend the Class E airspace at Jackson, OH. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.8-mile (decreased from a 7.5-mile) radius of James A. Rhodes Airport, Jackson, OH; updates the geographic coordinates of airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and removes the city associated with the airport from the header to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2P, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System (NAS).

VOR Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6010 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. These updates will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending VOR Federal Airway V-4 in the vicinity of Burley, ID. The FAA is taking this action to update one of the radials used in the airway description. During a review of VOR Federal Airway V-4, the FAA discovered that V-4 was established without the accuracy of the Terminal Area Route Generation and Traffic Simulation software tool used today. Because of this, there is a one-degree discrepancy in the airway description. The current airway description for V-4 includes the intersection of the Boise, ID, Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) 130° and the Burley, ID, Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) 292° radials (ALKAL, Fix). However, the ALKAL Fix has been reviewed and is located at the intersection of the Boise VORTAC 130° and the Burley VOR/DME 293° radials. This action corrects the Burley VOR/DME radial used for defining the ALKAL Fix. The amendment is described below.

V-4: V-4 currently extends between the Tatoosh, WA, VORTAC and the Armel, VA, VOR/DME and includes the intersection of the INT Boise 130° and Burley, ID, 292° radials (ALKAL, Fix). This rule changes the component radials that makeup the ALKAL Fix to the intersection of the Boise VORTAC 130° and Burley VOR/DME 293° radials.

The radials in the V-4 airway description are listed in degrees True north.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action of amending Federal Airway V-4 in the vicinity of Burley, ID qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050,1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6-5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph 5-6.5.k., which categorically excludes from further environmental review the publication of existing air traffic control procedures that do not essentially change existing tracks, create new tracks, change altitude, or change concentration of aircraft on these tracks. As such, this action is not expected to result in in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1f, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant prepared of an environmental impact statement.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, 8260-15B, when required by an entry on 8260-15A, and 8260-15C.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, pilots do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers or aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Air Missions (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flights safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 14 CFR part 97 is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Air Missions (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, pilots do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 14 CFR part 97 is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

1. In this final rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is complying with its statutory obligation to amend the civil monetary penalties provided by law for matters within the agency's jurisdiction.

2. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Adjustment Act), 1 which further amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (1990 Adjustment Act), 2 required the head of each Federal agency to issue a rule by July 2016 adjusting for inflation each “civil monetary penalty” provided by law within the agency's jurisdiction and to make further inflation adjustments on an annual basis every January 15 thereafter. 3

3. The 2015 Adjustment Act defines a civil monetary penalty as any penalty, fine, or other sanction that: (A)(i) is for a specific monetary amount as provided by Federal law; or (ii) has a maximum amount provided for by Federal law; (B) is assessed or enforced by an agency pursuant to Federal law; and (C) is assessed or enforced pursuant to an administrative proceeding or a civil action in the federal courts. 4 This definition applies to the maximum civil penalties that may be imposed under the Federal Power Act (FPA), 5 the Natural Gas Act (NGA), 6 the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA), 7 and the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA). 8

4. Under the 2015 Adjustment Act, the first step for such adjustment of a civil monetary penalty for inflation requires determining the percentage by which the U.S. Department of Labor's Consumer Price Index for all-urban consumers (CPI-U) for October of the preceding year exceeds the CPI-U for October of the year before that. 9 The CPI-U for October 2023 exceeded the CPI-U for October 2022 by 3.241%. 10

5. The second step requires multiplying the CPI-U percentage increase by the applicable existing maximum civil monetary penalty. 11 This step results in a base penalty increase amount.

6. The third step requires rounding the base penalty increase amount to the nearest dollar and adding that amount to the base penalty to calculate the new adjusted maximum civil monetary penalty. 12

7. Under the 2015 Adjustment Act, an agency is directed to use the maximum civil monetary penalty applicable at the time of assessment of a civil penalty, regardless of the date on which the violation occurred. 13

8. The adjustments that the Commission is required to make pursuant to the 2015 Adjustment Act are reflected in the following table:

9. Congress directed that agencies issue final rules to adjust their maximum civil monetary penalties notwithstanding the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 14 Because the Commission is required by law to undertake these inflation adjustments notwithstanding the notice and comment requirements that otherwise would apply pursuant to the APA, and because the Commission lacks discretion with respect to the method and amount of the adjustments, prior notice and comment would be impractical, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest.

10. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, requires agencies to certify that rules promulgated under their authority will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. 15 The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act apply only to rules promulgated following notice and comment. 16 The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply to this rulemaking because the Commission is issuing this final rule without notice and comment.

11. This rule does not require the collection of information. The Commission is therefore not required to submit this rule for review to the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 17

12. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register , the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and print the contents of this document via the internet through the Commission's Home Page ( http://www.ferc.gov ).

13. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number (excluding the last three digits) in the docket number field.

14. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659, or email at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov .

15. For the same reasons the Commission has determined that public notice and comment are unnecessary, impractical, and contrary to the public interest, the Commission finds good cause to adopt an effective date that is less than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register pursuant to the APA, 18 and therefore, the regulation is effective upon publication in the Federal Register .

16. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This final rule is being submitted to the Senate, House, and Government Accountability Office.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends parts 250 and 385, chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Background

The Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (Pub. L. 97-446, 19 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. ) (CPIA), which implements the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (823 U.N.T.S. 231 (1972)) (the Convention), allows for the conclusion of an agreement between the United States and another party to the Convention to impose import restrictions on eligible archaeological and ethnological materials. Under the CPIA and the applicable U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations, found in § 12.104 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 12.104), the restrictions are effective for no more than five years beginning on the date on which an agreement enters into force with respect to the United States (19 U.S.C. 2602(b)). This period may be extended for additional periods, each extension not to exceed five years, if it is determined that the factors justifying the initial agreement still pertain and no cause for suspension of the agreement exists (19 U.S.C. 2602(e); 19 CFR 12.104g(a)).

On January 14, 2009, the United States entered into a bilateral agreement with the People's Republic of China (China) to impose import restrictions on certain archaeological material representing China's cultural heritage from the Paleolithic Period (c. 75,000 B.C.) through the end of the Tang Period (A.D. 907), and monumental sculpture and wall art at least 250 years old. On January 16, 2009, CBP published a final rule (CBP Dec. 09-03) in the Federal Register (74 FR 2838), which amended 19 CFR 12.104g(a) to reflect the imposition of these restrictions, including a list designating the types of archaeological materials covered by the restrictions.

The import restrictions were subsequently extended two more times in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 2602(e) and 19 CFR 12.104g(a), and the designated list was amended once. On January 13, 2014, CBP published a final rule (CBP Dec. 14-02) in the Federal Register (79 FR 2088), which amended § 12.104g(a) to reflect the extension of these import restrictions for an additional five years. By request of China, this document also amended the Designated List to clarify that the restrictions as to monumental sculpture and wall art at least 250 years old were to be calculated as of January 14, 2009, the date the agreement became effective.

Subsequently, on January 10, 2019, the United States and China entered into a new memorandum of understanding (2019 MOU), that superseded and replaced the prior agreement, extending the import restrictions for an additional five years. The new MOU added a new subcategory of glass objects from the Zhou period through the Tang period and revised the Designated List of cultural property described in CBP Dec. 14-02. On January 14, 2019, CBP published a final rule (CBP Dec. 19-02) in the Federal Register (84 FR 107), which amended § 12.104g(a) to reflect the extension of these import restrictions for an additional five years and amended the Designated List to include the new subcategory of glass objects from the Zhou period through the Tang Period. These import restrictions are due to expire on January 14, 2024.

On May 19, 2023, the United States Department of State proposed in the Federal Register (88 FR 32264) to extend the 2019 MOU. On November 14, 2023, after considering the views and recommendations of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, the Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, United States Department of State, made the necessary determinations to extend the import restrictions for an additional five years. Following an exchange of diplomatic notes, the United States Department of State and the Government of the People's Republic of China have agreed to extend the restrictions for an additional five-year period, through January 14, 2029.

Accordingly, CBP is amending 19 CFR 12.104g(a) to reflect the extension of these import restrictions. The restrictions on the importation of archaeological material from China will continue in effect through January 14, 2029. Importation of such material from China continues to be restricted through that date unless the conditions set forth in 19 U.S.C. 2606 and 19 CFR 12.104c are met.

The Designated List and additional information may also be found at the following website address: https://eca.state.gov/cultural-heritage-center/cultural-property-advisory-committee/current-import-restrictions by selecting the material for “China.”

This amendment involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and is, therefore, being made without notice or public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). For the same reason, a delayed effective date is not required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

Executive Orders 12866 (as amended by Executive Order 14994) and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. CBP has determined that this document is not a regulation or rule subject to the provisions of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 because it pertains to a foreign affairs function of the United States, as described above, and therefore is specifically exempted by section 3(d)(2) of Executive Order 12866 and, by extension, Executive Order 13563.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, requires an agency to prepare and make available to the public a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of a proposed rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions) when the agency is required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for a rule. Since a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not necessary for this rule, CBP is not required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rule.

This regulation is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1) pertaining to the Secretary of the Treasury's authority (or that of the Secretary's delegate) to approve regulations related to customs revenue functions.

Troy A. Miller, the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Commissioner, having reviewed and approved this document, has delegated the authority to electronically sign this document to the Director (or Acting Director, if applicable) of the Regulations and Disclosure Law Division for CBP, for purposes of publication in the Federal Register .

For the reasons set forth above, part 12 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 12), is amended as set forth below:

Preamble Table of Contents I. Background II. Adjustment for 2024 III. Paperwork Reduction Act IV. Administrative Procedure Act V. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act VII. Other Regulatory Considerations A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 B. Executive Order 13132: Federalism C. Executive Order 13175: Indian Tribal Governments D. The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999: Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks F. Environmental Impact Assessment G. Executive Order 13211: Energy Supply H. Executive Order 12630: Constitutionally Protected Property Rights I. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform Analysis I. Background

On November 2, 2015, Congress enacted the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, Public Law 114-74, sec. 701 (Inflation Adjustment Act), which further amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 as previously amended by the 1996 Debt Collection Improvement Act (collectively, the “Prior Inflation Adjustment Act”), to improve the effectiveness of civil monetary penalties and to maintain their deterrent effect. The Inflation Adjustment Act required agencies to (1) adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through an interim final rule (IFR); and (2) make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation no later than January 15 of each year.

On July 1, 2016, the Department published an IFR that established the initial catch-up adjustment for most civil penalties that the Department administers and requested comments. See 81 FR 43430 (DOL IFR). On January 18, 2017, the Department published the final rule establishing the 2017 Annual Adjustment for those civil monetary penalties adjusted in the DOL IFR. See 82 FR 5373 (DOL 2017 Annual Adjustment). On July 1, 2016, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) (collectively, “the Departments”) jointly published an IFR that established the initial catch-up adjustment for civil monetary penalties assessed or enforced in connection with the employment of temporary nonimmigrant workers under the H-2B program. See 81 FR 42983 (Joint IFR). On March 17, 2017, the Departments jointly published the final rule establishing the 2017 Annual Adjustment for the H-2B civil monetary penalties. See 82 FR 14147 (Joint 2017 Annual Adjustment). The Joint 2017 Annual Adjustment also explained that DOL would make future adjustments to the H-2B civil monetary penalties consistent with DOL's delegated authority under 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(14), Immigration and Nationality Act section 214(c)(14), and the Inflation Adjustment Act. See 82 FR 14147-48. On January 2, 2018, the Department published the final rule establishing the 2018 Annual Adjustment for civil monetary penalties assessed or enforced by the Department, including H-2B civil monetary penalties. See 83 FR 7 (DOL 2018 Annual Adjustment). On January 23, 2019, the Department published the final rule establishing the 2019 Annual Adjustment for civil monetary penalties assessed or enforced by the Department, including H-2B civil monetary penalties. See 84 FR 213 (DOL 2019 Annual Adjustment). On January 15, 2020, the Department published the final rule establishing the 2020 Annual Adjustment for civil monetary penalties assessed or enforced by the Department, including H-2B civil monetary penalties. See 85 FR 2292 (DOL 2020 Annual Adjustment). On January 14, 2021, the Department published the final rule establishing the 2021 Annual Adjustment for civil monetary penalties assessed or enforced by the Department, including H-2B civil monetary penalties. See 86 FR 2964 (DOL 2021 Annual Adjustment). On January 14, 2022, the Department published the final rule establishing the 2022 Annual Adjustment for civil monetary penalties assessed or enforced by the Department, including H-2B civil monetary penalties. See 87 FR 2328 (DOL 2022 Annual Adjustment). The DOL 2022 Annual Adjustment also included the first annual adjustments for a newly enacted civil monetary penalty regarding retention of tips under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and a newly established civil monetary penalty regarding whistleblower protections under the high-wage components of the labor value content requirements of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Implementation Act (USMCA). On January 13, 2023, the Department published the final rule establishing the 2023 Annual Adjustment for civil monetary penalties assessed or enforced by the Department, including H-2B civil monetary penalties. See 88 FR 2210 (DOL 2023 Annual Adjustment).

This rule implements the 2024 annual inflation adjustments, as required by the Inflation Adjustment Act, for civil monetary penalties assessed or enforced by the Department, including H-2B civil monetary penalties. The Inflation Adjustment Act provides that the increased penalty levels apply to any penalties assessed after the effective date of the increase. Pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment Act, this final rule is published notwithstanding Section 553 of the APA.

This rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a `major rule,' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The Department has undertaken a thorough review of civil penalties administered by its various components pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment Act and in accordance with guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget. 1

The Department first identified the most recent penalty amount, which is the amount established by the 2023 annual adjustment as set forth in the DOL 2023 Annual Adjustment published on January 13, 2023.

The Department is required to calculate the annual adjustment based on the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U). Annual inflation adjustments are based on the percent change between the October CPI-U preceding the date of the adjustment, and the prior year's October CPI-U; in this case, the percent change between the October 2023 CPI-U and the October 2022 CPI-U. The cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2024, based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) for the month of October 2023, not seasonally adjusted, is 1.03241. 2 In order to compute the 2024 annual adjustment, the Department multiplied the most recent penalty amount for each applicable penalty by the multiplier, 1.03241, and rounded to the nearest dollar.

As provided by the Inflation Adjustment Act, the increased penalty levels apply to any penalties assessed after the effective date of this rule. 3 Accordingly, for penalties assessed after January 15, 2024, whose associated violations occurred after the applicable dates listed below, the higher penalty amounts outlined in this rule will apply. The tables below demonstrate the penalty amounts that apply:

I. Executive Summary A. Does this action apply to me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture (including import), process, or distribute in commerce chemical substances and mixtures. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• NAICS 221210—Natural Gas Distribution;

• NAICS 236220—Commercial and Institutional Building Construction;

• NAICS 324—Petroleum and Coal Product Manufacturing;

• NAICS 324—Petroleum and Coal Product Manufacturing;

• NAICS 32419—Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing;

• NAICS 325—Chemical Manufacturing;

• NAICS 325120—Industrial Gas Manufacturing;

• NAICS 325180—Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing;

• NAICS 325199—All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing;

• NAICS 325211—Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing;

• NAICS 325212—Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing;

• NAICS 325220—Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing;

• NAICS 325320—Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing;

• NAICS 325411—Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing;

• NAICS 325412—Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing;

• NAICS 325612—Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing;

• NAICS 325613—Surface Active Agent Manufacturing;

• NAICS 325998—All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing;

• NAICS 326113—Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Manufacturing;

• NAICS 327910—Abrasive Product Manufacturing;

• NAICS 333999—All Other Miscellaneous General Purpose Machinery Manufacturing;

• NAICS 334511—Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing;

• NAICS 336111—Automobile Manufacturing;

• NAICS 423120—Motor Vehicle Supplies and New Parts Merchant Wholesalers;

• NAICS 423420—Office Equipment Merchant Wholesalers;

• NAICS 423510—Metal Service Centers and Other Metal Merchant Wholesalers;

• NAICS 423740—Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers;

• NAICS 423990—Other Miscellaneous Durable Goods Merchant Wholesalers;

• NAICS 424690—Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers;

• NAICS 424720—Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers (except Bulk Stations and Terminals);

• NAICS 424950—Paint, Varnish, and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers;

• NAICS 441110—New Car Dealers;

• NAICS 447190—Other Gasoline Stations;

• NAICS 551112—Offices of Other Holding Companies; and

• NAICS 562—Waste Management and Remediation Services.

This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import, including import certification, and export notification rules under TSCA. Chemical importers are subject to the import provision of TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612), which requires that the Secretary of the Treasury “refuse entry into the customs territory of the United States” of any substance, mixture, or article containing a chemical substance or mixture that fails to comply with any rule issued under TSCA or that “is offered for entry in violation” of TSCA or certain rules or orders issued under TSCA, including rules issued under TSCA section 5. Persons who import any chemical substance in bulk form, as part of a mixture, or as part of an article (if required by rule) are also subject to TSCA section 13 import certification requirements and the corresponding regulations promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127 (see also 19 CFR 127.28). Chemical importers of the chemical substances in bulk form, as part of a mixture, or as part of an article (if required by rule) must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA, including regulations issued under TSCA sections 5, 6, 7 and Title IV. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B.

In addition, pursuant to 40 CFR 721.20, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance that is the subject of this final rule are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.

TSCA section 5(a)(2) (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including those listed in TSCA section 5(a)(2). Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1) requires persons to submit a significant new use notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture (including import) or process the chemical substance for that use (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)(B)(i)). TSCA further provides that such manufacturing (including import) or processing may not commence until EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and taken such actions as are required in association with that determination (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)(B)(ii)). As described in Unit V., the general SNUR provisions are found at 40 CFR part 721, subpart A.

TSCA section 26(c) (15 U.S.C. 2625(c)) authorizes EPA to take action under other sections of TSCA with respect to categories of chemical substances.

This final SNUR will require persons to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing any manufacture (including import) or processing of those 329 PFAS described in Unit II. that are designated as inactive on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory) and that are not subject to an existing SNUR, including the existing SNURs cited at 40 CFR 721.9582 and 721.10536, for any use. EPA is providing a list of the 299 inactive PFAS that do not mask “fluor” or “fluorine” in the generic name in the public docket for this rule (Ref. 1). This category of PFAS chemical substances (“inactive PFAS”) is described further in Unit II.

EPA is exempting from the notice requirement PFAS present as impurities, any byproducts which are not used for commercial purposes, and the importing or processing of inactive PFAS-containing articles because notification for the commercial activity designation (as active or inactive) on the TSCA Inventory is not required for such substances (see 40 CFR 710.27(a)). Similarly, EPA is exempting from the notice requirement PFAS manufactured or processed: in small quantities solely for research and development, for test marketing purposes, as a non-isolated intermediate, or solely for export from the United States as described in 40 CFR 720.30(e) or 721.3, except where the Administrator has made a finding described in TSCA section 12(a)(2).

The SNUR was proposed in the Federal Register on January 26, 2023 (88 FR 4937 (FRL 9655-01-OCSPP)). EPA received a total of 20 public comment submissions in response to the notice. EPA received one ongoing use claim in Unit V. of the Response to Comments document (Ref. 2). EPA reviewed the ongoing use claim, requested additional information, and has determined that the use is not ongoing, as described in Unit XI.D.

As noted in the January 26, 2023, proposed rule (88 FR 4937 (FRL 9655-01-OCSPP)), this action is part of the comprehensive approach outlined in the Agency's “PFAS Strategic Roadmap: EPA's Commitments to Action 2021-2024” to proactively prevent PFAS from entering air, land, and water at levels that can adversely impact human health and the environment (Ref. 3). This SNUR is necessary to ensure that EPA receives timely advance notice of any future manufacturing (including import) or processing of inactive PFAS for new uses that may produce changes in human or environmental exposures.

The rationale and objectives for this SNUR are further explained in Unit III.

EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUR reporting requirements for potential manufacturers (including importers) and processors of the chemical substances included in this rule. This analysis (Ref. 4), which is available in the docket, is discussed in Unit IX., and is briefly summarized here.

In the event that a SNUN is submitted, costs are estimated to be approximately $26,894 per SNUN submission for large business submitters and $11,204 for small business submitters. In addition, for persons exporting a substance that is the subject of a SNUR, a one-time notice to EPA must be provided for the first export or intended export to a particular country, which is estimated to be approximately $43 per notification.

As discussed in Units II. and III. of the proposed rule (88 FR 4937, January 26, 2023 (FRL 9655-01-OCSPP)), this SNUR applies to chemical substances designated as inactive on the TSCA Inventory that are also PFAS, except that inactive PFAS already subject to a significant new use rule, including but not limited to the significant new use rules cited at 40 CFR 721.9582 and 721.10536, are not subject to notice requirements under this action to avoid potential redundancies or conflicts between the SNURs.

For the purposes of this SNUR, the definition of “PFAS” includes chemicals that contain at least one of these three structures:

• R-(CF2)-CF(R′)R″, where both the CF2 and CF moieties are saturated carbons;

• R-CF2OCF2-R′, where R and R′ can either be F, O, or saturated carbons; or

• CF3C(CF3)R′R″, where R′ and R″ can either be F or saturated carbons.

As described in Unit II. of the January 26, 2023, proposed rule (88 FR 4937 (FRL-9655-01-OCSPP)), this definition was developed to focus on substances most likely to be persistent in the environment and EPA notes that this definition may not be identical to other definitions of PFAS used within EPA or by other domestic or international organizations.

The chemical substances for which EPA is finalizing a SNUR are the 329 PFAS that are both currently designated as inactive on the TSCA Inventory and that are not subject to an existing SNUR. The specific chemical identities for 30 of these substances that have been claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI) have generic names (the nonconfidential substitute for the specific chemical name) that do not contain “fluor” or “fluorine.” EPA is providing a list of the 299 inactive PFAS that do not mask “fluor” or “fluorine” in the generic name in the public docket for this rule (Ref. 1). Because EPA is finalizing a structural definition of PFAS for this SNUR, EPA need not take additional steps to list the 30 inactive PFAS that are not subject to an existing SNUR and whose generic names do not contain “fluor” or “fluorine”.

On October 14, 2022, prior to the publication of the proposed SNUR, EPA received a Notice of Activity for CASRN 306-92-3. This substance was erroneously included in the initial count and list of the 300 inactive PFAS that do not mask “fluor” or “fluorine” in the supplemental document, “List of Select Chemicals Subject to the Proposed Significant New Use Rule Per- and Poly-fluoroalkyl Chemical Substances Designated as Inactive on the TSCA Inventory” (Ref. 5). The designation of this substance was “active” at the time of the proposed rule and, as such, it is not subject to this final rule and the correct number of chemical substances for which EPA is finalizing a SNUR is 329.

EPA received one Notice of Activity for CASRN 35101-47-7 on March 2, 2023, after the publication of the proposed rule. As described in Unit IV of the proposed rule, uses arising after January 26, 2023, are significant new uses, and persons who began commercial manufacturing (including importing) or processing for a significant new use have to cease upon the effective date of the final rule. To resume their activities, these persons must first comply with all applicable SNUR notification requirements and wait until all TSCA prerequisites for the commencement of manufacturing (including importing) or processing have been satisfied.

As discussed in Units II. and III. of the proposed rule (88 FR 4937, January 26, 2023 (FRL-9655-01-OCSPP)), PFAS can adversely impact human health and the environment. This final action is part of a comprehensive approach to proactively prevent PFAS from entering air, land, and water at levels that can adversely impact human health and the environment.

In the absence of this final SNUR, manufacturing (including importing) or processing for the significant new uses in this rule could begin at any time after a manufacturer submits a Notice of Activity under section 8 of TSCA and the substance becomes “active” on the TSCA Inventory; EPA would not be provided prior notice under section 5 or an opportunity to review and address potential risks associated with the proposed new use. The manufacture (including import) or processing for any use of inactive PFAS would increase the magnitude and duration of exposure to humans and the environment to these chemicals. Given the concerns described in Units II. and III. of the proposed rule (88 FR 4937, January 26, 2023 (FRL-9655-01-OCSPP)), EPA has determined that notification and EPA's required review are warranted for these chemicals prior to their potential reintroduction into commerce.

Consistent with EPA's past practice for issuing SNURs under TSCA section 5(a)(2), as described in Unit IV. of the proposed rule (88 FR 4937, January 26, 2023 (FRL-9655-01-OCSPP)), EPA's decision to issue a SNUR for a particular chemical use follows an analysis of the relevant factors listed in section 5(a)(2) and need not be based on an extensive evaluation of the hazard, exposure, or potential risk associated with that use. If a person decides to begin manufacturing (including importing) or processing any of these chemicals for the significant new use, the notice to EPA allows the Agency to evaluate the new use according to the specific parameters and circumstances surrounding the conditions of use at the time it receives such a notification.

Based on the considerations in Unit III.A., EPA will achieve the following objectives with regard to the significant new use(s) of inactive PFAS that are designated in this rule:

• EPA will receive notice of any person's intent to manufacture (including import) or process the chemical substances for the described significant new use before that activity begins.

• EPA will have an opportunity to review and evaluate information submitted in a SNUN before the notice submitter begins manufacturing (including importing) or processing the chemical substances for the described significant new use.

• EPA must either determine that the significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury or take such regulatory action as is associated with an alternative determination under TSCA section 5 before the manufacture or processing for the significant new use could commence.

TSCA section 5(a)(2) states that EPA's determination that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after consideration of all relevant factors including:

• The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance.

• The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.

• The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.

• The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing (including importing), processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.

In addition to these factors enumerated in TSCA section 5(a)(2), the statute authorizes EPA to consider any other relevant factors.

To determine what constitutes a significant new use of an inactive PFAS, EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity or expected toxicity of these substances, likely human exposures and environmental releases associated with possible uses, and the four factors listed in TSCA section 5(a)(2). Since the manufacture (including import) and processing of inactive PFAS has been discontinued in the United States, exposure will decrease over time. As such, EPA expects their presence in humans and the environment to decline over time. If any new uses of inactive PFAS were to resume after having been phased out, EPA believes that such uses could both change the type and form and increase the magnitude and duration of human and environmental exposure to the substances, constituting a significant new use.

EPA acknowledges that the reporting of commercial activity under the TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Requirements Rule (“Active-Inactive rule”) was not required for several activities, including, but not limited to, importing or processing of inactive PFAS-containing articles, and manufacturing (including importing) or processing of inactive PFAS as impurities, byproducts not used for commercial purposes, small quantities solely for research and development, for test marketing purposes, as a non-isolated intermediate, or solely for export from the United States (Ref. 6). Thus, EPA has determined that the designation of these PFAS as inactive does not provide a sufficient basis to conclude that there are not ongoing uses of inactive PFAS for these activities, and because this SNUR is based on information obtained from the Active-Inactive rule, EPA is not at this time designating uses for these activities as significant new uses. Based on consideration of the statutory factors discussed herein, EPA has determined as significant new uses: manufacture (including import) or processing of inactive PFAS for any use except:

General provisions for SNURs appear under 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These provisions describe persons subject to the rule, recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability of the rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the final rule.

Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. According to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons subject to SNURs must comply with the same notice requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of Pre-manufacture Notices (PMNs) under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A). In particular, these requirements include the information submission requirements of TSCA sections 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA sections 5(h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(5), and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA must either determine that the significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury or take such regulatory action as is associated with an alternative determination under TSCA section 5 before the manufacturing (including importing) or processing for the significant new use could commence. If EPA determines that the significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to make public, and submit for publication in the Federal Register , a statement of EPA's finding.

Persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance identified in a proposed or final SNUR are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b). The regulations that interpret TSCA section 12(b) appear at 40 CFR part 707, subpart D. Persons who import a chemical substance identified in a final SNUR are subject to TSCA section 13, which requires that the Secretary of the Treasury “refuse entry into the customs territory of the United States” of any substance, mixture, or article containing a chemical substance or mixture that fails to comply with any rule issued under TSCA or that “is offered for entry in violation” of TSCA or certain rules or orders issued under TSCA, including SNURs issued under TSCA section 5. Persons who import any chemical substance in bulk form, as part of a mixture, or as part of an article (if required by rule) are also subject to TSCA section 13 import certification requirements, codified at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127; see also 19 CFR 127.28. Those persons must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA, including any SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B.

As discussed in the Federal Register of April 24, 1990 (55 FR 17376 (FRL-3658-5)), EPA has decided that the intent of TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) is best served by designating a use as a significant new use as of the date of publication of the proposed rule, rather than as of the effective date of the final rule. This rule was proposed on January 26, 2023 (88 FR 4937 (FRL-9655-01-OCSPP)). Uses arising after the publication of the proposed rule are distinguished from uses that existed at publication of the proposed rule. The former would be new uses, the latter ongoing uses, except that uses that are ongoing as of the publication of the proposed rule would not be considered ongoing uses if they have ceased by the date of issuance of a final rule. EPA solicited public comment to identify any ongoing manufacturing or processing of inactive PFAS subject to the proposed SNUR. EPA received one ongoing use claim captured in the Response to Comments in Unit V. (Ref. 2). EPA reviewed the ongoing use claim, requested additional information, and has determined that the use is not ongoing, as described in Unit XI.D.

Persons who began commercial manufacturing (including importing) or processing of the chemical substances for a significant new use identified as of January 26, 2023, must cease any such activity upon the effective date of this final rule. To resume their activities, these persons first have to comply with all applicable SNUR notification requirements and wait until all TSCA prerequisites for the commencement of manufacturing (including importing) or processing have been satisfied. Consult the Federal Register document of April 24, 1990 (55 FR 17376 (FRL-3658-5)) for a more detailed discussion of the cutoff date for ongoing uses.

EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not usually require developing new information ( e.g., generating test data) before submission of a SNUN. There is an exception: development of information is required where the chemical substance subject to the SNUR is also subject to a rule, order, or consent agreement under TSCA section 4 (see TSCA section 5(b)(1)).

In the absence of a TSCA section 4 test rule or order covering the chemical substance, persons are required to submit only information in their possession or control and to describe any other information known to or reasonably ascertainable by them (15 U.S.C. 2604(d); 40 CFR 721.25 and 720.50). However, as a general matter, EPA recommends that SNUN submitters include information that would permit a reasoned evaluation of risks posed by the chemical substance during its manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal. Potentially useful information includes physical-chemical property data and any information related to persistence, bioaccumulation, toxicity, and other characteristics that may help predict the impact of a chemical substance on health or the environment.

Submitting a SNUN that does not include information sufficient to permit a reasoned evaluation may increase the likelihood that EPA will either respond with a determination that the information available to the Agency is insufficient to permit a reasoned evaluation of the health and environmental effects of the significant new use or, alternatively, that in the absence of sufficient information, the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of the chemical substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury.

SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better able to evaluate SNUNs and define the terms of any potentially necessary controls if the submitter provides detailed information on human exposure and environmental releases that may result from the significant new use of the chemical substances.

EPA recommends that submitters consult with the Agency prior to submitting a SNUN to discuss what information may be useful in evaluating a significant new use notice. Discussions with the Agency prior to submission can afford ample time to conduct any tests that might be helpful in evaluating risks posed by the substance. According to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN must comply with the same notice requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as persons submitting a PMN, including submission of test data on health and environmental effects as described in 40 CFR 720.50. SNUNs must be submitted on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN software, and submitted to the Agency in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 721.25 and 720.40. E-PMN software is available electronically at https://www.epa.gov/chemicals-under-tsca.

EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUR reporting requirements for potential manufacturers (including importers) and processors of the chemical substances included in this rule (Ref. 4). In the event that a SNUN is submitted, costs are estimated at approximately $26,894 per SNUN submission for large business submitters and $11,204 for small business submitters. These estimates include the cost to prepare and submit the SNUN, and the payment of a user fee. Businesses that submit a SNUN would be subject to either a $19,020 user fee required by 40 CFR 700.45(b)(2)(iii), or, if they are a small business as defined at 13 CFR 121.201, a reduced user fee of $3,330 (40 CFR 700.45(b)(1)). Additionally, these estimates reflect the costs and fees as they are known at the time this rule is promulgated. EPA's complete economic analysis is available in the public docket for this rule (Ref. 4).

Under TSCA section 12(b) and the implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 707, subpart D, exporters must notify EPA if they export or intend to export a chemical substance or mixture for which, among other things, a rule has been proposed or promulgated under TSCA section 5. For persons exporting a substance that is the subject of a SNUR, a one-time notice to EPA must be provided for the first export or intended export to a particular country. The total costs of export notification will vary by chemical, depending on the number of required notifications ( i.e., the number of countries to which the chemical is exported). While EPA is unable to make any estimate of the likely number of export notifications for the chemicals covered in this SNUR, as stated in the accompanying economic analysis of this SNUR, the estimated cost of the export notification requirement on a per unit basis is approximately $43.

EPA has used scientific information, technical procedures, measures, methods, protocols, methodologies, and models consistent with the best available science, as applicable. These information sources supply information relevant to whether a particular use would be a significant new use, based on relevant factors including those listed under TSCA section 5(a)(2). As noted in Unit III., EPA's decision to promulgate a SNUR for a particular chemical use need not be based on an extensive evaluation of the hazard, exposure, or potential risk associated with that use.

The clarity and completeness of the data, assumptions, methods, quality assurance, and analyses employed in EPA's decision are documented, as applicable and to the extent necessary for purposes of this SNUR, in Unit II. of the January 26, 2023, proposed rule (88 FR 4937 (FRL-9655-01-OCSPP)), and in the references cited throughout the preamble of the proposed rule. EPA recognizes, based on the available information, that there is variability and uncertainty in whether any particular significant new use would actually present an unreasonable risk. For precisely this reason, it is appropriate to secure a future notice and review process for these uses, at such time as they are known more definitely. The extent to which the various information, procedures, measures, methods, protocols, methodologies or models used in EPA's decision have been subject to independent verification or peer review is adequate to justify their use, collectively, in the record for a significant new use rule.

The Agency reviewed and considered all comments received related to the January 26, 2023, proposed rule (88 FR 4937 (FRL-9655-01-OCSPP)). Copies of all comments are available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2022-0867), and EPA responses are in the Response to Comments document (Ref. 2), which is also available in the docket. Several primary comment topics included: the Agency's statutory authority; the definition of PFAS; significant new uses; ongoing manufacturing and processing; chemical identity claimed as CBI; byproducts, impurities, and non-isolated intermediates; and costs and fees of SNUN submissions which are summarized in this unit, along with EPA responses.

1. Comment: Several commenters stated that EPA is acting within its authority under TSCA with the proposed SNUR. Other commenters commented that EPA is acting outside of its statutory authority and one commenter claimed that the inactive status of a chemical or chemicals on the TSCA Inventory should not be used as the sole basis for a SNUR and that the proposal appears to undercut the simple notification procedure for changing the status of a chemical substance from inactive to active that Congress included when TSCA was amended. One commenter stated that Congress did not include in the 2016 amendments a provision that requires any form of substantive review of substances prior to change of status from inactive to active. The same commenter stated that EPA appears not to have undertaken a chemical-by-chemical review for the three hundred substances subject to this SNUR, and findings on a chemical-specific basis have not been provided.

Response: EPA disagrees that this SNUR, issued pursuant to TSCA section 5(a) undercuts the notification procedure established under TSCA section 8(b). TSCA section 8(b)(5)(B)(i) requires that “[a]ny person that intends to manufacture or process for a nonexempt commercial purpose a chemical substance that is designated as an inactive substance shall notify the Administrator before the date on which the inactive substance is manufactured or processed.” This Notice of Activity reporting requirement applies to all chemical substances designated as inactive, including those subject to this SNUR. EPA separately has authority under TSCA section 5(a) to determine that uses of a chemical substance (or category of chemical substances) are “significant new uses” for which notification to EPA is required before manufacture (including import) or processing for the significant new use can commence. EPA has authority under TSCA section 5(a) to promulgate SNURs for “any chemical substance,” without regard to whether the chemical substance is designated as active or inactive. There is also no requirement that EPA need undertake a chemical-by-chemical review as the commenter suggests. One common characteristic of concern of PFAS is that many break down very slowly and can build up in people, animals, and the environment over time (Ref. 7). As described in Unit IV. of the January 26, 2023, proposed rule (88 FR 4639 (FRL-9655-01-OCSPP)), the baseline projected volume for these 329 inactive PFAS is presumed to be minimal based on their inactive TSCA Inventory designation. As such, any new manufacturing or processing of any of these chemical substances would significantly change the production volume and produce changes in human or environmental exposures to these chemical substances. Thus, EPA has determined it is necessary to review and make an affirmative determination on potential risks of the chemical substances under section 5 before the manufacture (including import) or processing of the chemical substances for the described significant new use could begin.

2. Comment: Many commenters discussed the proposed definition of PFAS for this rule. Several commenters suggested that EPA identify covered PFAS by specific identification rather than through a structural definition. One commenter stated that structural definitions are difficult to use as they require an extensive understanding of the often-complex chemistry of PFAS, and structural definitions may also be ambiguous and over-inclusive. Other commenters stated that should EPA move ahead with a broad definition and stated that the definition should be consistent with the definition of PFAS the Agency uses in other regulations, or that EPA should work with Federal partners to ensure a consistent Federal definition of PFAS. Two commenters stated that EPA should adopt a definition of PFAS that more closely aligns with the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD) broad definition (Ref. 8).

Response: EPA believes it has been chemically precise in the proposed structural definition and appreciates that there are differences between the definition of PFAS used for this rule, for other actions in the Agency, and by other Federal agencies. The Agency considered adopting various definitions, including some of those suggested by commenters, but ultimately determined those definitions were not appropriate for this rule because they were not developed to focus on substances most likely to be persistent in the environment while excluding those substances that are “lightly” fluorinated. In reaching this decision, EPA considered that OECD also stipulates that there may be different definitions of “PFAS” for different entities or for different purposes, and that it may be appropriate for there to be different definitions or interpretations depending on the specific scenario. The proposed definition focused on substances with greater potential for exposures to people and/or the environment and by extension more potential to present risks. Adopting the OECD definition of PFAS for this rule would have included many substances whose only fluorine molecule is in a terminal -CF3 and that do not share a structure that is likely to result in the substance's persistence in the environment, or which would degrade to a substance that shares toxicological or physiochemical properties with perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), or GenX (Ref. 9).

EPA disagrees that the scope of substances subject to notification requirements should be a discrete list and not a structural definition. EPA points out that other regulations promulgated pursuant to TSCA have relied on a structural definition when appropriate ( e.g., the long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylate (LCPFAC) SNUR defines covered substances using a structural definition (40 CFR 721.10536), and the polymer exemption rule for new chemical PMNs defines covered PFAS polymers using structural definitions (40 CFR 723.250)).

Additionally, there are PFAS on the TSCA Inventory whose generic names do not clearly state the substance is fluorinated ( i.e., no “fluor” included in the generic name). The inclusion of those chemicals on a discrete list for reporting under this rule would disclose structural information for these substances that has been claimed as CBI. EPA is finalizing the rule as proposed and is providing the list of the 299 inactive PFAS that do not mask “fluor” or “fluorine” in the generic name in the public docket for this rule. EPA believes that providing a list of the 299 PFAS should eliminate most ambiguity, and notes that an entity with a valid commercial need for EPA to verify if a substance is on the inventory can submit a Bona Fide Intent to Manufacture or Import Notice (“bona fide notice”). EPA will consider the information submitted in a bona fide notice and, if the Agency believes that the submitter has demonstrated a genuine intent to manufacture or import, search the full TSCA Inventory master file and provide a written determination to the submitter on the TSCA Inventory status (including SNUR status) for the requested chemical substance.

3. Comment: Several commenters stated that SNURs are intended to address truly new uses. The commenters state that the dormant status of a substance on the TSCA Inventory does not mean that a previous use should be considered new when reintroduced into commerce. Two commenters stated that under TSCA, EPA is required to evaluate a substance prior to promulgating a SNUR. One commenter suggested that EPA specifically exclude from the notification requirements any uses that were identified to EPA in previously submitted PMNs. Another commenter said that addressing the discontinued use of an existing chemical with a SNUR is only administratively efficient where other requirements of TSCA section 5 have been met and where (1) stakeholder groups are broadly aware of the proposal and (2) agree with EPA that the use is permanently discontinued or being phased out; the commenter stated that these elements have not been met.

Response: EPA disagrees that the previous use of a chemical substance listed as inactive on the TSCA Inventory should not be considered new when such use is restarted. TSCA section 5 gives EPA the authority to designate uses of a chemical as Significant New Uses, including but not limited to uses that were ongoing in the past but are not longer in process. Part of EPA's rationale for promulgating this SNUR is that the chemical substances subject to this SNUR are considered to be PFAS. Certain PFAS are associated with risk to human health and the environment, and one common characteristic of concern of PFAS is that many break down very slowly and can build up in people, animals, and the environment over time. Therefore, EPA has determined that any use of these PFAS would produce changes in human or environmental exposures and should trigger a SNUN and accompanying EPA review and action as necessary. EPA also disagrees in part with the commenter who suggested that EPA specifically exclude from the SNUN requirements any uses that were identified to EPA in previously submitted PMNs. However, uses of chemical substances for which a PMN has been submitted (and for which EPA has reasonably available information that such uses are ongoing) are considered ongoing uses for which the SNUR does not apply. If production of a chemical has ceased, the use of the chemical substance is not considered to be ongoing and such use is covered by this SNUR.

EPA required reporting (with certain exemptions from reporting at 40 CFR 710.27(a)) under the Active-Inactive reporting rule of each chemical substance manufactured (including imported) or processed in the U.S. over a 10-year period ending on June 21, 2016, and there was no manufacturing (including import), or processing reported for these inactive PFAS (Ref. 6). EPA believes the comment period for the proposed SNUR allowed for stakeholder groups to be broadly aware of the proposal notice and provided an additional opportunity for industry to provide specific documentation of the status of each chemical. EPA received one ongoing use claim and has determined that the use is not ongoing, as described in Unit XI.D.

4. Comment: An anonymous submitter notified EPA that it intends to manufacture a PFAS covered by the proposed SNUR. The commenter stated that since EPA is not authorized under TSCA to adopt a SNUR for an ongoing use, it should exclude this substance from the final SNUR.

Response: EPA investigated the confidentially submitted information and determined that the manufacture of this substance is not ongoing. EPA is therefore not excluding the manufacture of this substance from the final SNUR.

5. Comment: Several commenters provided feedback on the options described in the proposed rule for potential further agency action to list out in the regulation either the specific chemical identity or generic name of all of the chemicals that fall within the scope of the proposed SNUR. Some commenters stated that EPA must identify all substances for which the chemical identity has been claimed as CBI, regardless as to whether “fluor” or “fluorine” appears in the name. Another commenter stated that TSCA section 14(d)(3) allows information claimed as CBI to be disclosed if the Agency determines that disclosure is “necessary to protect health or the environment against an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.” Thus, the commenter stated that EPA should override CBI claims in the context of this proposed SNUR and identify those PFAS whose generic names do not include “fluor” or “fluorine”. The commenter concluded that since these PFAS are inactive, any business interest in their confidentiality is minimal and overridden by the need of states and the public for the information. Another commenter stated that although EPA must maintain substantiated CBI claims for these substances, EPA can include the generic names and PMN and accession numbers, which are not CBI, which will minimize the potential for confusion about whether certain substances are subject to this proposal. Another commenter stated that EPA should use its authority under TSCA section 14(f) to require re-substantiation of and review the chemical identity CBI claims for these PFAS. Additionally, the commenter stated that EPA should initiate review of the remaining specific chemical identity CBI claims to ensure they comply with TSCA section 14. Another commenter relinquished its CBI claims for the specific chemical identities for twelve substances listed in the confidential portion of the TSCA Inventory that EPA has identified as being subject to the proposed SNUR and requested that EPA move them to the public portion of the TSCA Inventory.

Response: EPA disagrees that all substances for which the chemical identity has been claimed as CBI must be identified. Under section 14(c) of TSCA, submitters may claim information submitted to EPA under TSCA as CBI. The listing of a chemical substance as “inactive” on the TSCA inventory does not itself impact CBI claims relating to such chemical substance, including CBI claims relating to the structure or chemical identity of a chemical substance. Further, as explained previously, EPA is finalizing a structural definition of the chemical substances subject to this SNUR, and EPA believes that persons will be able to identify PFAS subject to this SNUR based on that structural definition, regardless of whether there is a universally known unique identifier. For additional convenience, EPA is providing a list of the inactive PFAS that do not mask “fluor” or “fluorine” in the generic name in the public docket for this rule.

EPA disagrees that its conclusions pursuant to section 5 of TSCA supporting the proposed SNUR for these substances meet the very different conclusions that would prompt mandatory CBI review in accordance with section 14(f). The fact that the substances are currently designated as inactive following reporting under section 8(b) of TSCA does not mean that the substance identities are no longer treated as confidential by the original CBI claimant or by subsequent or prospective manufacturers, and therefore EPA has not determined that the status of a substance as inactive on the TSCA inventory is a “reasonable basis to believe” that chemical identity information about such substance “does not qualify” for CBI protection, as is required by TSCA section 14(f)(2)(B). Further, CBI claims asserted prior to the enactment of the Lautenberg amendments to TSCA in 2016 do not automatically expire as do most post-Lautenberg CBI claims. However, if a SNUN on any of these substances is submitted, EPA would review any renewed CBI claim for chemical identity at that time, in accordance with the requirements of TSCA section 14(g). Submitters of such SNUNs that assert a CBI claim for chemical identity should expect that if the generic name submitted with such a claim does not identify the substance as a PFAS, EPA expects to require revision of the generic name to meet the generic name requirements in TSCA section 14(c). Finally, the request that EPA initiate review of the remaining specific chemical identity CBI claims to ensure they comply with TSCA section 14 is outside the scope of this rulemaking.

EPA acknowledges the commenter who relinquished its CBI claims for the specific chemical identities and plans to move the twelve substances into the public portion of the TSCA Inventory.

6. Comment: Many commenters stated that requiring reporting on the manufacture of any substances that were exempt under the Active-Inactive Rule would not be appropriate, including substances manufactured and processed solely for export or test marketing, non-isolated intermediates, and all other exemptions from PMN requirements listed at 40 CFR 720.30(h) (Ref. 6). Other commenters expressed opposition to the proposed exemptions. One commenter stated that exposure to minuscule amounts of PFAS is a threat to human health and safety, and the reintroduction of inactive PFAS, in even the smallest quantities, should therefore be subject to the same intense health and safety review as other quantities of PFAS. One commenter urged EPA to finalize the rule without regulatory exemptions and extend the proposed SNUR to byproducts because they are significant sources of PFAS exposure and environmental releases.

Response: EPA acknowledges that the standard SNUR exemptions do not fully align with the Active-Inactive reporting exemptions. In the final rule, EPA is adding an exemption for non-isolated intermediates and expanding the exemption for byproducts for consistency with the PMN exemptions at 40 CFR 720.30(g) and (h)(2) and believes that these exemptions are now consistent with the exemptions from Active-Inactive reporting. As EPA collects evidence of the use of PFAS, potentially including inactive PFAS, EPA may consider making certain exemptions inapplicable in the future. The Agency expects to receive additional information about any ongoing use of PFAS as part of the separate TSCA section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting rule that was proposed on June 28, 2021 (86 FR 33962 (FRL-7902-01-OCSPP)) and finalized on October 11, 2023 (88 FR 70516 (FRL 7902-02-OCSPP)).

7. Comment: One commenter stated that the proposal incorrectly estimated the costs related to the submission of a SNUN. The commenter said that the estimated cost of $26,737 is inconsistent with the Agency's latest proposal for increasing TSCA fees. Another commenter stated that while the user fee may discourage a manufacturer from using PFAS in a significant way, it is likely that the user fee will deter users from submitting a SNUN altogether.

Response: EPA disagrees that the proposal incorrectly estimated the costs related to the submission of a SNUN, and notes that the latest proposal for TSCA fees referenced by the commenter has not been finalized. EPA disagrees with the commenter that a user fee would encourage a manufacturer to circumvent the SNUR. EPA has enforcement mechanisms in place to ensure compliance with EPA regulations.

The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/regulations/and-executive-orders.

This action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), as amended by Executive Order 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023), and was therefore not subject to Executive Order 12866 review.

This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control numbers 2070-0038 (EPA ICR No. 1188.13) and 2070-0030 (EPA ICR No. 0795.16). If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to be less than 100 hours per response, and the estimated burden for export notifications is less than 1.5 hours per notification. In both cases, burden is estimated to be reduced for submitters who have already registered to use the electronic submission system. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review and submit the required SNUN.

EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 to list the SNURs and OMB approval number for the information collection activities contained in this action. This listing of the OMB control numbers and their subsequent codification in the CFR satisfies the display requirements of PRA and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. The Information Collection Request (ICR) covering the SNUR activities was previously subject to public notice and comment prior to OMB approval, and given the technical nature of the table, EPA finds that further notice and comment to amend it is unnecessary. As a result, EPA finds that there is “good cause” under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) to amend this table without further notice and comment.

EPA always welcomes your feedback on the burden estimate. Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, Regulatory Support Division, Office of Mission Support (2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. Please remember to include the OMB control number in any correspondence, but do not submit any completed forms to this address.

I certify this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The small entities subject to the requirements of this action are potential future manufacturers (defined by statute to include importers), processors, and exporters of one or more subject chemical substances for a significant new use designated in the SNUR. The requirement to submit a SNUN applies to any person (including small or large entities) who intends to engage in any activity described in the final rule as a “significant new use.” Because these uses are “new,” based on all information currently available to EPA, the Agency has determined that no small or large entities presently engage in such activities. A SNUR requires that any person who intends to engage in such activity in the future must first notify EPA by submitting a SNUN. EPA's experience to date is that, in response to the promulgation of SNURs covering over 1,000 chemicals, the Agency receives only a small number of notices per year. For example, the number of SNUNs received was 10 in Federal fiscal year (FY) FY2016, 14 in FY2017, 16 in FY2018, five in FY2019, seven in FY2020, and 13 in FY2021, and only a fraction of these were from small businesses. In addition, the Agency currently offers relief to qualifying small businesses by reducing the SNUN submission fee from $19,020 to $3,330. This lower fee reduces the total reporting and recordkeeping cost of submitting a SNUN to about $11,204 for qualifying small firms.

Therefore, the potential economic impacts of complying with this SNUR are not expected to be significant or adversely impact a substantial number of small entities. In a SNUR that published in the Federal Register of June 2, 1997 (62 FR 29684 (FRL-5597-1)), the Agency presented its general determination that final SNURs are not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, which was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandates as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, state, local, and tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any state, local, or tribal government will be impacted by this action. As such, EPA has determined that this final rule will not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or the otherwise have any effect on small governments subject to the requirements of UMRA section 202, 203, 204, or 205 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ).

This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) because it will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) because it will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive order. Therefore, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. Since this action does not concern human health, EPA's Policy on Children's Health also does not apply.

Although this action does not concern an environmental health or safety risk, the designation of certain uses of PFAS as significant new uses ensures the Agency has an opportunity to review and address potential risks associated with such uses before an entity begins commencing any manufacture (including import) or processing of PFAS for that use. Once EPA receives a notification, EPA must review and make an affirmative determination on the notification, and take such action as is required by any such determination before the manufacture (including import) or processing for the significant new use can commence. Such a review will assess whether the use identified in the SNUN may present unreasonable risk to health or the environment and ensure that EPA can prevent future unsafe environmental releases of PFAS subject to the SNUR. As discussed previously, EPA is concerned about the potential for adverse health effects from PFAS for children and will evaluate the risk.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not involve any technical standards under the NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272.

The EPA believes that it is not practicable to assess whether the human health or environmental conditions that exist prior to this action result in disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental justice concerns.

The Agency believes that the inactive PFAS included in this action are no longer being manufactured (including imported) or processed for any uses in the United States. EPA believes that it is not practicable to assess whether this action is likely to result in new disproportionate and adverse effects on environmental justice communities because the Agency is not able anticipate which chemical substances and uses, if any, will be submitted for a significant new use notice under this action.

This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

I. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996

To maintain the remedial impact of civil monetary penalties (CMPs) and to promote compliance with the law, the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-410) was amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134) and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvement Act of 2015 (Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74) to require Federal agencies to regularly adjust certain CMPs for inflation. As amended, the law requires each agency to make an initial inflationary adjustment for all applicable CMPs, and to make further adjustments at least once every year thereafter for these penalty amounts. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 further stipulates that any resulting increases in a CMP due to the calculated inflation adjustments shall apply only to violations which occur after the date the increase takes effect, i.e., thirty (30) days after date of publication in the Federal Register . Pursuant to the 2015 Act, agencies are required to adjust the level of the CMP with an initial “fix“, and make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation. Catch up adjustments are based on the percent change between the Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October for the year of the previous adjustment, and the October 2015 CPI-U. Annual inflation adjustments will be based on the percent change between the October CPI-U preceding the date of adjustment and the prior year's October CPI-U.

Sections 6103 and 6104 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-509) set forth the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (PFCRA). Specifically, this statute imposes a CMP and an assessment against any person who, with knowledge or reason to know, makes, submits, or presents a false, fictitious, or fraudulent claim or statement to the Government. The General Services Administration's regulations, published in the Federal Register (61 FR 246, December 20, 1996) and codified at 41 CFR part 105-70, currently set forth a CMP of up to $13,000 for each false claim or statement made to the agency. Based on the penalty amount inflation factor calculation, derived from originally dividing the October 2022 CPI by the October 2023 CPI and making the CPI-based annual adjustment thereafter, after rounding, we are adjusting the maximum penalty amount for this CMP to $13,400 for each false claim or statement made to the agency.

In developing this final rule, we are waiving the usual notice of proposed rulemaking, public comment, and effective date procedures set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553 (APA). The APA, at 5 U.S.C. 559, provides that a subsequent statute may supersede the APA if it does so expressly. This rulemaking effectuates the statutory requirements set forth in section 4(b)(2) of the 2015 Act, which provides that each agency shall make the annual inflation adjustments “notwithstanding section 553” of the APA. Furthermore, the APA provides an exception to the usual notice of proposed rulemaking, public comment, and effective date procedures when an agency finds there is good cause for dispensing with such procedures on the basis that they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. We have determined that, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3), good cause exists for dispensing with these procedures. The 2015 Act provides a non-discretionary cost-of-living formula for making the annual adjustment to the civil monetary penalties. GSA merely performs the ministerial task of calculating the amount of the adjustments. Therefore, under the clear terms of the APA and the language of the 2015 Act, this rule is not subject to notice, an opportunity for public comment, or a delayed effective date, and will be final and effective on January 15, 2024.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed this final rule in accordance with the provisions of E.O. 12866 and has determined that it does not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action and thus was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866. As indicated above, the provisions contained in this final rulemaking set forth the inflation adjustments in compliance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended, for specific applicable CMPs. The great majority of individuals, organizations and entities addressed through these regulations do not engage in such prohibited conduct, and as a result, we believe that any aggregate economic impact of these revised regulations will be minimal, affecting only those limited few who may engage in prohibited conduct in violation of the statute. As such, this final rule and the inflation adjustment contained therein should have no effect on Federal or state expenditures.

The agency and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB have determined that this rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (codified at 5 U.S.C. 801-808), also known as the Congressional Review Act or CRA, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. GSA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a). As explained above, GSA is not required to first publish a proposed rule here. Thus, the RFA does not apply to this final rule.

This final rule imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements necessitating clearance by OMB.

Accordingly, 41 CFR part 105-70 is amended as set forth below:

The Commission submitted new information collection requirements for review and approval by OMB, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, on November 22, 2023. OMB approved the new information collection requirements on January 2, 2024. The information collection requirements are contained in the Commission's Enhanced A-CAM Order, FCC 23-60, published at 88 FR 55918, August 17, 2023. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1319. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the rules published on August 17, 2023. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed in the following, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1319, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at PRA@fcc.gov. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530.

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the Commission is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on January 2, 2024, for the amendments to 47 CFR 54.308(e)(2) and (6) published at 88 FR 55918, August 17, 2023.

Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1319. The foregoing notification is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number: 3060-1319.

OMB Approval Date: January 2, 2024.

OMB Expiration Date: January 31, 2027.

Title: Enhanced A-CAM Cybersecurity and Supply Chain Risk Management Plan Requirements.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, and State, Local or Tribal governments.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 450 respondents; 900 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 10-50 hours.

Frequency of Response: One-time and on occasion reporting requirements.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 214, 218-220, 254, 303(r), and 403.

Total Annual Burden: 27,000 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

Needs and Uses: On July 24, 2023, the Commission released the Enhanced A-CAM Order (Order), 88 FR 55918, August 17, 2023, WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., FCC 23-60, which adopted a voluntary path for supporting the widespread deployment of 100/20 Mbps broadband service throughout the rural areas served by carriers currently receiving Alternative Connect America Cost Model (A-CAM) support and in areas served by rate-of-return carriers eligible to receive legacy support by the end of 2028. The Commission extended by 10 years beyond the remaining five years, for a total of 15 years, the term of support for electing carriers and set a methodology for determining support amounts for locations without 100/20 Mbps broadband service within a potential budget of no more than $1.27 billion annually, or no more than $1.33 billion annually if certain conditions are met, using an updated version of the A-CAM. By adopting this program, the Commission furthered its long-standing goals by promoting the universal availability of voice and broadband networks, while also taking measures to minimize the burden on the nation's ratepayers. The Commission also adopted requirements for the Enhanced A-CAM program to complement existing Federal, state, and local funding programs, so that broadband funding can be used efficiently to maximize the deployment of high-quality broadband service across the United States.

To ensure that the Enhanced A-CAM program does not deprive rural consumers in high-cost areas of broadband service that is as secure as the service deployed pursuant to other Federal funding initiatives, the Commission required Enhanced A-CAM carriers to implement operational cybersecurity and supply chain risk management plans by January 1, 2024—the start of the Enhanced A-CAM support term. Enhanced A-CAM carriers must submit such plans to the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) and certify they have done so, by January 2, 2024, or within 30 days of approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, whichever is later. Failure to submit the plans and make the certification shall result in 25% of monthly support being withheld until the carrier comes into compliance. If a carrier makes a substantive modification to its cybersecurity or supply chain risk management plan, the Commission requires that the carrier submit its updated plan to USAC within 30 days of making that modification.

The purpose of this information collection is to collect the operational cybersecurity and supply chain risk management plans required of the Enhanced A-CAM carriers by the start of the Enhanced A-CAM support term and address the burdens associated with that requirement.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Third Report and ( Third R&O ) in WC Docket No. 17-310; FCC No. 23-110, adopted on December 13, 2023, and released on December 14, 2023.The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours at Commission's headquarters 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554 or at the following internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-110A1.pdf.

1. In the Third R&O, the Commission continues its efforts to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Rural Health Care (RHC) Program. The RHC Program offers discounted rates for broadband and other communications services to health care providers who use these increasingly essential services to better treat patients in rural areas that may have limited resources, fewer medical professionals, and higher rates for these services than in urban areas. Broadband-enabled telehealth and telemedicine services in particular have proven to be critical tools for the effective delivery of health care to millions of patients in rural areas, as demonstrated by the heightened dependency on these services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Telemedicine and telehealth make the provision of high-quality health care a reality for patients regardless of location or ability to travel. The measures adopted will enhance the provision of these vital services through the RHC Program.

2. The Commission adopts four revisions to the RHC Program as proposed in the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 88 FR 17495, March 23, 2023 (Second FNPRM) (FCC 23-6), aimed at facilitating participation in and improving the administration of the Program. First, the Commission revises the RHC Program rules to permit conditional approval of eligibility for health care providers that expect to be eligible in the near future to allow them to initiate competitive bidding and request funding. Second, to give participants more flexibility with deadlines, the Commission revises its rules to move back the RHC Program's Service Provider Identification Number (SPIN) change deadline to align with the invoice deadline. Third, the Commission simplifies the rules for determining urban rates by eliminating the seldom-used “standard urban distance” component of the urban rate rules. Fourth, in a separate action to provide more flexibility with deadlines, the Commission revises the RHC Program rules to permit health care providers to request changes to the dates of their evergreen contracts following a funding commitment.

3. In addition to these revisions, the Commission also on its own motion makes two programmatic improvements to the administration of the RHC Program and Universal Service Fund. To reduce burdens and promote efficiency, the Commission harmonizes the RHC Program eligibility determination process by shifting to the use of a single universal eligibility form for all program participants. Finally, to free up for other uses unclaimed RHC Program support, the Commission establishes a deadline by which health care providers must submit invoices for any undisbursed funding commitments from funding year 2019 and prior that do not currently have an applicable invoice deadline.

4. In the Third R&O, the Commission continues to improve the RHC Program by facilitating health care provider participation in and improving the administration of the Program. Specifically, the Commission revises the RHC Program rules to permit conditional eligibility for health care providers and eliminate the seldom-used “standard urban distance” component of the urban rate rule. The Commission also makes two changes relating to RHC Program administrative deadlines by aligning the SPIN change deadline with the existing invoice deadline and permitting health care providers to request a change to evergreen contract dates. The Commission then amends the rules to shift to the use of the same form when determining Telecom and Healthcare Connect Fund (HCF) Program eligibility. Finally, the Commission establishes a deadline by which invoices must be submitted for undisbursed funding commitments from before funding year 2020.

5. Conditional Approval of Eligibility for Future Eligible Health Care Providers. The Commission first adopts amendments to the RHC Program rules to allow conditional approval of eligibility consistent with what the Commission proposed in the Second FNPRM. The amendments enable entities that do not meet all eligibility requirements at the time they seek eligibility determinations to obtain conditional approval of eligibility, conduct competitive bidding, and request funding prior to receiving formal approval of eligibility. With this change, entities granted such conditional approval may conduct competitive bidding and request funding before they receive formal eligibility approval, ensuring that they are able to participate in the RHC Program for the funding year in which they expect to receive a formal eligibility approval. However, entities with conditional approval will not receive funding commitments until they meet all eligibility requirements. The substantive standard used to determine full eligibility remains unchanged. This change ensures that health care providers that are not yet eligible during the application window, but expect to become eligible in the near future, are not locked out of much needed funding. All commenters who addressed this proposal supported it, and no commenters opposed this change. This change will be effective for funding year 2025, the competitive bidding process for which begins in mid-2024.

6. Eligible health care providers, as defined in section 254(h)(7)(B) of the Communications Act and implemented in the Commission's rules, are limited to the following categories: (1) post-secondary educational institutions offering health care instruction, teaching hospitals, and medical schools; (2) community health centers or health centers providing health care to migrants; (3) local health departments or agencies; (4) community mental health centers; (5) not-for-profit hospitals; (6) rural health clinics; (7) skilled nursing facilities; and (8) consortia of health care providers consisting of one or more entities falling into the first seven categories. In addition, eligible health care providers must be non-profit or public. In the Telecom Program, only eligible health care providers located in a “rural area” defined in § 54.600(e) of the Commission's rules can receive support. The HCF Program, on the other hand, permits rural eligible health care providers as well as non-rural eligible health care providers participating in a majority-rural consortium to receive support.

7. To allow health care providers to receive RHC Program funding as soon as they become eligible, the Commission amends § 54.601 of its rules to permit entities that expect to meet all eligibility requirements before the end of a given upcoming funding year to request and receive a conditional approval of eligibility. The Commission also amends § 54.622(e)(1) of its rules to allow those entities to make the required certifications when filing a Request for Services to initiate competitive bidding. The amendments adopted will enable entities that receive conditional approval of program eligibility to conduct competitive bidding and submit funding requests prior to receiving formal approval of eligibility. However, the substantive standard used to determine eligibility remains unchanged. Entities that receive conditional approval of eligibility will not receive funding commitments until they actually become eligible and receive the formal approval of eligibility under the existing substantive standard. No RHC funding shall be committed or disbursed to an entity for any time period that is prior to the date the entity is formally approved as eligible. The Commission directs the Universal Service Administrative Company (Administrator or USAC), upon approval from the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau), to implement the conditional approval of eligibility mechanism.

8. This change is warranted given the change to a fixed application filing window in the RHC Program. Before funding year 2016, after an initial application filing window, the Administrator accepted applications on a rolling basis until the last day of the funding year. Since funding year 2017, no applications have been accepted following the close of the initial application window. Beginning in funding year 2021, the Commission's rules require the Administrator to open an initial filing window period with an end date no later than April 1 prior to the start of the funding year.

9. In 2016, when applications were still accepted on a rolling basis and there were two application windows, the Bureau issued the Hope Community Order, DA 16-855, rel. July 29, 2016 (Hope Order), which held that that if an entity had not demonstrated its eligibility at the time of its eligibility determination form submission for a funding year, it would be ineligible to receive RHC Telecommunications Program support for that funding year. The change the Commission makes eliminates this limitation and allows health care providers to seek conditional eligibility approval so they can participate in the program in the year in which they expect to become fully eligible, even if they receive their full eligibility approval after the initial application window closes. Based on experience administering the program, the Commission finds it appropriate to eliminate the Hope Order's requirement that a site be eligible for RHC Program support, which requires that it qualifies as one of the eligible health care providers defined by section 254(h)(7)(B) of the Communications Act, at the time of its request for eligibility determination. In funding year 2013, the funding year at issue in the Hope Order, the Administrator accepted applications on a rolling basis throughout the funding year, which permitted a health care provider to begin receiving funding for RHC Program supported services within a few months after it became an eligible entity under section 254(h)(7)(B) of the Communications Act. Shortly after meeting eligibility requirements, the health care provider could receive its eligibility determination, engage in competitive bidding, file a Request for Funding during the rolling application window, and start to receive funding.

10. Absent this change with the current use of a fixed filing window, a health care provider might have to wait more than one year after becoming an eligible health care provider to receive RHC Program funding. For example, if a new medical provider is in the process of opening and expects to become eligible under section 254(h)(7)(B) of the Communications Act on July 1, 2025, which is after the initial application filing window, it may not be able to receive RHC Program support for funding year 2025 because it could not have been approved as eligible until after the provider's July 1, 2025 opening date. Permitting conditional approvals of eligibility will allow health care providers that are not yet eligible but expect to become an eligible health care provider in a given upcoming funding year to complete competitive bidding and file Requests for Funding so they are able to receive RHC Program funding as soon as they are fully designated as an eligible health care provider under the Commission's rules.

11. To protect the integrity and success of the RHC program and ensure that no RHC Program funding is disbursed for entities that are not yet fully approved as eligible, the Commission adopts the following safeguards for conditional approvals of eligibility. First, to request conditional approval of eligibility, an applicant must submit an eligibility determination form and supporting documentation to the Administrator, which will include the estimated date that it expects to meet all eligibility requirements. The documentation must show that the entity is or reasonably expects to qualify as a public or non-profit health care provider defined in § 54.600(b) of the Commission's rules by the estimated eligibility date. Additionally, if applying for the Telecom Program or if applying as an individual applicant in the HCF Program, the entity must be located or reasonably expect to be located in a rural area defined in § 54.600(e) of the Commission's rules by the estimated eligibility date, or, if not located in such a rural area, for purposes of applying for the HCF Program, be or plan to be a member of a majority-rural HCF Program consortium that satisfies the eligible rural health care provider composition requirement set forth in § 54.607(b) of the Commission's rules by the estimated eligibility date.

12. Once the Administrator approves an applicant's conditional eligibility, the applicant can proceed to conduct competitive bidding for the conditionally-approved site(s). In order to provide notice of the applicant's conditional eligibility to potential bidders and service providers, an applicant engaging in competitive bidding with conditional eligibility must provide a written indication with its competitive bidding form indicating (1) that the eligibility is conditional, and (2) when the estimated expected eligibility date is. After conducting competitive bidding and signing a service contract, the applicant can submit a funding request during the application filing window for a given funding year, provided that the applicant's estimated expected eligibility date is no later than the end of that funding year. To ensure that no funding is committed or disbursed for health care providers that are conditionally eligible under section 254(h)(7)(B) of the Communications Act or the RHC Program rules, entities with conditional approval of eligibility will not be able to receive funding commitments or disbursements until they meet all eligibility requirements and are granted a formal approval of eligibility. This restriction is consistent with the Commission rule that RHC Program funding is provided to eligible health care providers for services for health care purposes.

13. An applicant with conditional approval of eligibility is expected to notify the Administrator within 30 calendar days of its actual eligibility date and provide documentation confirming that it is actually eligible. If the Administrator determines that the entity meets the requirements for a public or non-profit health care provider defined in § 54.600(b) Commission's rules and the requirements for rural location or majority-rural HCF consortium membership set forth in the Commission's rules, the Administrator shall formally approve the applicant's eligibility and designate the applicant as an eligible health care provider. The Administrator will then review the applicant's funding request and issue a funding commitment or denial in a timely manner. The funding commitment shall cover only a time period that starts no earlier than the applicant's actual approved eligibility date and that is within the funding year for which support was requested. No funding shall be committed to ineligible entities or entities with only conditional approval and any support erroneously disbursed to ineligible entities or entities with only conditional approval must be recovered. The Commission directs the Administrator to implement these requirements in its procedures and delegate authority to the Bureau to issue further direction consistent with the Third R&O as necessary.

14. Alignment of the Service Provider Identification Number Change Deadline with Invoice Deadline. The Commissions next amends its rules to move back the Service Provider Identification Number (SPIN) change filing deadline to align with the invoice filing deadline, rather than the service delivery deadline. A SPIN is a unique number that the Administrator assigns to an eligible service provider seeking to participate in the universal service support programs. An applicant under the HCF Program or Telecom Program may request either a “corrective SPIN change” (in cases not involving a change in the service provider associated with the applicant's funding request number) or an “operational SPIN change” (in cases involving a change to the service provider associated with the applicant's funding request number). The current filing deadline to submit a SPIN change request is no later than the service delivery deadline, which, with limited exceptions, is June 30 of the funding year for which program support is sought. The invoice deadline is 120 days after the later of the service delivery deadline or the date of a revised funding commitment letter. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission proposed to align the SPIN change deadline with the invoice deadline and commenters supported this change.

15. The Commission moves back the deadline for requesting SPIN changes effective funding year 2023 in response to program participant requests asserting that the nature of corrective SPIN changes creates a “recurring hardship for applicants” unable to meet the deadline, which, in turn, results in deadline waiver requests filed with the Commission. According to these participant comments, two commonly recurring situations support a change to the corrective SPIN change deadline: (1) mergers and acquisitions that can occur at any time during the funding year and (2) a service provider that assigns one of its multiple SPINs to a funding request without advising the healthcare provider as to the correct SPIN before invoicing begins, a situation that, in many instances, occurs after the service delivery deadline has passed. These commenters maintain that changing the deadline to request a corrective SPIN change to match the invoice deadline will provide the Administrator with sufficient time to process the change request without the need for applicants to request deadline waivers from the Commission. The Commission agrees with these commenters that the current deadline for requesting corrective SPIN changes imposes unnecessary burdens and challenges for program participants that a later-in-time deadline will largely eliminate.

16. The Commission moves back the SPIN change deadline to align with the invoice deadline, which, in most cases is 120 days after the close of the funding year, to reduce the need for applicants to seek, and for the Commission to address, waivers of the current corrective SPIN change deadline. This change facilitates participation in and the administration of the program, while still maintaining an administratively reasonable date by which such change requests must be made. Aligning the SPIN change deadline with the invoice deadline will not cause Program participants to miss the invoice deadline because a SPIN change results in a revised commitment letter, which will create a new invoice deadline 120 days from the issuance of the revised commitment letter.

17. Simplifying Urban Rate Calculations. In this section, the Commission simplifies the rules for calculating urban rates for the Telecom Program by eliminating the rarely-invoked “standard urban distance” provision from its rules. In the Order on Reconsideration, 88 FR 17379, March 23, 2023 (Order on Recon) (FCC 23-6), the Commission eliminated the Rates Database and reinstated the long-standing rules for calculating urban rates. These rules provide that the urban rate for an eligible service shall be a rate no higher than the highest tariffed or publicly-available rate charged to a commercial customer for a functionally similar service in any city with a population of 50,000 or more in that state. If, however, the service is provided over a distance greater than the standard urban distance, which is the average of the longest diameters of all cities with a population of 50,000 or more within a state, the urban rate is the rate no higher than the highest tariffed or publicly-available rate provided over the standard urban distance. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission proposed to simplify program rules by eliminating the distinction between services provided over and within the standard urban distance and proposed to base all urban rates calculations on rates provided in a city, rather than over the standard urban distance. It also sought comment on the extent to which health care providers rely on the standard urban distance distinction to calculate urban rates.

18. Based on the record, the Commission finds that adopting its proposal to eliminate the standard urban distance provision from the urban rate rules will help simplify the calculation of urban rates in the Telecom Program. Eliminating it will make clearer the process for determining urban rates and there is no evidence that it will adversely impact health care providers because few, if any, Telecom Program participants calculate urban rates using this distinction. No commenters opined on the extent to which health care providers rely on the standard urban distance provision to calculate urban rates, which suggests that standard urban distance was not commonly invoked to calculate urban rates. The only commenter that addressed this proposal, the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband (SHLB) Coalition, supported this change. Therefore, the Commission adopts the proposal to base all urban rates calculations on rates provided in a city rather than over the standard urban distance. This change shall be applicable for funding year 2025.

19. Change of Evergreen Contract Dates. The Commission next amends the RHC Program rules to permit health care providers to request a change in the evergreen contract dates following a funding commitment. Upon approving such a change, the Administrator will issue a revised funding commitment letter. This change will provide health care providers with the benefits of evergreen contract designation across the full length of the contract's term while also reducing the need for health care providers to seek relief from the Administrator in cases where a post-commitment evergreen contract date change is necessary. This new rule will become effective for funding year 2024.

20. Evergreen contracts are multi-year agreements under which covered services are exempt from the competitive bidding requirements for the term of the contract, which may be extended by up to an aggregate of five years. When the Administrator issues a funding commitment letter, it sets the period for an evergreen contract based on the estimated service start and end dates provided by the health care provider on the Request for Funding. However, as the Commission explained in the Second FNPRM, services sometimes start after the estimated service start date, which means that the evergreen status of the contract expires before it would have if the evergreen designation period was based on the actual service start date. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission sought comments on whether there should be a process for health care providers to change evergreen contract dates after a funding commitment has been made. The Commission also requested comments on how such a process could be accomplished.

21. SHLB and New England Telehealth Consortium (NETC) support, and no party opposes, allowing health care providers to request changes to their evergreen contract dates in cases when the contract supports those changes. SHLB maintains that such requests should always be deemed timely and not precluded by expiration of the 60-day window for an appeal of the original funding commitment. SHLB also suggests that the Commission clarify that the Administrator should defer to the parties' interpretation of a contract's start and end date unless it is “obviously inconsistent” with the language of the contract.

22. The Commission agrees with SHLB and NETC that health care providers should be permitted to request evergreen contract changes following a funding commitment provided the contract supports a change. Aligning a contract's actual service start date with the start date that determines the duration of the evergreen contract period will exempt health care providers from the competitive bidding process for the full length of the contract, thereby providing certainty to RHC Program participants. This change will not alter rules or processes for multi-year commitments or other competitive bidding exemptions. Accordingly, the Commission amends the RHC Program rules to allow health care providers to request changes to evergreen contract dates, subject to the following two requirements.

23. First, the Commission requires that the terms of the evergreen contract support any requested date change. For example, an evergreen contract that specifies a start date effective upon signature of the contracting parties would not be eligible for a contract date change because the start date is a date established by the contract independent of the service start date. By contrast, an evergreen contract with terms specifying a start date tied to the commencement of services yet to be delivered would be eligible for a date change regardless of the date of signature. The Commission makes clear that any changes to the dates of the evergreen contract must be supported by the contract, and declines to adopt SHLB's suggestion that the Administrator defer to the contracting parties' interpretation on the contract timing. As in the case of “verification of discounts, offsets, or support amounts” as a general matter under § 54.707 of the Commission's rules, it will be incumbent upon applicants to ensure that the available evidence sufficiently justifies a given date change.

24. Second, the Commission requires that health care providers request an evergreen contract change within 60 days of the date service commences. This 60-day window should provide health care providers with ample time to request a date change without having to resort to appealing the original funding commitment, which addresses the timing concern raised by SHLB and NETC. The Commission declines, however, to adopt SHLB's approach that all requests for evergreen contract changes be deemed timely. Such an open-ended option would provide no incentive to health care providers to promptly notify the Administrator of evergreen contract date changes. To memorialize the changed evergreen contract dates, the Commission directs the Administrator to issue a revised funding commitment letter to the health care provider reflecting the changed dates. If the Administrator denies a requested change, the Commission directs it to issue a letter to the health care provider explaining the basis for the denial. Finally, the Commission directs the Administrator to develop procedures subject to prior Bureau approval for accepting changes to evergreen contract dates consistent with the amended Commission's rules § 54.622(i)(3), and to publicize instructions on requesting changes to evergreen contract dates with the stakeholder community.

25. Single Eligibility Form. To reduce burdens on Telecom Program applicants and improve the efficiency and operation of the RHC Program, the Commission next harmonizes the RHC Program eligibility determination process by establishing a single eligibility determination form for both the Telecom Program and the HCF Program that is required to be filed only once. Applicants must first be determined eligible under section 254(h)(7)(B) of the Communications Act and RHC Program rules to receive support from the RHC Program. The Telecom Program and the HCF Program currently have different procedures for eligibility determinations. In the Telecom Program, applicants seeking eligibility determinations use the FCC Form 465 (Description of Services Requested and Certification Form), which is the same form used to initiate competitive bidding. Thus, even though most Telecom Program applicants' eligibilities are very unlikely to change from year to year, they are required to provide, and the Administrator is required to review, information regarding their eligibility statuses every time there is a new competitive bidding process, which is generally every year.

26. In contrast, when the HCF Program was established in 2012, the Commission instituted a more efficient process for eligibility determinations by separating the process for eligibility determination from the process for competitive bidding. In the HCF Program, applicants file an FCC Form 460 (Eligibility and Registration Form) to seek a one-time eligibility determination that remains in place unless there is a material change in the entity's eligibility. After receiving this eligibility determination, the applicant may file an FCC Form 461 (Request for Services Form) to initiate competitive bidding. Thus, applicants are able to know whether they are eligible before they spend time and resources planning competitive bidding. Because the FCC Form 460 is filed only once, the eligibility determination process in the HCF Program improves efficiency and reduces costs and time for both health care providers and the Administrator.

27. Therefore, beginning funding year 2025, the FCC Form 460 will be used for eligibility determinations in the Telecom Program and the eligibility determination portion will be eliminated from the FCC Form 465. As a result of this change, starting for funding year 2025, the FCC Form 465 will be used solely for competitive bidding in the Telecom Program while the FCC Form 461 will continue to be used for competitive bidding in the HCF Program. Because there are certain differences in eligibility requirements between the Telecom Program and the HCF Program, applicants who are determined eligible in one program are not necessarily eligible in the other program even though one eligibility determination form is used for both programs. For example, non-rural public or non-profit health care providers who are members of majority-rural consortia are eligible to receive support under the HCF Program, but not under the Telecom Program. Thus, in this example, applicants whose FCC Form 460s are submitted specifically for the HCF Program and approved on that basis are not automatically eligible for support in the Telecom Program and must seek eligibility determinations in the Telecom Program if they subsequently wish to demonstrate their eligibility for that program. The Commission directs the Bureau to amend the FCC Form 460 for eligibility determinations for both the Telecom Program and the HCF Program and direct the Administrator to track whether a health care provider is eligible for the Telecom Program, the HCF Program, or both.

28. As part of adopting the FCC Form 460 for the Telecom Program, the Commission also amends § 54.601(b) of its rules to extend it to the Telecom Program effective for funding year 2025. Section 54.601(b) of the Commission's rules addresses the timing requirements for eligibility determinations in the HCF Program and requires health care providers to notify the Administrator of changes to their name, location, contact information, or eligible entity type. It was adopted when the Commission established the HCF Program in 2012 as a procedural rule for specifying the process for determining health care provider eligibility in the HCF Program. There are no corresponding rules for the eligibility determination process in the Telecom Program where applicants previously had to make a new eligibility showing every year they wished to seek support. Since a single eligibility determination form will be used for both programs, and thus now in the Telecom Program, like the HCF Program, applicants will be required to file separate forms for eligibility determination and request for services, and findings of eligibility will remain in place absent a material change in circumstances, it is reasonable to amend § 54.601(b) of the Commission's rules to make it apply to both programs to provide greater clarity to program participants.

29. To further reduce unnecessary burdens and ease the implementation of this change, the Commission directs the Administrator to deem presumptively eligible for funding year 2025 and beyond any health care provider with an existing eligibility approval in the Telecom Program. Because the eligibility status of health care providers rarely changes, an additional up-front eligibility determination for funding year 2025 is unnecessary. This direction is consistent with the eligibility determination process in the HCF Program. The Commission reminds any health care providers with changes to conditions that might impact their eligibility status of the requirement to update the Administrator within 30 days of the change. As before, health care providers in both the Telecom and HCF Programs are required to certify their eligibility when filing a Request for Services to initiate competitive bidding.

30. The Commission emphasizes that its actions do not change the substantive requirements for determining eligibility in the RHC Program. It is the RHC Program applicants' obligation to submit accurate information and certifications regarding their eligibility, including the obligation to notify the Administrator within 30 days of a material change in their eligibility information. Because health care provider eligibility is limited by the Act, the Commission does not have discretion to waive eligibility requirements, and must recover any support erroneously disbursed to ineligible entities.

31. De-Obligation of Undisbursed, Un-Invoiced Commitments. The Commission establishes a deadline of July 1, 2024, for Telecom Program participants to submit invoices for funding years 2019 and earlier, the period during which there was no invoice deadline in the Telecom Program. After that date, funding commitments from funding year 2019 and earlier that have not yet been invoiced will be de-obligated and will not be able to be invoiced. The Commission established an invoice deadline for the Telecom Program effective funding year 2020 in the Promoting Telehealth Report and Order, 84 FR 54952, Oct. 11, 2019. The Commission explained that this deadline of 120 days from the service delivery deadline supported the “harmonization of the invoice deadline for RHC programs” and provided “applicants with sufficient time to submit their invoices and seek reimbursements from the Administrator,” while being “necessary for the efficient administration of the RHC program.”

32. There is currently $22.2 million in undisbursed, un-invoiced commitments from funding year 2019 and earlier, when there was no invoice submission deadline. Establishing an invoice submission deadline of July 1, 2024, for Telecom Program funding requests from funding year 2019 and earlier and de-obligating unused funding is appropriate for several reasons. It is highly unlikely, given the significant lapse of time, that a significant portion of this funding will ever be invoiced, and some of these commitments may be for services that were ultimately never used. At this point, the Administrator receives very few invoices for services from prior to funding year 2019. Further, this deadline provides ample time for Program participants to assess whether they have undisbursed commitments requiring invoicing and to complete the invoicing process for those funding requests. Any funding de-obligated as a result of this change can be used for more useful purposes.

33. Therefore, all existing Telecom Program commitments from funding year 2019 and earlier must be invoiced by July 1, 2024. This decision does not affect the invoice deadline for Telecom Program funding requests for funding year 2020 and later, which are subject to the invoice deadlines established in § 54.627 of the Commission's rules. In the event that the Administrator issues a funding commitment in the future for a funding request for funding year 2019 or earlier, invoices for that funding commitment must be submitted within 120 days of the issuance of a commitment letter.

34. This document contains new and modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. All such requirements will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other federal agencies will be invited to comment on any new or modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. The Commission will publish a separate document in the Federal Register at a later date seeking these comments. In addition, its noted that, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

35. In this present document, the Commission has assessed the effects of allowing conditional approvals of eligibility, allowing changes to evergreen contract dates, and adopting for the entire RHC Program eligibility form filing requirements that previously existed only in the HCF Program and finds that the additional funding and administrative conveniences these changes give health care providers justify these changes.

36. The Commission has determined and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs that the rules are non-major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of the Third R&O to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

37. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Third R&O, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

38. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an FRFA concerning the potential impact of the rule and policy changes adopted in the Third R&O.

39. As required by the RFA, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the Second FNPRM, FCC 23-6, rel. January 27, 2023. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Second FNPRM, including comment on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA. This FRFA conforms to the RFA.

40. In the Third R&O, the Commission seeks to further improve the Rural Health Care (RHC) Program's capacity to distribute telecommunications and broadband support to health care providers—especially small, rural healthcare providers (HCPs)—in the most equitable and efficient manner possible. Over the years, telehealth has become an increasingly vital component of healthcare delivery to rural Americans. Rural healthcare facilities are typically limited by the equipment and supplies they have and the scope of services they can offer, which ultimately can have an impact on the availability of high-quality health care. Therefore, the RHC Program plays a critical role in overcoming some of the obstacles healthcare providers face in delivering their services to rural communities. Considering the significance of RHC Program support, the Commission implements several measures to most effectively meet HCPs' needs while responsibly distributing the RHC Program's limited funds.

41. Additionally, the Third R&O adopts proposals from the Second FNPRM that allow conditional approvals of eligibility to allow soon-to-be eligible providers to engage in competitive bidding, align the Service Provider Identification Number (SPIN) change deadline with the invoice deadline, simplify urban rate calculations, and allow health care providers to change evergreen contract dates. The Commission also harmonizes the RHC Program eligibility determination process by establishing a single eligibility determination form for the Telecom Program and RHC program and announce a new deadline for the de-obligation of undisbursed, un-invoiced commitments.

42. There were no comments filed that specifically address the rules and policies proposed in the IRFA.

43. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule(s) as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

44. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by SBA.

45. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission therefore describes, at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from SBA's Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 33.2 million businesses.

46. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there were approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.

47. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate there were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number, there were 36,931 general purpose governments (county, municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments—independent school districts with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, the Commission estimates that at least 48,971 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”

48. Offices of Physicians (except Mental Health Specialists). This industry comprises establishments of health practitioners having the degree of M.D. (Doctor of Medicine) or D.O. (Doctor of Osteopathy) primarily engaged in the independent practice of general or specialized medicine (except psychiatry or psychoanalysis) or surgery. These practitioners operate private or group practices in their own offices ( e.g., centers, clinics) or in the facilities of others, such as hospitals or health maintenance organization (HMO) medical centers. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business having annual receipts of $14 million or less as small. The 2017 Economic Census indicates that 137,366 firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 126,098 firms had revenue of less than $10 million. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that a majority of firms operating in this industry are small under the SBA size standard.

49. Offices of Dentists. This industry comprises establishments of health practitioners having the degree of D.M.D. (Doctor of Dental Medicine), D.D.S. (Doctor of Dental Surgery), or D.D.Sc. (Doctor of Dental Science) primarily engaged in the independent practice of general or specialized dentistry or dental surgery. These practitioners operate private or group practices in their own offices ( e.g., centers, clinics) or in the facilities of others, such as hospitals or HMO medical centers. They can provide either comprehensive preventive, cosmetic, or emergency care, or specialize in a single field of dentistry. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business having annual receipts of $8 million or less as small. The 2017 Economic Census indicates that 113,795 firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of that number, 112,332 firms had revenue of less than $5 million. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that a majority of dental businesses are small entities.

50. Offices of Chiropractors. This industry comprises establishments of health practitioners having the degree of DC (Doctor of Chiropractic) primarily engaged in the independent practice of chiropractic. These practitioners provide diagnostic and therapeutic treatment of neuromusculoskeletal and related disorders through the manipulation and adjustment of the spinal column and extremities, and operate private or group practices in their own offices ( e.g., centers, clinics) or in the facilities of others, such as hospitals or HMO medical centers. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business having annual receipts of $8 million or less as small. The 2017 Economic Census indicates that 34,414 firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of that number, 34,366 firms operated with revenue of less than $5 million per year. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that a majority of chiropractors are small.

51. Offices of Optometrists. This industry comprises establishments of health practitioners having the degree of O.D. (Doctor of Optometry) primarily engaged in the independent practice of optometry. These practitioners examine, diagnose, treat, and manage diseases and disorders of the visual system, the eye and associated structures as well as diagnose related systemic conditions. Offices of optometrists prescribe and/or provide eyeglasses, contact lenses, low vision aids, and vision therapy. They operate private or group practices in their own offices ( e.g., centers, clinics) or in the facilities of others, such as hospitals or HMO medical centers, and may also provide the same services as opticians, such as selling and fitting prescription eyeglasses and contact lenses. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business having annual receipts of $8 million or less as small. The 2017 Economic Census indicates that 17,879 firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 16,792 firms had revenue of less than $5 million. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that a majority of firms in this industry are small.

52. Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians). This industry comprises establishments of independent mental health practitioners (except physicians) primarily engaged in (1) the diagnosis and treatment of mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders and/or (2) the diagnosis and treatment of individual or group social dysfunction brought about by such causes as mental illness, alcohol and substance abuse, physical and emotional trauma, or stress. These practitioners operate private or group practices in their own offices ( e.g., centers, clinics) or in the facilities of others, such as hospitals or HMO medical centers. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business having annual receipts of $8 million or less as small. The 2017 Economic Census indicates that 19,316 firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of that number, 13,318 firms had revenue of less than $5 million. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that a majority of mental health practitioners who do not employ physicians are small.

53. Offices of Physical, Occupational and Speech Therapists and Audiologists. This industry comprises establishments of independent health practitioners primarily engaged in one of the following: (1) providing physical therapy services to patients who have impairments, functional limitations, disabilities, or changes in physical functions and health status resulting from injury, disease or other causes, or who require prevention, wellness or fitness services; (2) planning and administering educational, recreational, and social activities designed to help patients or individuals with disabilities, regain physical or mental functioning or to adapt to their disabilities; and (3) diagnosing and treating speech, language, or hearing problems. These practitioners operate private or group practices in their own offices ( e.g., centers, clinics) or in the facilities of others, such as hospitals or HMO medical centers. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business having annual receipts of $11 million or less as small. The 2017 Economic Census indicates that 22,402 firms in this industry operated for the entire year. Of that number, 21,712 firms had revenue of less than $5 million. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that a majority of businesses in this industry are small.

54. Offices of Podiatrists. This industry comprises establishments of health practitioners having the degree of D.P.M. (Doctor of Podiatric Medicine) primarily engaged in the independent practice of podiatry. These practitioners diagnose and treat diseases and deformities of the foot and operate private or group practices in their own offices ( e.g., centers, clinics) or in the facilities of others, such as hospitals or HMO medical centers. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business having annual receipts of $8 million or less as small. The 2017 Economic Census indicates that 6,673 firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of that number, 6,235 firms had revenue of less than $5 million. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that a majority of firms in this industry are small.

55. Offices of All Other Miscellaneous Health Practitioners. This industry comprises establishments of independent health practitioners (except physicians; dentists; chiropractors; optometrists; mental health specialists; physical, occupational, and speech therapists; audiologists; and podiatrists). These practitioners operate private or group practices in their own offices ( e.g., centers, clinics) or in the facilities of others, such as hospitals or HMO medical centers. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms having annual receipts of $9 million or less as small. The 2017 Economic Census indicates that 14,194 firms in this industry operated the entire year. Of that number, 10,874 firms had revenue of less than $5 million. Based on this data, the Commission concludes the majority of firms in this industry are small.

56. Family Planning Centers. This industry comprises establishments with medical staff primarily engaged in providing a range of family planning services on an outpatient basis, such as contraceptive services, genetic and prenatal counseling, voluntary sterilization, and therapeutic and medically induced termination of pregnancy. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms having annual receipts of $16.5 million or less as small. The 2017 Economic Census indicates that 1,339 firms in this industry operated for the entire year. Of that number, 1,014 firms had revenue of less than $10 million. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that the majority of firms in this industry is small.

57. Outpatient Mental Health and Substance Abuse Centers. This industry comprises establishments with medical staff primarily engaged in providing outpatient services related to the diagnosis and treatment of mental health disorders and alcohol and other substance abuse. These establishments generally treat patients who do not require inpatient treatment. They may provide a counseling staff and information regarding a wide range of mental health and substance abuse issues and/or refer patients to more extensive treatment programs, if necessary. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a firm as small if it has $16.5 million or less in annual receipts. The 2017 Economic Census indicates that 5,637 firms operated for the entire year. Of this number, 4,534 firms had of less than $10 million. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that a majority of firms in this industry are small.

58. HMO Medical Centers. This industry comprises establishments with physicians and other medical staff primarily engaged in providing a range of outpatient medical services to the HMO subscribers with a focus generally on primary health care. These establishments are owned by the HMO. HMO establishments that both provide health care services and underwrite health and medical insurance policies are also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms having $39 million or less in annual receipts as small. The 2017 U.S. Economic Census indicates that 17 firms in this industry operated for the entire year. However, the 2017 Economic Census does not provide disaggregated financial information for this industry, therefore the Commission cannot determine how many of the firms in this industry are small under the SBA small business size standard.

59. Freestanding Ambulatory Surgical and Emergency Centers. This industry comprises establishments with physicians and other medical staff primarily engaged in (1) providing surgical services ( e.g., orthoscopic and cataract surgery) on an outpatient basis or (2) providing emergency care services ( e.g., setting broken bones, treating lacerations, or tending to patients suffering injuries as a result of accidents, trauma, or medical conditions necessitating immediate medical care) on an outpatient basis. Outpatient surgical establishments have specialized facilities, such as operating and recovery rooms, and specialized equipment, such as anesthetic or X-ray equipment. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms having annual receipts of $16.5 million or less as small. The 2017 U.S. Economic Census indicates that 3,888 firms in this industry operated for the entire year. Of that number, 3,132 firms had revenue of less than $10 million. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that a majority of firms in this industry are small.

60. All Other Outpatient Care Centers. This industry comprises establishments with medical staff primarily engaged in providing general or specialized outpatient care (except family planning centers, outpatient mental health and substance abuse centers, HMO medical centers, kidney dialysis centers, and freestanding ambulatory surgical and emergency centers). Centers or clinics of health practitioners with different degrees from more than one industry practicing within the same establishment ( i.e., Doctor of Medicine and Doctor of Dental Medicine) are included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business with annual receipts of $22.5 million or less as small. The 2017 U.S. Economic Census indicates that 5,524 firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 4,584 firms had revenue of less than $10 million. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that a majority of firms in this industry are small.

61. Blood and Organ Banks. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in collecting, storing, and distributing blood and blood products and storing and distributing body organs. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms having annual receipts of $35 million or less as small. The 2017 U.S. Census Bureau data indicate that 293 firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of that number, 219 firms operated with revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this data, the Commission concludes the major of firms that operate in this industry are small.

62. All Other Miscellaneous Ambulatory Health Care Services. This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing ambulatory health care services (except offices of physicians, dentists, and other health practitioners; outpatient care centers; medical and diagnostic laboratories; home health care providers; ambulances; and blood and organ banks). The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies businesses having annual receipts of $18 million or less as small. 2017 U.S. Bureau Census data show that 2,968 firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of that number, 2,810 firms had revenue of less than $10 million. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that a majority of the firms in this industry are small. This industry comprises establishments known as medical laboratories primarily engaged in providing analytic or diagnostic services, including body fluid analysis, generally to the medical profession or to the patient on referral from a health practitioner. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has annual receipts of $36.5 million or less. 2017 U.S. Census Bureau data indicate that 2,799 firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,640 firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that a majority of firms that operate in this industry are small.

63. Medical Laboratories. This industry comprises establishments known as medical laboratories primarily engaged in providing analytic or diagnostic services, including body fluid analysis, generally to the medical profession or to the patient on referral from a health practitioner. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has annual receipts of $36.5 million or less. 2017 U.S. Census Bureau data indicate that 2,799 firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,640 firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that a majority of firms that operate in this industry are small.

64. Diagnostic Imaging Centers. This U.S. industry comprises establishments known as diagnostic imaging centers primarily engaged in producing images of the patient generally on referral from a health practitioner. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms having annual receipts of $16.5 million or less as small. The 2017 U.S. Economic Census indicates that 3,556 firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of that number, 3,233 firms had revenue of less than $10 million. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that a majority of firms that operate in this industry are small.

65. Home Health Care Services. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing skilled nursing services in the home, along with a range of the following: personal care services; homemaker and companion services; physical therapy; medical social services; medications; medical equipment and supplies; counseling; 24-hour home care; occupation and vocational therapy; dietary and nutritional services; speech therapy; audiology; and high-tech care, such as intravenous therapy. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a firm having annual receipts of $16.5 million or less as small. The 2017 Economic Census indicates that 19,414 firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of that number, 18,291 firms had revenue of less than $10 million. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that a majority of firms that operate in this industry are small.

66. Ambulance Services. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing transportation of patients by ground or air, along with medical care. These services are often provided during a medical emergency but are not restricted to emergencies. The vehicles are equipped with lifesaving equipment operated by medically trained personnel. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies businesses having annual receipts of $20 million or less as small. The 2017 U.S. Economic Census indicates that 2,744 firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of that number, 2,539 firms had revenue of less than $10 million. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that a majority of firms in this industry is small.

67. Kidney Dialysis Centers. This industry comprises establishments with medical staff primarily engaged in providing outpatient kidney or renal dialysis services. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms having annual receipts of $41.5 million or less as small. The 2017 U.S. Economic Census indicates that 378 firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of that number, 271 firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that a majority of firms in this industry are small.

68. General Medical and Surgical Hospitals. This industry comprises “establishments known and licensed as general medical and surgical hospitals primarily engaged in providing diagnostic and medical treatment (both surgical and nonsurgical) to inpatients with any of a wide variety of medical conditions. These establishments maintain inpatient beds and provide patients with food services that meet their nutritional requirements. The hospitals have an organized staff of physicians and other medical staff to provide patient care services and usually provide other services, such as outpatient services, anatomical pathology services, diagnostic X-ray services, clinical laboratory services, operating room services for a variety of procedures, and pharmacy services. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms having annual receipts of $41.5 million or less as small. The 2017 U.S. Economic Census indicates that 2,948 firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of that number, 705 firms had revenue of less than $25 million, while 709 firms had revenue between $25 million and $99,999,999 and 1,072 firms had revenue greater than $100,000,000. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that approximately one-quarter of firms in this industry are small.

69. Psychiatric and Substance Abuse Hospitals. This industry comprises establishments known and licensed as psychiatric and substance abuse hospitals primarily engaged in providing diagnostic, medical treatment, and monitoring services for inpatients who suffer from mental illness or substance abuse disorders. The treatment often requires an extended stay in the hospital. These establishments maintain inpatient beds and provide patients with food services that meet their nutritional requirements. They have an organized staff of physicians and other medical staff to provide patient care services. Psychiatric, psychological, and social work services are available at the facility. These hospitals usually provide other services, such as outpatient services, clinical laboratory services, diagnostic X-ray services, and electroencephalograph services. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business having annual receipts of $41.5 million or less as small. 2017 U.S. Census Bureau data indicate that 414 firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 174 firms had revenue of less than $25 million. The Commission notes that 195 firms had revenue between $25 million and $99,999,999 but are unable to determine the number of firms in this group that have revenue of $41.5 million or less. Thus, based on the available data, under the SBA size standard slightly more than one-third of the businesses in this industry are small.

70. Specialty (Except Psychiatric and Substance Abuse) Hospitals. This industry consists of “establishments known and licensed as specialty hospitals primarily engaged in providing diagnostic, and medical treatment to inpatients with a specific type of disease or medical condition (except psychiatric or substance abuse).” Hospitals providing long-term care for the chronically ill and hospitals providing rehabilitation, restorative, and adjustive services to physically challenged or disabled people are included in this industry. These establishments maintain inpatient beds and provide patients with food services that meet their nutritional requirements. They have an organized staff of physicians and other medical staff to provide patient care services. These hospitals may provide other services, such as outpatient services, diagnostic X-ray services, clinical laboratory services, operating room services, physical therapy services, educational and vocational services, and psychological and social work services. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies businesses having annual receipts of $41.5 million or less as small. 2017 U.S. Census Bureau data indicate that 346 firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of that number, 119 firms had revenue of less than $25 million, while 169 firms had revenue of $25 million or more. Based on this data, the Commission concludes the less than half of the firms in this industry are small.

71. Emergency and Other Relief Services. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing food, shelter, clothing, medical relief, resettlement, and counseling to victims of domestic or international disasters or conflicts ( e.g., wars). The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms having annual receipts of $36.5 million or less as small. The 2017 U.S. Economic Census indicates that 499 firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of that number, 413 firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that a majority of firms in this industry are small.

72. The small entities that may be affected are Wireline Providers, Wireless Carriers and Service Providers, and Internet Service Providers.

73. Vendors of Infrastructure Development or “Network Buildout.” The Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically directed toward manufacturers of network facilities. There are two applicable industries in which manufacturers of network facilities could fall and each have different SBA business size standards. The applicable industries are “Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment” with a SBA small business size standard of 1,250 employees or less, and “Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing” with a SBA small business size standard of 750 employees or less.” U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment there were 656 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 624 firms had fewer than 250 employees. For Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 321 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of that number, 310 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that the majority of firms in this industry are small.

74. Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing wire telephone and data communications equipment. These products may be stand-alone or board-level components of a larger system. Examples of products made by these establishments are central office switching equipment, cordless and wire telephones (except cellular), private branch exchange (PBX) equipment, telephone answering machines, local area network (LAN) modems, multi-user modems, and other data communications equipment, such as bridges, routers, and gateways. The SBA small business size standard for Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing classifies businesses having 1,250 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 189 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 177 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.

75. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, global positioning system (GPS) equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies businesses having 1,250 employees or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 656 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 624 firms had fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.

76. Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing communications equipment (except telephone apparatus, and radio and television broadcast, and wireless communications equipment). Examples of such manufacturing include fire detection and alarm systems manufacturing, Intercom systems and equipment manufacturing, and signals ( e.g., highway, pedestrian, railway, traffic) manufacturing. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms having 750 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 321 firms in this industry operated for the entire year. Of this number, 310 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that the majority of firms in this industry are small.

77. The rules adopted in the Third R&O will result in modified reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements for small and other entities. Applicants that request conditional approval for eligibility must submit an eligibility determination and supporting documentation, along with an estimated date to meet all eligibility requirements. They must also be located in a rural area as defined in § 54.600(e) of the Commission's rules by the estimated eligibility date, or plan to be a member of a majority-rural Healthcare Connect Fund (HCF) Program consortium that satisfies the eligible rural health care provider composition requirement set forth in § 54.607(b) of the Commission's rules by the estimated eligibility date. An applicant with conditional eligibility that plans to engage in competitive bidding must indicate that the eligibility is conditional, and state the estimated date of eligibility on its competitive bidding form. Applicants with conditional approval of eligibility must also notify the Universal Service Administrative Company (Administrator) within 30 calendar days of its actual eligibility date and provide documentation confirming eligibility. Beginning funding year 2025, a single eligibility determination form for the RHC Program for both the Telecom Program and the HCF Program, FCC Form 469, will be required to be filed once. Applicants will use the FCC Form 460 for eligibility determinations in the Telecom Program and the eligibility determination portion will be eliminated from the FCC Form 465. The Commission also amends § 54.601(b) of the Commission's rules to require health care providers in both programs to notify the Administrator of changes to their name, location, contact information, or eligible entity type. Telecom Program providers with invoices for funding years 2019 and earlier, must submit invoices by July 1, 2024, after which, any funding commitments for 2019 and earlier will be de-obligated and providers will not be able to invoice for services.

78. The Commission expects the actions taken in the Third R&O will achieve the goals of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the RHC Program without placing significant additional costs and burdens on small entities. At present, there is not sufficient information on the record to quantify the cost of compliance for small entities, however, the Commission anticipates that the compliance obligations for small providers will be outweighed by the benefits of improving the RHC Program's capacity to distribute telecommunications and broadband support to rural health care providers.

79. The RFA requires an agency to provide “a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.”

80. In the Third R&O, the Commission takes steps to minimize the economic impact on small entities with the rule changes that are adopted. For example, conditional approval of eligibility for RHC Program funding will allow soon-to-be eligible providers to begin competitive bidding and request funding so that they may receive support as soon as they become eligible. The Commission aligns the SPIN change deadline with the invoice filing deadline to give small entities more time to complete SPIN changes. The Commission simplifies urban rate calculations by eliminating the standard urban distance provision, which will ease administrative burdens on small entities. The Commission changes evergreen contract dates to provide small entities with the benefits of evergreen contract designation across the full length of the contract's term. As a part of the reforms to use the same form for eligibility determinations in the Telecom and HCF Program, the Commission allows small entities to continue using their existing eligibility determinations. Finally, in establishing an invoice deadline for funding year 2019 and earlier, the Commission provides ample time for small providers and other entities to meet that deadline. These actions will promote efficiency and promote the goals of these programs, while strengthening protections against waste, fraud and abuse.

81. The Commission will send a copy of the Third R&O, including the FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Third R&O, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Third R&O and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register .

82. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4(j), 214, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(j), 214, and 254 and § 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.429, that the Third R&O is adopted.

83. It is further ordered, that pursuant to § 1.103 of the Commission's rules, the provisions of the Third R&O will become effective February 12, 2024, unless indicated otherwise herein.

84. It is further ordered, that pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1- 4, 201 through 205, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 201-205, 254, 303(r), and 403, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 1302, part 54 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR part 54, is amended, and such rule amendments shall be effective February 12, 2024, except for §§ 54.601(b) and (c) and 54.622(e)(1)(i) through (ii) and (i)(3)(iv), which may contain new or modified information collection requirements, will not become effective until the Office of Management and Budget completes any required review under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Commission directs the Wireline Competition Bureau to publish a document in the Federal Register announcing completion of such reviews and the relevant effective dates.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 54 as follows: