Food and Nutrition Service
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
National Nuclear Security Administration
Western Area Power Administration
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Drug Enforcement Administration
Labor Statistics Bureau
Veterans Employment and Training Service
National Endowment for the Arts
National Endowment for the Humanities
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Final rule.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is amending its prudential management and operations standards rule (rule) to clarify that procedural requirements for corrective plans apply to prudential management and operations standards (Standards) established as regulations as well as guidelines, and to make the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Bank System (OF) subject to the rule and some of the existing Standards in the appendix to the rule.
This rule is effective February 20, 2024.
Clinton Jones, General Counsel, (202) 649-3006,
The Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act (the Safety and Soundness Act) requires the Director of FHFA to establish Standards that address ten subjects relating to the management and operation of the regulated entities, authorizes the Director to establish other Standards in addition to those on the ten listed subjects, and authorizes the Director to establish Standards by regulation or guideline.
The current rule and initial Standards, all of which were established as guidelines, were promulgated in 2012. Because FHFA did not then identify any regulations as Standards, the current rule addresses only Standards established as guidelines, which could imply that Standards FHFA has since established as regulations are not covered by the rule's procedures. Neither the current rule nor any Standards apply to OF.
On May 4, 2023, FHFA proposed to amend part 1236 to reflect the scope of FHFA's statutory authority to establish Standards as regulations as well as guidelines, and to clarify that the rule's procedural aspects related to corrective actions that may result from failure to comply with a Standard apply equally to Standards established as guidelines or as regulations.
FHFA further proposed to amend the rule and the appendix to part 1236 so that OF would be subject to the rule and certain Standards. The Standards FHFA proposed to apply to OF are the General Responsibilities of the Board of Directors and Senior Management, and Standards 1, 2, 8, and 10. Standard 1 addresses “Internal Controls and Information Systems.” Standard 2 addresses “Independence and Adequacy of Internal Audit Systems.” Standard 8 addresses “Overall Risk Management Processes.” Standard 10 addresses “Maintenance of Adequate Records.”
Consistent with the foregoing changes, FHFA also proposed to revise and clarify definitions and make conforming changes to part 1236 and its appendix.
FHFA received two comments on its proposed amendments to the rule: one from the Council of Federal Home Loan Banks (Council) and one from the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). The Council commented on the proposed amendments to apply the rule and identified Standards to OF and on the applicability of notice-and-comment rulemaking to the establishment of Standards by guideline. Freddie Mac also commented on the applicability of notice-and-comment rulemaking to the revision or revocation of Standards that had been established by guideline. After carefully reviewing and considering the comments, FHFA has determined to issue the final rule as it was proposed.
The Council observed that OF is not a “regulated entity” as defined in the Safety and Soundness Act and is therefore not explicitly subject to section 4513b, which applies to regulated entities. The Council nonetheless noted that FHFA has express general regulatory authority over OF under 12 U.S.C. 4511(b)(2), as FHFA also noted in its proposal, which provides a statutory basis for FHFA to apply the rule and identified Standards to OF. The Council suggested FHFA clarify its authority regarding OF in the rule. FHFA observes that the rule's authority provision already references 12 U.S.C. 4511; on that basis, further clarification of FHFA's authority is not necessary.
The Council asked that FHFA identify the specific purposes of section 4513b
The Council also requested that FHFA specify “the matters that are not relevant” to OF for purposes of compliance with the identified Standards and raised concerns about potential conflicts between existing regulations and the Standards in the appendix. FHFA notes that its proposal particularly specified the Standards and portions of Standards that would apply to OF; in other words, the proposed amendments specified the matters that are relevant to OF. Moreover, the current version of the rule and the proposed amendments to the rule both specify that in the case of a conflict between a Standard and a regulation, “the regulation shall control.”
Finally, the Council requested that FHFA establish an implementation timeframe for OF to comply with the rule and identified Standards. FHFA expects that the interim between publication of the final rule and its effective date will provide OF sufficient time either to come into compliance with the identified Standards or to engage with appropriate FHFA supervision staff on a reasonable timeframe to come into compliance with an identified Standard.
The Council and Freddie Mac both offered comments on the applicability of notice-and-comment rulemaking to Standards established by guidelines. The current version of the rule provides that the Director may “modify, revoke, or add to the Standards” established by guidelines “by order or notice,”
Based on FHFA's past practice of establishing Standards as guidelines and because FHFA has determined to continue locating all Standards established as guidelines in the appendix to the rule, which would require a
The Council noted that guidance setting forth FHFA's supervisory expectations is not subject to the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and expressed its appreciation for FHFA's proposal to use a notice-and-comment process for Standards FHFA planned to establish by guideline. The Council asked FHFA to clarify whether it would use existing or new advisory bulletins to establish Standards without going through notice-and-comment.
As FHFA explained in the preamble to the proposed amendments, the rule as amended will now require FHFA to establish Standards that are guidelines through a
Freddie Mac requested that FHFA revoke or modify Standards established as guidelines through a notice-and-comment process in the same way that FHFA proposed to establish such Standards. Freddie Mac suggested that Standards established through the notice-and-comment process are “legislative rules” subject to the APA even if they were established as guidelines; thus, such Standards must be modified or revoked in accordance with procedures for “legislative rules.”
Without opining on whether Standards established as guidelines, using a notice-and-comment process, are “legislative rules,” FHFA has already committed to using a notice-and-comment process when establishing a Standard as a guideline and making any material modification to such a Standard. As it did when promulgating the rule, FHFA again observes that section 4513b authorizes and distinguishes between Standards established as regulations and as guidelines and that the APA does not require guidance to be promulgated through a notice-and-comment process. As a practical matter, however, FHFA also observes that removing a Standard from the appendix to the rule will require a
Section 1313(f) of the Safety and Soundness Act (12 U.S.C. 4513(f)), as amended by section 1201 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, requires the Director, when promulgating regulations relating to the Banks, to consider the differences between the Banks and the Enterprises with respect to the Banks' cooperative ownership structure; mission of providing liquidity to members; affordable housing and community development mission; capital structure; and joint and several liability. The Director may also consider any other
The final rule does not contain any information collection requirement that would require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
In accordance with the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Administrative practice and procedure, Federal home loan banks, Government-sponsored enterprises, Office of Finance, Prudential Management and Operations Standards, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Preamble, FHFA amends part 1236 of chapter XII of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
12 U.S.C. 4511, 4513(a) and (f), 4513b, and 4526.
This part addresses prudential management and operations standards that are required and authorized by 12 U.S.C. 4513b, including the establishment of Standards by Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and the processes by which FHFA can notify a regulated entity or the Office of Finance of its failure to operate in accordance with a Standard and direct the regulated entity or the Office of Finance to take corrective action. This part further specifies the possible consequences if any regulated entity or the Office of Finance fails to operate in accordance with an applicable Standard or otherwise fails to comply with this part.
Unless otherwise indicated, terms used in this part have the meanings that they have in part 1201 of this chapter, in the Safety and Soundness Act, 12 U.S.C. 4501
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
(ii)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(6) Require the regulated entity or the Office of Finance to take any other action that the Director determines will better carry out the purposes of the statute by bringing the regulated entity or the Office of Finance into conformance with the Standards.
(c) * * *
(1)
(i) A statement that the regulated entity or the Office of Finance has failed to submit a corrective plan under § 1236.4, or has not implemented or otherwise has not complied in any material respect with an approved plan;
(2)
(i) An explanation of why the regulated entity or the Office of Finance believes that the action proposed by FHFA is not an appropriate exercise of discretion;
(ii) Any recommended modification of the proposed order; and
(iii) Any other relevant information, mitigating circumstances, documentation or other evidence in support of the position of the regulated entity or the Office of Finance regarding the proposed order.
(3)
(4)
(d)
(e)
The revisions read as follows:
The following provisions constitute the prudential management and operations standards established as guidelines pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 4513b(a). The General Responsibilities of the Board of Directors and Standards 1, 2, 8, and 10 apply to the Office of Finance as appropriate.
The following provisions address the general responsibilities of the boards of directors and senior management of the regulated entities as they relate to the matters addressed by each of the Standards, and the general responsibilities of the board of directors and senior management of the Office of Finance to the extent a particular Standard is applicable to the Office of Finance. The descriptions are not a comprehensive listing of the responsibilities of either the boards or senior management, each of whom have additional duties and responsibilities to those described in these Standards.
1. With respect to the subject matter addressed by each applicable Standard, the board of directors of each regulated entity and of the Office of Finance is responsible for adopting business strategies and policies that are appropriate for the particular subject matter. The board should review all such strategies and policies periodically. It should review and approve all major strategies and policies at least annually and make any revisions that are necessary to ensure that such strategies and policies remain consistent with the overall business plan of the entity or the Office of Finance.
2. The board of directors is responsible for overseeing management of the regulated entity or the Office of Finance, which includes ensuring that management includes personnel who are appropriately trained and competent to oversee the operation of the regulated entity and the Office of Finance as it relates to the functions and requirements addressed by each applicable Standard, and that management implements the policies set forth by the board.
3. The board of directors is responsible for remaining informed about the operations and condition of the regulated entity or the Office of Finance, including operating consistently with the applicable Standards, and senior management's implementation of the strategies and policies established by the board of directors.
4. The board of directors must remain sufficiently informed about the nature and level of the regulated overall risk exposures of the entity or the Office of Finance, including, as applicable, market, credit, operational, and counterparty risk, so that it can understand the possible short- and long-term effects of those exposures on the financial health of the regulated entity, including the possible short- and long-term consequences, as applicable, to earnings, liquidity, and economic value. The board of directors should: establish the risk tolerances of the regulated entity or the Office of Finance and provide management with clear guidance regarding the level of acceptable risks; review the entire risk management framework of the regulated entity or the Office of Finance, including policies and entity-wide risk limits at least annually; oversee the adequacy of the actions taken by senior management to identify, measure, manage, and control the risk exposures of the regulated entity or the Office of Finance; and ensure that management takes appropriate corrective measures whenever risk limit violations or breaches occur.
5. With respect to the subject matter addressed by each applicable Standard, senior management is responsible for developing the policies, procedures and practices that are necessary to implement the business strategies and policies adopted by the board of directors. Senior management should ensure that such items are clearly written, sufficiently detailed, and are followed by all personnel. Senior management also should ensure that the regulated entity or the Office of Finance has personnel who are appropriately trained and competent to carry out their respective functions and that all delegated responsibilities are performed.
6. Senior management should ensure that the regulated entity or the Office of Finance has adequate resources, systems, and controls available to execute effectively the business strategies, policies, and procedures of the entity or the Office of Finance, including operating consistently with each of the applicable Standards.
7. Senior management should provide the board of directors with periodic reports relating to the condition and performance of the regulated entity or the Office of Finance, including the subject matter addressed by each of the applicable Standards, that are sufficiently detailed to allow the board of directors to remain fully informed about the business of the regulated entity or the Office of Finance.
8. Senior management should regularly review and discuss with the board of directors information regarding the risk exposures of the regulated entity or the Office of Finance that is sufficient in detail and timeliness to permit the board of directors to understand and assess the performance of management in identifying and managing the various risks to which the regulated entity or the Office of Finance is exposed.
10. The board of directors and senior management should ensure that the overall risk profile of the regulated entity or the Office of Finance is aligned with its mission objectives.
1. Regarding internal controls and information systems, the board of directors of each regulated entity and the Office of Finance should adopt appropriate policies, ensure personnel are appropriately trained and competent, approve and periodically review overall business strategies, approve the organizational structure, and assess the adequacy of senior management's oversight of this function.
4. Each regulated entity and the Office of Finance should have an adequate and effective system of internal controls, which should include a board approved organizational structure that clearly assigns responsibilities, authority, and reporting relationships, and establishes an appropriate segregation of duties that ensures that personnel are not assigned conflicting responsibilities.
5. Each regulated entity and the Office of Finance should establish appropriate internal control policies and should monitor the adequacy and effectiveness of its internal controls and information systems on an ongoing basis through a formal self-assessment process.
6. Each regulated entity and the Office of Finance should have an organizational culture that emphasizes and demonstrates to personnel at all levels the importance of internal controls.
7. Each regulated entity and the Office of Finance should address promptly any violations, findings, weaknesses, deficiencies, and other issues in need of remediation relating to the internal control systems.
8. Each regulated entity and the Office of Finance should have an effective risk assessment process that ensures that management recognizes and continually assesses all material risks, including credit risk, market risk, interest rate risk, liquidity risk, and operational risk.
9. Each regulated entity and the Office of Finance should have an effective internal control system that defines control activities at every business level.
10. The control activities of each regulated entity and the Office of Finance should include:
a. Board of directors and senior management reviews of progress toward goals and objectives;
b. Appropriate activity controls for each business unit;
c. Physical controls to protect property and other assets and limit access to property and systems;
d. Procedures for monitoring compliance with exposure limits and follow-up on non-compliance;
e. A system of approvals and authorizations for transactions over certain limits; and
f. A system for verification and reconciliation of transactions.
11. Each regulated entity and the Office of Finance should have information systems
12. Each regulated entity and the Office of Finance should have secure information systems that are supported by adequate contingency arrangements.
13. Each regulated entity and the Office of Finance should have effective channels of communication to ensure that all personnel understand and adhere to policies and procedures affecting their duties and responsibilities.
14. Each regulated entity and the Office of Finance should monitor the overall effectiveness of its internal controls and key risks on an ongoing basis and ensure that business units and internal and external audit conduct periodic evaluations.
16. Each regulated entity and the Office of Finance should comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and supervisory guidance (
1. The board of directors of each regulated entity and the Office of Finance should have an audit committee that exercises proper oversight and adopts appropriate policies and procedures designed to ensure the independence of the internal audit function. The audit committee should ensure that the internal audit department includes personnel who are appropriately trained and competent to oversee the internal audit function.
3. The audit committee of the board of directors is responsible for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the internal audit function of each regulated entity and the Office of Finance.
5. Each regulated entity and the Office of Finance should have an internal audit function that provides for adequate testing of the system of internal controls.
6. Each regulated entity and the Office of Finance should have an independent and objective internal audit department that reports directly to the audit committee of the board of directors.
7. The internal audit department of each regulated entity and the Office of Finance should be adequately staffed with properly trained and competent personnel.
11. Each regulated entity and the Office of Finance should comply with applicable laws, regulations, and supervisory guidance (
1. Regarding overall risk management processes, the board of directors is responsible for overseeing the process, ensuring senior management are appropriately trained and competent, ensuring processes are in place to identify, manage, monitor and control risk exposures (this function may be delegated to a board appointed committee), approving all major risk limits, and ensuring incentive compensation measures for senior management capture a full range of risks to the regulated entity or the Office of Finance.
2. Regarding overall risk management processes, the board of directors and senior management should establish and sustain a culture that promotes effective risk management. This culture includes timely, accurate and informative risk reports, alignment of the overall risk profile of the regulated entity or the Office of Finance with its mission objectives, and the annual review of comprehensive self-assessments of material risks.
3. A regulated entity or the Office of Finance should have an independent risk management function, or unit, with responsibility for risk measurement and risk monitoring, including monitoring and enforcement of risk limits.
7. Each regulated entity and the Office of Finance should measure, monitor, and control its overall risk exposures, reviewing, as applicable, market, credit, liquidity, and operational risk exposures on both a business unit (or business segment) and enterprise-wide basis.
8. Each regulated entity and the Office of Finance should have the risk management systems to generate, at an appropriate frequency, the information needed to manage risk. As applicable, such systems should include systems for market, credit, operational, and liquidity risk analysis, asset and liability management, regulatory reporting, and performance measurement.
9. Each regulated entity and the Office of Finance should have a comprehensive set of risk limits and monitoring procedures to ensure that risk exposures remain within established risk limits, and a mechanism for reporting violations and breaches of risk limits to senior management and the board of directors.
10. Each regulated entity and the Office of Finance should ensure that it has sufficient controls around risk measurement models to ensure the completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of risk information.
11. Each regulated entity and the Office of Finance should have adequate and well-tested disaster recovery and business resumption plans for all major systems and have remote facilitates to limit the impact of disruptive events.
12. As applicable, each regulated entity and the Office of Finance should comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and supervisory guidance (
1. Each regulated entity and the Office of Finance should maintain financial records in compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), FHFA guidelines, and applicable laws and regulations.
2. Each regulated entity and the Office of Finance should ensure that assets are safeguarded and financial and operational information is timely and reliable.
3. Each regulated entity and the Office of Finance should have a records retention program consistent with laws and corporate policies, including accounting policies, as well as personnel that are appropriately trained and competent to oversee and implement the records management plan.
4. Each regulated entity and the Office of Finance, with oversight from its board of directors, should conduct a review and approval of the records retention program and records retention schedule for all types of records at least once every two years.
5. Each regulated entity and the Office of Finance should ensure that reporting errors are detected and corrected in a timely manner.
6. Each regulated entity and the Office of Finance should comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and supervisory guidance (
U. S. Small Business Administration.
Direct final rule.
This direct final rule clarifies and provides technical updates to the
This rule is effective March 4, 2024, without further action, unless significant comment is received by February 20, 2024. If significant adverse comment is received, SBA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
The mission of the SBIC program is to enhance small business access to capital by stimulating and supplementing “the flow of private equity capital and long-term loan funds which small-business concerns need for the sound financing of their business operations and for their growth, expansion, and modernization, and which are not available in adequate supply.” SBA carries out this mission by licensing and monitoring privately owned and managed investment funds that raise capital from private investors and issue SBA-guaranteed Debentures to make private long-term equity and debt investments into qualifying Small Businesses.
The following is an overview of changes made to 13 CFR part 107 as part of this Direct Final Rule to clarify and provide technical updates to the
(a)
(b)
Clarifying the exemption for non-profit entities to own more than 70 percent of the Licensee's Regulatory Capital to facilitate capital raising efforts, particularly for funds targeting investments in underserved geographies and critical technologies.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Clarifying that Reinvestor SBIC Licensees must file Annual and Interim (Quarterly) Form 468s within 120 calendar days of the close of the calendar quarter.
(h)
Clarifying that Reinvestor SBIC Licensees must report valuations to SBA within 120 calendar days of the close of the calendar quarter.
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(n)
(o)
(p)
(q)
(r)
SBA seeks to clarify the definition of Institutional Investor to be consistent with rules implemented in the SBIC IDG Final Rule to provide regulatory flexibility for fund-of-fund investors that are required to be managed by SEC regulated Registered Investment Advisors. SBA considers the commitments of such fund-of-fund investors to not be of questionable collectability if the conditions set forth in the revised paragraph (1)(x) of the Institutional Investor definition are met, generally eliminating the requirement that a “dual commitment” be obtained relative to such investor's capital commitment.
SBA seeks to correct the definition of Annual Charge and correct text added to the definition of Leverage that could inadvertently lead to Annual Charges being charged on Accrual Debenture principal and accrued interest. Consistent with existing practices for Standard Debentures, the Annual Charge on Accrual Debentures is charged on Accrual Debenture principal only.
This regulation identifies the SBIC ownership diversity requirements under section 302(c) of the Act. That section requires SBIC ownership be “sufficiently diversified from and unaffiliated with the ownership of the licensee in a manner that ensures independence and objectivity in the financial management and oversight of the investments and operations of the licensee.” As an exception to the diversity ownership requirement under § 107.150(b)(1), SBA allows an investor that is a traditional investment company to own and control more than 70 percent of the Licensee's Regulatory Capital. Such SBICs are essentially drop-down funds for that traditional investment company and are structured exclusively to pool capital from more than one source for the purpose of investing and generating profits. In the SBIC Investment Diversification and Growth rulemaking, SBA proposed also including non-profit entities to own more than 70 percent of the Licensee's Regulatory Capital to facilitate capital raising efforts, particularly for funds targeting investments in underserved geographies and critical technologies. In the final rulemaking, SBA clarified such non-profit entities could own and control a Licensee; however, did include the proposed reforms, which were supported in public comments, for such non-profit entities to own more than 70 percent of the Licensee's Regulatory Capital. SBA is clarifying in this rulemaking that such non-profit entities can own more than 70 percent of the Licensee's Regulatory Capital as originally stated in the proposed rulemaking.
SBA seeks to clarify that while SBICs are not restricted in the amount of investment capital that can be contributed to SBICs directly or indirectly from local, State or Federal Government entities, the extent to which such investment capital from local, State or Federal Government entities is eligible to qualify as Leverageable Capital is limited by the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”). The capital contributed by such entities can be included in an SBIC applicant's proposed formula to calculate management fees.
SBA seeks to clarify that a management team must have demonstrated investment acumen to apply for an SBIC license, as defined in § 107.305(b). SBA looks at a mosaic of factors when determining eligibility for an SBIC license and can rely upon third-party data sources and reference checks in conjunction with the initial license application to verify management team eligibility. For clarity, SBA is adding that while a track record is required to apply for an SBIC license, a certified track record is not required and is clarifying that SBA would expect to see that a meaningful proportion, in terms of the number of institutional investors, of a prior SBIC fund's investor base would return to support an anticipated subsequent SBIC fund.
SBA is correcting current regulations, which erroneously state in 13 CFR 107.503(d)(4) that SBIC Licensees must report material adverse changes within 45 days following the close of the quarter. The statutory requirement is within 30 days following the close of the quarter.
SBA is correcting the timeframe set forth in § 107.585(c), for both the mandatory payment of Annual Charges and accrued interest and the mandatory payment of the “SBA share” by Accrual and Reinvestor Licensees making distributions other than those made solely for tax purposes. Under the SBIC IDG Final Rule such Licensees are required to make mandatory payments on annual charges and accrued interest and the calculated SBA share of Leverage in connection with each distribution to private investors, other than a distribution approved in writing and in advance by SBA as solely for tax purposes. The SBIC IDG Final Rule provided inconsistent guidance as to the timing of such payments due to SBA. In order to reduce its risk, SBA corrects the regulation to require that each such payment to SBA be made on or before the date of the corresponding non-tax distribution to private investors.
Also, in view of the alignment of the “overline” formula of § 107.740 with the formula set forth in section 306 of the Act, SBA seeks to eliminate from § 107.585 two references to the former regulatory formula. Those references concern an “add back” of approved reductions of Regulatory Capital to the regulatory formula previously contained within § 107.740. Given that § 107.740 has now been aligned with the statutory overline formula, as to which such “add backs” are not applicable, the references within § 107.585 to such “add backs” are no longer relevant.
SBA seeks to clarify that Reinvestor SBICs are required to file Annual Form 468 within 120 calendar days of the end of your fiscal year and Interim Form 468 within 120 calendar days of the respective quarter.
Consistent with the clarification in 13 CFR 107.630, SBA similarly clarifies that Reinvestor SBICs must report valuations to SBA within 120 days of the end of the fiscal year and within 120 days following the close of other reporting periods.
In addition, SBA aligns the regulatory requirement for Licensees to report material adverse changes in valuations with the statutory requirement.
This regulation identifies small businesses that may be ineligible for financing by SBICs. Current 13 CFR 107.720(a)(2)(i) provides an exception to the limitation on investments in relenders or reinvestors in order to permit Reinvestor SBICs to provide Equity Capital Investments to underserved Small Business reinvestors (except banks, savings and loans not insured by agencies of the Federal Government, and agricultural credit companies). As part of this rulemaking, SBA is seeking to clarify its intent relative to § 107.720(a)(2)(i) by noting that Reinvestor SBIC Licensees may provide Equity Capital Investments to Disadvantaged Businesses that are relenders or reinvestors, including Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) and Minority Deposit Institutions (MDIs). In addition to Equity Capital Investments, Reinvestor SBIC Licensees may provide long-term debt or loan financing to CDFIs and MDIs. SBA notes that such CDFIs and MDIs are excepted from the requirement to solely make investments or loans to eligible businesses pursuant to the requirements set forth in § 107.720(a)(2)(i).
Current regulations provide for two exceptions that allow an SBIC to structure an investment utilizing a passive small business as a pass-through. The first exception, identified in § 107.720(b)(2), permits an investment utilizing up to two passive entities, as long as substantially all of the financing proceeds are passed through to one or more active “subsidiary companies,” each of which is an eligible small business. The second exception, identified in § 107.720(b)(3), allows a partnership SBIC to form and finance a passive, blocker entity that in turn provides financing to an active, unincorporated small business. Currently, this structure is permitted only if a direct financing of the unincorporated small business would cause at least one of the SBIC's investors to incur Unrelated Business Taxable Income (UBTI) under section 511 of the Internal Revenue Code, which may arise from an activity engaged in by a tax-exempt organization that is not related to the tax-exempt purpose of that organization.
SBA is clarifying that the exception set forth in 13 CFR 107.720(b)(2) permits an SBIC to structure an investment utilizing additional passive small businesses as a pass through, provided that (i) all financing proceeds are passed through to one or more active “subsidiary companies,” each of which is an eligible small business, (ii) SBA has adequate information to review information appropriate to each passive small business pursuant to 13 CFR 107.720(b)(4), and (iii) SBA is able to maintain enforcement rights against each of the small businesses financed pursuant to 13 CFR 107.720(b)(2), including the active Small Business. Further, SBA is clarifying that 13 CFR 107.720(b)(3) allows the formation of a blocker entity, in the case of an SBIC that either is a BDC licensed under the Investment Company Act of 1940 or is owned by a parent BDC, to avoid adverse tax consequences to an investor that has elected to be taxed as a registered investment company under the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 851(b)(2)). SBA believes that these changes will provide SBICs with additional flexibility investments to eligible Small Businesses and increase the flow of private capital within the SBIC program.
SBA seeks to align the “overline” formula contained within § 107.740 with overline formula that is set forth in section 306 of the Act. Section 306 contains an aggregate limitation on the concentration of a Licensee's combined capital (Private Capital + guaranteed Leverage), precluding a Licensee from investing combined capital in excess of a threshold determined under the statutory formula. Previously, SBA regulations contained an overline limitation that was similar to the statutory requirement though different in important respects, thus subjecting Licensees to an additional overline requirement and potentially resulting in confusion in various circumstances. By aligning the regulation with the statute, SBA now effectively simplifies overline management and the burden of tracking the overline requirement under two separate formulae.
SBA seeks to correct a misstated reference by correcting 107.855(h)(2) to read as follows: “Discount the cash flows back to the first disbursement date using the Cost of Money ceiling from paragraph (c) of this section as the discount rate.”
SBA seeks to correct current regulations, which erroneously state in 13 CFR 107.1120(d) that SBIC Licensees are limited to $150 million in outstanding Leverage. This provision does not reflect a change in the statutory outstanding Leverage maximum which is $175 million for an individual Licensee and $350 million in aggregate for SBIC Licensees that are under Common Control. Also, SBA has inserted language referring to the maximum Leverage allowed under the Act to ensure that any statutory changes are reflected in the regulations.
SBA seeks to clarify the current regulations which are ambiguous as to the basis for which Annual Charges are calculated on outstanding Debentures. SBA clarifies the regulation by adding the word “principal” in front of “amount” in 13 CFR 107.1130(d)(1).
SBA seeks to further clarify a statement from the preamble of the SBIC IDG Final Rule regarding how SBA determines the Leverage available to Accrual SBICs and Reinvestor SBICs. In the rule, SBA stated that “In order to determine the maximum amount of leverage that Accrual SBICs and Reinvestor SBICs may have outstanding, SBA will aggregate the total principal leverage plus ten years of accrued interest on such principal to determine the total Accrual Debentures that the Accrual SBIC may issue based on the statutory limitation.” SBA seeks to clarify that this aggregation is based on an estimate of potential interest which could accrue based on prevailing interest rates at the time of licensing. Furthermore, SBA seeks to clarify how
SBA seeks to correct current regulations, which erroneously present in 13 CFR 107.1859 the formula used to calculate a metric that was among those included in the formal Licensee “Watchlist” process implemented by the SBIC IDG Final Rule to formalize monitoring practices that have existed in SBIC Program Standard Operating Procedures for several years. Among the “Watchlist triggers” described in paragraph 13 CFR 107.1850(a) was the Leverage Coverage Ratio (LCR). SBA now corrects clause 13 CFR 107.1850(a)(6) which presents the formula used to calculate LCR, which was misstated in the SBIC IDG Final Rule.
With the SBIC IDG Final Rule, SBA established within § 107.720(a)(2) a new type of SBIC, known as a Reinvestor SBIC, licensed to issue Accrual Debentures and approved by SBA to provide “Equity Capital Investments to underserved Small Business reinvestors (except banks, savings and loans not insured by agencies of the Federal Government, and agricultural credit companies) that make direct financings” to certain qualifying Small Businesses. With the advent of Reinvestor SBICs, questions have arisen concerning the applicability of SBA affiliation rules to the relationship between such underserved Small Business reinvestors and the qualifying Small Businesses in which they invest. Although 13 CFR 121.103(b)(1), in current form, provides clarity as to the lack of regulatory affiliation between licensed SBICs and the Small Businesses to which they provide Financing, the SBIC IDG Final Rule failed to answer the related question of whether a Small Business reinvestor is affiliated with the qualifying Small Business in which it reinvests. SBA now modifies clause 13 CFR 121.103(b)(1) to respond to this question and resolve that no affiliation results from this relationship.
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866.
This action meets applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The action does not have preemptive effect or retroactive effect.
This rule does not have federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in the Executive order. As such it does not warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), requires agencies to adopt regulations through a process that involves public participation, and to the extent feasible, base regulations on the open exchange of information and perspectives from affected stakeholders and the public as a whole. SBA has developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements, and the public will have the opportunity to provide comments prior to the effective date of this direct final rule.
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
SBA has determined that this rule would not impose new reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, requires administrative agencies to consider the effect of their actions on small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. According to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, when an agency issues a rulemaking, it must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis to address the impact of the rule on small entities. However, section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule likely will not impact a substantial number of small entities. This rulemaking is intended to update and clarify comments received in connection with prior SBA rules, and accordingly will affect only a limited population of existing and potential SBIC Licensees. Importantly, this rule does not directly impact small businesses receiving investments, nor any investors or small banks participating in the SBIC Licensee. This rulemaking regulates the relevant SBIC Licensees. The courts have held that the RFA does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis for entities not directly regulated by the agency's proposed rulemaking. Thus, SBA is not required to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis on potential downstream benefits or costs to those entities.
Further, this rulemaking also does not have a significant economic impact on
Based on the foregoing, the Administrator of the SBA hereby certifies that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In general, SBA publishes a rule for public comment before issuing a final rule, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. 553. The Administrative Procedure Act provides an exception to this standard rulemaking process, however, when an agency finds good cause to adopt a rule without prior public participation. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). The good cause requirement is satisfied when prior public participation is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.
SBA is publishing this rule as a direct final rule because public participation is unnecessary. SBA views this as a non-controversial administrative action because all technical corrections and updates are consistent with public comments received throughout the SBIC IDG Final Rule rulemaking process. This rule will be effective on the date shown in the
If SBA receives significant adverse comment, SBA will publish a notice in the
Investment companies, Loan programs—business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.
Investment companies, Loan programs—business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, SBA is implementing regulations to amend 13 CFR parts 107 and 121 as follows:
15 U.S.C. 662, 681-687, 687b-h, 687k-m.
Annual Charge means an annual fee on the principal amount of outstanding Debentures which is payable to SBA by Licensees, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in §§ 107.585 and 107.1130(d).
(1) * * *
(x) An entity managed by an SEC regulated Registered Investment Adviser in good standing, provided the Licensee's limited partnership agreement (or other governing agreement) contains sufficient provisions to ensure collectability.
Leverage means financial assistance provided to a Licensee by SBA, either through the purchase or guaranty of a Licensee's Debentures, and any other SBA financial assistance evidenced by a security of the Licensee.
(b) * * *
(2)
The revisions read as follows:
(e)
(f)
(b) * * * While a track record is required to apply for an SBIC license, a “certified” track record is not required.
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii)
(d) * * *
(4) You must report material adverse changes in valuations at least quarterly,
The revisions read as follows:
(c)
(1)
(2)
(i) Total Distributions means any prior tax distributions plus the total amount of distributions, whether profit or return of capital, you intend to make after paying all accrued interest and Annual Charges;
(a) * * * Reinvestor SBICs must file Annual Form 468 within 120 calendar days of the end of your fiscal year.
(b) * * * Reinvestor SBICs must file such reports within 120 calendar days of the end of the reporting period.
You must determine the value of your Loans and Investments in accordance with § 107.503. You must report such valuations to SBA within 90 calendar days of the end of the fiscal year in the case of annual valuations, and if you are a Leveraged Licensee within 45 calendar days following the close of other reporting periods. Reinvestor SBICs must report valuations to SBA within 120 calendar days of the end of the fiscal year in the case of annual valuations, and within 120 calendar days following the close of other reporting periods. You must report material adverse changes in valuations at least quarterly, within 30 days following the close of the quarter.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *A Reinvestor SBIC may make Equity Capital Investments to Disadvantaged Businesses that are relenders or reinvestors, including Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) and Minority Deposit Institutions (MDIs), and any such investments in CDFIs or MDIs pursuant to this section are not subject to the requirement that such CDFIs or MDIs make direct financings solely to Small Businesses. In addition to Equity Capital Investments, Reinvestor SBIC Licensees may provide long-term debt or loan financing to CDFIs and MDIs.
(b) * * *
(2)
(3) * * * You may form such blocker entities only if a direct Financing to such Small Businesses would cause any of your investors to incur “unrelated business taxable income” under section 511 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 511) or to incur “effectively connected income” to foreign investors under sections 871 and 882 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 871 and 882) or (for an investor that has elected to be taxed as a regulated investment company) receive or be deemed to receive gross income that does not qualify under section 851(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 851(b)(2)). * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) For the purposes of this part 107, each passive and non-passive business included in the Financing is a Portfolio Concern and subject to the provisions set forth in the Act. The terms of the financing must also provide SBA with access to Portfolio Concern information in compliance with this part 107, including without limitation §§ 107.600 and 107.620.
If you are a Leveraged Licensee, the aggregate amount of financings you may provide and commitments you may issue to a Small Business and its affiliates may not, without SBA's prior written approval, exceed 10 percent of the sum of:
(a) Your Private Capital; and
(b) The total amount of Leverage principal (excluding any interest which may become due or accrue at any point following the issuance of Leverage) projected to be issued in the business plan that was approved by SBA at the time you were licensed.
(h) * * *
(2) Discount the cash flows back to the first disbursement date using the Cost of Money ceiling from paragraph (c) of this section as the discount rate.
(d) For any Leverage draw that would cause you and any other Licensees under Common Control to have aggregate outstanding Leverage in excess of the amount permitted under Section 303(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act,
(d) * * *
(1)
(a) * * *
(6) Your leverage coverage ratio (LCR) falls below 1.25, where LCR is calculated as ((Total Assets−Liabilities excluding SBA Leverage−Other Assets) + Unfunded Private Commitments)/Outstanding Leverage, or a Capital Impairment Percentage approaching your threshold set forth in § 107.1830.
15 U.S.C. 632, 634(b)(6), 636(a)(36), 662, and 694a(9); Pub. L. 116-136, Section 1114.
(b) * * *
(1) Business concerns owned in whole or substantial part either by investment companies licensed, or by development companies qualifying, under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, or by investment companies to which a Reinvestor SBIC (within the meaning of 13 CFR 107.720(a)(2)) has provided a meaningful percentage of Equity Capital are not considered affiliates of such investment companies or development companies.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPS) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective January 19, 2024. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 19, 2024.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30. 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Information Services, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address: FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., STB Annex, Bldg. 26, Room 217, Oklahoma City, OK 73099. Telephone (405) 954-1139.
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
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
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.
Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
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:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective January 19, 2024. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 19, 2024.
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590-0001;
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Information Services, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address: FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., STB Annex, Bldg. 26, Room 217, Oklahoma City, OK 73099. Telephone: (405) 954-1139.
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
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
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.
Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
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:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations.
This document sets forth final regulations providing guidance relating to the minimum present value requirements applicable to certain defined benefit pension plans. These regulations provide guidance on changes made by the Pension Protection Act of 2006 to the prescribed interest rate and mortality table and other guidance, including rules regarding the treatment of preretirement mortality discounts and Social Security level income options. These regulations affect participants, beneficiaries, sponsors, and administrators of defined benefit pension plans.
Diane S. Bloom or Linda S.F. Marshall at (202) 317-6700 (not a toll-free number).
Section 401(a)(11) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) provides rules that a defined benefit plan must satisfy with respect to a vested participant in order to be a qualified plan under section 401(a). Under those rules, except as provided under section 417: (1) if the participant survives to the annuity starting date, the accrued benefit payable to the participant must be provided in the form of a qualified joint and survivor annuity (QJSA); and (2) if the participant dies before the annuity starting date and has a surviving spouse, the plan must provide a qualified preretirement survivor annuity (QPSA) to the surviving spouse.
Under section 417(e)(1), a plan may provide that the present value of a QJSA or a QPSA will be distributed immediately if that present value does not exceed the amount that may be distributed without the participant's consent under section 411(a)(11).
Section 417(e)(3)(A) provides that the present value of the QJSA or QPSA must not be less than the present value calculated by using the applicable mortality table and the applicable interest rate.
Section 417(e)(3)(B), as amended by section 302 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Public Law 109-280, 120 Stat. 780 (PPA '06), provides that the term “applicable mortality table” means a mortality table, modified as appropriate by the Secretary, based on the mortality table specified for the plan year under section 430(h)(3)(A) of the Code (without regard to section 430(h)(3)(C) or (D)).
Section 417(e)(3)(C), as amended by section 302 of PPA '06, provides that the term “applicable interest rate” means the adjusted first, second, and third segment rates applied under rules similar to the rules of section 430(h)(2)(C) of the Code for the month before the date of the distribution or such other time as the Secretary may prescribe by regulations. However, for purposes of section 417(e)(3), these rates are determined without regard to the segment rate stabilization rules of section 430(h)(2)(C)(iv). In addition, under section 417(e)(3)(D), these rates are determined using the average yields for a month, rather than the 24-month average used under section 430(h)(2)(D).
Section 411(a)(13), as added by section 701(b) of PPA '06, provides that an “applicable defined benefit plan,” as defined by section 411(a)(13)(C) of the Code, is not treated as failing to meet the requirements of section 417(e) with respect to accrued benefits derived from employer contributions solely because the present value of a participant's accrued benefit (or any portion thereof) may be, under the terms of the plan, equal to the amount expressed as the hypothetical account balance or as an accumulated percentage of such participant's final average compensation.
The Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) and the IRS issued final regulations under section 417 relating to the QJSA and QPSA requirements in 1988 (53 FR 31854, August 22, 1988), and amended those regulations in 1998 (63 FR 16898, April 3, 1998), to reflect changes to section 417(e)(3) enacted by the Retirement Protection Act of 1994, Subtitle F of Title VII of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Public Law 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809 (RPA '94). Section 1.417(e)-1 was further amended in 2016 (81 FR 62359, September 9, 2016) to permit defined benefit plans to bifurcate a benefit that is paid partly in the form of an annuity and partly in a more accelerated form and to apply the requirements of section 417(e)(3) only to the accelerated portion of the distribution. However, § 1.417(e)-1 was not updated at that time to reflect changes made by PPA '06.
Under § 1.417(e)-1(d)(1), a defined benefit plan generally must provide that the present value of any accrued benefit and the amount (subject to sections 411(c)(3) and 415) of any distribution, including a single sum, may not be less than the amount calculated using the applicable interest rate and the applicable mortality table. In addition, under § 1.417(e)-1(d)(1), the present value of any optional form of benefit may not be less than the present value of the normal retirement benefit determined in accordance with the preceding sentence.
Section 1.417(e)-1(d)(6) provides an exception from the minimum present value requirements of section 417(e) and § 1.417(e)-1(d) for certain distributions. This exception applies to the amount of a distribution paid in the form of an annual benefit that either does not decrease during the life of the participant (or, in the case of a QPSA, the life of the participant's spouse), or that decreases during the life of the participant merely because of (1) the death of the survivor annuitant (but only if the reduction is to a level not below 50 percent of the annual benefit payable before the death of the survivor annuitant), or (2) the cessation or reduction of Social Security supplements or qualified disability benefits.
Section 1.401(a)-20 provides rules regarding the survivor annuity requirements of sections 401(a)(11) and 417. Section 1.401(a)-20, Q&A-16, provides that, in the case of a married participant, the QJSA must be at least as valuable as any other optional form of benefit payable under the plan at the same time. Section 1.401(a)-20, Q&A-16 does not specify a particular actuarial basis for applying this requirement; therefore, this requirement may be satisfied using any set of reasonable actuarial assumptions. In addition, § 1.401(a)-20, Q&A-16 provides that a plan does not fail to satisfy the at-least-as-valuable requirement merely because the amount payable under an optional form of benefit that is subject to the minimum present value requirement of section 417(e)(3) is calculated using the applicable interest rate (and, for periods when required, the applicable mortality table) under section 417(e)(3).
Under section 401(a)(7), a plan is not a qualified plan unless the plan satisfies the requirements of section 411. Section 411(d)(6)(A) provides that a plan is treated as not satisfying the requirements of section 411 if it is amended to reduce accrued benefits (subject to certain exceptions). For this purpose, section 411(d)(6)(B) provides that a plan amendment is treated as impermissibly reducing accrued benefits if it has the effect of eliminating or reducing an early retirement benefit or a retirement-type subsidy, or eliminating an optional form of benefit, with respect to benefits attributable to service before the amendment. However, the last sentence of section 411(d)(6)(B) provides that the Secretary may by regulations provide that section 411(d)(6)(B) does not apply to a plan amendment that eliminates an optional form of benefit (other than a plan amendment that has the effect of eliminating or reducing an early retirement benefit or a retirement-type subsidy).
Notice 2007-81, 2007-2 CB 899, provides guidance on the applicable interest rate. Rev. Rul. 2007-67, 2007-2 CB 1047, provides guidance on the applicable mortality table
Sections 203(e), 204(g), and 205(g) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Public Law 93-406, 88 Stat. 829, as amended (ERISA), provide rules that are parallel to Code sections 411(a)(11), 411(d)(6), and 417(e), respectively. Under section 101 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App., as amended, the Secretary of the Treasury has interpretive jurisdiction over the subject matter addressed in these regulations for purposes of ERISA, as well as the Code. Thus, these regulations apply for purposes of the Code and the corresponding provisions of ERISA.
In
Proposed regulations that would update the regulations under section 417(e) and make certain clarifying changes were published in the
These regulations amend the existing regulations under section 417(e) regarding the minimum present value requirements of section 417(e)(3) in several respects. Specifically, these regulations update § 1.417(e)-1 to reflect
These regulations update the existing regulations to reflect the statutory changes made by PPA '06, including the new interest rates and mortality tables set forth in section 417(e)(3) and the exception from the valuation rules for certain applicable defined benefit plans set forth in section 411(a)(13). These regulations clarify that, for purposes of section 417(e)(3), the interest rates that are published by the Commissioner are to be used without further adjustment. In addition, these regulations eliminate obsolete provisions relating to the transition from pre-1995 law to the interest rates and mortality assumptions under section 417(e)(3) as modified by RPA '94.
These regulations adopt the rules set forth in the proposed regulations relating to the treatment of preretirement mortality discounts in determining the minimum present value of accrued benefits. Those rules address the issue raised by
Section 411(a) sets forth rules limiting the forfeiture of accrued benefits. Under section 411(a)(1), an employee's rights in the accrued benefit derived from employee contributions must be nonforfeitable. In addition, an employee's rights in the accrued benefit derived from employer contributions must become nonforfeitable at least as quickly as under one of the vesting schedules specified in section 411(a)(2). Section 411(a)(3)(A) provides that a right to an accrued benefit derived from employer contributions is not treated as forfeitable solely because the plan provides that it is not payable if the participant dies.
Section 411(a)(7)(A)(i) defines a participant's accrued benefit under a defined benefit plan as the employee's accrued benefit determined under the plan and, except as provided in section 411(c)(3), expressed in the form of an annual benefit commencing at normal retirement age. Section 1.411(a)-7(a)(1) provides that the term “accrued benefit” refers only to pension or retirement benefits. Consequently, accrued benefits do not include ancillary benefits not directly related to retirement benefits, such as incidental death benefits.
A death benefit under a defined benefit plan that is payable if the participant dies before attaining normal retirement age and before benefits commence is not part of the participant's accrued benefit within the meaning of section 411(a)(7) and, accordingly, the nonforfeiture rules of section 411(a) do not apply to this type of death benefit. This is the case even if the amount of the death benefit is the same as the amount the participant would have received if, instead of dying, the participant had separated from service and elected to receive an immediate distribution. Moreover, such an ancillary death benefit can be eliminated by plan amendment without violating the anti-cutback rule of section 411(d)(6).
Consistent with this analysis, section 417(e) does not require ancillary death benefits (that is, a death benefit that is not part of the accrued benefit) to be taken into account in the calculation of the minimum present value of the accrued benefit. Accordingly, under the proposed regulations, the probability of death under the applicable mortality table generally is taken into account for purposes of determining the minimum amount of a lump sum distribution under the plan that is equal to the present value of the accrued benefit (or the optional form of benefit, if applicable) under section 417(e)(3), and that minimum amount is not required to include the present value of the death benefits provided under the plan (other than a death benefit that is part of the accrued benefit or part of the optional form of benefit for which present value is determined). Commenters generally supported this rule in the proposed regulations, and it is included in the final regulations at § 1.417(e)-1(d)(2)(ii)(A).
Some commenters raised an issue regarding the effect of the rule on plan designs under which the probability of death is not taken into account in determining the amount of a single-sum distribution because the plan provides a death benefit equal in value to the present value of the accrued benefit.
The Treasury Department and the IRS did not intend for the rule requiring the probability of death to be taken into account for purposes of determining minimum present value to prohibit this plan design. Accordingly, these regulations expand eligibility for the exception to the rule under § 1.401(a)-20, Q&A-16, for certain optional forms of benefit. The existing exception under § 1.401(a)-20, Q&A-16, applies to an optional form of benefit that is subject to the requirements of section 417(e)(3) and is calculated using the applicable interest rate and the applicable mortality table. Under the expanded eligibility for that exception provided for in § 1.417(e)-1(d)(2)(ii)(C)(
These regulations also adopt the rule under the proposed regulations under which, for purposes of determining the present value under section 417(e)(3) with respect to the portion of the accrued benefit derived from employee contributions (the employee-provided accrued benefit) that is computed in accordance with the rules of section 411(c)(2), the probability of death before the assumed commencement date may not be taken into account. This rule is different from the rule that applies to the portion of the accrued benefit
These regulations include an example to illustrate the application of the minimum present value requirements of section 417(e)(3) in the case of a single-sum distribution of a participant's entire accrued benefit that consists of both the employee-provided accrued benefit and the employer-provided accrued benefit. Consistent with the rules in these regulations, the example illustrates that a single-sum distribution of the participant's entire accrued benefit in this case must be no less than the sum of the minimum present value of the employee-provided accrued benefit, determined under section 417(e)(3) (applying the special rules set forth in the preceding paragraph), and the minimum present value of the employer-provided accrued benefit, determined under section 417(e)(3).
Note that Rev. Rul. 89-60, 1989-1 CB 113 (as corrected by Announcement 89-65, 1989-21 IRB 33), provides that it is sufficient for a single-sum distribution to equal the greater of: (1) the minimum present value of the employee-provided accrued benefit (determined using the actuarial assumptions specified in section 411(c)(2) and Rev. Rul. 76-47, 1976-1 CB 109, taking into account the principle illustrated in Rev. Rul. 78-202, 1978-1 CB 124), and (2) the minimum present value of the participant's entire accrued benefit using plan assumptions subject to the interest rate limitation of section 417(e). The determination under Rev. Rul. 89-60 of these minimum present values does not reflect the specification in 1994 of a mortality assumption in section 417(e)(3)(B).
Several commenters raised concerns that the prohibition on taking preretirement mortality into account in determining the present value of the employee-provided accrued benefit would require a redetermination of a participant's remaining accrued benefit if the participant had received a partial distribution in the past. As discussed in the “Applicability Dates” section of this preamble, these regulations do not change the results of calculations that were made in accordance with the rules that applied before the applicability date of these regulations. Therefore, the regulations would not require the redetermination of a participant's remaining accrued benefit in such a case.
One commenter observed that some employers would prefer not to use different factors for the employer-provided portion of a benefit and the employee-provided portion of a benefit (and accordingly would like to determine the full amount of a single-sum distribution using the factor required to be used for the employee-provided portion of the benefit). A single-sum distribution determined in this manner would be greater than the minimum single-sum distribution that would satisfy section 417(e)(3) (and therefore would not be eligible for the exception to the requirement under § 1.401(a)-20, Q&A-16). To address this concern, these regulations provide a second expansion of eligibility to use that exception. Under this rule (at § 1.417(e)-1(d)(2)(ii)(C)(
Some commenters raised concerns about the implications of the rule that the probability of death is taken into account in determining minimum present value for distributions commencing after normal retirement age. Section 1.417(e)-1(d)(1)(i)(A) provides that, for a distribution commencing after normal retirement age, the minimum present value under section 417(e)(3) is determined based on the immediate annuity rather than the accrued benefit payable as of normal retirement age. However, the extent to which the probability of death is taken into account in determining the annuity commencing after normal retirement age that is actuarially equivalent to the accrued benefit commencing at normal retirement age is an issue that arises under section 411(a), rather than under section 417(e)(3), and is expected to be addressed in future proposed regulations under section 411(a).
The proposed regulations address the applicability of the minimum present value requirements of section 417(e)(3) to a Social Security level income option (SSLIO). An SSLIO is an optional form of benefit (within the meaning of section 411(d)(6)(B) and § 1.411(d)-3(g)(6)(ii)) under which a participant's accrued benefit is paid in the form of an annuity for the life of the participant, with additional temporary annuity payments in earlier years, before an assumed Social Security commencement age, to provide the participant with approximately level retirement income when the estimated Social Security payments are taken into account.
As noted in the Background section of this preamble, § 1.417(e)-1(d)(6) provides that the minimum present value requirements of section 417(e)(3) do not apply to the amount of a distribution paid in the form of an annual benefit that does not decrease during the life of the participant, or that decreases during the life of the participant merely because of the death of the survivor annuitant or the cessation or reduction of Social Security supplements or qualified disability benefits. A Social Security supplement is defined in § 1.411(a)-7(c)(4) as a benefit for plan participants that both commences and terminates before the age when participants are entitled to old-age insurance benefits, unreduced on account of age, under title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. Chapter 7, subchapter II), as amended, and does
Because the periodic payments under an SSLIO decrease during the lifetime of the participant and the decrease is not the result of the cessation of an ancillary Social Security supplement, § 1.417(e)-1(d)(6) does not provide an exception from the minimum present value requirements of section 417(e)(3) for this form of benefit. The proposed regulations included an example illustrating the application of the minimum present value requirements of section 417(e)(3) to an SSLIO. Commenters expressed a variety of views regarding this example. One commenter stated that it is reasonable to apply the minimum present value requirements to an SSLIO, while another commenter maintained that the minimum present value requirements should not apply to any optional forms of benefit other than a single-sum distribution. Some commenters suggested that the minimum present value requirements should apply only to the determination of the temporary annuity payments under an SSLIO and that the implicit bifurcation rule of § 1.417(e)-1(d)(7)(ii)(B) should be expanded to permit bifurcation of that option into a temporary annuity portion and a remaining accrued benefit.
The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that it is appropriate to apply the rules of section 417(e)(3) to an SSLIO because, when a participant's lifetime benefit is paid in that form, a portion of those benefits (which may be a substantial portion of the participant's lifetime benefits) is accelerated and paid over a short period of time (that is, until assumed Social Security retirement age). Nevertheless, the Treasury Department and the IRS agree with those commenters who suggested that it is appropriate to permit a plan to satisfy section 417(e)(3) by implicitly bifurcating the participant's benefit payable in the form of an SSLIO into a temporary annuity portion and a remaining annuity benefit. As a result, the regulations include a new implicit bifurcation rule for an SSLIO at § 1.417(e)-1(d)(7)(ii)(C).
Under the new implicit bifurcation rule, the plan satisfies the minimum present value requirements of section 417(e)(3) with respect to the temporary annuity portion of an SSLIO if the plan satisfies two minimum requirements with respect to the remaining annuity benefit. First, the remaining accrued benefit expressed in the normal form and payable at normal retirement age (or current age, if later) must be at least as great as it would be if an annuity payable in that form and commencing at that age that is actuarially equivalent to the temporary annuity (determined using the applicable section 417(e)(3) assumptions) were subtracted from the participant's accrued benefit. Second, the remaining immediate annuity expressed in the normal form must be at least as great as it would be if an immediate annuity payable in that form that is actuarially equivalent to the temporary annuity (determined using the applicable section 417(e)(3) assumptions) were subtracted from the immediate annuity. The regulations include an example illustrating the application of the minimum present value requirements of section 417(e)(3) to an SSLIO and an example to illustrate the application of the new implicit bifurcation rule to an SSLIO. A plan amendment that provides for implicit bifurcation of an SSLIO in accordance with this new rule must comply with the requirements of section 411(d)(6).
The proposed regulations retained the rules providing relief under section 411(d)(6) for a plan amendment that changes lookback months or stability periods for the applicable mortality table and applicable interest rate under section 417(e)(3). Under these rules, such a plan amendment does not violate section 411(d)(6) provided that, for a specified period, the participant is entitled to the greater of the benefits under the pre- and post-amendment timing rules. Commenters asked that this relief under section 411(d)(6) be expanded to apply to amendments that change the time for determining an interest rate or mortality table that is used for any purpose. Commenters observed that, given the requirement to use the more participant-favorable of the two sets of assumptions for a specified period, expanding this rule cannot be used to manipulate assumptions in the plan sponsor's favor.
In response, these regulations expand the rule previously set forth in the regulations under section 417(e) by adopting a comparable rule under section 411(d)(6), which is set forth in § 1.411(d)-3(a), that applies to amendments that change the time for determining an interest rate or mortality table that is used for any purpose. Under these regulations, a defined benefit plan may be amended by an amendment that is adopted on or after January 19, 2024 to change the stability period from one stability period permitted under § 1.417(e)-1(d)(4)(ii) to a different permitted stability period, or to change the lookback month described in § 1.417(e)-1(d)(4)(iii) from one permitted lookback month to a different permitted lookback month (including an indirect change to the stability period or lookback month as a result of a change in plan year). Such an amendment may be made with respect to any plan provision under which an interest rate or mortality table is specified by reference to a stability period or a lookback month, provided that the amount of any distribution for which the annuity starting date occurs on or after the effective date of the amendment and before the end of the one year period commencing on the applicable amendment date for the amendment is determined using the more participant-favorable of the two sets of assumptions.
For an amendment that changes the time for determining an interest rate or mortality table that is used for a purpose other than the minimum present value rules of section 417(e)(3), and that is adopted before January 19, 2024, whether an impermissible cutback under section 411(d)(6) has occurred is based on applicable law on the date the amendment is adopted. Thus, for example, if a plan amendment adopted before January 19, 2024 was permitted under § 1.417(e)-1(d)(10)(ii) as in effect before the amendments made by these regulations, no violation of section 411(d)(6) will have occurred as a result of that plan amendment.
Commenters requested that relief from the anti-cutback rules of section 411(d)(6) be provided in additional situations. These situations involve plans that have been applying section 417(e) to determine the amount of a benefit but could satisfy section 417(e) using a less generous benefit calculation than is permitted under these regulations, such as the application of a preretirement mortality discount or the implicit bifurcation of a benefit paid in the form of an SSLIO. Commenters requested section 411(d)(6) relief for such a plan so that the plan could be amended to apply the less generous benefit calculation to benefits already accrued. The final regulations do not provide the requested section 411(d)(6) relief but instead provide the relief under § 1.401(a)-20, Q&A-16 described earlier in this Summary of Comments and Explanation of Provisions.
The changes to the regulations under section 417(e)(3) apply to distributions with annuity starting dates occurring on or after October 1, 2024, except as otherwise provided. For earlier distributions, the rules of § 1.417(e)-1(d) as set forth in 26 CFR part 1, revised as of April 1, 2023, apply (taking into account any statutory changes and guidance of general applicability relating to those statutory changes), except that taxpayers may instead apply the rules of this Treasury decision. For example, if, before October 1, 2024, a participant received a payment equal to the present value of the participant's employee-provided benefit determined in accordance with the valuation rules of section 417(e)(3) and § 1.417(e)-1(d) that applied at the time of the distribution, then the determination of the participant's remaining accrued benefit is not affected by any differences between those rules and the rules in this Treasury decision (unless the taxpayer chooses to apply the applicable rules of this Treasury decision).
The amendments to § 1.411(d)-3(a) apply to plan amendments adopted on or after January 19, 2024.
Pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement, Review of Treasury Regulations under Executive Order 12866 (June 9, 2023), tax regulatory actions issued by the IRS are not subject to the requirements of section 6 of Executive Order 12866, as amended. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required.
It is hereby certified that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6). This certification is based on the fact that the regulations reflect the statutory changes to section 417(e) made by PPA '06 and also provide additional flexibility in plan design. Specifically, the regulations reflect the statute in a manner that (i) is consistent with the statutory language, (ii) provides certain clarifications, and (iii) eases and facilitates plan administration. Although the regulations might affect a substantial number of individuals, the economic impact of the regulations on small businesses is not expected to be significant. For example, while the regulations clarify the application of the minimum present value requirements of section 417(e) to an SSLIO, most defined benefit plans sponsored by small employers do not include an SSLIO. Moreover, for those plans that do provide for SSLIOs, the regulations provide flexibility in the application of the minimum present value requirements by permitting the implicit bifurcation of the SSLIO into a temporary annuity (required to be determined using the minimum present value factors under section 417(e)(3)) and a life annuity (to which the minimum present value requirements do not apply). These regulations are not expected to result in any economically meaningful changes in behavior by small employers that sponsor defined benefit plans.
For the reasons stated, a regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f), the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business, and no comments were received.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits and take certain other actions before issuing a final rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in expenditures in any one year by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. These regulations do not include any Federal mandate that may result in expenditures by State, local, or Tribal governments, or by the private sector in excess of that threshold.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial, direct compliance costs on State and local governments, and is not required by statute, or preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive order. These regulations do not have federalism implications, impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments, or preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive order.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
IRS Revenue Rulings, Revenue Procedures, and Notices cited in this document are published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (or Cumulative Bulletin) and are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by visiting the IRS website at
The principal authors of these regulations are Diane S. Bloom and Linda S.F. Marshall, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Employee Benefits, Exempt Organizations, and Employment Taxes). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in the development of these regulations.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, the Treasury Department and the IRS amend 26 CFR part 1 as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(a) * * *
(4)
(i) The amount determined using the pre-amendment stability period and lookback month; and
(ii) The amount determined using the post-amendment stability period and lookback month.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i)
(B)
(C)
(2)
(ii)
(B)
(C)
(
(
(3)
(ii)
(A)
(
(B)
(
(
(
(
(4)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(B)
(6)
(A) Does not decrease during the life of the participant, or, in the case of a QPSA, the life of the participant's spouse; or
(B) Decreases during the life of the participant merely because of—
(
(
(ii)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(7) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(D)
(v) * * *
(H)
(
(
(
(
(8) * * *
(vi)
(9)
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Final rule; approval with exceptions.
We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are approving with exceptions an amendment to the Wyoming regulatory program (Wyoming program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Between 1978 and 2007, the Wyoming Legislature enacted a number of revisions to the statutes governing coal exploration by drilling. On March 2, 2016, the Wyoming Environmental Quality Council approved a number of revisions to the rules governing coal exploration by drilling under the Wyoming program. The State submitted this proposal to OSMRE at its own initiative.
Effective February 20, 2024.
Jeffrey Fleischman; Director, Denver Field Division, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 100 East B Street, Room 4100; Casper, Wyoming 82602. Telephone: (307) 261-6550. Email:
Subject to OSMRE's oversight, Section 503(a) of the Act permits a state to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, state laws and regulations that govern surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the Act and consistent with the federal regulations. See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7).
On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Wyoming program on November 26, 1980. You can find background information on the Wyoming program including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval in the November 26, 1980,
By letter dated June 14, 2021 (Docket ID No. OSM-2021-0004), Wyoming sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
Between 1978 and 2007, the Wyoming Legislature enacted a number of revisions to the statutes governing coal exploration by drilling. The proposed statutory revisions reflect organizational changes at the Wyoming Land Quality Division (LQD), correct a typographical error, provide more detailed instructions for plugging and sealing drill holes, incorporate provisions for the awarding of attorney fees and other litigation costs, and include more detailed instructions for bond release.
Additionally, on March 2, 2016, the Wyoming Environmental Quality Council approved a number of revisions to the rules governing coal exploration by drilling under the Wyoming program. The proposed amendment is a state initiative to update Chapter 14 of the LQD Coal Rules and Regulations, which was last revised in 1998. The revised rules were updated to include more detailed directions for plugging and sealing requirements for drill holes. The rules were also updated to include best management practices and standards adopted by the Wyoming State Engineer's Office that conform with accepted best practices by the American Society for Testing and Materials and American Water Works Association, and Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality—Water Quality Division regulations. Other revisions include a list of acceptable grout materials, requirements to plug the entire hole, immediate capping of drill holes, and adding identification numbers to facilitate inspections. Additional formatting and organizational changes were made to Chapter 14.
We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the October 28, 2021,
The following are the findings we made concerning the amendment under SMCRA and the federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are approving with exceptions the amendment as described below.
Wyoming proposed minor grammatical and organizational changes to Chapter 14 of the LQD Coal Rules and Regulations. Wyoming did not propose any substantive changes to the text of these previously approved regulations. Because the proposed revisions are minor and result in no substantive changes to the Wyoming program, we are approving the changes and find that they are no less effective than the corresponding federal regulations at 30 CFR parts 700 to 887. The specific, minor revisions to the Code of Wyoming Rules and the federal regulation counterparts are as follows:
• Section 1 heading: minor grammatical change;
• Section 2 heading: minor grammatical change;
• Section 3 heading: minor grammatical change;
• Subsection 1(a): statutory cross-reference update;
• Subsection 1(g): statutory cross-reference update;
• Subsection 2(a): organizational change;
• Subsection 4(d): minor grammatical change;
• Subsection 3(c): organizational change;
• Subsection 3(f): organizational change and minor grammatical change;
• Subsection 3(a)(ii): organizational change; and
• Subsection 5(a): minor revision to date of statutory enactment.
Wyoming also proposed a number of substantive revisions to Chapter 14 of the LQD Coal Rules and Regulations that have the same or substantially similar meaning as the corresponding provisions of the federal regulations. Therefore, we are approving them:
• Subsection 1(b):
• Subsection 2(a):
• Subsection 1(g):
• Subsection 2(b):
• Subsection 2(c):
• Subsection 2(i): Wyoming revised the requirements of Chapter 14, Section 2 by adding Subsection (i). Wyoming's proposed language closely mirrors pertinent portions of the federal counterpart provision at 30 CFR 816.13 (the additional requirements of 30 CFR 816.13 are constructed at LQD Coal Rules and Regulations Chapter 4, Subsection 2(p), and Chapter 10, Subsection 4(j)). The language proposed for addition would provide for appropriate backfill of all drill holes to the ground surface to ensure the safety of people, livestock, wildlife, and machinery in the area. Similarly, the drill hole casing and sealing federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.13 require that exploration or other holes be cased, sealed, or otherwise managed to ensure the safety of people, livestock, fish and wildlife, and machinery in the permit and adjacent area. Where the federal language specifies “in the permit area and adjacent area” Wyoming's proposed language—“in the area”—is slightly broader and can be reasonably understood to capture both the permit area and adjacent area. These changes were also made for consistency with Wyoming Division of Environmental Quality—Water Quality Division Rules and Regulations at Chapter 11, Part G, Section 70; newly approved Wyoming State Engineer's Office Rules and Regulations, Part III; and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D-5299. Importantly, however, Wyoming omitted the word “fish” from the phrase “fish and wildlife.”
“Fish and wildlife” is a term of art that appears throughout the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), SMCRA, and implementing federal regulations at 30 CFR part 700 to end. While an argument can be made the term “wildlife” describes all fauna, including fish, the text of the ESA and SMCRA clearly and consistently demonstrates Congress' intent to use the two words together, forming the phrases “fish and wildlife” or “fish or wildlife.” Additionally, because the thrust of the proposed revisions to Chapter 14 is to incorporate best management practices related to, and enhancing protections for, surface and groundwater quality and quantity within the context of exploration for coal by drilling, the inclusion of “fish” adjacent to “wildlife” here is particularly important and appropriate. Accordingly, Wyoming's proposed rule change, as submitted, was less effective than the federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.13 and less stringent than SMCRA. By letter dated August 12, 2022, we informed Wyoming of the requirement to add the word “fish” at Chapter 14, Subsection 2(i) to form the phrase “fish and wildlife.” In our letter we offered to temporarily delay rulemaking to allow Wyoming time to respond and address the identified concern.
By letter dated September 14, 2022, Wyoming responded to our concern. Wyoming indicated that, although they had taken the initial steps to address our concern through formal rulemaking, the State's internal processes would preclude Wyoming from addressing our concern within the allowable timeframe. However, our Final Rule Notice not approving this change was significantly delayed and Wyoming ultimately was able to respond to the concern. By letter dated September 22, 2023 Wyoming re-submitted its Chapter 14 amendment package with revisions to Subsection 2(i) specifically addressing the concern noted above.
Accordingly, we are approving the addition of Subsection 2(i), as revised.
• Subsection 2(j):
• Subsection 2(k):
• Subsection 2(l):
• Subsection 3(b)(i)-(ii):
• Section 5. Wyoming proposed to revise several statutory citations in Section 5 to reflect the most current year of enactment. For example, at Subsection 5(b) Wyoming inserted “2015” at the end of the statutory citation to “W.S. 35-11-421 through 35-11-423.” “W.S. 35-11-421 through 35-11-423 (2015)” captures the following statutory provisions: W.S. 35-11-421(a)-(c); W.S. 35-11-422; and W.S. 35-11-423 (a)-(d). No changes have been made to W.S. 35-11-421 or W.S. 35-11-422 since 1977. In 1980 the Wyoming Legislature did revise W.S. 35-11-423 at Subsection (d) (Release of bonds), to read, “The council shall promulgate rules and regulations governing the release of bonds for surface coal mining operations in compliance with Public Law 95-87 as that law is worded on August 3, 1977, which shall be controlling notwithstanding other provisions of W.S. 35-11-417 and 35-11-423 to the contrary.” The Secretary of the Interior approved the Wyoming coal regulatory program in 1980. Within the context of Wyoming Statutes Title 35, Chapter 11, “council” refers to the Environmental Quality Council (EQC) as established by the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act. The revised provision at W.S. 35-11-423(d) directs the EQC to promulgate rules and regulations governing bond release on surface coal mining operations, pursuant to SMCRA, regardless of any conflict with existing state law at W.S. 35-11-417 (Bonding provisions) and W.S. 35-11-423. The promulgation of SMCRA-compliant rules and regulations governing bond release for surface coal mining operations—among other topics—is a reasonable and logical next step in the pursuit of state primacy following the passage of SMCRA. In fact, the language at W.S. 35-11-423(d), while specific to bond release, essentially describes the process of standing-up a state coal regulatory program, with the important distinction that the promulgated rules and regulations must be SMCRA-compliant and controlling. We find the proposed change renders the Wyoming program no less effective than OSMRE's regulations nor less stringent than SMCRA, and we approve it.
Wyoming also revised the statutory citation contained in the existing provision at Chapter 14, Subsection 5(c), “W.S. 35-11-404 (k)-(n)” by inserting “(2015)” at the end of the citation to reflect the year of enactment. No changes have been made to W.S. 35-11-404(n) since 1977. The Wyoming Legislature did revise W.S. 35-11-404(k) in 1980 and W.S. 35-11-404(m) in 1992. Changes to W.S. 35-11-404(m) include: “The director in consultation with” was inserted; “section” was substituted for “act”; and “director in having” was substituted for “administrator, land quality division in having.” Neither SMCRA nor the OSMRE regulations state which individual within the organization of the regulatory authority, including administrators or directors, may carry out which of the many functions comprising implementation of a regulatory program. Second, the change from “act” to “section” is logical given the subject matter of Subsection (m), abandoned exploratory drill holes, and the section heading for W.S. 35-11-404: “Drill holes to be capped, sealed, or plugged.” These stylistic changes add specificity without altering the stringency/effectiveness of the previously approved statutory language of Subsection (m). Therefore, we are approving them.
In 1980, W.S. 35-11-404 was amended to include Subsection (k), effective upon final approval of Wyoming's regulatory program pursuant to SMCRA. The Wyoming program was approved by OSMRE on November 26, 1980. Subsection (k) reads as follows: “Except as follows, any person who fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment in a county jail for not more than ninety (90) days or a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or both.
Any person who drills in conjunction with coal mining or coal exploration operations in violation of this section or regulations promulgated pursuant hereto is subject to the provisions of W.S. 35-11-901.” The language of Subsection (k) imposes a maximum 90-day jail sentence and maximum $5,000 penalty, or both, on any person who fails to comply with the provisions of the Wyoming Public Health and Safety Act pertaining to the capping, sealing, and plugging of coal exploration drill holes. Subsection (k) additionally provides, “Any person who drills in conjunction with coal mining or coal exploration operations in violation of this section or regulations promulgated pursuant hereto is subject to the provisions of W.S. 35-11-901.” This language incorporates by reference the provisions for civil and criminal penalties found at W.S. 35-11-901. SMCRA section 512(c) incorporates by reference the civil penalty provisions of SMCRA section 518(a). Section 518(a), in pertinent part, imposes a maximum fine of $5,000 on “any permittee who violates any permit condition or who violates any other provision of this title . . .” but does not include any mention of imprisonment.
With the imprisonment component, the language of Subsection (k) is more specific than what is provided by SMCRA. This difference does not render the statute any less stringent than required by SMCRA or the Wyoming regulatory program any less effective than the OSMRE regulations. W.S. 35-11-901(a) additionally provides for fines of up to $10,000 per day, per violation, temporary and permanent injunctions, or both, for any person who causes an applicable violation. Counterpart language at SMCRA section 518(a) (Civil penalties . . .) provides for fines of up to $5,000 per violation, per day but does not contemplate injunctions or a combination of fines and injunctions. In this way W.S. 35-11-901 is more stringent than SMCRA. W.S. 35-11-901(j) provides for fines of up to $25,000 per day, per violation and imprisonment of up to one year or both ($50,000 and 2 years or both upon subsequent conviction) for any person who willfully and knowingly causes an applicable violation. Counterpart language at SMCRA section 518(e) (Willful violations) provides for fines of not more than $10,000, imprisonment for no more than one year, or both. Again, the language at W.S. 35-11-901(j) is more stringent than that provided by SMCRA. W.S. 35-11-901(k) provides for fines of up to $10,000 per day, per violation, imprisonment for up to one year, or both, for any person who knowingly makes an applicable false statement under the Wyoming program. Counterpart language at SMCRA section 518(g) (False statements . . .) likewise provide for fines of up to $10,000, imprisonment for one year, or both, for any person who knowingly makes a false statement, representation, or certification under the Act. Here the language at W.S. 35-11-901(k) and SMCRA section 518(g) are nearly identical in effect. For the reasons explained above we are approving the reference to W.S. 35-11-901 incorporated by reference at W.S. 35-11-404(k).
• Section 6:
• Wyoming Statutes 35-11-404(e); and
• Wyoming Statutes 35-11-404(j).
Wyoming also proposed a number of substantive revisions to Chapter 14 of the LQD Coal Rules and Regulations that do not have corresponding provisions in the federal regulations. The lack of federal counterpart provisions for these rules does not render the Wyoming program less effective than required by the federal regulations nor less stringent than required by SMCRA. Accordingly, we are approving them.
Wyoming also proposed to revise and recodify at Subsection 3(e) the existing provisions of Subsection 3(b)(iv). Specifically, the proposed language would clarify that the revegetation requirements of LQD Coal Rules and Regulations Chapter 4, Subsection 2(d) apply to coal exploration ancillary roads as well as to exploration drill sites. OSMRE does not have any counterpart provisions addressing revegetation of coal exploration ancillary roads or
Wyoming also revised Subsection 4(b) to provide for surety reduction upon demonstration to the satisfaction of the LQD Administrator that coal exploration drill holes have been properly abandoned in accordance with Chapter 14. The proposed language provides that bond reduction amounts may be either returned to the discoverer or applied towards bonding amounts for additional exploration by drilling. Finally, Subsection 4(b) provides for surety release upon complete reclamation of exploration drill holes and upon a finding by the Administrator that vegetation has been reestablished. The existing language requiring all exploration bonds to be signed by the discoverer as principal and underwritten by a “good and sufficient corporate surety licensed to do business” in Wyoming, and with such bonds “made payable to the State of Wyoming,” would remain. OSMRE does not have any counterpart provisions addressing the reduction and release of coal exploration reclamation bonds. We find the proposed changes add specificity to the Wyoming program beyond that contained in the federal requirements. The lack of federal counterpart provisions does not render the Wyoming program any less effective than required by the federal regulations or any less stringent than required by SMCRA. As such, we are approving the revisions to Subsections 4(a)-(b).
By contrast to exploratory drilling, developmental drilling is conducted post exploration in proven producing areas, prior to blasting. As the act of blasting obliterates the drill hole itself, developmental drill holes are appropriately excluded from the plugging and sealing requirements of Chapter 14. As revised, Section 6 would retain the existing exemption for oil and gas exploration operations, which are not regulated under Chapter 14, as well as specific exemptions provided for at W.S. 35-11-404(g) and (h). OSMRE's counterpart drill hole casing and sealing provisions at 30 CFR 816.13 specifically exclude “holes solely drilled and used for blasting.” Accordingly, we find the revision comports with the federal minimum requirements and renders the Wyoming program no less effective than required by the federal regulations and no less stringent than required by SMCRA. We are approving the change. As previously mentioned, the statutory citations embedded in Section 6 would also be updated to reflect current language as amended through the 2015 legislative session, though only W.S. 35-11-404(g) and not W.S. 35-11-404(h) was revised by the Wyoming Legislature in that time. W.S. 35-11-404 was amended in 1980 to include Subsection (g), effective upon final approval of Wyoming's regulatory program pursuant to SMCRA. The addition of Subsection (g) created an exclusion under the Wyoming Public Health and Safety Act whereby the LQD could waive the administrative provisions related to aquifers except where coal mining or coal exploration operations are concerned. The prohibition against waiving administrative requirements for aquifers with respect to coal mining or coal exploration operations does not render the Wyoming program any less effective than SMCRA or the OSMRE regulations. Therefore, we are approving the 1980 amendment. The first sentence of W.S. 35-11-404(g) was later revised in 1992 to insert “the director in consultation with” and to substitute “director waiver” for “administrator, land quality division, waiver . . .”. Neither SMCRA nor the OSMRE regulations specify which individual within the organization of the regulatory authority, including administrators or directors, may carry out which functions. These nonsubstantive changes add specificity to the Wyoming program beyond that contemplated by the federal requirements and we are approving them.
Under the proposed Subsection 7(b), the discoverer would be encouraged but not required to submit a plan for review
Under the proposed Subsection 7(c), permitting for baseline groundwater monitoring wells and test wells would be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the State Engineer's Office and W.S. 35-11-404(c)(iv). W.S. 35-11-404(c)(iv) requires any holes drilled for use as water wells, or holes which are converted for use as water wells, to comply with the applicable provisions of W.S. 41-3-911-41-3-938. The provisions of W.S. 41-3-911-41-3-938 pertain to underground water generally as well as permitting requirements for water well construction. OSMRE does not have any counterpart provisions addressing the permitting requirements for wells used to collect groundwater baseline data in preparation for a mine permit application. We find the proposed language is reasonable and provides specificity beyond that contained in SMCRA or the federal regulations. As such, we are approving the addition of Subsection 7(c).
The language proposed for Subsection 7(d) would require these baseline groundwater monitoring wells and test wells to be secured to prevent contaminant entry. OSMRE does not have any counterpart provisions requiring the securing and prevention of contaminant entry into wells used to collect groundwater baseline data in preparation for a mine permit application. We find the proposed language is reasonable and provides specificity beyond that contained in the federal regulations. As such, we are approving the addition of Subsection 7(d).
Subsection 7(e) would create a bonding requirement to ensure all baseline groundwater monitoring and test wells are properly plugged and sealed and to ensure the restoration of well sites. OSMRE does not have any counterpart provisions requiring a bond for baseline groundwater monitoring wells or other test wells constructed prior to issuance of a mining permit. We find the proposed language is reasonable and provides specificity beyond that contained in the federal regulations. As such, we are approving the addition of Subsection 7(e).
Subsection 7(f) would apply the plugging, sealing, and site reclamation requirements of LQD Coal Rules and Regulations Chapter 14, Sections 2 and 3 to baseline groundwater monitoring wells and test wells. Subsection 7(f) would further require all well casings be cut at least two feet below grade and any pumps or other equipment to be removed before plugging and sealing of the well. OSMRE does not have any counterpart provisions addressing plugging, sealing, and site reclamation requirements for baseline groundwater monitoring wells and test wells constructed in preparation for the submission of a mining permit. We find the proposed language is reasonable and provides specificity beyond that contained in the federal regulations. As such, we are approving the addition of Subsection 7(f).
Finally, Subsection 7(g) would require well abandonment reports to be filed with the LQD Administrator and the State Engineer's Office within twelve months of a baseline groundwater monitoring or test well's abandonment. OSMRE does not have any counterpart provisions pertaining to the submission of abandonment reports for baseline groundwater monitoring or test wells constructed in preparation for a mine permit or research and development application. We find the proposed changes are reasonable and provide specificity beyond that contained in the federal regulations. The lack of federal counterpart provisions does not render the Wyoming program any less effective than required by the federal regulations or any less stringent than required by SMCRA. As such, we are approving the addition of Subsections 7(a)-(g).
Wyoming proposed two revisions to Chapter 14 that we are not approving. First, Wyoming proposed to revise the existing provisions of Chapter 14, Subsection 3(b) and recodify these requirements at Subsection 3(a). This revision was proposed to provide for the reclamation of drill sites and “ancillary roads” as defined in Chapters 1 and 4 of the LQD Coal Rules and Regulations. During our review of this proposed change, we noted that the final word in the provision, “location,” was inadvertently used in place of “condition,” as previously approved. The word-swap renders the provision illogical and not fit for approval by OSMRE. Next, Wyoming included minor updates to Section 3 and Section 4. The updates clarify and specify the provisions incorporated by reference in Chapter 14, Subsections 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), and 4(d) are from the “Land Quality Coal Rules and Regulations,” as opposed to simply the “Land Quality Rules and Regulations.” However, in both instances Wyoming failed to include the word “Division,” as in “Land Quality Division Coal Rules and Regulations” which is the complete and proper reference to these requirements. By letter dated October 24, 2023, we informed Wyoming of the requirements to: (1) replace the word “location” with the previously-approved “condition” as proposed at Chapter 14, Subsection 3(a); and (2) update the proposed revisions to Chapter 14, Subsections 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), and 4(d) to include the word “Division,” forming the complete phrase “Land Quality Division Coal Rules and Regulations.” In our letter we offered to temporarily delay rulemaking to allow Wyoming time to respond and address the identified concerns. By letter dated November 22, 2023, Wyoming responded to our additional concern letter. In the response letter Wyoming indicated that, although they had taken the initial steps to address our concerns through formal rulemaking, the State's internal rulemaking processes would preclude Wyoming from correcting the error and omissions noted above within the allowable timeframe. Accordingly, we are not approving the proposed revisions to Chapter 14, Subsections 3(a), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), and 4(d). It is incumbent on Wyoming to revisit these provisions in subsequent rulemaking.
We asked for public comments on the amendment; one comment was received. The commenter recommended we “end extractive industries on public lands.” Later the commenter suggested “the extractive industry” should be nationalized and the “New Green Deal” [sic] be implemented. The commenter included various additional political opinions. These comments are outside the scope of this amendment, and we won't respond to them here. We appreciate the commenter's engagement with the rulemaking process.
On June 16, 2021, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of SMCRA, we requested comments on the
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to get a written concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the program amendment that relate to air or water quality standards issued under the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are required to request comments from the SHPO and ACHP on amendments that may have an effect on historic properties. On June 16, 2021, we requested comments on Wyoming's amendment (OSM-2021-0004). We did not receive any comments from the SHPO or ACHP.
Section 503(a) of SMCRA requires that the State's program demonstrate that the State has the capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its purposes. SMCRA requires consistency of state and federal standards. Based on the above findings, we are approving, in part, Wyoming's amendment that was submitted on June 14, 2021. To implement this decision, we are amending the federal regulations at 30 CFR part 950.16 that codify decisions concerning the Wyoming program. In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, this rule will take effect 30 days after the date of publication.
This rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications that would result in public property being taken for government use without just compensation under the law. Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required. This determination is based on an analysis of the corresponding federal regulations.
Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, provides that the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. Pursuant to OMB guidance, dated October 12, 1993, the approval of state program and/or plan amendments is exempted from OMB review under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. Executive Order 13563, which reaffirms and supplements Executive Order 12866, does not supplant this exemption.
The Department of the Interior has reviewed this rule as required by Section 3 of Executive Order 12988. The Department determined that this
This rule is not a “[p]olicy that [has] federalism implications” as defined by section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132 because it does 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.” Instead, this rule approves an amendment to the Wyoming program submitted and drafted by that state. OSMRE reviewed the submission with fundamental federalism principles in mind as set forth in sections 2 and 3 of the Executive Order and with the principles of cooperative federalism set forth in SMCRA. See,
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and have determined that it has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Tribes. Therefore, consultation under the Department's Tribal consultation policy is not required. The basis for this determination is that our decision pertains to the Wyoming coal regulatory program which does not include Tribal lands or regulation of activities on Tribal lands. Indian lands under SMCRA are regulated independently under the applicable, approved federal program.
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rulemaking that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866; and this action does not address
Consistent with sections 501(a) and 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1251(a) and 1292(d)) and the U.S. Department of the Interior Departmental Manual, part 516, section 13.5(A), state program amendments are not major federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 3701
This rule does not include requests and requirements of an individual, partnership, or corporation to obtain information and report it to a federal agency. As this rule does not contain information collection requirements, a submission to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based on an analysis of the corresponding federal regulations, which were determined not to constitute a major rule.
This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. This determination is based on an analysis of the corresponding federal regulations, which were determined not to impose an unfunded mandate. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
Intergovernmental relations, surface mining, underground mining.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 950 is amended as set forth below:
30 U.S.C. 1201
Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17, Wyoming is required to submit for OSMRE's approval the following required amendments by the dates specified.
(a) By September 15, 2024, Wyoming shall correct the provision in Chapter 14, where the final word in the provision, “location,” was inadvertently used in place of “condition,” as previously approved.
(b) By September 15, 2024, Wyoming shall add the word “Division” to the “Land Quality Coal Rules and Regulations” as referenced in Chapter 14, Subsections 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), and 4(d).
Postal Service
Final rule.
The Postal Service is amending
Steven Jarboe at (202) 268-7690, Catherine Knox at (202) 268-5636, or Garry Rodriguez at (202) 268-7281.
On December 5, 2023, the Postal Service published a notice of proposed rulemaking (88 FR 84251-84252) to clarify the requirement of the service icon and service banner when a shipping address label is used. In response to the proposed rule, the Postal Service received two responses, both
The Postal Service is requiring the correct service indicator composed of the service icon and service banner be included when a shipping address label is used.
In addition, the Postal Service is requiring the hazardous materials icon in lieu of the service icon be included when a shipping address label is used on items containing mailable hazardous materials.
Any variance in the physical aspect of the label affixed to a parcel presented for mailing may subject the piece to the IMpb noncompliance fee.
We believe these revisions will enable the Postal Service to provide customers with a more efficient mailing experience.
The Postal Service adopts the described changes to
We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes.
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401-404, 414, 416, 3001-3018, 3201-3220, 3401-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3629, 3631-3633, 3641, 3681-3685, and 5001.
Priority Mail pieces must have the basic price marking of “Priority Mail” printed in a prominent location on the address side. When a shipping address label is used, the basic required price marking must be printed as provided under 202.3.9.
* * * When a shipping address label is used, the basic required price marking must be printed as provided under 202.3.9.
* * * When a shipping address label is used, the basic required price marking must be printed as provided under 202.3.9.
Priority Mail pieces must have the basic price marking of “Priority Mail” printed in a prominent location on the address side. When a shipping address label is used, the basic required price marking must be printed as provided under 3.9.
Mailpieces must be marked under the corresponding standards to show the class of service and/or price paid:
d. When a shipping address label is used, the basic required price marking must be printed as provided under 3.9.
* * * When a shipping address label is used, the basic required price marking must be printed as provided under 3.9.
* * * When a shipping address label is used, the basic required price marking must be printed as provided under 3.9.
When a shipping address label is used, it must include the correct service indicator composed of two elements, the service icon (except as provided under 3.9.2) and service banner. For information on the markings and specifications, see the Parcel Labeling Guide available on the PostalPro website at
When a shipping address label is used on items containing mailable hazardous materials, it must include the hazardous materials icon in lieu of the service icon as provided in the Parcel Labeling Guide.
Mailers must ensure that their packages meet all applicable markings under 3.0, and ancillary service endorsement requirements under 507.1.5.
When a shipping address label is used, the basic required price marking must be printed as provided under 3.9.
All mailable hazardous materials must also include the applicable labels, markings, and tags, as required in Publication 52,
All mailable hazardous materials must be marked as provided under 202.9.0 and include the applicable labels, markings, and tags, as required in Publication 52,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving Indiana's September 21, 2023, state implementation plan (SIP) submission which revises the 2008 ozone maintenance plan for the Indiana portion (Lake and Porter Counties) of the Chicago Naperville, IL-IN-WI area (Chicago Naperville area). This SIP submission updates onroad vehicle emissions inventories for oxides of nitrogen (NO
This direct final rule will be effective March 19, 2024, unless EPA receives adverse comments by February 20, 2024. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2023-0482 at
Emily Crispell, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8512,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
On May 20, 2022 (87 FR 30821), EPA determined that the Chicago Naperville area was attaining the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), based on quality-assured and certified monitoring data for 2019-2021, and changed the legal designation of the Indiana portion from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, effective May 20, 2022. At that time, EPA also approved Indiana's maintenance plan for the area along with 2030 and 2035 budgets to keep the Indiana portion of the Chicago
Budgets are the projected levels of controlled emissions from the transportation sector (mobile sources) that are estimated in the SIP to provide for maintenance of the ozone standard. The transportation conformity rule (40 CFR part 93, subpart A) allows the budgets to be changed as long as the total level of emissions from all sources remains below the attainment levels.
On September 21, 2023, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) submitted a request to update the state's maintenance plan to include revised emissions inventories and motor vehicle emissions budgets that reflect updated EPA Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES3) modeling and increased onroad vehicle emission rates.
Indiana updated its MOVES3 inputs for the Indiana portion of the Chicago Naperville maintenance area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This has resulted in slightly higher emissions rates and more accurate onroad emissions estimates for the 2019 attainment level emissions, 2030 interim year emission projections, and 2035 maintenance year emission projections. The revised onroad emissions inventories for Lake and Porter counties were calculated using EPA's MOVES3 model-produced emission factors and data extracted from the area's travel-demand model. Table 1 shows Indiana's onroad emissions for Lake and Porter Counties for the years 2019, 2030, and 2035 which were approved by EPA on May 20, 2022 (87 FR 30821). Table 2 shows Indiana's revised onroad emissions for Lake and Porter Counties for the years 2019, 2030, and 2035 based on updated MOVES3 modeling.
A “safety margin,” as defined in the transportation conformity rule (40 CFR part 93, subpart A), is the amount by which the total projected emissions from all sources of a given pollutant are less than the total emissions that would satisfy the applicable requirement for reasonable further progress, attainment, or maintenance. The attainment level of emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met the NAAQS. Table 3 gives detailed information on the safety margin for the Indiana portion of the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI area. Table 3 includes a comparison of the VOC and NO
Indiana has requested the allocation of 1.09 tons/day of the NO
Indiana's maintenance plan includes NO
This action changes the budgets for mobile sources. The maintenance plan is designed to provide for future growth while still maintaining the ozone NAAQS. Growth in industries, population, and traffic is offset by reductions from cleaner cars and other emission reduction programs. Through the maintenance plan, the state and local agencies can manage and maintain clean air quality while providing for growth.
In its submittal, Indiana requested to allocate a portion of the safely margins for NO
EPA is approving revisions to the 2008 ozone maintenance plan for the Indiana portion of the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI area. The revisions will change the onroad emissions inventory for VOC and NO
We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.” The Indiana Department of Environmental Management did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, 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).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 19, 2024. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of this
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Final rule.
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is adjusting the maximum civil monetary penalties (CMPs) that may be imposed for violations of the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act (PFCRA) and the NEA's Restrictions on Lobbying to reflect the requirements of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Act). The 2015 Act further amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the Inflation Adjustment Act) to improve the effectiveness of civil monetary penalties and to maintain their deterrent effect. This final rule provides the 2024 annual inflation adjustments to the initial
This rule is effective January 19, 2024.
Daniel Fishman, Assistant General Counsel, National Endowment for the Arts, 400 7th St. SW, Washington, DC 20506, Telephone: 202-682-5418.
On December 12, 2017, the NEA issued a final rule entitled “Federal Civil Penalties Adjustments”
A CMP is defined in the Inflation Adjustment Act as any penalty, fine, or other sanction that is (1) for a specific monetary amount as provided by Federal law, or has a maximum amount provided for by Federal law; (2) assessed or enforced by an agency pursuant to Federal law; and (3) assessed or enforced pursuant to an administrative proceeding or a civil action in the Federal courts.
These annual inflation adjustments are based on the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October preceding the date of the adjustment, relative to the October CPI-U in the year of the previous adjustment. The formula for the amount of a CMP inflation adjustment is prescribed by law, as explained in OMB Memorandum M-16-06 (February 24, 2016), and therefore the amount of the adjustment is not subject to the exercise of discretion by the Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts (Chairman).
The Office of Management and Budget has issued guidance on implementing and calculating the 2024 adjustment under the 2015 Act.
The inflation adjustments contained in this rule shall apply to any violations assessed after January 15, 2024.
Two CMPs in NEA regulations require adjustment in accordance with the 2015 Act: (1) the penalty associated with the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act (45 CFR 1149.9) and (2) the penalty associated with Restrictions on Lobbying (45 CFR 1158.400; 45 CFR part 1158, app. A).
The current maximum penalty under the PFCRA for false claims and statements is currently set at $13,507. The post-adjustment penalty or range is obtained by multiplying the pre-adjustment penalty or range by the percent change in the CPI-U over the relevant time period and rounding to the nearest dollar. Between October 2022 and October 2023, the CPI-U increased by a multiplier of 103.241%. Therefore, the new post-adjustment maximum penalty under the PFCRA for false statements is $13,507 × 1.03241= $13,944.76 which rounds to $13,945. Therefore, the maximum penalty under the PFCRA for false claims and statements will be $13,945.
The penalty for violations of the Restrictions on Lobbying is currently set at a range of a minimum of $23,714 and a maximum of $237,268. The post-adjustment penalty or range is obtained by multiplying the pre-adjustment penalty or range by the percent change in the CPI-U over the relevant time period and rounding to the nearest dollar. Between October 2022 and October 2023, the CPI-U increased by a multiplier of 103.241%. Therefore, the new post-adjustment minimum penalty under the Restrictions on Lobbying is $23,714 × 1.03241 = $24,482.57074, which rounds to $24,483 and the maximum penalty under the Restrictions on Lobbying is $237,268 × 1.03241 = $244,957.86, which rounds to $244,958. Therefore, the range of penalties under the law on the Restrictions on Lobbying shall be between $24,483 and $244,958.
Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act requires agencies to provide an opportunity for notice and comment on rulemaking and also requires agencies to delay a rule's effective date for 30 days following the date of publication in the
Even if the 2015 Act did not except this final rule from section 553 of the APA, the NEA has good cause to dispense with notice and comment. Section 553(b)(B), authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rulemaking if the agency finds good cause that notice and comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to public interest. The annual adjustments to civil penalties for inflation and the method of calculating those adjustments are established by section 5 of the 2015 Act, as amended, leaving no discretion for the NEA. Accordingly, public comment would be impracticable because the NEA would be unable to consider such comments in the rulemaking process.
Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866) established a process for review of rules by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which is within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Only “significant” proposed and final rules are subject to review under this Executive Order. “Significant,” as used in E.O. 12866, means “economically significant.” It refers to rules with (1) an impact on the economy of $100 million; or that (2) were inconsistent or interfered with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altered the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs; or (4) raised novel legal or policy issues.
This final rule would not be a significant policy change and OMB has not reviewed this final rule under E.O. 12866. The NEA has made the assessments required by E.O. 12866 and determined that this final rule: (1) will
This final rule does not have federalism implications, as set forth in E.O. 13132. As used in this order, federalism implications mean “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the [N]ational [G]overnment and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” The NEA has determined that this final rule will not have federalism implications within the meaning of E.O. 13132.
This final rule meets the applicable standards set forth in section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this final rule is written in clear language designed to help reduce litigation.
Under the criteria in E.O. 13175, the NEA has evaluated this final rule and determined that it would have no potential effects on Federally recognized Indian Tribes.
Under the criteria in E.O. 12630, this final rule does not have significant takings implications. Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required.
This final rule will not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small entities, including small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, or certain small not-for-profit organizations.
This final rule will not impose any “information collection” requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Under the Act, information collection means the obtaining or disclosure of facts or opinions by or for an agency by 10 or more nonfederal persons.
This final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year.
The final rule will not have a significant effect on the human environment.
This final rule would not be a major rule as defined in section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This final rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, a major increase in costs or prices, significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and export markets.
Section 206 of the E-Government Act requires agencies, to the extent practicable, to ensure that all information about that agency required to be published in the
Finally, the E-Government Act requires, to the extent practicable, that agencies ensure that a publicly accessible Federal Government website contains electronic dockets for rulemakings under the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (5 U.S.C. 551
Under this Act, the term “plain writing” means writing that is clear, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and intended audience. To ensure that this final rule has been written in plain and clear language so that it can be used and understood by the public, the NEA has modeled the language of this final rule on the Federal Plain Language Guidelines.
The NEA encourages public participation by ensuring its documentation is understandable by the general public and has written this final rule in compliance with Executive Order 13563 by ensuring its accessibility, consistency, simplicity of language, and overall comprehensibility.
Administrative practice and procedure, Government contracts, Grant programs, Loan programs, Lobbying, Penalties.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the NEA amends 45 CFR parts 1149 and 1158 as follows:
5 U.S.C. App. 8G(a)(2); 20 U.S.C. 959; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812.
20 U.S.C. 959; 28 U.S.C. 2461; 31 U.S.C. 1352.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
FMCSA updates the Medical Advisory Criteria published as an appendix in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The appendix provides guidance for medical examiners listed on FMCSA's National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners (National Registry) on the applicability and interpretation of the physical qualification standards for operators of commercial motor vehicles. The advisory criteria in the appendix are also intended to provide recommendations and information to assist medical examiners in applying the standards, basic information related to testing, and matters to consider when making a qualification determination. The updated Medical Advisory Criteria replace all previous versions of the criteria.
This final rule is effective on January 19, 2024.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-4001,
To view comments or any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to
FMCSA has statutory authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3) and 31149(c)(1)(A)(i)—delegated to the Agency by 49 CFR 1.87(f)—to establish regulations to ensure the physical condition of commercial motor vehicle operators is adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles safely. The guidance in the Medical Advisory Criteria is related to the physical qualification regulations required by those sections.
The notice and comment rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) do not apply to interpretative rules and general statements of policy (commonly called “guidance”) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)). The Medical Advisory Criteria are interpretative rules that provide guidance, but do not amend any Agency regulation or establish any requirements for medical examiners or drivers not found in existing regulations. Accordingly, FMCSA was not required under the APA to solicit public comment on the criteria. Nevertheless, to ensure that the Medical Advisory Criteria provide clear, useful, and relevant information for stakeholders and as encouraged by DOT policy,
Further, the APA does not require interpretive rules such as this to be published in the
In 2000, FMCSA adopted a revised medical examination report that also contained the Agency's guidelines to help medical examiners assess an individual's physical qualifications. These guidelines, in the form of advisory criteria, were strictly advisory and were established after consultation with physicians, States, and industry representatives (65 FR 59363, 59364 (Oct. 5, 2000)). Subsequently, when FMCSA revised the report form again, the medical advisory criteria were removed from the report form and published as Appendix A to 49 CFR part 391 (80 FR 22790 (Apr. 23, 2015)).
On August 16, 2022, FMCSA made available for public comment a revised and updated draft MEH, which included updates to the Medical Advisory Criteria (87 FR 50282). The goal of the updated Medical Advisory Criteria was to provide guidance for medical examiners to consider when making physical qualification determinations in conjunction with established best medical practices. Information that was outdated, obsolete, or no longer relevant was removed from the Medical Advisory Criteria. The Agency stated that the revised Medical Advisory Criteria would be included in the MEH and would also be published in Appendix A to 49 CFR part 391. The final version of the criteria would be identical in both publications.
FMCSA notes that, as a procedural matter, a final rule is required by the Office of the Federal Register to change any text included in the CFR. This is so even if the CFR text changed is guidance in an interpretive rule, as is the case here.
After consideration of the public comments and further internal review, FMCSA has published a revised MEH that includes revisions to the Medical Advisory Criteria. A
Each guidance document issued by FMCSA must be published on a publicly accessible DOT internet website on the date of issuance (49 U.S.C. 113 note).
FMCSA expects to review the guidance no later than 5 years after it is published and will consider at that time whether the guidance should be withdrawn, reissued, or incorporated into FMCSA's regulations.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), FMCSA is not required to complete a regulatory flexibility analysis because, as discussed earlier in the Legal Basis section, this action is not subject to notice and public comment under section 553(b) of the APA.
In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, Mar. 29, 1996), FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this final rule so they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the final rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance; please consult the person listed under the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $192 million (which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2022 levels) or more in any 1 year. This final rule will not result in such an expenditure.
This final rule contains no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has “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.” FMCSA has determined that this rule will not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor will it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this action preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Pub. L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, Dec. 8, 2004 (5 U.S.C. 552a note)), requires the Agency to conduct a privacy impact assessment of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. Privacy impact assessments were completed when the physical qualification regulations relating to the guidance were adopted. The guidance in the Medical Advisory Criteria does not present any new privacy concerns that were not previously addressed in those assessments. Also, because this interpretive rule does not require the collection of personally identifiable information, the Agency is not required to conduct a privacy impact assessment.
This rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
FMCSA analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Highway safety, Motor carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, FMCSA amends 49 CFR part 391, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 504, 508, 31133, 31136, 31149, 31502; sec. 4007(b), Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 2152; sec. 114, Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1677; sec. 215, Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1767; sec. 32934, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 830; secs. 5403 and 5524, Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1548, 1560; sec. 2, Pub. L. 115-105, 131 Stat. 2263; and 49 CFR 1.87.
This appendix contains the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's recommendations and guidance in the form of Medical Advisory Criteria to help medical examiners assess a driver's physical qualification. These recommendations and guidance are strictly advisory and do not have the force and effect of law. They were established after consideration of public comments and after consideration of recommendations from the Agency's Medical Review Board.
Since the issuance of the regulations for physical qualifications of commercial motor vehicle drivers, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has published recommendations and guidance called advisory criteria to help medical examiners in determining whether a driver meets the physical qualification standards for commercial driving. These recommendations have been derived from the Medical Examiner's Handbook to provide information to medical examiners that is directly relevant to the physical qualification examination.
1. Only individuals with loss of all five fingers are considered to have loss of a hand under § 391.41(b)(1).
2. Unless an individual possesses a skill performance evaluation certificate, loss of a foot, a leg, a hand, or an arm precludes physical qualification. Even if an individual has a prosthesis that replaces the foot, leg, hand, or arm, as applicable, certification is precluded without a skill performance evaluation certificate.
3. An individual may be eligible for a skill performance evaluation certificate under § 391.41(b)(1) or § 391.41(b)(2), or both.
1. Individuals with loss of fewer than all five fingers or any number of toes should be evaluated under § 391.41(b)(2) to determine whether there is an impairment, defect, or limitation of a hand or foot that interferes with the ability to perform normal tasks associated with operating a commercial motor vehicle.
2. A skill performance evaluation certificate is only available under § 391.41(b)(2) for impairment, defect, or limitation of a limb. A skill performance evaluation certificate is not available for impairment of the spine or torso that does not result in impairment, defect, or limitation of a limb.
3. An individual may be eligible for a skill performance evaluation certificate under § 391.41(b)(1) or § 391.41(b)(2), or both.
1. The phrase “has no current clinical diagnosis of” is specifically designed to encompass a clinical diagnosis of a current cardiovascular condition, or a cardiovascular condition that has not fully stabilized. The phrase “known to be accompanied by” is designed to include a clinical diagnosis of a cardiovascular disease that is accompanied by, or is likely to cause, symptoms of syncope, dyspnea, collapse, or congestive cardiac failure.
2. Coronary artery bypass surgery and pacemaker implantation are remedial procedures and, thus, do not preclude medical certification. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators are installed to address an ongoing underlying cardiovascular condition and are likely to cause syncope or collapse as a result of the underlying cardiovascular condition, as well as when they discharge.
3. Anticoagulation therapy is a medical treatment, which can improve the health and safety of the individual, and should not, by its use alone, preclude certification of the individual. The emphasis should be on the underlying medical condition(s) that requires treatment and the general health of the individual.
1. Many conditions interfere with oxygen exchange and may interfere with the ability to control and drive a commercial motor vehicle safely. These include, but are not limited to, emphysema, chronic asthma, carcinoma, tuberculosis, chronic bronchitis, and obstructive sleep apnea.
2. If the medical examiner detects a possible undiagnosed or inadequately treated respiratory dysfunction that may be likely to interfere with the individual's ability to control and drive a commercial motor vehicle safely, the medical examiner should confer with the treating provider or should recommend that the individual be referred to a specialist for further evaluation and therapy.
1. An elevated blood pressure finding should be confirmed by at least two subsequent measurements.
2. Hypertension alone is unlikely to interfere with the ability to operate a commercial motor vehicle safely; however, the likelihood increases when target organ damage, particularly cerebral vascular disease, is present. The guidance on the stages of hypertension below is based on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's Cardiovascular Advisory Panel Guidelines for the Medical Examination of Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers (October 2002), which adopted the sixth report of the Joint National Committee on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (1997).
3. Stage 1 hypertension corresponds to a systolic blood pressure of 140-159 mmHg and/or a diastolic blood pressure of 90-99 mmHg. An individual with a blood pressure in this range is at low risk for a hypertension-related event that is likely to interfere with the ability to operate a commercial motor vehicle safely and may be medically certified to drive for a 1-year period. Certification examinations should be done annually thereafter and should be at or less than 140/90. If less than 160/100 but greater than 140/90 at the subsequent examinations, the individual may be given a one-time certification of 3 months to reduce the blood pressure to less than or equal to 140/90.
4. A blood pressure of 160-179 systolic and/or 100-109 diastolic is considered Stage 2 hypertension. A blood pressure in this range is an absolute indication for antihypertensive drug therapy. The individual may be given a one-time certification of 3 months to initiate or adjust antihypertensive drug therapy and to reduce the blood pressure to less than or equal to 140/90. Provided treatment is well tolerated and the driver demonstrates a blood pressure value of 140/90 or less, the individual may be certified for 1 year.
5. A blood pressure at or greater than 180 (systolic) and 110 (diastolic) is considered Stage 3 and carries a high risk for an acute blood pressure-related event that is likely to interfere with the ability to operate a commercial motor vehicle safely. The individual should not be qualified, even for a short period, until the blood pressure is reduced to 140/90 or less and treatment is well tolerated. The individual may be certified for 6 months and biannually (every 6 months) thereafter if at recheck blood pressure is 140/90 or less.
6. Annual certification is recommended if the medical examiner does not know the severity of hypertension prior to treatment.
7. Treatment includes non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic modalities as well as counseling to improve or eliminate the factors that contributed to the hypertension. Most antihypertensive medications also have side effects, such as somnolence or syncope. The importance of side effects must be evaluated on an individual basis and considering the underlying hypertension. Individuals should be alerted to the possibility that antihypertensive medications may interfere with the ability to operate a commercial motor vehicle safely.
8. Medical certification for secondary hypertension is based on the above stages. Evaluation is warranted if an individual is persistently hypertensive on maximal or near-maximal doses of two to three pharmacologic agents. Some causes of secondary hypertension may be amenable to surgical intervention or specific pharmacologic treatment.
1. Once an individual has been diagnosed as having a rheumatic, arthritic, orthopedic, muscular, neuromuscular, or vascular disease, then the individual has an established history of that disease.
2. The medical examiner, when examining an individual, should consider the following: the nature and severity of the individual's condition (such as sensory loss or loss of strength); the degree of limitation present (such as range of motion); the rate or stage of progression (symptoms may not be present initially but may manifest over time); and whether symptoms are likely to interfere with the ability to control and operate a commercial motor vehicle safely.
3. If severe functional impairment exists, the individual does not physically qualify. In cases where more frequent monitoring is required, a Medical Examiner's Certificate, Form MCSA-5876, for less than the maximum certification period may be issued.
1. Epilepsy is a chronic functional disease characterized by seizures or episodes that usually occur without warning, resulting in loss of voluntary control that may lead to loss of consciousness. Therefore, the following individuals are not physically qualified:
• An individual who has a medical history of epilepsy or a seizure disorder, unless the individual satisfies the criteria described in paragraph 5 of the Medical Advisory Criteria for § 391.41(b)(8);
• An individual who has a current clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or a seizure disorder; or
• An individual who is taking antiseizure medication to prevent seizures.
2. When an individual has had a single unprovoked episode of loss of consciousness (
3. When an individual has had a single unprovoked nonepileptic seizure (
4. When an individual has had a single provoked nonepileptic seizure or episode of loss of consciousness (
5. When an individual has a medical history of epilepsy or a seizure disorder, the medical examiner may certify the individual if the individual is both off antiseizure medication and seizure free for 10 years or more.
6. If a medical examiner is unsure about whether to qualify an individual with a diagnosis of epilepsy or a seizure disorder, or a single nonepileptic seizure, the medical examiner may refer the individual to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for evaluation under the criteria for a Federal seizure exemption.
1. Emotional or adjustment disorders contribute directly to an individual's level of memory, reasoning, attention, and judgment, and are often caused by physical disorders. A variety of functional disorders can cause drowsiness, dizziness, confusion, weakness, or paralysis that may lead to incoordination, inattention, or loss of functional control that may be likely to interfere with the ability to drive a commercial motor vehicle safely. Physical fatigue, headache, impaired coordination, recurring physical ailments, and chronic “nagging” pain may be present to such a degree that they may be likely to interfere with the ability to drive a commercial motor vehicle safely. Somatic and psychosomatic complaints should be thoroughly evaluated when examining an individual.
2. The degree to which an individual is able to appreciate, evaluate, and adequately respond to environmental strain and emotional stress is critical when assessing an individual's mental alertness and flexibility to cope with the stresses of commercial motor vehicle driving.
3. It is unlikely that individuals who are highly susceptible to frequent states of emotional instability (
4. Careful consideration should be given to the side effects and interactions of medications in the overall qualification determination. Medications used to treat mental, nervous, organic, or functional disease or psychiatric disorder may be likely to interfere with the ability to drive a commercial motor vehicle safely.
1. Since the prescribed standard under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations is from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), formerly the American Standards Association, it may be necessary to convert the audiometric results from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard to the ANSI standard. To convert audiometric test results from ISO to ANSI, subtract 14 decibels (dBs) from the ISO result for 500 Hertz (Hz), subtract 10 dBs for 1,000 Hz, and subtract 8.5 dBs for 2000 Hz. To average, add the readings for the 3 frequencies tested and divide by 3.
2. For the whispered voice test, the individual should be stationed at least 5 feet from the medical examiner with the ear being tested turned toward the medical examiner. The other ear is covered. Using the breath that remains after a normal expiration, the medical examiner whispers words or random numbers such as 66, 18, 3, etc. The medical examiner should then ask the individual to repeat the words or sequence. The medical examiner should not use only sibilants (“s” sounding materials). The opposite ear should be tested in the same manner. If the individual fails the whispered voice test in both ears, the audiometric test should be administered.
3. If an individual does not meet the requirements with the use of a hearing aid and requires a Federal hearing exemption, the box for “Wearing hearing aid” should NOT be selected on either the Medical Examination Report Form, MCSA-5875, or Medical Examiner's Certificate, Form MCSA-5876. Instead, only the box for accompanied by a hearing exemption is selected on the Medical Examination Report Form, MCSA-5875, and the Medical Examiner's Certificate, Form MCSA-5876.
4. To obtain an application for a hearing exemption, individuals who do not meet the Federal hearing standard may call (202) 366-4001, email
1. Federal law prohibits Schedule I drugs or substances listed on 21 CFR 1308.11 from being prescribed for any purpose. Therefore, a medical examiner cannot physically qualify an individual who uses Schedule I drugs or substances.
2. A medical examiner may physically qualify an individual who uses an amphetamine, a narcotic, or other prescribed drug or substance listed on Schedules II through V in 21 CFR 1308.12 through 1308.15 if the prescription exception is met. A drug or substance that is prescribed by a licensed medical practitioner who is licensed under applicable Federal, State, local, or foreign laws to prescribe controlled drugs and substances, is familiar with the individual's medical history, and has advised the individual that the drug or substance will not adversely affect the individual's ability to safely operate a commercial motor vehicle meets the prescription exception in § 391.41(b)(12).
3. One of the ways for the medical examiner to obtain the information that shows the prescription exception is satisfied is to request a written communication from the prescribing licensed medical practitioner who satisfies the regulation's requirements. A voluntary form available on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's website (391.41 CMV Driver Medication Form, MCSA-5895) may be used, with the individual's consent, as an optional tool to obtain the required information.
4. The medical examiner may request a non-Department of Transportation drug test to aid in the physical qualification determination, including when signs exist indicating the individual may not have
1. The phrase “current clinical diagnosis of” alcoholism is specifically designed to encompass a current alcoholic illness or those instances where the individual's physical condition has not fully stabilized.
2. When in remission, the medical examiner may certify an individual who has a prior clinical diagnosis of alcoholism.
3. The medical examiner may request a non-Department of Transportation alcohol test to aid in the physical qualification determination, including when the individual discloses excessive use of alcohol or the medical examiner observes signs of alcoholism. The use of a substance abuse professional, see 49 CFR 40.3 and 40.281, is not required. The medical examiner may request that individuals provide documentation from a professional qualified to conduct an alcohol use assessment that includes an opinion concerning whether a current clinical diagnosis of alcoholism is present or the individual is in remission prior to making a medical certification determination.
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of agency decision.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the approval of Amendment 18 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Scallop Fishery off Alaska (Scallop FMP). Amendment 18 revises timing requirements for the Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report to allow more flexibility for non-annual assessments and to set scallop harvest specifications less frequently than on an annual basis. This will reduce the burden on staff and provide more time for the development of new stock assessment methods. Amendment 18 is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the Scallop FMP, and other applicable laws.
The amendment was approved on January 11, 2024.
Electronic copies of Amendment 18, the Analysis, and the Categorical Exclusion (CE) prepared for this action may be obtained from
Megan Mackey, 907-586-7228.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each regional fishery management council submit any FMP amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP amendment, immediately publish a notice in the
The Notice of Availability (NOA) for Amendment 18 was published in the
NMFS determined that Amendment 18 is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws, and the Secretary of Commerce approved Amendment 18 on January 11, 2024. The November 3, 2023, NOA (88 FR 75535) contains additional information on this action. No changes to Federal regulations are necessary to implement the Amendment.
The scallop fishery in the exclusive economic zone off Alaska under the Scallop FMP is jointly managed by NMFS and the State of Alaska (State). The Council prepared the Scallop FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
The Scallop FMP delegates many management aspects of the scallop fishery to the State but maintains Federal oversight. This authority is limited by the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the FMP. While the FMP includes scallop stocks off the coast of Alaska, including weathervane scallop (
Previously, the overfishing level (OFL) and acceptable biological catch (ABC) have been set based on the definition of optimal yield (OY). More recently, OFL and ABC have been based on the OY re-defined in 2012 (Amendment 13), when OY was re-defined as 0 to 1.29 million pounds (lb) (585 tons (t)) of shucked scallop meats to include estimated discards over the reference time frame. Annual specifications have been defined as: max OFL = OY, and ABC = 90 percent of OFL. Alaska scallop harvests have not exceeded OY in any year since it was first established.
In the absence of stock-size estimates, the status of the scallop stock relative to its overfished state is unknown. Consistent with assessments since the 2011-12 season, the 2022-23 OFL is set equal to the OY (1.284 million lb.; 582 t) as defined in the Scallop FMP, and the 2022-23 ABC is set equal to the maximum ABC control rule value (90 percent of OFL or 1.156 million lb.; 524 t). Estimated total fishing removals (retained and discarded) for the 2021-22 and 2022-23 seasons were 311,978 lb (141.5 t) and 345,690 lb (156.8 t) of shucked meats, respectively. These estimates are less than 30 percent of the ABC/annual catch limit and OFL; therefore, overfishing did not occur in 2021-22 or 2022-23.
Currently, the Scallop FMP requires the SAFE report to be created on an annual basis. The management measures in Amendment 18 will amend the FMP to allow flexibility for non-annual assessments. This will remove prescriptive language dictating that the SAFE report is produced on an annual basis. Amendment 18 will give the Council flexibility in modifying the assessment cycle with the potential to set multi-year specifications, based on a period of no more than 3 years, that best suit the needs of the stock. If a formal
During the public comment period for the NOA for Amendment 18, NMFS received one unique comment from one member of the public. NMFS' response to this comment is presented below.
Department of State.
Notice of proposed rulemaking, request for comment.
The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA) and other related statutes such as the FREEDOM Support Act, the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962, and the SEED Act of 1989, authorize the U.S. Department of State (Department) to provide foreign assistance that seeks to support efforts that would have the effect of protecting and promoting U.S. security, prosperity, and democratic values and shape an international environment to improve the lives of people around the world. To implement the Department's expectation of nondiscrimination against beneficiaries of Department-funded foreign assistance activities, the Department is proposing to add a new award term entitled “Nondiscrimination in Foreign Assistance.” The proposed award term expressly states that recipients and subrecipients receiving Department-funded foreign assistance funds must not discriminate on specified bases against beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries or in certain employment decisions involving persons employed in the performance of the grants and funded in whole or in part with foreign assistance funds except where target populations are specified in the relevant Federal award.
The Department will accept comments until March 19, 2024.
Submit comments, identified by title of the action and Regulatory Information Number (RIN) by any of the following methods:
•
•
• All comments should include the commenter's name, the organization the commenter represents (if applicable), and the commenter's address. If the Department is unable to read your comment for any reason, and cannot contact you for clarification, the Department may not be able to consider your comment. After the conclusion of the comment period, the Department will publish a Final Rule that will address relevant comments as expeditiously as possible.
• For a summary of this rulemaking, please go to
Office of the Procurement Executive, Federal Assistance Division,
The inclusion and equitable treatment of all individuals, organizations, and persons relevant to Department foreign assistance programs is critical to achieving effective, comprehensive, and sustainable foreign assistance results because it enhances the participation, contributions, and access of the target population. Because of this premise, which underpins all of the Department's programs, the Department seeks to ensure access for all eligible beneficiaries of the target population within the scope of its foreign assistance grants and cooperative agreements without discrimination. The Department is embedding equity across its foreign affairs work and raising the visibility of inequities globally by providing equal opportunities for all eligible individuals, including members of minority groups and members of other underserved communities, through its foreign assistance programs. The Department seeks to improve the lives of people around the world by being inclusive and equitable in its foreign assistance efforts, including its evaluation of responses to requests for applications, notices of funding opportunities, etc. (“applications”).
The Department is committed to a nondiscrimination policy in its programs and activities and welcomes applications irrespective of—race, ethnicity, color, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, sex characteristics, pregnancy, national origin, disability, age, genetic information, indigeneity, marital status, parental status, political affiliation, or veteran's status. The Department seeks to ensure that applications for foreign assistance that demonstrate that the recipients of foreign assistance would not, in implementation of a potential award, discriminate against any beneficiaries of such foreign assistance funds, based on any of the factors listed above unless otherwise expressly authorized in the award or otherwise required by U.S. law in implementation of a potential award. Discrimination in implementation of an award could include such actions as withholding, adversely impacting, or denying equitable access to the benefits provided through the award.
Establishing clear and meaningful nondiscrimination protections in Department foreign assistance awards advances U.S. foreign policy by ensuring that U.S. foreign assistance is inclusive and equitable by reaching all intended beneficiaries and efficiently accomplishing its intended objectives. Moreover, in the judgment of the Department of State, U.S. funding is less effective and efficient when discrimination prevents assistance from reaching those who might most benefit from such assistance—which hinders U.S. foreign policy by excluding individuals that the United States intended to receive such assistance.
Nondiscrimination protections also promote equality in the administration of foreign assistance by requiring award recipients to comply with a uniform nondiscrimination standard. Nondiscrimination protections send a strong signal to people around the world that equity and inclusion are values that the United States takes seriously. They complement and affirm other commitments to equity in U.S. foreign policy, maximizing their coherence and effectiveness.
Nondiscrimination principles and protections are essential in protecting and advancing the human rights of all persons and ensuring equitable access to Department foreign assistance programs. Recipients must adhere to this requirement by performing the activities as outlined in the Federal award.
In recent years, the U.S. government has issued multiple policy pronouncements emphasizing equity, fairness, and human dignity. Effective nondiscrimination protections for beneficiaries of foreign assistance are a means toward achieving these objectives. For example, in 2021, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13985 on “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government”; and in 2023, the President issued E.O. 14091, “Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.” Furthermore, in 2011, the President issued E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” which, in addition to quantitative factors, advised that the qualitative values of equity, fairness, and human dignity are important considerations in agencies' rulemaking.
This rulemaking proposes to revise 2 CFR part 600 to add an award term at § 602, entitled “Nondiscrimination in Foreign Assistance.” The term, applicable to all solicitations, Federal awards, and subawards awarded with Department of State foreign assistance funds, prohibits recipients and subrecipients from discriminating against beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries (
The purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to ensure effective implementation of foreign assistance programs consistent with U.S. foreign policy and the purposes of the FAA. Section 101 of the FAA provides that: “[T]he Congress reaffirms the traditional humanitarian ideals of the American people and renews its commitment to assist people in developing countries to eliminate hunger, poverty, illness, and ignorance.” 22 U.S.C. 2151(a).
The main effect of the proposed award term is to ensure that the Department's policy and practice of nondiscrimination in planning foreign assistance projects and activities is followed through to completion by the recipients that implement them. Its impact on recipients is to require them to refrain from the discrimination described in the term.
Under the statutory regime governing foreign assistance, and consistent with his responsibilities regarding the conduct of U.S. foreign affairs, the President has broad discretion to set the terms and conditions on which the United States provides such assistance. Many of the authorities provided under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and similar statutes, explicitly allow for the provision of assistance “on such terms and conditions as [the President] may determine.”
The FAA provides that “[t]he President may exercise any functions conferred upon him by this Act through such agency or officer of the United States Government as he shall direct. The head of any such agency or such officer may from time to time promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out such functions. . . .” 22 U.S.C. 2381(a). The Secretary of State exercises authorities under the FAA as delegated by the President in Executive Order 12163, dated September 29, 1979, as amended. That includes the President's authority to “issue and enforce regulations determining the eligibility of any person to receive funds made available under” the FAA. 22 U.S.C. 2381(b).
These proposed rules fall within the Department's authority, delegated to it by the President, to set conditions on the provision of foreign assistance, including on the implementers of such assistance. Courts have repeatedly recognized that the President has broad discretion in the conduct of foreign affairs to allocate foreign assistance funding for particular programs and to set the conditions on U.S. funding to implementers of those programs.
Moreover, the Secretary has the authority to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out his functions and the functions of the Department of State.
Finally, in the event that any portion of this the proposed rule as finalized is declared invalid, the Department intends that the various aspects be severable; the Department would intend the remaining features of the policy to stand.
Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), this proposed rule is published for public comment for a period of 60 days, notwithstanding the fact that this rule relates to grants and therefore is not subject to 5 U.S.C. 553.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866, 13563, and 14094 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of the
This rule provides a benefit by promoting nondiscrimination in Department of State foreign assistance, which itself promotes programmatic efficiency, with very little additional administrative burden anticipated for the affected entities, which are Department recipients and subrecipients. It does not require them to carry out activities beyond those in their cooperative agreements and grants; it does not ask them to alter the manner in which they conduct the work as set out in their awards. The Department anticipates that the benefits of the proposed rule are realized by (1) ensuring that grant solicitations and resulting awards clearly notify that recipients and subrecipients must not discriminate against beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries of foreign assistance or in relation to employment decisions to support performance of the award; (2) avoiding proposal evaluation costs arising from grantees who are unwilling to provide assistance to all intended beneficiaries; (3) helping to ensure that foreign assistance funded activities reach intended beneficiaries and are not undermined by discriminatory exclusion on the bases identified in the rule. If, for example, an award specified the provision of food parcels in a certain community, the grantee could not, on its own, decide that only certain members of that community should receive the food parcels or that certain members should be excluded. This rule makes it clear at the inception of an award solicitation and any resulting award the grantee is obligated to provide services and supplies without excluding beneficiaries on the bases stated in the rule.
Potential costs the Department identifies for recipients and grantees are for minimal training and implementation guidance, to the extent that recipients and grantees do not already proscribe nondiscrimination as part of the normal conduct of their business operations, and potential changes in hiring practices for certain employees hired to support performance of the award. For grantees/recipients and subrecipients, potential costs could include creation of policies and procedures and training on implementation. The Department requests comment on costs of compliance with the provisions of this proposed rule, including estimates of hourly burdens and wages of employees that may be required to implement the rule, should it be finalized.
Including this clause in all new grants and cooperative agreements funded by Department of State foreign assistance provides an explicit requirement that the Department's recipients and grantees not discriminate against any designated group or individual (except as provided in the award) and is particularly important in countries where stigma and discrimination toward certain groups is tolerated or officially endorsed by the government. The benefits of the rule would include expressly reinforcing notions of equity, fairness, and human dignity under Federal Government grants and cooperative agreements internationally.
Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that Government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. It requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule is subject to the notice-and-comment provisions of the APA and would have a significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of small entities. This rule is exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the APA, as a matter related to grants.
The requirement this rule would impose on small businesses is no different than the requirement imposed on other entities: cooperative agreements and grants will include an award term clause requiring them not to discriminate in the employment of persons engaged directly in the performance of the Department's foreign assistance cooperative agreements and grants and not to discriminate with respect to the intended beneficiaries of U.S. foreign assistance except as provided in the award. For example, an award might be specifically for businesses owned by women; in such a case, it would be permissible to “discriminate in favor” of women-owned businesses. We do not estimate that this will impose a significant additional cost on recipients or subrecipients beyond adding a brief reminder or discussion of this requirement to existing trainings on business ethics and conduct that they provide to their staff. The Department requests comment on this assessment.
The employees of small businesses will be expected to be mindful of the principles of equity, fairness, and human dignity when performing the work funded by taxpayer dollars, as they have always been. The Department anticipates that the additional effort required by small businesses as a result of this proposed rule is de minimis and is not likely to impose more than a negligible cost.
In light of the above analysis, the Department certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Department welcomes comment on any of its assessments in this section.
The Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 requires agencies to prepare several analytical statements before proposing any rule that may result in annual expenditures of $100 million or more in State, local, or Indian Tribal governments or the private sector. Since this final rule will not result in expenditures of this magnitude, the Department certifies that such statements are not necessary.
This regulation 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. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this regulation.
The Department has determined that this rulemaking will not have Tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments, and will not preempt Tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply to this proposed rule.
The Department believes that the number of respondents submitting reports pursuant to this rulemaking will be low, possibly under the “10 respondents per year” that would trigger the Paperwork Reduction Act. Nevertheless, the Department provides the following information, using a figure of “10 respondents” to calculate burden. The Department anticipates that the burden per response would be one hour, yielding a total burden of 10 hours for this rulemaking. The Department invites public comment on these figures.
Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs.
For the reasons set forth above, the Department of State proposes to add part 602 to title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 22 U.S.C. 2651a, 22 U.S.C. 2151, 22 U.S.C. 2451, 22 U.S.C. 1461, 2 CFR part 200.
This part establishes policy and an award term for Federal awards subsidized in whole or in part by Department of State foreign assistance funds that states that recipients and subrecipients must not discriminate against beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries of foreign assistance or in relation to employment decisions to support performance of the award, in any way that is contrary to the scope of the activity as defined in the Federal award.
(a) Nondiscrimination is essential in protecting and advancing the human rights of all persons and ensuring equitable access to Department of State federally funded foreign assistance programs. The Department of State is committed to a policy of non-discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, color, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, sex characteristics, pregnancy, national origin, disability, age, genetic information, indigeneity, marital status, parental status, political affiliation, or veteran's status.
(b) In each Federal award (
(1) any beneficiary or potential beneficiary of the foreign assistance provided in performance of the award, such as, but not limited to, by withholding, adversely impacting, or denying equitable access to the benefits of foreign assistance; or
(2) any employee, agent, or candidate for a position, who is or will be engaged directly in the performance of this award and whose work will be subsidized in whole or in part by Federal foreign assistance funds under this award, unless expressly permitted by applicable U.S. law.
(a) The Grants Officer, with written concurrence from the Bureau's Assistant Secretary, Chief of Mission, or other similar management units may waive the application of the requirements at paragraph (a)(2) of § 602.40, Nondiscrimination in Foreign Assistance, if it is determined to be in the best interest of the U.S. government. Such determinations will take into account the totality of the circumstances, including, but not limited to, whether the waiver is requested as an accommodation to comply with applicable foreign laws, edicts, or decrees.
(b) The recipient shall submit any request for a waiver of the requirements of the paragraph at § 602.40(a)(2) in writing to the Grants Officer, and with sufficient justification for a determination, prior to award or thereafter by mutual agreement between the parties.
(c) If approved pursuant to this section, the Grants Officer shall specifically denote the inapplicability of the paragraph at § 602.40(a)(2) in the Federal award.
(d) Upon making a determination to waive the requirements at § 602.40(a)(2) pursuant to this section, the Grants Officer shall notify the Assistant Secretary of the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, or their designee in writing within 30 days.
(e) Nothing in any such waiver approved pursuant to this section shall negate any of the other requirements of § 602.40.
The following term will be incorporated in Department of State Federal awards as applicable:
a. Department of State policy requires that the recipient or grantee not discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, color, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, sex characteristics, pregnancy, national origin, disability, age, genetic information, indigeneity, marital status, parental status, political affiliation, or veteran's status or any factor not expressly stated as permissible in the award, against:
1. any beneficiary or potential beneficiary of the foreign assistance provided in performance of the award, such as, but not limited to, by withholding, adversely impacting, or denying equitable access to the benefits of foreign assistance; and
2. any employee, agent, or candidate for a position, who is or will be engaged directly in the performance of this award and whose work will be subsidized in whole or in part by Federal foreign assistance funds under this award, unless expressly permitted by applicable U.S. law.
b. Nothing in this award term is intended to limit the ability of a recipient to target activities toward the assistance needs of certain populations as defined in the award.
c. The recipient shall post in conspicuous places available to employees and beneficiaries in their predominant languages the notices to be provided by the Department of State regarding the nondiscrimination policy implemented in this award term.
d. The recipient shall notify beneficiaries and prospective beneficiaries that the recipient is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, ethnicity, color, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, sex characteristics, pregnancy, national origin, disability, age, genetic information, indigeneity, marital status, parental status, political affiliation, or veteran's status. The notice shall include information (telephone numbers, email addresses, and mailing addresses) necessary to contact the Department of State Inspector General's Fraud, Waste, and Abuse hotline to report potential violations of this award term.
e. The recipient shall take such action with respect to any subaward or contract as the Department of State may direct as a means of enforcing this award term, including terminating for noncompliance.
f. The recipient shall:
1. Notify its employees and agents of:
i. The policy prohibiting discrimination, described in paragraph (a) of this award term; and
ii. The actions that will be taken against employees or agents for violations of this policy. Such actions for employees may include, but are not limited to, removal from the award, reduction in benefits, or termination of employment; and
2. Take appropriate action, up to and including termination, against employees, agents, or subrecipients that violate the policy in paragraph (a) of this clause.
g.
1. The recipient shall inform the Grants Officer, Grants Officer Representative, and the Department of State Inspector General immediately of:
i. Any credible information it receives from any source (including host country law enforcement) that alleges an employee of the recipient, subrecipient entity, an employee of a subrecipient, or their agent has engaged in conduct that violates the policy in paragraph (a) of this award term; and
ii. Any actions taken against an employee of the recipient, subrecipient entity, an employee of a subrecipient employee, or their agent pursuant to this award term.
2. If the allegation may be associated with more than one award, the recipient shall inform the Grants Officer for the award with the highest dollar value.
h.
1. Requiring the recipient to remove an employee or subrecipient employee from the performance of the award;
2. Requiring the award recipient to terminate a subaward;
3. Suspension of award payments until the recipient has taken appropriate remedial action;
4. Declining to exercise available options under the award;
5. Termination of the award for default or cause, in accordance with the Department of State Standard Terms and Conditions for Federal Awards; or
6. Suspension or debarment.
i. The recipient must insert this award term, modified as appropriate or necessary to identify the parties, including this paragraph, in all subawards under this award.
A Department official will inform the Department's suspension and debarment official if an award is terminated based on a violation of a prohibition contained in the award term under § 602.40.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing to establish shipping safety fairways (“fairways”) along the Atlantic Coast of the United States, identified in the Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study. Fairways would preserve the safe and reliable transit of vessels along well-established traffic patterns and routes. While vessels are not required to use them, fairways are designed to keep traditional navigation routes free from fixed structures that could impact navigation safety and impede other shared offshore activities. The Coast Guard recognizes that there is increasing interest in offshore commercial development, including offshore renewable energy installations, and believes this development is best served by the establishment of consistent and well-defined fairways. The proposed fairways would help ensure that offshore developments remain viable by allowing developers to construct and maintain installations without risk of impeding vessel traffic. The Coast Guard is also proposing to establish traffic separation schemes and precautionary areas along the Atlantic coast to further improve navigation safety.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 18, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2019-0279 using the Federal Decision Making Portal at
For information about this document call or email Maureen Kallgren, Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1561, email
The Coast Guard views public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can
Chapter 700, Ports and Waterways Safety, of Title 46 United States Code (U.S.C.) authorizes the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating to take certain actions to advance port, harbor, and coastal facility safety and security. Specifically, 46 U.S.C. 70001 and 70034 authorize the Secretary to promulgate regulations to establish reporting and operating requirements, surveillance and communications systems, routing systems, and fairways. The Secretary has delegated this authority to the Commandant of the Coast Guard (Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Delegation 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(70)).
This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposes to codify existing vessel traffic patterns into shipping safety fairways (“fairways”), traffic separation schemes (TSSs), and precautionary areas along the Atlantic Coast of the United States to facilitate offshore development and ensure that traditional navigation routes are kept free from fixed structures that could affect navigation safety. The Coast Guard recognizes that current offshore development trends and other increased shared commercial activities on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) necessitate cohesion between industries. We believe that OCS users are best served by establishing consistent and clearly defined fairways that preserve historic shipping routes and safe access to the Marine Transportation System (MTS). Fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas are designed to preserve traditional maritime commerce routes and safe access to U.S. ports and protect them from fixed structures that could impact navigation safety.
A shipping safety fairway is a lane or corridor, in which no fixed structure is permitted, that sets aside areas of sufficient depth and dimensions to accommodate vessels and to allow for the orderly and safe movements of vessels transiting to or from ports. A TSS is a designated routing measure that separates opposing streams of traffic into traffic lanes, in which vessels all travel in roughly the same direction. A precautionary area is a designated routing measure with defined limits, where vessels must navigate with caution. These navigation systems would help to manage expectations of use and development along the OCS by communicating to the public the exact coordinates of established shipping lanes and routes.
The Coast Guard seeks comments regarding the proposed establishment of fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas along the Atlantic Coast of the United States, based on navigation safety corridors recommended by the Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study (ACPARS). In this section, the Coast Guard provides background information on fairways, TSSs, the ACPARS, and related Port Access Route Studies (PARS).
Section 70003 of Title 46 U.S.C. directs the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard operates to designate necessary fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas that provide safe access routes for vessels proceeding to and from U.S. ports. Designating a particular area as a fairway establishes the requirement that the area remains free of fixed structures that could pose navigational hazards or impediments. Designating a particular area as a TSS separates opposing streams of vessel traffic, and designating a particular area
The Coast Guard coordinates the possible establishment of fairways along the Atlantic Coast, complementary port approaches, and international entry and departure zones with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and other users of waterways to guarantee collaboration between offshore energy leasing efforts and efforts to codify customary shipping routes. The Coast Guard is prohibited under 46 U.S.C. 70003(b)(1) from designating fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas in areas where such a designation would deprive any person of the effective exercise of a vested right granted by a lease or permit executed or issued under other applicable provisions of law.
Fairways and TSSs are designated through Federal regulations as directed by 46 U.S.C. 70003. Regulations governing fairways in title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 166 provide that fixed structures and artificial islands are not permitted within fairways because these structures would jeopardize safe navigation. Regulations governing TSSs and precautionary areas in 33 CFR part 167 provide designated routing measures that separate opposing streams of traffic by establishing a separation zone and traffic lanes. TSSs and associated precautionary areas are submitted to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) for adoption and international recognition after the close of the public comment period and subsequent publication of a final rule. Modifying an existing TSS may include adjustment of the associated traffic lanes and separation zones for specific port approaches. The Coast Guard has the authority to establish, modify, or relocate existing fairways and TSSs to improve navigation safety and to preserve unimpeded navigation where appropriate. See 46 U.S.C. 70003 and 33 CFR 166.110.
Before establishing or modifying fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas, 46 U.S.C. 70003(c)(1) requires the Coast Guard to study potential traffic density and assess the need for safe access routes for vessels in the area for which they are proposed. In accordance with 46 U.S.C. 70003(c)(2), the Coast Guard consulted with all required Federal and appropriate State agencies while conducting the consolidated PARS. In executing these studies, the Coast Guard considered the views of the maritime community, environmental groups, and other stakeholders to reconcile the need for safe access routes with reasonable waterway uses to the extent practicable. See 46 U.S.C. 70003(c)(3). In addition to determining the necessary location for fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas, the studies also assessed widths of fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas based on vessel size and maneuverability, and density of the predominant vessel traffic. As part of its assessment, the Coast Guard attempts to recognize and identify potential impacts and balance these against the need to preserve safe navigation routes.
During the PARS process, and as required by 46 U.S.C. 70003(c)(2), the Coast Guard considered competing uses of the OCS that may interfere with the proposed fairways. The Coast Guard notes that it is not mandatory for vessels to use fairways or TSSs. Rather, the primary legal effect of establishing these fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas is to ensure that safe access to or from U.S. ports is available for marine traffic, and to prevent the establishment of any artificial island, fixed structure, or other impediment to vessel traffic. The PARS process did not identify any existing or planned structures, including existing wind energy area (WEA) leases, that would be affected by any of the fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas proposed in this rule.
On May 11, 2011, the Coast Guard announced the ACPARS to address potential navigational safety risks associated with offshore energy development and to support future marine planning efforts. The Coast Guard analyzed vessel traffic along the entire Atlantic Coast and focused on waters located seaward of existing port approaches within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). This extensive study area allowed the Coast Guard to consider vessel movements among both domestic and international ports of call to inform marine planning for the entire Atlantic seaboard. The Coast Guard used Automatic Identification System (AIS) data and information from shipping organizations to identify traditional navigation routes. The AIS data identified customary routes transited by towing vessels and deep draft vessels. Because these two vessel types have different maneuvering capabilities and navigation safety requirements, the identification of their customary routes and required fairway widths were studied separately and aggregated for final recommendation in the ACPARS.
The Coast Guard announced the availability of the ACPARS report and requested public comment in the
The ACPARS identified navigation safety corridors
The ACPARS also identified coastal navigation routes and navigation safety corridors of an appropriate width to accommodate safe passage for seagoing towing vessels.
The ACPARS recommended that the Coast Guard consider developing the navigation safety corridors it identifies in Appendix VII—which include navigation safety corridors for deep draft vessels and navigation safety corridors closer to shore for towing vessels—into official shipping safety fairways or other appropriate vessel routing measures.
Recognizing that the ACPARS only analyzed coastal, longshore, and predominantly north-south vessel transit routes along the Atlantic Coast, the Coast Guard announced its intention to study four port approaches and international entry and departure areas to supplement the ACPARS on March 15, 2019, in the
The Coast Guard identified four port approach areas that required further study: (1) the Northern New York Bight; (2) the Seacoast of New Jersey including the offshore approaches to Delaware Bay; (3) the approaches to Chesapeake Bay; and (4) the Seacoast of North Carolina, including the offshore approaches to the Cape Fear River and Beaufort Inlet, NC. The purpose of these additional PARS was to identify east and west routes between port approaches on the east coast and these proposed fairways. These PARS were conducted according to the methodology outlined in United States Coast Guard Commandant Instruction (COMDTINST) 16003.2B,
The recommendations from the ACPARS and the four consolidated PARS in concert with public comments received from the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) were considered for this NPRM (85 FR 37034, June 19, 2020). The following is a summary of the recommendations of each of the PARS:
On January 3, 2022, the Coast Guard announced the completion of the Northern New York Bight PARS in the
• Establish modified versions of the fairways proposed in the ANPRM.
• Establish a New Jersey to New York Connector Fairway.
• Establish a Hudson Canyon to Ambrose Southeastern Fairway, a Hudson Canyon to Ambrose Eastern Fairway, and a single Nantucket to Ambrose Fairway.
• Widen the Long Island Fairway that was proposed in the ANPRM.
• Modify the portion of the ANPRM that proposed the Cape Charles to Montauk Point Fairway that crosses the NY Bight by renaming it the Barnegat to Narragansett Fairway and adjusting coordinates to reconcile conflicts with lease areas OCS-A 0544 and OCS-A 0549.
• Establish an Ambrose Anchorage and adjust the Long Island Fairway to mitigate location conflict between the anchorage and fairway.
The Coast Guard proposes to implement these recommendations in this NPRM, with the following exceptions:
• The proposed Hudson Canyon to Ambrose Southeastern Fairway would be extended out to the end of the EEZ (200 NM) to ensure that safe access remains if expansion of offshore energy development continues to the east.
• Reduce the width of the recommended single Nantucket to Ambrose fairway to the northern border of the existing Nantucket to Ambrose Fairway and the southern border of the Ambrose to Nantucket Fairway as defined in 33 CFR 166.500. This will ensure there is sufficient room for safe navigation and the resulting fairways do not conflict with BOEM lease area OCS-A 0522.
• The establishment of the Ambrose Anchorage will not be covered within this rulemaking as it has utility independent of the fairways proposed in this rule. As this recommended anchorage would be within U.S. navigable waters, the First Coast Guard District will evaluate a possible rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70006 for an anchorage ground that would be codified in 33 CFR part 110.
In addition, the Coast Guard is proposing precautionary areas where the proposed Barnegat to Narragansett
On March 24, 2022, the Coast Guard announced the completion of the Seacoast of New Jersey including offshore approaches to the Delaware Bay, DE PARS in the
• Establish modified versions of the fairways proposed in the ANPRM.
• Extend the Off Delaware Bay: Eastern and Southeastern approaches to the TSS past the currently leased wind farms in the region, in lieu of establishing the Off Delaware Bay Eastern approach Cutoff Fairway and Off Delaware Bay Southeastern approach Cutoff Fairway.
• Establish additional precautionary areas where a wide variety of vessel traffic converges east of the offshore renewable energy installations (OREIs) under development.
• Establish a new two-way route along the Delaware seacoast for safe transits into and across the mouth of the Delaware Bay by coastwise vessels.
• Separate the Cape Charles to Montauk Fairway into two distinct fairways and rename them to clarify endpoints. Rename the southern portion Cape Charles to Delaware Bay and the northern portion Barnegat to Narragansett, to clarify the divergence of the route as it transits the mouth of the Delaware Bay and across the New York Bight.
• Establish the New Jersey to New York Connector Fairway along the New Jersey coast and up into New York-New Jersey Harbor.
• Establish an offshore fairway anchorage in the area to the east of the Off Delaware Bay: Southeastern approach to meet the needs for safe anchorage areas around OREIs.
• Ensure coordination of fairways and TSSs crossing District boundaries, and widen fairways to 9 NM, where practicable.
The Coast Guard proposes to implement these recommendations in this NPRM, with the following exceptions:
• The recommended reorientation of the St. Lucie to New York: Delaware Bay Connector Fairway, combined with the location of the St. Lucie to New York Fairway, and the recommended offshore Precautionary Area adjacent to the offshore terminus of the Southeastern approach leaves very little open sea space between the connector fairway and the proposed St. Lucie to New York Fairway. The Coast Guard proposes combining the Connector Fairway with the St. Lucie to New York Fairway and widening it in the general vicinity of the approaches to Delaware Bay. This would allow for the additional sea space needed for vessels maneuvering in the area and provide for a more natural approach to the Southeastern approach TSS, as supported by customary traffic patterns and BOEM. This would also provide a larger contiguous area for further offshore wind development.
• The Cape Charles to Montauk Fairway as proposed in the ANPRM conflicted with BOEM lease area OCS-A 0490. The recommendations from the New Jersey PARS reconcile this conflict by providing a fairway near the shore that crosses at the mouth of the Delaware Bay. Public comments received from mariners operating in the Delaware Bay area continued to urge the Coast Guard to consider a route that allows for safe, unobstructed transit seaward of the OREI development projects that connects back to the proposed New Jersey to New York Connector Fairway. The Coast Guard is proposing the Offshore Delaware Bay to New Jersey Connector Fairway to meet this need.
• The Coast Guard concurs with the recommendation for offshore precautionary areas where a wide variety of vessel traffic converges east of the OREI development projects. To account for the proposed combining of the St. Lucie to New York: Delaware Bay Connector Fairway with the St. Lucie to New York Fairway and the proposed Offshore Delaware Bay to New Jersey Connector Fairway, the proposed size and location of the precautionary areas at the convergence point of these fairways with the Eastern and Southeastern approaches have been adjusted to best meet the recommendations of the Fifth Coast Guard District and highlight areas that require particular caution when navigating.
• The Coast Guard is not proposing to establish a new two-way route as recommended in the New Jersey PARS. To account for the recommended orientation of the Cape Charles to Delaware Bay Fairway, the expansion of fairways to 9 NM where practicable, and the dense traffic at the entrance to Delaware Bay, the Coast Guard is proposing an expansion of the current precautionary area. This expansion would encompass the convergence of the proposed Cape Charles to Delaware Bay Fairway and the New Jersey to New York Connector Fairway with the established TSS. Expanding the precautionary area would appropriately caution the mariners transiting in the area while maximizing the freedom of navigation for opposing vessel traffic.
• The Coast Guard proposes to extend the recommended New Jersey to New York Connector Fairway south to connect with the proposed precautionary area expansion at the entrance to Delaware Bay. This expansion would absorb a portion of the established two-way route to the north of the approaches to Delaware Bay. Designating the water surrounding the two-way route would preserve current traffic flow and customary routes in the region, while ensuring ample sea space is available for future offshore energy development.
On October 22, 2021, the Coast Guard announced the completion of the approaches to the Chesapeake Bay, Virginia PARS in the
• The IMO's adoption of expanded precautionary area between the Eastern and Southern TSS approaches to Chesapeake Bay.
• Modifications to fairways, as proposed in the ANPRM, to include:
○ Re-orienting the Chesapeake Bay to Delaware Bay Eastern approach Cutoff Fairway to increase available maneuvering space for crossing vessels in the approaches to Delaware Bay, and to allow space for an offshore anchorage in the approach to the Delaware Bay.
○ Re-orienting the Cape Charles to Montauk Point Fairway to route closer to the Delmarva Peninsula.
○ Adding northern and southern connector fairways from the St. Lucie to New York Fairway and the Chesapeake Bay TSS, around the Commercial Virginia Offshore Wind project area, to facilitate safe transit of commercial vessels around future offshore energy installations.
The Coast Guard proposes to incorporate these recommendations in this NPRM, with the following exceptions:
• All proposed fairways would be widened to 9 NM or the maximum sea space practicable based on comments received from the AWO and the tug and tow community.
• The Cape Charles to Montauk Point Fairway would be divided into three distinct sections, as identified in the New Jersey PARS and the Northern New York Bight PARS. The southernmost section would be renamed the Cape Charles to Delaware Bay Fairway.
• The Delaware Bay Connector Fairway would reorient to the east and be combined into the St. Lucie to New York Fairway to better support the vessel traffic flow in and out of the Delaware Bay Southeastern approach.
On May 16, 2022, the Coast Guard announced the completion of the Seacoast of North Carolina Including Approaches to the Cape Fear River and Beaufort Inlet, NC PARS in the
• Establish modified versions of the fairways proposed in the ANPRM.
• Establish a precautionary area at the offshore terminus of the TSS in the approaches to the Cape Fear River.
• Establish the Beaufort Inlet Connector, Cape Fear Southeastern Connector, and Cape Fear Southwestern Connector fairways.
The Coast Guard proposes to incorporate these recommendations in this NPRM, with the following exceptions:
• The recommended Cape Fear Southwestern approach Connector Fairway would end at the PARS study area. After consulting with the Seventh Coast Guard District, the Coast Guard proposes extending this fairway past the Cape Romain Call Area to the approaches of Charleston, SC. This extension would ensure vessels transiting along this nearshore route have unobstructed, safe passage to the Cape Fear River as future OREI development continues. This extension will not be affected by future PARS underway in the Southeast Atlantic off the coast of South Carolina. Future rulemakings will be considered after the conclusion of these ongoing studies.
• Combine the portions of the St. Lucie to Chesapeake Bay Nearshore and Offshore fairways from St. Lucie, FL to Cape Hatteras, NC into a single St. Lucie to Hatteras Fairway.
The Coast Guard is familiar with the competing demands between preserving unobstructed vessel navigation routes and the spatial needs of offshore development. In the 1940s in the Gulf of Mexico, the advent of increasingly significant numbers of oil installations in the Gulf soon demonstrated the reality of conflict between navigational and resource extraction uses of the same ocean space and the nature of the resulting economic loss and physical danger. Instances of navigational confusion, near-collision, and collisions began to occur.
However, unlike the mineral-based installations in the Gulf of Mexico that generally consist of a single installation or a tight cluster of 3 to 5 structures encompassing a singular facility, OREI developments are usually comprised of a much larger network of interconnected turbines that encompass a larger contiguous area. Considering the massive geographic scope of this proposed rule, which is partially caused by the large footprints of these OREI developments, the Coast Guard considers it necessary to gather additional information before initiating the NEPA process. The Coast Guard believes it would benefit from the public comment process that follows the publication of a proposed rule, which will help the Coast Guard narrow the range of reasonable alternatives and identify issues that need to be considered in the required environmental review. Therefore, the Coast Guard is publishing this NPRM and the coordinates of the proposed fairways before it starts the environmental analysis that normally accompanies the proposed rule.
Following the close of the comment period for the NPRM, the Coast Guard will consider comments and adjust the proposed rule if needed. Then, the Coast Guard will publish a notice of intent consistent with this NPRM and announce it in the
The Coast Guard intends to prepare a draft EIS, file it with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and then add the draft EIS to the docket of this NPRM. The EPA will publish a notice of availability for public review in the
If the analysis or subsequent comments determines there is a substantive change to the dimensions of the proposed fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas, the Coast Guard will issue a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) that will detail any departures from the fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas proposed in this NPRM. If the analyses confirm the viability of the proposed fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas, we will proceed on to the final rule stage. The Coast Guard will complete the NEPA review process at the time of the final rule. The Coast Guard will issue a final EIS with the final rule and waive the requirement for a 30-day time period between the final EIS and the record of decision as allowed under 40 CFR 1506.11(c)(2).
The Coast Guard met with offshore wind industry group American Clean Power (ACP) on August 22, 2023 to discuss the impact of the proposed fairways on ongoing BOEM leasing activities in the Central Atlantic. ACP proposed a re-orientation of two of the proposed fairways, with the goal of expanding overall acreage available for leasing in the Central Atlantic. The Coast Guard listened to ACP's proposal, explained that there is still ample time to suggest changes to the proposed fairways, and encouraged them to submit their proposal in a comment to this NPRM. The Coast Guard memorialized this meeting in a Memorandum of Record, which is available in the docket. The Coast Guard also participated in a meeting with ACP and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), convened by OIRA on October 10, 2023, during review of this rule pursuant to Executive Order 12866, in which ACP shared additional information about their proposed re-orientation.
Establishing fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas is inextricably linked with energy development on the OCS. It is important to note that the Coast Guard works with BOEM during both the leasing and the fairway establishment processes to ensure cooperation among competing uses of the MTS.
Regional Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Forces are a key mechanism that BOEM uses to help shape its approach to offshore renewable energy development. These task forces consist of representatives from federally recognized Tribes, Federal agencies, States, and local governments, including the Coast Guard. BOEM's task forces serve as forums to coordinate planning; gather data; solicit feedback; educate about BOEM's processes, permitting, and statutory requirements; and exchange scientific and other information. BOEM's task forces work in parallel and are integrated into the more formal area identification and competitive leasing processes described below, with a particular focus on early identification of potential conflicting uses of the OCS and strategies for balancing the needs of all sea and seabed users. BOEM is currently actively engaged with several regional task forces in the Atlantic, including the Central Atlantic, Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Carolina Long Bay.
The current process by which BOEM issues competitive leases and grants is defined in 30 CFR part 585, subpart B. Typically, BOEM begins the competitive leasing process by publishing in the
Throughout BOEM's competitive leasing process as defined in 30 CFR part 585, BOEM engages with the applicable task force and directly with other Federal agencies, including the Coast Guard, whom BOEM relies on to assist with identifying potential maritime conflicts. This engagement is iterative throughout the development of commercial leases from the RFI to the competitive lease sale because the interests and needs of both OREI and the maritime industry, as well as States and the Federal agencies, are dynamic and evolving over time. Codifying traditional shipping lanes into fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas would have the effect of providing relevant stakeholders with pertinent information earlier in the competitive lease process.
On June 19, 2020, the Coast Guard published an ANPRM announcing the possible establishment of fairways along the Atlantic Coast of the United States identified in the ACPARS.
After a thorough review of comments received, the Coast Guard summarized the issues raised. The Coast Guard then organized the issues by subject matter and their responses, which are presented below.
The Coast Guard received many comments expressing concern that the proposed fairways identified in the ANPRM would infringe on existing leases that stakeholders hold with BOEM and a comment that fairway and lease overlaps could result in substantive economic impacts on OREI development. The comments urged the Coast Guard to avoid routing fairways through leaseholds, specifically those leases off the coasts of the Maryland, Virginia, and Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. BOEM and other stakeholders alerted the Coast Guard of the potential overlap between the fairways described in the ANPRM and the aforementioned leases. In response to these comments, the Coast Guard has adjusted the fairways proposed in this NPRM to eliminate all overlaps, thereby addressing the concern of potential
The portion of the proposed Cape Charles to Montauk Fairway that was described in the ANPRM ran through lease area OCS-A 0490 (U.S. Wind). This fairway is now proposed to be rerouted off the coast of Ocean City, MD to the North to intersect with the Delaware Bay Precautionary Area. This adjustment moves the closest point between the proposed fairway and the U.S. Wind's lease area to approximately 3 NM. This segment was renamed the Cape Charles to Delaware Bay Fairway.
The portion of the Cape Charles to Montauk Fairway that was proposed in the ANPRM to run along the New Jersey Coast conflicted with lease areas OCS-A 0498 (Ocean Wind) and 0499 (Atlantic Shores). Note that since publication of the ANPRM, BOEM has split OCS-A 0498 into lease areas 0498 and 0532, and OCS-A 0499 was split into 0499 and 0549. This portion of the fairway overlapped as much as 2 NM into the lease areas. In response to this overlap, the fairway was moved towards the shore to reconcile the conflicts. The border of the fairway would now abut the lease areas, but since the total fairway width includes the recommended buffer zones, additional setbacks are not necessary. Developers would be able to build up to the border of their respective leases as long as no overhang of appurtenances extends out of the lease area into the fairway. This segment of the proposed Cape Charles to Montauk Fairway was extended up into New York and renamed the New Jersey to New York Connector Fairway.
The portion of the proposed St. Lucie to Chesapeake Bay Offshore Fairway that was described in the ANPRM conflicted with lease area OCS-A 0508 (Kitty Hawk) by approximately 67 yards. This portion of the fairway was moved that distance toward shore. The border of the proposed fairway would now abut the Kitty Hawk lease area, but no additional setbacks are necessary. The developer would be able to build up to the border of the lease as long as no overhang of appurtenances extends out of the lease area into the fairway. This segment of the proposed St. Lucie to Chesapeake Bay Offshore Fairway has been renamed the Hatteras to Chesapeake Bay Fairway.
A portion of the proposed Cape Charles to Montauk Fairway from Barnegat, NJ to Narragansett, RI that was described in the ANPRM overlapped with the northernmost tip of the Atlantic Shores lease (now OCS-A 0549). Additionally, since the ANPRM was published, BOEM auctioned six additional lease areas in the New York Bight Area. The fairway proposed in the ANPRM would have intersected with OCS-A 0544 (Hudson North). The proposed adjustments and reorienting of this portion of the fairway—now the Barnegat to Narragansett Fairway—removed any overlap and thus reconciled any potential conflict between the proposed fairway and lease areas. The border of the fairway would abut lease area OCS-A 0544, but no additional setbacks are necessary. The developer would be able to build up to the border of the lease as long as no overhang of appurtenances extends out of the lease area into the fairway.
The Coast Guard will continue to work with BOEM throughout this rulemaking to ensure that any potential conflicts are identified and resolved. The Coast Guard believes that the establishment of consistent and clearly defined fairways will further development on the OCS going forward.
The Coast Guard received many comments asking about the width of proposed fairways, buffer zones around proposed fairways, and whether the width of proposed fairways will include these buffer zones. The proposed fairways vary in width depending on location and may be adjusted before the publication of a potential final rule. The dimensions for the fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas proposed in this NPRM are listed in tables 1 through 33 and the proposed regulatory text.
Buffer zones are included within the width of the proposed fairways. The Coast Guard designed the proposed fairways' dimensions to accommodate the vessel traffic needs for a given reach of the Atlantic Coast. Accordingly, the design features for the segments of the fairways proposed in this NPRM vary in width and include buffer zones of up to 2 NM to ensure efficient and safe passage of opposing traffic streams.
The Coast Guard also received a comment that inquired whether Post-Panamax vessels would be considered in this NPRM. Panamax vessels were built to the maximum size that the Panama Canal could accommodate at the time. However, the Panama Canal was expanded in 2016, thereby leading to an even larger class of vessels known as Post-Panamax. The Coast Guard considered Post-Panamax vessels in both the ACPARS and in other related PARS, which are publicly available. As a result, Post-Panamax vessels have been considered and will be able to use the fairways in the same way as any other ship.
Some commenters asked whether different vessel types would use different types of fairways. For example, one commenter asked if deep-draft vessels would have separate fairways from tug and barge vessels. While the Coast Guard considered the historical routes for the different types of vessels when it determined the location of the fairways along the Atlantic Coast, the Coast Guard does not designate fairways for specific vessel types. Therefore, the proposed fairways would be accessible to any type of vessel.
There were several comments on the ANPRM that recommended specific routes for proposed fairways to take. For example, one commenter suggested adding a fairway to route traffic away from the proposed New York Bight WEA. The Coast Guard considered each of these specific concerns in the PARS described in section IV.D.,
The Coast Guard received several comments about the effect of the proposed fairways on marine mammals, particularly North Atlantic right whales. The Coast Guard will evaluate the potential for interactions with a variety of species, including the North Atlantic right whale, and will coordinate with the responsible Federal resource agency or agencies pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).
The data collection regarding potential for interactions with marine mammals is currently in progress and the analysis will be initiated as soon as possible, along with the necessary interagency coordination, and the Coast Guard will complete associated consultations during the regulatory development process before promulgating a final rule.
The Coast Guard will evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with this proposed rule and will provide documentation for public review and comment in the docket. For more information on the docket,
The Coast Guard received a few comments about the proposed fairways' effects on existing water-dependent uses of the study area, including commercial and recreational fishing, scuba diving, and other recreational activities, including those competing uses in conjunction with established artificial reefs.
Section 166.105 of title 33 of the CFR defines a shipping safety fairway as “a lane or corridor in which no artificial island or fixed structure, whether temporary or permanent, will be permitted.” The Coast Guard does not expect competing uses, such as fishing, scuba diving, or other similar activities, whether commercial or recreational, to be affected by the proposed fairways.
In 33 CFR 64.06, structures are defined as “any fixed or floating obstruction, intentionally placed in the water, which may interfere with or restrict marine navigation.” This section also defines an obstruction as “anything that restricts, endangers, or interferes with navigation.” There are currently several artificial reefs along the Atlantic Coast between Florida and Rhode Island located within the proposed fairways. The Coast Guard reviewed and considered these artificial reefs during the PARS. The studies found that the artificial reefs do not interfere or restrict marine navigation, and therefore are not considered obstructions or structures for the purpose of this rulemaking. Additionally, the proposed fairways would be in locations where a majority of vessel traffic currently transit and do not impact use of the artificial reefs. Because the traditional activities associated with the artificial reefs, such as recreational diving and fishing would not be prohibited within a fairway and these activities already safely coexist with the shipping in the proposed fairway locations, these activities would not be impacted.
One commenter asked whether the proposed fairways would have a negative impact on U.S. Navy (USN) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) activities. While conducting the PARS, the Coast Guard regularly engaged with the USN and USACE and discussed proposals for fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas. Both agencies indicated they do not anticipate any impact to operations.
One commenter asked if underwater cables had been considered and if they would affect the proposed fairways. The Coast Guard has considered all known underwater cables and their potential impacts on the proposed fairways, TSS, and precautionary areas. None were found to restrict, endanger, or interfere with navigation. The Coast Guard works as a cooperating agency with BOEM for OREI development and with the USN and U.S. Department of Defense for submarine cables used for communications, and will continue to ensure that any future underwater cables do not impact safe navigation and that vessels avoid harm to underwater cables.
The Coast Guard received a few comments regarding this rulemaking process. One commenter asked whether the Coast Guard plans to hold a public meeting to discuss this rulemaking. While the Coast Guard does not, at this time, plan to hold a public meeting, it is open to the idea and may do so if it determines from public comments that a meeting would be helpful. If the Coast Guard decides to hold a public meeting to discuss this rulemaking it will publish a document in the
Some commenters asked how coastal States would be involved with this rulemaking. Since establishing fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas constitutes a Federal action proposed within or outside the coastal zone that could affect the use of land or water resources or natural resources of coastal States, the Coast Guard will review the potential for this action to result in reasonably foreseeable effects on those resources. Within this process, the Coast Guard will engage the coastal States, as required by 33 U.S.C. 70003(c)(2), to better understand the potential impact of this proposed rule. The Coast Guard will use information collected from the ANPRM, the ACPARS, the four PARS consolidated with the ACPARS, the involved States' coastal management programs, comments received in response to this NPRM, and commercially available information to determine whether the Coast Guard's proposed action would result in coastal effects.
The Coast Guard will coordinate with each of the involved coastal States pursuant to the Federal consistency requirements and seek a consistency determination or a negative determination, as appropriate, prior to publishing a final rule.
If a consistency determination is required, the Coast Guard will demonstrate how it arrived at its preliminary determination that the Atlantic Fairways scheme is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies unique to each State's coastal management program. The Coast Guard will finalize its coordination strategy with the involved coastal States in due course and may consider taking a regional approach for meeting its Federal consistency requirements. In such a case, the Coast Guard would consider, at a minimum, the common denominator of the involved States' coastal management policies, and thereby address the different States' policies with one discussion and determination. Any remaining items, such as unique issues or items held in common with a subset of States, would be addressed in an accompanying narrative. If the Coast Guard does not take this approach, the Coast Guard will issue consistency determinations or negative
The Coast Guard received a few comments that were critical of the ACPARS and the processes used to determine the recommended fairways. The Coast Guard published the interim ACPARS report in the
Some commenters asked about the possibility of vessel traffic density increasing because of the proposed fairways. The proposed fairways are located in areas that have been customary shipping routes, and therefore any impact on vessel traffic behavior is expected to be minimal. Establishing fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas should serve to maintain the status quo regarding vessel traffic behavior. The locations of the proposed fairways were determined based on approximately 95 percent of the vessel traffic traveling in the same or opposing directions. The width of the fairways was then determined considering the total amount of possible traffic, accounting for the potential increase in traffic density. By designating these sections of the waterways as fairways, safe passage around offshore energy installations can be available for vessels, and the number of vessels needing to reroute around these installations would be minimized.
The Coast Guard is proposing to codify historically traveled shipping routes into fairways, as defined by 33 CFR 166.105, and TSSs and precautionary areas, as defined by 33 CFR 167.5. This proposed rule is intended to facilitate offshore development, preserve traditional shipping routes, protect maritime commerce, and maintain navigational safety amidst growing offshore activity along the Atlantic Coast.
Designating these portions of the waterways as fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas is intended to maintain traditional shipping routes and continue to ensure that these navigation lanes remain free of fixed structures. This NPRM does not mandate that any vessel(s) use the newly established fairways; therefore, vessels would continue to traverse U.S. jurisdictional waters without restriction and use the most efficient route(s) to their destinations.
The Coast Guard recognizes the need for fairways to address increasing OCS activity and potential future trends in offshore energy development along the Atlantic Coast. The Coast Guard has a duty to ensure that vessels have a safe, unimpeded, and efficient route from sea to port and, for developers, from port to the lease site and back. Without promulgating this rule, BOEM could propose to establish energy development facilities (wind turbines and other fixed structures) that could be in historical maritime vessel routes, conflicting with existing maritime uses and users. With that in mind, the Coast Guard continues to engage with BOEM during the development of this NPRM, throughout the course of the PARS, and during the offshore leasing development processes to ensure that proposed offshore energy lease areas and proposed fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas coexist without interference.
In this NPRM, the Coast Guard is proposing 18 fairways and 1 fairway anchorage. These fairways are based on the fairways described in the ANPRM and have been further refined based on public comments, consultation with other Federal Government agencies, and the recommendations from the PARS. Approximate fairway widths and reciprocal courses are provided. A chart of the proposed fairways is available for review in the docket.
The proposed Long Island Fairway would be approximately 105 NM long, in an approximate direction of 066 degrees true (°T)/246 °T and varies in width from approximately 3 NM on the approaches to New York to 8 NM at its widest point. This proposed size would include the customary routes taken by vessels between the New York-New Jersey Harbor and the approaches to Narragansett Bay. This proposed fairway would be in an area enclosed by the following rhumb lines joining points (World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84) datum):
The proposed Nantucket to Ambrose Fairway would be approximately 150 NM long in an approximate direction of 090 °T/270 °T, 15 NM wide, and would encapsulate the current Nantucket to Ambrose and Ambrose to Nantucket fairways into one single fairway. It would cross the Barnegat to Narragansett Fairway. This proposed fairway would be in an area enclosed by the following rhumb lines joining points (WGS 84 datum):
The proposed Hudson Canyone to Ambrose Eastern Fairway would be approximately 35 NM long in an approximate direction of 090 °T/270 °T, 5 NM wide, and would extend approximately 30 NM past BOEM lease OCS-A 0537. This proposed fairway would support offshore vessel transits from Europe to New York-New Jersey Harbor via the Off New York: Southeastern approach (33 CFR 167.154). This proposed fairway would
The proposed Hudson Canyon to Ambrose Southeastern approach Fairway would be 177 NM long in an approximate direction of 315 °T/135 °T, 15 NM wide, and would extend from the proposed precautionary area at the offshore terminus of the Off New York: Southeastern approach to the offshore boundary of the U.S. EEZ. Because BOEM's leasing authority for the OCS extends to the outer boundary of the U.S. EEZ, the proposed Hudson Canyon to Ambrose Southeastern approach Fairway would designate the customary offshore route to New York-New Jersey Harbor via the Off New York: Southeastern approach. This proposed fairway would be in an area enclosed by the following rhumb lines joining points (WGS 84 datum):
The proposed Barnegat to Narragansett Fairway would be approximately 135 NM long in an approximate direction of 063 °T/243 °T, between 9 and 35 NM wide, and include the customary route taken by vessels across the New York Bight. The proposed fairway would have a 7-degree turn (063 °T/243 °T to 056 °T/236 °T) that is located between the Off New York: Eastern approach (33 CFR 167.153) and the Off New York: Southeastern approach. The proposed Barnegat to Narragansett Fairway would widen beyond 9 NM in this area to account for the additional sea space needed for vessels to maneuver prior to crossing the Nantucket to Ambrose Fairway. This proposed fairway would be in an area enclosed by the following rhumb lines joining points (WGS 84 datum):
The proposed New Jersey to New York Connector Fairway would be approximately 105 NM long, 4 NM wide, and include the customary route taken by vessels along the New Jersey coast between New York-New Jersey Harbor and the entrance to Delaware Bay. Because of the limited available sea space, this proposed fairway could not be widened to a desired 9 NM. The proposed New Jersey to New York Connector Fairway would be bounded to the west (shoreside) within 3 NM from shore, to designate the available sea space within the OCS as a fairway to prohibit future construction or development, and to preserve safe water for vessel navigation. This proposed fairway would be in an area enclosed by the following rhumb lines joining points (WGS 84 datum):
The proposed St. Lucie to New York Fairway would be approximately 790 NM long in an approximate direction of 030 °T/210 °T until off Cape Hatteras, NC, then it would turn to the north to approximately 003 °T/183 °T. It would be between 9 and 20 NM wide. It would include the customary route taken by vessels transiting offshore between the Port of Miami, FL; Port Everglades, FL; the Port of Virginia; the Port of Baltimore, MD; the Port of Philadelphia, PA; the Port of Wilmington, DE; and the Port of New York and New Jersey. The proposed St. Lucie to New York Fairway would measure 9 NM wide between Miami, FL and the approaches to Chesapeake Bay, where it would widen to 20 NM to account for the high vessel traffic density on the approaches to Chesapeake Bay, Delaware Bay, and New York. This proposed fairway would be an area enclosed by the following rhumb lines joining points (WGS 84 datum):
The proposed Offshore Delaware Bay to New Jersey Connector Fairway would be approximately 43 NM long in an approximate direction of 355 °T/175 °T,
The proposed Delaware Bay Fairway Anchorage would be a 51-square mile area adjacent and contiguous to the western boundary of the Offshore Delaware Bay to New Jersey Connector Fairway. Deep draft vessels already use this area between the Southeastern approach proposed extension and the Offshore Delaware Bay to New Jersey Connector Fairway as an informal anchorage for anchoring and bunkering. Therefore, the proposed Delaware Bay Fairway Anchorage would meet current and future needs for safe anchorage in the region as offshore development continues. This proposed fairway anchorage would be in an area enclosed by the following rhumb lines joining points (WGS 84 datum):
The proposed Cape Charles to Delaware Bay Fairway would be approximately 105 NM long in an approximate direction along the Delmarva Peninsula, mainly 9 NM wide, and would include customary routes for vessels between the approaches to Chesapeake Bay and Delaware Bay. The width of the proposed Cape Charles to Delaware Bay Fairway would gradually decrease to 4 NM over the final 40-NM stretch to the precautionary area at the entrance to Delaware Bay. This proposed fairway would be in an area enclosed by the following rhumb lines joining points (WGS 84 datum):
The proposed Chesapeake Bay to Delaware Bay: Eastern approach Cutoff Fairway would be approximately 70 NM long in an approximate direction of 043 °T/223 °T, is 9 NM wide, and would include a customary route taken by vessels between the approaches to Chesapeake Bay and the approaches to Delaware Bay. This proposed fairway would be an area enclosed by the following rhumb lines joining points (WGS 84 datum):
The proposed Chesapeake Bay approach Connector-North Fairway would be approximately 48 NM long in an approximate direction of 090 °T/270 °T, 9 NM wide, and would include customary routes taken by vessels from the high seas to the Chesapeake Bay: Southern approach (33 CFR 167.203). The Chesapeake Bay approach Connector—North Fairway would also preserve the deep-water slough connecting the deep-water route within the Southern approach—which is recommended for vessels with drafts greater than 13.5 meters (45 feet) and Naval aircraft carriers—to the high seas. This proposed fairway would be an area enclosed by the following rhumb lines joining points (WGS 84 datum):
The proposed Chesapeake Bay approach Connector—South Fairway would be approximately 48 NM long in an approximate direction of 090 °T/270 °T, 9 NM wide, and would include customary routes for vessels from the high seas to the Chesapeake Bay: Southern approach. This proposed fairway would be an area enclosed by the following rhumb lines joining points (WGS 84 datum):
The proposed Hatteras to Chesapeake Bay Offshore Fairway would be approximately 103 NM long, in an approximate direction of 342 °T/162 °T, and approximately 6 NM wide. It would include customary routes for vessels transiting between the Port of Miami, FL; Port Everglades, FL; Port Canaveral, FL; the Port of Jacksonville, FL; Kings Bay, GA; the Port of Brunswick, GA; the Port of Savannah, GA; Charleston, SC; the Port of Morehead City, NC; the Port of Wilmington, NC; and the Port of Virginia.
The proposed Hatteras to Chesapeake Bay Offshore Fairway was originally part of the St. Lucie to Chesapeake Offshore Fairway, discussed in the ANPRM, and remains unaltered. Combining this proposed fairway with the Hatteras to Chesapeake Bay Offshore Fairway into a single fairway 9 NM wide was considered, but a consistent single fairway of that width could not be supported based on USN activity and OREI development in the area. Thus, this and the nearshore portion of the St. Lucie to Chesapeake Bay navigation corridor remain as separate proposals. This proposed fairway would be in an
The proposed Hatteras to Chesapeake Bay Nearshore Fairway would be approximately 97 NM long, in an approximate direction of 342 °T/162 °T, and approximately 7 NM wide. It would include customary routes for vessels transiting between the Port of Miami, FL; Port Everglades, FL; Port Canaveral, FL; the Port of Jacksonville, FL; Kings Bay, GA; the Port of Brunswick, GA; the Port of Savannah, GA; Charleston, SC; the Port of Morehead City, NC; the Port of Wilmington, NC; and the Port of Virginia.
The proposed Hatteras to Chesapeake Bay Nearshore Fairway was originally part of the St. Lucie to Chesapeake Offshore Fairway, which was discussed in the ANPRM. Combining this proposed fairway with the Hatteras to Chesapeake Bay Offshore Fairway into a single fairway 9 NM wide was considered, but a consistent single fairway of that width could not be supported based on USN activity and OREI development in the area. Thus, this and the offshore portion of the St. Lucie to Chesapeake Bay navigation corridor remain as separate proposals. The proposed width of this fairway, however, has been increased from approximately 5 NM to approximately 7 NM to better support the maneuverability of vessels and to make better use of available sea space. This proposed fairway would be in an area enclosed by the following rhumb lines joining points (WGS 84 datum):
The proposed St. Lucie to Hatteras Fairway would be approximately 600 NM long, would follow the direction of the coastline from St. Lucie, FL to Cape Hatteras, NC, and would be 13 NM wide. This fairway would include customary routes for vessels transiting between the Port of Miami, FL; Port Everglades, FL; Port Canaveral, FL; the Port of Jacksonville, FL; Kings Bay, GA; the Port of Brunswick, GA; the Port of Savannah, GA; Charleston, SC; the Port of Morehead City, NC; the Port of Wilmington, NC; and the Port of Virginia.
The proposed St. Lucie to Hatteras Fairway would combine the portions of the St. Lucie to Chesapeake Offshore and Nearshore Fairways, which was discussed in the ANPRM, from St. Lucie, FL to Cape Hatteras, NC. The fairway would maintain the split around the charted fixed structure near Ft. Pierce Inlet, FL as presented in the ANPRM. Because fairways are not designated for specific user groups, and since the two fairways proposed in the ANPRM share a common border, the Coast Guard is seeking to streamline regulations by proposing to combine the two fairways into a single fairway from St. Lucie, FL to Cape Hatteras, NC. This proposed fairway would be in an area enclosed by the following rhumb lines joining points (WGS 84 datum):
The proposed Beaufort Inlet Connector Fairway would be approximately 23 NM long, in an approximate direction of 320 °T/140 °T, and between 5 and 10 NM wide. It would include customary routes for vessels in the approaches to Beaufort Inlet. The proposed Beaufort Inlet Connector Fairway would have a width of 5 NM at its nearshore most point and fan outwards to a maximum width of 10 NM where it would meet the St. Lucie to Hatteras Fairway, to support vessel transits to or from the north or south. This proposed fairway would be in an area enclosed by the following rhumb lines joining points (WGS 84 datum):
The proposed Cape Fear River Southeastern approach Connector Fairway would be approximately 17 NM long, in a direction of approximately 300 °T/120 °T/, between 5 and 10 NM wide, and would include customary routes taken by vessels in the approaches to the Cape Fear River. The proposed Cape Fear River Southeastern approach Connector Fairway would have a width of 5 NM at its nearshore most point and would fan outwards to a maximum width of 10 NM, where it would meet the St. Lucie to Hatteras Fairway to support vessel transits to or from the north or south. This proposed fairway is an area enclosed by the following rhumb lines joining points (WGS 84 datum):
The proposed Cape Fear River Southwestern approach Connector Fairway would be approximately 85 NM long, in a direction of approximately 039 °T/219 °T and 5 NM wide, and would include customary routes taken by vessels from Savanah, GA and Charleston, SC to the Cape Fear River. It would extend from the proposed precautionary area in the approaches to the Cape Fear River past the Cape Romain, SC Call Area. This proposed fairway would be in an area enclosed by rhumb lines connecting the following points (WGS 84 datum):
The Coast Guard is proposing two TSS extensions, one precautionary area expansion, and six new precautionary areas with associated traffic lanes, discussed below roughly in order of north to south. The Coast Guard based these routing measures on the fairways under consideration in the ANPRM, public comments, consultation with other government agencies, and the recommendations from the four PARS.
The Coast Guard is proposing a new precautionary area at the offshore terminus of the Off New York: Southeastern approach. This proposed precautionary area would be an approximately 197-square mile area encompassing the intersection of the Off New York: Southeastern approach, the proposed Barnegat to Narragansett Fairway, and the Hudson Canyon to Ambrose Southeastern Fairway. As discussed in section IV.D.,
The Coast Guard is proposing a new precautionary area at the offshore terminus of the Off New York: Southern approach. This proposed precautionary area would be an approximately 146-square mile area encompassing the intersection of the Off New York: Southern approach, the proposed Barnegat to Narragansett Fairway, and the St. Lucie to New York Fairway. As discussed in section IV.D.,
In addition to these precautionary areas Off New York's Southern and Southeastern approaches, the Coast Guard is proposing two more precautionary areas where the fairway and TSS overlap: Barnegat to Ambrose Precautionary Area and Hudson Canyon to Ambrose Precautionary Area. The proposed precautionary areas would be in an area enclosed by rhumb lines connecting the following points (Datum: WGS 84):
The Coast Guard is proposing a new precautionary area at the offshore terminus of the Off Delaware Bay: Eastern approach. This proposed precautionary area would be an approximately 29-square mile area, encompassing the intersection of the Off Delaware Bay: Eastern approach and the proposed Off Delaware Bay to New Jersey Connector Fairway. The Coast Guard expects to see vessel traffic cross perpendicularly to each other at the intersection of the fairway and TSS. A precautionary area would signify to mariners that they are transiting through an area, “where ships must navigate with particular caution,” because of the perpendicular crossing of vessel traffic. The proposed precautionary area would be in an area enclosed by rhumb lines connecting the following points (Datum: WGS 84):
The proposed extension of the Off Delaware Bay: Eastern approach would extend the TSS separation zone and traffic lanes approximately 16 NM offshore past the proposed precautionary area, where it would intersect with the St. Lucie to New York Fairway. The Coast Guard expects to see vessel traffic converge at the intersection of the TSS extension and the St. Lucie to New York Fairway, and therefore proposes a precautionary area at the intersection. A precautionary area would indicate to mariners that they are transiting through an area “where ships must navigate with particular caution,”
Because the proposed precautionary area A would bisect the proposed Eastern approach, we present the proposed separation zone and traffic lanes in two parts.
With the extension, the new separation zone for Off Delaware Bay: Eastern approach would be two areas enclosed by rhumb lines connecting the positions provided in tables 25 and 26 (Datum: WGS 84).
The proposed traffic lane for westbound traffic for the Off Delaware Bay: Eastern approach would be in an area enclosed by rhumb lines between the proposed separation zone parts and two corresponding lines connecting the positions provided in tables 27 and 28 (WGS 84):
The proposed eastbound traffic lane for the Off Delaware Bay: Eastern approach would be in an area enclosed by rhumb lines, between the proposed separation zone parts and two corresponding lines connecting the positions in tables 29 and 30 (WGS 84):
The proposed extension of the Off Delaware Bay: Southeastern approach would extend the TSS separation zone and traffic lanes approximately 12 NM farther offshore and would maintain the width of approximately 5 NM. With the extension, the new Off Delaware Bay: Southeastern approach traffic lanes and separation zones would be enclosed by rhumb lines connecting the following points (Datum: WGS 84):
The proposed northwest-bound traffic lane for the Off Delaware Bay: Eastern approach would be in an area enclosed by rhumb lines, between the proposed separation zone and a line connecting the following positions (WGS 84):
The proposed southeast-bound traffic lane for the Off Delaware Bay: Eastern approach would be in an area enclosed by rhumb lines, between the proposed separation zone and a line connecting the following positions (WGS 84):
The Coast Guard is proposing a new precautionary area at the offshore terminus of the Off Delaware Bay: Southeastern approach. This proposed precautionary area would be an approximately 314-square mile area encompassing the intersection of the Off Delaware Bay: Southeastern approach, the proposed Chesapeake Bay to Delaware Bay Eastern approach Cutoff Fairway, the proposed Off Delaware Bay to New Jersey Connector Fairway, and the proposed St. Lucie to New York Fairway. The Coast Guard expects to see a considerable amount of vessel traffic meet at the intersection of the fairways and TSS. A precautionary area would signify to mariners that they are transiting through an area, “where ships must navigate with particular caution,” due to the perpendicular crossing of vessel traffic. The proposed precautionary area would be in an area radius 10 NM centered upon geographical position 38°10.02′ N, 74°25.34′ W, the areas within the separation zones, traffic lanes, and fairways excluded. (Datum: WGS 84)
The Coast Guard is proposing an expansion of the precautionary area at the entrance to the Delaware Bay. This proposed expansion would extend the precautionary area approximately 4.5 NM offshore and would gradually widen to 11 NM, where it would encompass the intersection of the proposed Cape Charles to Delaware Bay Fairway, the proposed New Jersey to New York Connector Fairway, and both the Off Delaware Bay: Eastern and Southeastern approaches. A precautionary area would signify to
From 38°42.80′ N, 74°58.90′ W; then southeasterly to 38°37.25′ N, 74°54.15′ W; then northeasterly to 38°48.89′ N, 74°47.29′ W; then westerly to 38°48.31′ N, 74°55.39′ W; then westerly to 38°47.50′ N, 75°01.80′ W; then northerly to 38°50.75′ N, 75°03.40′ W; then northeasterly to 38°51.27′ N, 75°02.83′ W; then northerly to 38°54.80′ N, 75°01.60′ W; then westerly by an arc of 6.7 nautical miles centered at 38°48.90′ N, 75°05.60′ W to 38°55.53′ N, 75°05.87′ W; then southwesterly to 38°54.00′ N, 75°08.00′ W; then southerly to 38°46.60′ N, 75°03.55′ W; then southeasterly to 38°42.80′ N, 74°58.90′ W.
The Coast Guard is proposing a new precautionary area connecting the termini of the Eastern and Southern approach to the TSS in the approaches to Chesapeake Bay. This proposed precautionary area would be approximately 22 NM long, bounded by arcs of 5 NM, and 5 NM wide. It would also encompass the intersections of the proposed Hatteras to Chesapeake Bay Nearshore Fairway, the proposed Hatteras to Chesapeake Bay Offshore Fairway, the Chesapeake Bay Connector—South Fairway, the Chesapeake Bay Connector—North Fairway, the Cape Charles to Delaware Bay Fairway, and both the Eastern and Southern approaches in the approaches to Chesapeake Bay TSS. A precautionary area is charted between the Eastern and Southern approaches to Chesapeake Bay, but it was never adopted by IMO, nor codified in 33 CFR part 167. This existing precautionary area is included within the proposed precautionary area. A precautionary area would signify to mariners that they are transiting through an area, “where ships must navigate with particular caution,” due to the perpendicular crossing of vessel traffic. The proposed precautionary area would be in an area enclosed by the following points (Datum: WGS 84):
From 36°58.25′ N, 75°48.44′ W; then easterly by an arc of 5 NM centered at 36°59.06′ N, 75°42.28′ W to 36°59.27′ N, 75°36.04′ W; then southerly to 36°47.20′ N, 75°35.35′ W; then westerly by an arc of 5 NM centered around 36°46.98′ N, 075°41.58′ W to 36°48.21′ N, 075°47.61′ W; then northerly to 36°48.87′ N, 075°47.42′ W; then northeasterly to 36°50.33′ N, 075°46.29′ W; then northerly to 36°57.04′ N, 075°48.01′ W; then northwesterly to 36°57.94′ N, 075°48.41′ W; then northerly to 36°58.25′ N, 75°48.44′ W.
The Coast Guard is proposing a new precautionary area at the offshore terminus of the TSS for the approaches to the Cape Fear River. This proposed precautionary area would be an approximately 75-square mile area encompassing the intersection of the Cape Fear River TSS, the proposed Cape Fear Southeastern approach Connector Fairway, and the proposed Cape Fear Southwestern approach Connector Fairway. A precautionary area would signify to mariners that they are transiting through an area, “where ships must navigate with particular caution,” due to the perpendicular crossing of vessel traffic. The proposed precautionary area would be in an area enclosed by the following points (Datum: WGS 84):
From 33°36.22′ N, 078°17.30′ W; then easterly by an arc of 5.2 NM centered at 33°32.99′ N, 078°12.10′ W; to 33°32.75′ N, 078°05.99′ W; then westerly to 33°32.75′ N, 078°09.66′ W; then northwesterly to 33°34.50′ N, 078°14.70′ W; then northwesterly to 33°36.22′ N, 078°17.30′ W.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. A summary of our analyses based on these statutes and Executive orders follows.
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review), and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
This proposed rule is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). A combined regulatory analysis and regulatory flexibility analysis follows.
The Coast Guard is proposing to codify shipping safety fairways along historic and well-established vessel traffic patterns and routes. These fairways would provide advance information to the offshore wind energy sector and help ensure that vessels traversing waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction would have unimpeded voyages, free from fixed and affixed structures. Establishing the fairways would not impose any costs on the offshore wind energy sector or to vessels, as there are no costs for streamlining the preexisting requirements for offshore wind energy consultations and for vessels to continue to travel along their historic routes.
Throughout BOEM's competitive lease process, as defined in 30 CFR part 585, BOEM engages with its task forces and directly with other Federal agencies, including the Coast Guard, whom BOEM relies on to assist with identifying potential maritime conflicts. This engagement is iterative throughout the development of commercial leases from the RFI to the competitive lease sale because the interest and needs of both OREI and the maritime industry, as well as States and the Federal agencies, are dynamic and evolving over time. Codifying traditional shipping lanes into fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas has the effect of providing relevant stakeholders with necessary information earlier in the competitive lease process. Additionally, these fairways would help ensure that vessels have clear and unimpeded transit routes to and from U.S. ports, preserving safe and reliable transit paths.
To address climate change while also meeting growing energy demands, President Biden issued Executive Order 14008 (Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad). Executive Order 14008 is designed to signal a significant increase in ambition to meet the climate crisis. In particular, section 207 of the Order directs the Administration to identify steps needed to increase renewable energy production, specifically offshore wind energy production, with defined goals on measured timelines. The Biden Administration then announced a shared goal between the Departments of Interior, Energy, and Commerce to deploy 30 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind energy by 2030, while protecting biodiversity and ocean co-use.
The Coast Guard recognizes the increase in offshore commercial activity and will work with other Federal agencies to facilitate this continued growth. The Coast Guard believes that establishing consistent and clearly defined fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas will facilitate this development while preserving continued ready access to port facilities.
Protecting access to Atlantic ports is also critical to the U.S. and global economies. Any obstructions or delays in shipping could result in added costs that may trickle down to consumers and disrupt supply chains across all industries. For the purpose of this discussion, table 34
Moving these goods generates port activity and revenue. In turn, these businesses, as well as their employees, purchase goods and services, creating a small ecosystem within each port community.
In an effort to help maintain the unimpeded flow of goods and service in and out of U.S. Ports, this NPRM proposes fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas for vessels to use for transit. Under this proposed rule, vessels would be able to maintain their unimpeded access to and from all ports of call along the Atlantic Coast. Vessels would be free to transit and maintain their routes according to their business operation decisions and to continue with their historic operational patterns.
Establishing fairways primarily affects offshore wind energy developers by restricting the space that they may site future WEAs. The American Clean Power Association (ACP) is a pro-wind lobbying organization that tracks offshore wind development. As noted in ACP's May 2023 Offshore Wind Market Report, the United States has 32 active leases for renewable energy in development on the OCS.
We examined each of the Atlantic lease sites, reviewing relevant lease contracts and paperwork to determine location and size, as well as relevant details about the developer. The results of this review are presented in table 35. According to the Coast Guard Navigation Center (NAVCEN), the total size of the Atlantic EEZ from St. Lucie, FL to Montauk, NY is approximately 194.834 million acres. The 29 lease sites on the Atlantic EEZ span approximately 2.35 million acres and account for 1.21 percent of the Atlantic EEZ (2.35 ÷ 194.834 × 100% = 1.21 percent).
The 29 offshore wind energy lease areas are situated within relative proximity to the proposed fairways. Despite this, there would be no overlap between them and the offshore wind energy lease areas. The Coast Guard recognized this proximity and included a 2-NM buffer zone within each side of the proposed fairway designation area as a result. This 2-NM buffer zone would allow developers to build up to the limits of the fairway, so long as no overhang of the structure extends out of the lease area into the fairway. Given the existence of this buffer zone, no known or planned energy installation lease areas would be affected by fairway boundaries or traffic.
Additionally, as discussed in section V. Discussion of ANPRM Comments earlier, the Coast Guard has worked with BOEM to ensure that these proposed fairways would not interfere with any existing or planned lease sites. Table 35 below provides a list of all current offshore wind energy projects, their proximity to the fairways, and the distance (in NM) between each project and the closest fairways(s).
On November 16, 2022, BOEM announced eight draft WEAs in the Central Atlantic,
As discussed in Section VI.F
During BOEM's leasing process, the Coast Guard provides comments regarding existing high-volume shipping lanes, which have historically and will continue to prevent other development in these areas. By codifying the historic shipping lanes into fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas, the Coast Guard would provide developers the necessary information prior to expending resources exploring areas that cannot be developed without significantly and adversely affecting existing shipping lanes.
According to NAVCEN, the proposed fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas would encompass approximately 24.4 million acres, or 12.5 percent, of the Atlantic EEZ (24.4 ÷ 194.8 × 100% = 12.5 percent). Existing wind energy lease areas are expected to generate over 43 GW of offshore wind energy.
This NPRM proposes to codify PARS recommendations into fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas along the Atlantic Coast. This would help ensure that vessels traversing waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction would have unimpeded voyages, free from fixed and affixed structures, as they transit to and from their destinations. This action
The Coast Guard is anticipating an increase in offshore activity and hopes to preserve existing shipping lanes and accommodate OREI developments, thereby managing future expectations and balancing the needs of the maritime and energy sectors. If left unabated, future development areas could create unintended navigation hazards, delays, or impediments to the safe and efficient transportation and commerce of maritime vessels carrying goods, materials, and people. Vessels transit to, from, and between U.S. ports in well-defined routes and in regular patterns. These typical vessel routes have been developed over many years as companies look to maximize transportation efficiencies. For this reason, the Coast Guard proposes codifying existing shipping lanes into fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas.
Although this NPRM is proposing to codify fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas for vessel use, it would not require vessels to use them. This proposed rule would maintain the status quo in that vessels would be free to navigate the waters of the United States to maximize voyage efficiencies while operating in a safe manner. Since this NPRM would not impose any requirements that would cause vessels to change their behavior, the Coast Guard does not anticipate that the proposed rule would impact the vessel population but is seeking comments on the possible impacts of this proposed rule.
Developing offshore wind energy projects on the OCS is a multi-faceted and iterative process. BOEM is the Federal agency responsible for issuing leases, easements, and rights-of-way for renewable energy projects on the OCS. BOEM determines whether to issue leases in consultation and coordination with other Federal agencies, potentially affected federally recognized Tribes, States, and local governments. As specified in 30 CFR 585.210, BOEM initiates the competitive lease process by publishing in the
(1) Publishing a Call for information and nominations;
(2) Identifying the area for a lease;
(3) Publishing a proposed sale notice; and
(4) Publishing a final sale notice.
BOEM typically conducts an environmental review under NEPA at the proposed sale notice stage and finalizes that review in parallel with the final sale notice. Furthermore, once BOEM issues a lease, applicants cannot begin construction until BOEM concludes additional steps, which include reviewing applicants' Site Assessment Plans and Construction and Operation Plans (COP), performing a subsequent NEPA analysis, consulting with additional Federal agencies, and concluding a final technical review of all activities. BOEM specifically states that a “lease does not grant the lessee the right to construct any facilities; rather, the lease grants the right to develop a plan for use of the area for BOEM's review and potential approval.” Once the environmental reviews under NEPA, consultations under the ESA, and BOEM's technical reviews are complete, BOEM may approve, disapprove, or approve with modifications a lessee's COP. If a COP is approved, the lessee must submit required reports to the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). Once the lessee receives a non-objection from BSEE and all other necessary Federal and State permits, as well as a consistency determination under the CZMA, the lessee may begin construction on the OCS.
Given that this consultation process must occur before issuing new leases, the proposed fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas do not cause future potential lease sites to incur any additional costs because consideration of commercial vessel traffic is already an existing baseline requirement under current regulations (§ 585.102(a)(9)).
The Coast Guard recognizes the competing interests of the maritime domain as well as the Administration's goal to increase offshore wind energy production and has taken steps to ensure that the proposed fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas do not intersect, limit, remove, or in any other way interfere with the continued development of the current lease sites noted in table 35. The proposed fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas would codify traditional vessel navigation routes. This reflects the work done in the PARS, which analyzed vessel travel patterns and relative densities to make recommendations regarding preferred vessel travel routes. Additionally, vessels would be free to transit along other routes outside the proposed fairways, but we expect vessels would continue to operate as they have historically. Since this NPRM would not impact existing vessel behavior, nor would it conflict with any existing lease areas, the Coast Guard determined that there are no costs associated to existing leases located in the Atlantic OCS as a result of this proposed rule. The Coast Guard will continue to work and collaborate with other agencies to further the Biden Administration's offshore wind energy goals. Furthermore, the Coast Guard asks the public to submit comments that address how future offshore energy development may be impacted by this proposed regulation, and whether any alternative fairway orientations could reduce those impacts while preserving navigational safety.
The current offshore wind energy development process relies on input from the public and Federal agencies at various stages and levels. It is an iterative process that must consider the needs of various stakeholders and agencies while also navigating renewable energy demands. Of particular note, 30 CFR 585.102(a)(5) specifies that BOEM must coordinate with “relevant Federal agencies (including, in particular, those agencies involved in planning activities that are undertaken to avoid conflicts among users and maximize the economic and ecological benefits of the OCS)[.]” Under § 585.102(a)(7), BOEM must also “[protect] the rights of other authorized users of the OCS,” and § 585.102(a)(9) directs BOEM to “[prevent] interference with reasonable uses . . . of the [EEZ], the high seas, and the territorial seas.”
The proposed fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas would accomplish this by minimizing conflicts while, preserving the rights of, and preventing interference with, reasonable users of the EEZ and surrounding waters.
Given the complex nature of the process that BOEM must take when proposing and subsequently developing wind energy lease sites, proposing these fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas would facilitate efficient interagency comments between the Coast Guard, BOEM, and other relevant stakeholders early on during the leasing process by communicating the locations of historic vessel travel lanes and areas with high vessel traffic. Additionally, establishing
Individual lease sites issued by BOEM are not on exclusive waters. This means that vessels in the vicinity of the area are free to transit through lease sites. However, those vessels must still employ safe navigation practices.
Given the nascent nature of the offshore wind energy industry, there are relatively few detailed studies regarding vessel and wind farm interaction. A study from 2015 looked at five wind energy lease sites in the Thames Estuary and recorded AIS transponder data before and after wind farm development. This international study notes the importance of accounting for vessel traffic patterns prior to establishing wind farms and that traffic management measures are critical to mitigating potential risks.
A case study for the Baltic Master project, an international effort sponsored by the European Union to address maritime safety, looked at the interaction between vessel traffic and wind farms on the southwest Baltic Sea. The study noted that when traffic organizing patterns were applied to areas where vessels transit on a regular basis, those vessels traveled along more organized, compact, and consistent routes without incurring additional delays or other unintended consequences. These passive mitigating measures were observed to reduce the risk of collision, particularly around wind farms.
A recent study by the National Academies looked at the interaction of vessels navigating in wind farms and determined that vessels could experience interference and reflectivity due to the turbine structures and blades with additional combining factors which could lead to degrading effectiveness and confusing navigational pictures.
The proposed fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas provide clear shipping lanes for commercial vessel navigation and allow for safe navigation in and out of busy U.S. Atlantic ports. This proposed rule fosters one of the Coast Guard's central missions of maintaining and securing safe navigable waters for vessels transiting through waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction. This NPRM also furthers the President's offshore wind energy goals by minimizing conflicts through advance notice of traditional commercial maritime routes, sharing in maritime use rights, and preventing interference with users of the EEZ and surrounding waters.
The Coast Guard is studying the environmental issues that commenters presented during the ANPRM stage of this rulemaking. NEPA will provide the primary framework for our environmental analyses, and we will meet the requirements of other involved environmental statutes in parallel. These include, but are not limited to the ESA, MMPA, Magnuson Stevens, Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and CZMA. The Coast Guard will evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with this proposed rule and will provide documentation for public review and comment as discussed in section VII.E,
The Council on Environmental Quality's regulations require that a draft EIS “normally” accompany a proposed rule. S
The Coast Guard appreciates its ongoing coordination with BOEM on the designated fairways. The Coast Guard also appreciates BOEM's ongoing environmental analysis of the affected environment; it also recognizes that BOEM's assessments, which focus on small static sections, are not sufficient for meeting the environmental review requirements for the Coast Guard's rulemaking process. The Coast Guard's rulemaking process requires an analysis with a broader scope along the entire Atlantic Coast. We will use the best available information to inform this analysis. Given the dynamic nature of the emerging renewable energy industry, we will also use the public's continued input to determine new information concurrently with our rulemaking and incorporate it as practical during the regulatory development process.
The Coast Guard's environmental coordination and associated consultations for this rulemaking will include coordination with State and Federal agencies and federally recognized Tribes pursuant to governing environmental statutes, regulations, and Executive orders. As stated above, the Coast Guard is currently gathering
The Coast Guard considered the following alternatives while developing this proposed rule:
(1) The Coast Guard could take no action. This alternative would allow for continued conflicts between navigation and proposed offshore energy development and other competing uses. These conflicts would not be resolved until later in the lease process, at potential expense and delays for the OREI developers. This alternative could also put the priority right of navigation at risk in violation of the Coast Guard's statutory mandates. In addition, the “no action” alternative would leave the status quo in place, which allows OREI development projects to be proposed without regard to historic vessel routes. Additionally, this alternative requires consistent and extensive oversight by the Coast Guard to monitor all activities undertaken by another Federal Agency. The status quo is a resource intensive process due to the continuous and iterative wind energy lease process. For these reasons, the Coast Guard rejects this alternative.
(2) Instead of establishing the fairways through rulemaking, the Coast Guard could work with BOEM under a memorandum of agreement to jointly limit issuance of new leases for offshore wind development to areas outside of the fairways identified in this NPRM. This alternative would allow for continued collaboration between the two agencies but would have to be completed on a case-by-case basis. Beyond efficiency concerns, which are substantial, this approach lacks the certainty and stability that comes with codifying the dimensions of the proposed fairways in the CFR. Under this alternative, offshore energy developers would not be certain where WEAs can and cannot go, making long-term strategic planning very difficult.
(3) The third and preferred alternative is to conduct a rulemaking to codify vessel travel lanes into fairways along the Atlantic Coast to ensure that vessels traversing waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction would have unimpeded voyages. The Coast Guard is proposing fairway routes, TSSs, and precautionary areas, the dimensions of which would be finalized over the course of the rulemaking process.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
Section 603(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act prescribes the content of the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, which addresses the following:
(1) A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered;
(2) A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, this proposed rule;
(3) A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which this proposed rule will apply;
(4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of this proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record;
(5) An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule; and
(6) A description of any significant alternatives to this proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas along the Atlantic Coast of the United States as identified in the PARS. Fairways allow for the implementation of safe and reliable vessel transit routes along already established traffic patterns and routes.
The Coast Guard is proposing this action to ensure that traditional navigation routes are kept free from fixed structures that could affect navigation safety. The Coast Guard recognizes that current offshore development trends and other increased shared commercial activities on the OCS necessitate the preservation of safe commercial shipping lanes as fairways. Fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas are necessary to preserve traditional maritime commerce routes and safe access to U.S. ports and protect them from the emplacement of fixed structures that could impact navigation safety.
This NPRM proposes to codify existing vessel traffic patterns into fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas along the Atlantic Coast of the United States to ensure that traditional navigation routes are kept free from fixed structures that could affect navigation safety.
Chapter 700, Ports and Waterways Safety, of Title 46 U.S.C. authorizes the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating to take certain actions to advance port, harbor, and coastal facility safety and security. Specifically, 46 U.S.C. 70001 and 70034 authorize the Secretary to promulgate regulations to establish reporting and operating requirements, surveillance and communications systems, routing systems, and fairways. The Secretary has delegated this authority to the Commandant of the Coast Guard (DHS Delegation 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(70)).
The Coast Guard is proposing 18 fairways and 1 fairway anchorage. These fairways are based on the fairways described in the ANPRM and have been further refined based on public comments, consultation with other Federal Government agencies, and the recommendations from the PARS. Fairways are corridors that set aside areas of sufficient depth and dimensions to accommodate vessels to allow for the orderly and safe movements of vessels transiting to or from ports. Designating a particular area as a fairway establishes the requirement that the area remains free of fixed structures that could pose navigational hazards or impediments. These fairways would be established next to and in the vicinity of existing lease sites as described in table 35.
We gathered and examined information on BOEM's lease sites to evaluate the size of the lessees.
The 29 active WEA lease sites we identified in table 35 earlier are being developed or operated by 14 unique companies and one State Government entity partnering with a research entity (NAICS 541715), none of which are considered to be small entities as determined by SBA size standards.
These fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas would not intersect any existing wind energy lease sites and those sites would not be restricted in their operations. As such, we do not expect any impact to leaseholders from the proposed fairways nor any costs to the leaseholder companies. As previously discussed in section VI. Discussion of Proposed Rule, vessels would be free to transit along other routes outside the proposed fairways and we expect vessels would continue to operate as they have historically. Since this NPRM would not impact existing vessel behavior, the Coast Guard determined that there are no costs associated to vessel operators; therefore, costs were not further evaluated. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the docket at the address listed in the
This proposed rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
There are no relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this NPRM.
The Coast Guard identified three alternatives for this proposed rule as identified earlier in the
We are interested in the potential impacts from this proposed rule on small businesses and we request public comment on these potential impacts. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the docket at the address listed in the
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule, so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning the proposed rule's provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This proposed rule would call for no new or revised collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, nor would it impact any existing collection of information.
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows.
It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. Title 46, Sections 70001 and 70034 of the U.S.C. make it clear that the Coast Guard has the sole authority “to construct, operate, maintain, improve, or expand vessel traffic services,” which include fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas. This authority extends to the ability to issue regulations to implement such services.
While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole administrator of such services, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that State and local governments may have in making regulatory determinations. Additionally, for rules with federalism implications and preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs agencies to consult with State and local governments during the rulemaking process. If you believe this proposed rule would have implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, please call or email the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Although this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights).
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, (Civil Justice Reform), to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks). This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule may have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), because it may have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. In accordance with DHS' Tribal Consultation Policy, the Coast Guard will initiate a process of meaningful and timely consultation with federally recognized Tribes to determine the impact of the proposed rule on Tribal concerns. This process involves four steps: (1) preparation and identification of Tribes directly affected and issues, (2) a notification of consultation to potentially affected Tribal Nations, (3) receiving Tribal input and adjudicating that input, and (4) follow-up to explain how the results of the consultation were incorporated.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because although it is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. While it is true that this proposed rule could have impacts on BOEM's effort to promulgate renewable energy lease areas on the Atlantic OCS, the Coast Guard has worked closely with BOEM throughout the rulemaking process to ensure that this proposed rule would not create inconsistency or interfere with BOEM's leasing efforts.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under DHS Management Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq). The Coast Guard will conduct an EIS to evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with this proposal and will provide documentation for public
The large geographic scope of the project area poses challenges for the Coast Guard's environmental evaluations, due to the number of species that occur in the project area, the variety of issues in play that are evaluated as part of the Coast Guard's NEPA assessment, and the number of stakeholder entities with whom the Coast Guard will consult or coordinate. To address these challenges, the Coast Guard is publishing this NPRM without the draft NEPA document that usually accompanies a NPRM. Continued public input will help the Coast Guard identify a reasonable number of alternatives to explore during the environmental review process. The Coast Guard's environmental coordination for this rulemaking will include coordination with State and Federal agencies, and federally recognized Tribes pursuant to several cultural resource and environmental statutes (including NEPA, ESA, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, CZMA, and MMPA).
This proposed rule involves possibly establishing and codifying fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas based on existing vessel traffic patterns at key transportation nodes to major domestic ports along the Atlantic Coast of the United States. The proposed navigation safety corridors presented in this NPRM are informed by ACPARS as expanded upon by the consolidated PARS supplemental efforts. This system of fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas is intended to ensure that traditional navigation routes are kept free from fixed and affixed structures that could impact navigation safety. These fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas would support the Coast Guard's Ports and Waterways Safety; Aids to Navigation; Marine Safety; and Marine Environmental Protection missions by identifying safe and efficient traffic schemes to serve vessels moving to or among Atlantic Coast ports, thereby reducing opportunities for incidents that could result in casualties or environmental damage. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
Anchorage grounds, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Waterways.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR parts 166 and 167 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70001, 70003; DHS Delegation No. 00170.0, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(70).
(b)
(1) Long Island Fairway. The area enclosed by rhumb lines, joining points at:
(2) Nantucket to Ambrose Fairway. The area enclosed by rhumb lines, joining points at:
(3) Hudson Canyon to Ambrose Eastern Fairway. The area enclosed by rhumb lines, joining points at:
(4) Hudson Canyon to Ambrose Southeastern approach Fairway. The area enclosed by rhumb lines, joining points at:
(5) Barnegat to Narragansett Fairway. The area enclosed by rhumb lines, joining points at:
(6) New Jersey to New York Connector Fairway. The area enclosed by rhumb lines, joining points at:
(7) St. Lucie to New York Fairway. The area enclosed by rhumb lines, joining points at:
(8) Offshore Delaware Bay to New Jersey Connector Fairway. The area enclosed by rhumb lines, joining points at:
(9) Delaware Bay Fairway Anchorage. The area enclosed by rhumb lines, joining points at:
(10) Cape Charles to Delaware Bay Fairway. The area enclosed by rhumb lines, joining points at:
(11) Chesapeake Bay to Delaware Bay: Eastern approach Cutoff Fairway. The area enclosed by rhumb lines, joining points at:
(12) Chesapeake Bay approach Connector-North Fairway. The area enclosed by rhumb lines, joining points at:
(13) Chesapeake Bay Approach Connector—South Fairway. The area enclosed by rhumb lines, joining points at:
(14) Hatteras to Chesapeake Bay Offshore Fairway. The area enclosed by rhumb lines, joining points at:
(15) Hatteras to Chesapeake Bay Nearshore Fairway. The area enclosed by rhumb lines, joining points at:
(16) St. Lucie to Hatteras Fairway. The area enclosed by rhumb lines, joining points at:
(17) Beaufort Inlet Connector Fairway. The area enclosed by rhumb lines, joining points at:
(18) Cape Fear River Southeastern approach Connector Fairway. The area enclosed by rhumb lines, joining points at:
(19) Cape Fear River Southwestern approach Connector Fairway. The area enclosed by rhumb lines, joining points at:
46 U.S.C. 70001, 70003; DHS Delegation No. 00170.0, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(70).
(c) A precautionary area is established as follows: from 39°42.92′ N, 73°54.53′ W; then northerly to 39°53.17′ N, 73°53.35′ W; then northeasterly to 39°57.63′ N, 73°40.41′ W; then southeasterly to 39°48.35′ N, 73°38.28′ W; then southwesterly to 39°42.92′ N, 73°54.53′ W.
(d) A precautionary area is established as follows: from 40°01.53′ N, 72°58.88′ W; then southwesterly to 39°55.23′ N, 73°17.71′ W; then northwesterly to 40°02.41′ N, 73°26.55′ W; then northeasterly to 40°09.02′ N, 73°10.82′ W; then southeasterly to 40°01.53′ N, 72°58.88′ W.
(a) A separation zone is established bounded by a line connecting the following geographic positions:
(b) A traffic lane for westbound traffic is established between the separation zone and a line connecting the following geographic positions:
(c) A traffic lane for eastbound traffic is established between the separation zone and a line connecting the following geographic positions:
(d) A separation zone is established bound by a line connecting the following geographic positions:
(e) A traffic lane for westbound traffic is established between the separation zone and a line connecting the following geographic positions:
(f) A traffic lane for eastbound traffic is established between the separation zone and a line connecting the following geographic positions
(a) A separation zone is established bounded by a line connecting the following geographic positions:
(b) A traffic lane for north-westbound traffic is established between separation zone and a line connecting the following geographic positions:
(c) A traffic lane for south-eastbound traffic is established between the separation zone and a line connecting the following geographic positions:
(a) A precautionary area is established as follows: from 38°42.80′ N, 74°58.90′ W; then southeasterly to 38°37.25′ N, 74°54.15′ W; then northeasterly to 38°48.89′ N, 74°47.29′ W; then westerly to 38°48.31′ N, 74°55.39′ W; then westerly to 38°47.50′ N, 75°01.80′ W; then northerly to 38°50.75′ N, 75°03.40′ W; then northeasterly to 38°51.27′ N, 75°02.83′ W; then northerly to 38°54.80′ N, 75°01.60′ W; then westerly by an arc of 6.7 nautical miles centered at 38°48.90′ N, 75°05.60′ W to 38°55.53′ N, 75°05.87′ W; then southwesterly to 38°54.00′ N, 75°08.00′ W; then southerly to 38°46.60′ N, 75°03.55′ W; then southeasterly to 38°42.80′ N, 74°58.90′ W.
(b) A precautionary area is established as follows: from 38°49.80′ N, 74°33.91′ W; then easterly to 38°49.79′ N, 74°28.74′ W; then southerly to 38°44.44′ N, 74°28.15′ W; then westerly to 38°44.45′ N, 74°33.32′ W; then northerly to 38°49.80′ N, 74°33.91′ W.
(c) A precautionary area is established with a radius of 5 nautical miles centered upon geographical position 38°46.79′ N, 74°06.60′ W, the areas within the separation zones, traffic lanes, and fairways excluded.
(d) A precautionary area is established with a radius of 10 nautical miles centered upon geographical position 38°10.02′ N, 74°25.34′ W, the areas within the separation zones, traffic lanes, and fairways excluded.
The additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(b) A precautionary area is established as follows: from 36°58.25′ N, 75°48.44′ W; then easterly by an arc of 5 nautical miles centered at 36°59.06′ N, 75°42.28′ W to 36°59.27′ N, 75°36.04′ W; then southerly to 36°47.20′ N, 75°35.35′ W; then westerly by an arc of 5 nautical miles centered around 36°46.98′ N, 075°41.58′ W to 36°48.21′ N, 075°47.61′ W; then northerly to 36°48.87′ N, 075°47.42′ W; then northeasterly to 36°50.33′ N, 075°46.29′ W; then northerly to 36°57.04′ N, 075°48.01′ W; then northwesterly to 36°57.94′ N, 075°48.41′ W; then northerly to 36°58.25′ N, 75°48.44′ W.
(b) A precautionary area is established as follows: from 33°36.22′ N, 078°17.30′ W; then easterly by an arc of 5.2 nautical miles centered at 33°32.99′ N, 078°12.10′ W; to 33°32.75′ N, 078°05.99′ W; then westerly to 33°32.75′ N, 078°09.66′ W; then northwesterly to 33°34.50′ N, 078°14.70′ W; then northwesterly to 33°36.22′ N, 078°17.30′ W.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky through the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet (Cabinet) on June 13, 2022. The changes were submitted by the Cabinet on behalf of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (District, also referred to herein as Jefferson County). EPA is proposing to approve changes to the District's rules on the construction or modification of major stationary sources that are located within nonattainment areas or that have emissions impacting nonattainment areas. EPA also is proposing to approve the certification submitted by Kentucky on behalf of the District that the new version of the Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) permitting regulations proposed for incorporation into the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP meets the NNSR nonattainment planning requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The certification covers the Jefferson County portion of the Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana multi-state nonattainment area for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This action is proposed pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and its implementing regulations.
Comments must be received on or before February 20, 2024.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2021-0691 at
Pearlene Williams-Miles, Multi-Air Pollutant Coordination Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9144. Ms. Williams-Miles can also be reached via electronic mail at
The New Source Review (NSR) program is a preconstruction permitting program that requires certain stationary sources of air pollution to obtain permits prior to beginning construction.
The NSR permitting program applies to sources located in an area where the NAAQS have been exceeded (nonattainment area), areas where the NAAQS have not been exceeded (attainment), and areas that are unclassifiable. However, the demonstration that must be made to obtain a permit and the conditions of such permits are different for nonattainment and attainment/unclassifiable areas. Thus, the pollutant(s) at issue and the air quality designation of the area where the facility is located or proposed to be built determine the specific permitting requirements.
A new stationary source is subject to major NSR requirements if its potential to emit a regulated NSR pollutant exceeds certain emission thresholds. If it exceeds an applicable threshold, the NSR regulations define it as a “major stationary source.”
Jefferson County is located within a nonattainment area for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The Commonwealth has proposed changes to Regulation 2.04—
Based on Jefferson County's nonattainment designation for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, Kentucky was required to develop a SIP revision addressing the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173 for this nonattainment area. Section 172(c)(5) requires each state with a nonattainment area to submit a SIP revision requiring NNSR permits in the nonattainment area in accordance with the permitting requirements of CAA section 173.
On June 13, 2022, Kentucky submitted a SIP revision
The Jefferson County June 13, 2022, SIP revision includes changes to Jefferson County's NNSR permitting regulations to align those regulations with the federal requirements for NNSR permitting in 40 CFR 51.165. Specifically, these changes update Jefferson County's Regulation 2.04—
Since the last time EPA approved amendments to Regulation 2.04, EPA has updated the federal NNSR regulations in 40 CFR 51.165 to clarify provisions, provide greater regulatory certainty, and provide administrative flexibility while correcting certain errors in the NNSR regulations that had accumulated over time. Jefferson County's requested SIP revision replaces the District's NNSR regulations largely in their entirety with a new version that reflects changes to the federal NNSR regulations at 40 CFR 51.165, including provisions promulgated in the following federal rules:
• “Requirements for Preparation, Adoption and Submittal of Implementation Plans; Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources,” Final Rule, 57 FR 32314 (July 21, 1992) (generally referred to as the Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO) Rule);
• “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR): Baseline Emissions Determination, Actual-to-Future-Actual Methodology, Plantwide Applicability Limitations, Clean Units, Pollution Control Projects,” Final Rule, 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002) (generally referred to as the NSR Reform Rule);
• “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Non-Attainment New Source Review (NSR): Reconsideration,” Final Rule, 68 FR 63021 (November 7, 2003) (generally referred to as the Reconsideration Rule);
• “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Non-Attainment New Source Review (NSR): Removal of Vacated Elements,” Final Rule, 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (generally referred to as the Vacated Elements Rule);
• “Prevention of Significant Deterioration, Nonattainment New Source Review, and Title V: Treatment of Certain Ethanol Production Facilities Under the `Major Emitting Facility' Definition”, 72 FR 24060 (July 2, 2007) (generally referred to as the Ethanol Rule);
• “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review: Reasonable Possibility in Recordkeeping,” Final Rule, 72 FR 72607 (December 21, 2007), (generally referred to as the Reasonable Possibility Rule);
• “Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule To Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated Gasoline,” Final Rule, 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005) (generally referred to as the Phase 2 Rule);
• “Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM
• “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM
• “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR): Reconsideration of Inclusion of Fugitive Emissions; Interim Rule; Stay and Revisions”, Interim Rule, 76 FR 17548 (March 30, 2011) (generally referred to as the Fugitive Emissions Interim Rule);
• “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR): Project Emissions Accounting”, 85 FR 74890 (November 24, 2020) (generally referred to as the Project Emissions Accounting Rule); and
• “New Source Review Regulations; Correction”, 86 FR 37918 (July 19, 2021) (generally referred to as the NSR Corrections Rule).
Additional information regarding each of the above-described rules is available within the
The proposed definitions in
New definitions are added in
Certain definitions were also revised to remove outdated terminology and align the rules with the Federal regulations at 40 CFR 51.165. EPA is proposing to approve these definitional revisions, except that EPA is not proposing at this time to approve into the SIP the following phrase in the definition at 1.4.3.20 originating from the Ethanol Rule: “—The term chemical processing plant shall not include ethanol production facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation included in NAICS codes 325193 or 312140”. The remaining definitions (
Jefferson County has a longstanding and fully implemented NNSR program that establishes air quality permitting requirements for the construction or modification of major stationary sources located within areas designated as nonattainment. The program, found at Jefferson County Regulation 2.04,
As revised, Regulation 2.04 provides requirements for the 2015 ozone moderate nonattainment area for Jefferson County and remains adequate to meet all applicable NNSR requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is therefore proposing to approve the District's certification, submitted on its behalf by Kentucky, that Jefferson County Regulation 2.04, as proposed for incorporation into the SIP, meets the NNSR requirements for implementation of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Section 110(l) of the CAA requires that a revision to the SIP not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act. As noted above, since the last time EPA approved amendments to Regulation 2.04, with a local effective date of March 17, 1993, EPA has updated the Federal NNSR regulations in 40 CFR 51.165 several times. These revisions include NSR Reform and the related Reasonable Possibility Provisions implemented through the December 31, 2002, final rule (67 FR 80186), with revisions per the November 7, 2003, final rule (68 FR 63021), the June 13, 2007, final rule (72 FR 32526), and the December 21, 2007, final rule (72 FR 72607) along with the adoption of the Project Emissions Accounting Rule. 85 FR 74890 (November 24, 2020). The District's updates to Regulation 2.04 are intended to align its NNSR rules with EPA's current NNSR rules in 40 CFR 51.165. As discussed below, EPA's proposed approval of the District's Regulation 2.04 into the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP is consistent with CAA section 110(l) and CAA section 193.
EPA's national analysis in support of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules indicates that the non-vacated provisions of the NSR Reform Rules will have a neutral or beneficial impact. The three significant changes in the 2002 NSR Reform Rules are: (1) PALs, (2) the 2-in-10 baseline, and (3) the actual-to-projected-actual applicability test. EPA's Supplemental Environmental Analysis of the Impact of the 2002 Final NSR Improvement Rules (November 21, 2002) (Supplemental Analysis)
With regard to PALs, the Supplemental Analysis explains, “EPA expects that the adoption of PAL provisions will result in a net environmental benefit. Our experience to date is that the emissions caps found in PAL-type permits result in real emissions reductions, as well as other benefits.” Supplemental Analysis, pg. 6. EPA further explained that, while it is difficult to quantify the emissions reductions associated with PALs, the PAL program will likely result in tens of thousands of tons of reductions of VOC from source categories where frequent operational changes are made, where these changes are time sensitive, and where there are opportunities for economical air pollution control measures. These reductions occur because by creating a tons per year plantwide emissions limit for a regulated NSR pollutant, sources have an incentive to control existing and new units in order to provide room under the cap such that the source can undertake subsequent operational changes over the life of the PAL. Supplemental Analysis, pg. 7. The Supplemental Analysis, and particularly Appendix B, provides additional details regarding EPA's analysis of PALs and anticipated associated emissions decreases.
With regard to the 2-in-10 baseline (see 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxv)(B)), EPA concluded that “the environmental impact from the change in baseline EPA is now finalizing will not result in any significant change in benefits derived from the NSR program.” Supplemental Analysis at 13. This is mainly because “the number of sources receiving different baselines likely represents a very small fraction of the overall NSR permit universe, excludes new sources and coal fired power plants, and because the baseline may shift in either direction, we conclude that any overall consequences would be negligible.” Supplemental Analysis, pg. 14. Additional information regarding the 2-in-10 baseline changes is available in the Supplemental Analysis, Appendix F.
With regard to the actual-to-projected-actual test, EPA concluded, “We believe that the environmental impacts of the switch to the actual-to-projected actual test are likely to be environmentally beneficial. However, as with the change to the baseline, we believe the vast majority of sources, including new sources, new units, electric utility steam generating units, and units that actually increase emissions as a result of a change, will be unaffected by this change. Thus, the overall impacts of the NSR changes are likely to be environmentally beneficial, but only to a small extent.” Supplemental Analysis, pg. 14 (see also Supplemental Analysis Appendix G). EPA has no reason to believe that the environmental impacts will be substantially different from those discussed in the Supplemental Analysis for the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. Therefore, adopting the NSR Reform provisions into the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP is consistent with CAA section 110(l).
Regarding the adoption of the Project Emissions Accounting (PEA) Rule, as EPA noted in the response to comments document for the PEA Rule, “implementation of [the PEA Rule] will not cause states to violate the anti-backsliding requirements of the Clean Air Act. Allowing for PEA is consistent with the intent of the 2002 NSR Reform Rule and is more consistent with the Act than implementing Step 1 without PEA. That is because PEA would not subject a project which does not significantly increase emissions in and of itself, or actually result in a decrease [in] emissions, from being subject to NSR.”
Section 193 of the CAA prohibits modification of any control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990, in a current nonattainment area, unless the modification “insures equivalent or greater emissions reductions.” Section 193 does not apply here because the state-effective date of Louisville's Regulation 2.04 is March 17, 1993. Additionally, EPA anticipates a neutral to positive air quality benefit from adoption of these rules, and therefore these rules will ensure “equivalent or greater emission reductions” of air pollution in accordance with CAA section 193.
In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as discussed in Sections I and II of this preamble, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Jefferson County Regulation 2.04, Version 8, “
EPA is proposing to approve changes to the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP, submitted on June 13, 2022, with the exception of the ethanol production facilities exclusion in Regulations 1.4.3.20 and 5.20, which EPA is not proposing to act on at this time. These revisions will align Jefferson County Regulation 2.04, with Federal NNSR regulations at 40 CFR 51.165. Additionally, EPA is proposing to approve Jefferson County's certification of NNSR requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Jefferson County portion of the Louisville, KY-IN 2015 ozone moderate nonattainment area which meets the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173 and 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.1314. EPA has determined that the requested changes in Kentucky's June 13, 2022, SIP revision will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.”
Jefferson County evaluated EJ considerations as part of its SIP submittal even though the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require an evaluation. The analysis was done for the purpose of providing additional context and information about this proposed rulemaking to the public, not as a basis of the proposed action. EPA is proposing action under the CAA on bases independent of Jefferson County's evaluation of EJ. In addition, there is no information in the record upon which this decision is based that is inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve Indiana's September 21, 2023, state implementation plan (SIP) submission which revises the 2008 ozone maintenance plan for the Indiana Portion (Lake and Porter Counties) of the Chicago Naperville, IL-IN-WI area. This SIP submission updates onroad vehicle emissions inventories for oxides of nitrogen (NO
Comments must be received on or before February 20, 2024.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2023-0482 at
Emily Crispell, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8512,
In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the State of New York's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) related to a Source-specific SIP (SSSIP) revision for Finch Paper LLC, located at 1 Glen Street, Glens Falls, New York (Facility). The control options in this SSSIP revision address nitrogen oxide (NO
Comments must be received on or before March 19, 2024.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket Number EPA-R02-OAR-2022-0714, at
Linda Longo, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-3565, or by email at
For additional information on regulatory background and the EPA's technical findings relating to the Facility RACT, the reader can refer to the Technical Support Document (TSD) that is contained in the EPA docket assigned to this
Ground level ozone is predominantly a secondary air pollutant created by chemical reactions that occur when ozone precursors, including nitrogen oxides (NO
Nonattainment for ground level ozone is defined as a geographic area of the United States that is not meeting the primary or secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. Nonattainment areas are classified as either marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme. Currently, the EPA has two ozone NAAQS in effect. First, on March 12, 2008, the EPA promulgated a revision to the ozone NAAQS, lowering both the primary and secondary standards to 75 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time frame (2008 8-hour Ozone Standard).
The State of New York has two ozone nonattainment areas: (1) Jamestown, and (2) the New York Metro Area
RACT is defined as the lowest emission limit that a source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility. The CAA section 182, Plan Submissions and Requirements, requires states with ozone nonattainment areas to include in their statewide SIPs, among other things, provisions to require the implementation of RACT. The State of New York is located within the OTR, which triggers the statewide RACT requirements. The CAA section 184(a) addresses RACT requirements for nonattainment areas located in the OTR and the CAA section 176A sets forth requirements to establish control measures for NO
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) RACT regulations require applicable facilities to meet presumptive RACT requirements. The presumptive requirements may include, but are not limited to, emission limits, control efficiency requirements, specific control technologies, averaging plans, and fuel/raw material switching. In some instances, the presumptive RACT requirements may not be achievable and a source-specific RACT determination can be granted by the state and submitted to the EPA as a SSSIP. The SSSIP will include the facility's RACT plan that demonstrates how RACT might be achievable. The SSSIP will also include CAA title V operating permit conditions for the RACT requirements. These permit conditions for the facility will become Federally enforceable upon EPA approval of the SSSIP.
The RACT determination required under existing NYSDEC RACT regulations assess all technologically feasible control options that meet the state's cost threshold. The cost threshold for NYSDEC RACT requirements is found under the NYSDEC 2013 policy, “DAR-20 Economic and Technical Analysis for Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT).” Under this policy, facilities must consider in their RACT determinations technologies that achieve a dollar amount per ton of NO
This action relates to a SSSIP revision that concerns a Facility that produces paper products. The paper manufacturing processes include pulp preparation, paper machines, acid recovery, bleaching operations, and wastewater facilities. The sources at issue in this action are the Facility's four power boilers, one wood-waste boiler, and four recovery boilers. NYSDEC RACT regulations establish presumptive RACT requirements for these sources in (1) 6 NYCRR part 227, “Stationary Combustion Installations”, subpart 227-2, “Reasonably Available Control Technology for Major Facilities of Oxides of Nitrogen”, last approved by the EPA on July 12, 2013.
This SSSIP was submitted by NYSDEC on May 24, 2022, and it replaces and withdraws the SSSIP that was submitted by the State on September 16, 2008. As to this more recent SSSIP submittal, the EPA has reviewed the RACT determination for the four power boilers, one wood-waste boiler, and four recovery boilers for consistency with the CAA and the EPA regulations, as interpreted through EPA actions and guidance.
The intended effect of this Source-specific SIP revision is to establish: (1) Source-specific emission limits and RACT control options for four large power boilers where the presumptive NO
The EPA is proposing to determine through this SSSIP action that the NO
The following is a summary of the EPA's analysis of how the proposed NO
The Facility's power boilers are subject to the presumptive limit of 0.15 pounds NO
NYSDEC reviewed the case-by-case analysis and determined that the submitted emission limits did comprise RACT for the power boilers. Specifically, NYSDEC approved the following source specific emission limits after determining they comprised RACT for this source: (1) Compliance measured using predictive emission monitoring system (PEMS) for 0.225 NO
EPA is proposing to also determine that these limits comprise RACT for this source because: (1) The analysis developed by the source and approved by the State demonstrate that the presumptive RACT limits cannot be met; (2) the RACT analysis showed that no control technology beyond what is currently used at the power boilers is technically and economically feasible; (3) The power boilers do not operate at all times because they are swing boilers that operate only when the supporting boiler networks (wood waste and recovery) are operating close to load capacity or when the boiler networks not in operation; the power boilers are used to maintain steam rates for the paper operations; (4) compliance will be determined using PEMS which has been determined to be the equivalent to continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) for this source; (5) compliance will be based on a daily calculation of the boiler steaming rates and emission rate curves developed for each boiler averaged monthly; while the 30-day average is a deviation from the presumptive 1-hour average, this is supported to be RACT for this source as demonstrated in the case-by-case justification. Further details explaining how EPA made these determinations is provided in the TSD available in the docket for this rulemaking.
The 4 power boilers (boiler Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5) produce steam during cold weather (non-ozone season) and have a non-ozone season load limit with 0.375 lb/mmBtu NO
The 30-day average is a deviation from the presumptive 1-hour averaging time under subpart 227-2.4(b). Because of the “swing” function of the power boilers, the 1-hour averaging is not economically or technologically feasible. As explained in the prior section and in the TSD available in the docket for this rulemaking, based on the case-by-case RACT analysis provided by the source, NYSDEC has determined, and EPA is herein proposing to approve, the use of PEMS instead of CEMS for the boilers. A PEMS calculates NO
The power boilers No. 2 and No. 3 have been retrofitted with Low NO
In order to determine what NO
The Facility operates one wood waste boiler, identified as boiler No. 9, that primarily combusts wood waste and can fire natural gas. The wood waste boiler is subject to 6 NYCRR subpart 227-2.4(b)(2). Wood is not one of the approved fuel types under 6 NYCRR subpart 227-2.4(b)(1)(ii) (
NYSDEC determined that the following emission limits comprise RACT for the wood waste boiler: 0.28 lbs of NO
EPA believes that the proposed limit for the wood waste boiler comprises RACT because the re-evaluated RACT analysis demonstrated that no new control technologies have become available that would be economically and technologically achievable for this boiler. Further detail on this analysis is available in the TSD available in the docket for this rulemaking.
The Facility operates four recovery boilers (boiler IO, and Nos. 6, 7, 8) that have a primary purpose to burn spent sulfite cooking liquor from the paper pulping process to recover sulfur dioxide and reuse it to make more cooking liquor. The recovery boilers are subject to Federally approved RACT regulations under 6 NYCRR part 212 because they are a process source unlike the Facility's power boilers or wood waste boiler which are combustion sources subject to part 227-2.
NYSDEC determined that the following emission limits comprise RACT for the four recovery boilers: 464 parts per million (corrected to 7% oxygen) that emit through a single common stack. The emission limit is calculated on a monthly block average. NO
EPA believes that the proposed limit for the recovery boilers comprises RACT because the re-evaluated RACT analysis demonstrated that costs for adding additional controls are beyond what is considered economically feasible for purposes of RACT. Further detail on this analysis is available in the TSD available in the docket for this rulemaking.
The CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require an environmental justice evaluation and so the State of New York did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SSSIP submittal. The EPA performed an environmental justice analysis for the purpose of transparency about this rulemaking to the public and the analysis is not provided for the basis of this action. The EPA created a Community Report (Report) using its EJ Screen, Version 2.2. The Report is contained in the EPA docket assigned to this
The Report represents a 1-mile ring centered at the Facility. All thirteen EJ Screen environmental indexes were considered for the Report: (1) Particulate matter; (2) ozone; (3) diesel particulate matter; (4) air toxics cancer risks; (5) air toxics respiratory health index; (6) toxics releases to air; (7) traffic proximity; (8) lead paint; (9) superfund proximity; (10) risk management plan (RMP) facility proximity; (11) hazardous waste proximity; (12) underground storage tanks; and (13) wastewater discharge. Both the EJ Indexes and the Supplemental Indexes were verified using the thirteen environmental indexes. The difference between the EJ and Supplemental indexes is that the EJ Indexes combine data on low income and people of color populations and the Supplemental Indexes combine data on percent low-income, percent linguistically isolated, percent less than high school education, percent unemployed, and low life expectancy. We analyze both EJ Indexes and Supplemental Indexes because they offer different perspectives on community level vulnerability based on different factors. We also consider all environmental indexes since the effects of different forms of pollution might accumulate upon each other. The EPA uses the National percentile for the Report results and not the State percentile since this SSSIP action is a Federal action. The EPA brings to your attention any environmental index result that is 80 percentile or greater because environmental indexes at this level are relatively high compared to the United States population. The “percentile” is what EJ Screen uses to compare the area of study to national figures.
The Report results in no National EJ Indexes above 80th percentile. The
The EPA is proposing that the current Source-specific SIP revision is approvable because the limits included in the SSSIP are demonstrated to be RACT for the power boilers, wood waste boiler and the recovery boilers. Based on a thorough RBLC review of similar sources, consultation with NYSDEC and an analysis of this Source-specific SIP revision, the EPA proposes to approve Finch Paper LLC's operation under the NYSDEC approved NO
Specifically, the EPA proposes to approve the following: (1) Emission unit 3-00000, four power boilers, at 0.225 NO
In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to Finch Paper LLC title V operating permit conditions 1-1, 47, and 60 as described in section II. of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards.
In addition, the SIP is not proposing to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and it will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.” resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.”
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SSSIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA performed an environmental justice analysis, as is described above in the section titled, “Environmental Justice Considerations.” The analysis was done for the purpose of providing additional context and information about this rulemaking to the public, not as a basis of the action. In addition, there is no information in the record upon which this decision is based inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Video Division, Media Bureau (Bureau), has before it a petition for rulemaking filed January 9, 2024, by VPM Media Corporation (Petitioner). The Petitioner requests the allotment of reserved noncommercial educational (NCE) television channel *12 to Waynesboro, Virginia (Waynesboro), as the community's first local television service and its first NCE television service.
Comments must be filed on or before February 20, 2024 and reply comments on or before March 4, 2024.
Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for the Petitioner as follows: Ari Meltzer, Wiley Rein LLP, 2050 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20036.
Emily Harrison, Media Bureau, at (202) 418-1665; or Emily Harrison, Media Bureau, at
The Petitioner states that Waynesboro qualifies as a community for allotment purposes. In support, it states that Waynesboro is an independent and principal city of the Staunton-Waynesboro Metropolitan Statistical Area. As of the 2020 Census, Waynesboro had a population of 22,196 and the Staunton-Waynesboro Statistical Area had a population of 125,654. In addition, Waynesboro has its own ZIP Code, two post offices, city council, public school system, police department, and library. The Petitioner states its intention to file an application for channel *12 if allotted, and take all necessary steps to obtain a construction permit.
We find the proposed amendment to the Table of TV Allotments warrants consideration. The Petitioner's proposal would result in a first local service to Waynesboro under the second priority of the Commission's television allotment priority standard. The Petitioner demonstrates, and a Bureau staff engineering analysis confirms, that channel *12 can be allotted to Waynesboro, consistent with the minimum geographic spacing requirements for new allotments in section 73.623(d) of the Commission's rules (Rules), at 37°38′24″ N and 78°27′11″ W (allotment point). In addition, the allotment point complies with section 73.625(a)(1) of the Rules as the entire community of Waynesboro is encompassed by the proposed 43 dBμ contour.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's
This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
Members of the public should note that all
Television.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339.
(j) * * *
Department of State.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comment.
The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA) and other related statutes, such as the FREEDOM Support Act, the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962, and the SEED Act of 1989, authorize the U.S. Department of State (Department of State, State, or Department) to provide foreign assistance that seeks to support efforts that would have the effect of protecting and promoting U.S. security, prosperity, and democratic values and shape an international environment to improve the lives of people around the world. To implement the Department's expectation of nondiscrimination against beneficiaries of Department-funded foreign assistance activities, the Department is proposing to amend its Department of State Acquisition Regulation (DOSAR) to include a new
The Department of State will accept comments until March 19, 2024.
Submit comments, identified by title of the action and Regulatory Information Number (RIN) by any of the following methods:
• Through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
•
• The summary of this rule can be found at
Direct requests for additional information regarding this notice to Hilary Schroeder, who may be reached at (202) 890-9798 or at
The inclusion and equitable treatment of all individuals, organizations, and communities relevant to Department foreign assistance programs is critical to achieving effective, comprehensive, and sustainable foreign assistance results because it enhances the participation, contributions, and access of the target population. As such, the Department seeks to ensure access for all eligible beneficiaries of the target population within the scope of its foreign assistance contracts without discrimination. Because of this premise, which underpins all of the Department's programs, the Department is embedding equity across its foreign affairs work and raising the visibility of inequities globally by providing equal opportunities for all eligible individuals, including members of minority groups and members of other underserved communities, through its foreign assistance programs. The Department seeks to improve the lives of people around the world by being inclusive and equitable in its foreign assistance efforts, including its evaluation of responses to requests for proposal, solicitations, etc.
The Department is committed to a nondiscrimination policy in its projects and activities and welcomes proposals irrespective of an offeror's race, ethnicity, color, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, sex characteristics, pregnancy, national origin, disability, age, genetic information, indigeneity, marital status, parental status, political affiliation, or veteran's status. The Department seeks to ensure that foreign assistance proposals that demonstrate that the recipients would not, in implementation of a potential contract, discriminate against any beneficiaries of foreign assistance funds based on any of the factors listed above—unless otherwise expressly authorized in the contract or otherwise required by U.S. law in implementation of a potential contract. Discrimination in implementation of an award could include adversely impacting, or denying equitable access to the benefits provided through the contract.
Establishing clear and meaningful nondiscrimination protections in Department of State foreign assistance awards advances U.S. foreign policy by ensuring that U.S. foreign assistance is inclusive and equitable by reaching all intended beneficiaries, and efficiently accomplishing its intended objectives. U.S. foreign assistance funding is less effective and efficient when discrimination prevents assistance from reaching those who might most benefit from such assistance—which hinders U.S. foreign policy by excluding individuals that the United States intended to receive such assistance.
Nondiscrimination protections require a tangible incentive for organizations to take affirmative steps to commit to nondiscrimination and extend protection to employees and beneficiaries of foreign assistance. Nondiscrimination protections send a strong signal to people around the world that equity and inclusion are values that the United States takes seriously. They complement and affirm other commitments to equality in U.S. foreign policy, maximizing their coherence and effectiveness.
Nondiscrimination principles and protections are essential in protecting and advancing the human rights of all persons and ensuring equitable access to foreign assistance programs. Contractors must adhere to this requirement by performing the activities as outlined in the contract SOWs.
In recent years, the U.S. government has issued multiple policy pronouncements emphasizing equity, fairness, and human dignity. Effective nondiscrimination protections for beneficiaries of foreign assistance are a means toward achieving these objectives. For example, in 2021, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13985 on “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” which mandates embedding equity in government programming and decision-making processes of every department and agency in the Executive Branch”; and in 2023, the President issued E.O. 14091, “Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government. Furthermore, in 2011, the President issued E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” which, in addition to quantitative factors, advised that the qualitative values of equity, fairness, and human dignity are important considerations in agencies' rulemaking.
This rulemaking proposes to revise (48 CFR) DOSAR Part 625 to add new requirements, at 625.7101, 625.7102, and 625.7103 outlining the policy against nondiscrimination in Department of State foreign assistance contracts. In addition, the rulemaking proposes to add a clause at 652.225-72, entitled “
The purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to ensure effective implementation of foreign assistance programs consistent with U.S. foreign policy and the purposes of the FAA. Section 101 of the FAA provides that: “[T]he Congress reaffirms the traditional humanitarian ideals of the American people and renews its commitment to assist people in developing countries to eliminate hunger, poverty, illness, and ignorance.” 22 U.S.C. 2151(a).
The main effect of the proposed clause is to ensure that contractors adhere to State's policy and practice of nondiscrimination in planning foreign assistance projects and activities, and State's policy and practice of nondiscrimination is followed through to completion by the contractors that
Under the statutory regime governing foreign assistance, and consistent with his responsibilities regarding the conduct of U.S. foreign affairs, the President has broad discretion to set the terms and conditions on which the United States provides such assistance. Many of the authorities provided under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and similar statutes, explicitly allow for the provision of assistance “on such terms and conditions as [the President] may determine.”
The FAA provides that “[t]he President may exercise any functions conferred upon him by this Act through such agency or officer of the United States Government as he shall direct. The head of any such agency or such officer may from time to time promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out such functions. . . .” 22 U.S.C. 2381(a). The Secretary of State exercises authorities under the FAA as delegated by the President in Executive Order 12163, dated September 29, 1979, as amended. That includes the President's authority to “issue and enforce regulations determining the eligibility of any person to receive funds made available under” the FAA. 22 U.S.C. 2381(b).
These proposed rules fall within the Department's authority, delegated to it by the President, to set conditions on the provision of foreign assistance, including on the implementers of such assistance. Courts have repeatedly recognized that the President has extremely broad discretion in the conduct of foreign affairs to allocate foreign assistance funding for particular programs and to set the conditions on U.S. funding to implementers of those programs.
Consistent with this broad authority, the Department and other agencies have imposed a range of requirements on foreign assistance awards. For example, the Department utilizes contract-specific terms and conditions from time to time when necessitated by policy and priorities, such as restrictions on allowed activities and implementation areas/countries.
Moreover, the Secretary has the authority to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out his functions and the functions of the Department of State.
Finally, in the event that any portion of the proposed rule as finalized is declared invalid, the Department intends that the various aspects be severable. The Department would intend the remaining features of the policy to stand.
This proposed rule is published for public comment pursuant to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 1707). The Department is publishing this proposed rulemaking for a comment period of 60 days.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866, 13563, and 14094 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of the intended regulation. E.O. 13563 allows that in making this assessment, an agency “may consider (and discuss qualitatively) values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.” The Department has submitted this rulemaking to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review. OIRA has designated this rulemaking a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866, as amended.
This rule provides a benefit by promoting nondiscrimination in Department of State foreign assistance, which itself promotes programmatic efficiency, with minimal administrative burden anticipated for the affected entities, Department contractors and subcontractors. It does not require them to carry out activities beyond those in their contract SOWs and terms and conditions. The Department anticipates that the benefits of the proposed rule are realized by (1) ensuring that contract solicitations and resulting contracts clearly notify that discrimination on bases in the rule will not excuse the contractor from performing the foreign assistance funded work; (2) by avoiding proposal evaluation costs arising from contractors who are unwilling to provide supplies and services to all intended recipients; (3) by helping to
Potential costs the Department identifies for contractors and subcontractors are for implementation guidance, to the extent that contractors do not already proscribe discrimination as part of the normal conduct of their business, and potential changes in hiring practices for certain employees supporting performance of the contract. Potential costs could include creation of policies and procedures, initial training on implementation guidelines, and training on working with Department contracting officer representatives and/or contracting officers to ensure compliance. The Department requests comment on the costs of compliance with the provisions of this proposed rule, including estimates of hourly burdens and wages of employees that may be required to implement the rule, should it be finalized.
The Department awards approximately 100 new contracts with foreign assistance funds annually. Including this clause in all new contracts funded by Department of State foreign assistance funds and all new subcontracts thereunder provides an explicit requirement that the Department's contractors not discriminate against any designated group or individual (except as provided in the award or as required under U.S. law) and is particularly important in countries where stigma and discrimination toward certain groups is tolerated or officially endorsed by the government. The benefits of the rule would include expressly reinforcing notions of equity, fairness, and human dignity under Federal Government contracts internationally.
Contractors responding to a solicitation (
Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that Government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. It requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of small entities.
In fiscal year 2022, 14 unique domestic small businesses received Department foreign assistance funds under 29 individual awards. In fiscal years 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021, three, one, four, and six unique small businesses received Department foreign assistance funds, respectively. The requirement this rule would impose on small businesses is no different than the requirement imposed on other entities: contracts or subcontracts awarded to them will include a clause prohibiting discrimination in the employment of persons engaged directly in the performance of Department foreign assistance contracts and grants and not to discriminate with respect to the intended beneficiaries of U.S. foreign assistance, except as provided in the award. As with all contractors, the employees of small businesses will be expected to be mindful of the principles of equity, fairness, and human dignity when performing the work under their contracts; as they have always been. The Department anticipates that the additional effort required by small businesses as a result of this proposed rule is
In light of the above analysis, the Department of State certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 requires agencies to prepare several analytical statements before proposing any rule that may result in annual expenditures of $100 million or more in State, local, or Indian Tribal governments or the private sector. Since this final rule will not result in expenditures of this magnitude, the Department certifies that such statements are not necessary.
This regulation 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. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this regulation.
The Department has determined that this rulemaking will not have Tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments, and will not pre-empt Tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply to this proposed rule.
The Department believes that the number of respondents submitting reports pursuant to this rulemaking will be low, possibly close to the 10 respondents per year that would trigger the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department anticipates that the burden per response would be one hour, yielding a total burden of 10 hours for this rulemaking. The Department invites public comment on these figures. The number of respondents and the burden hours will be added to the existing OMB Control Number that covers information collections mandated by the DOSAR. Therefore, the Department submits the following information:
Government procurement.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Department of State proposes to amend 48 CFR Chapter 6 as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 486(c); 22 U.S.C. 2651a, 2656.
Contractors receiving Department of State foreign assistance awards shall not discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, color, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, sex characteristics, pregnancy, national origin, disability, age, genetic information, indigeneity, marital status, parental status, political affiliation, or veteran's status within the target population of the foreign assistance award (
(a) Pursuant to the procedures in this section, the head of the contracting activity may waive the application of the requirements at paragraph (a)(2) of clause 652.225-72, Nondiscrimination in Foreign Assistance, if it is determined to be in the best interest of the U.S. government. Such determinations will take into account the totality of the circumstances, including, but not limited to, whether the waiver is requested as an accommodation to comply with applicable foreign laws, edicts, or decrees, or to allow a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society to employ individuals of a particular religion to carry out the activities under the award in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs.
(b) The contractor shall submit any request for a waiver of the requirements of the paragraph at 652.225-72(a)(2) in writing to the contracting officer, and with sufficient justification for a determination, prior to award or thereafter by mutual agreement between the parties.
(c) Upon review of information submitted by the contractor, any determination to waive the requirements at 652.225-72(a)(2) shall be executed jointly, in writing, by the head of the contracting activity and the requesting Bureau's Assistant Secretary or the post Chief of Mission, or their designee.
(d) If a waiver is approved pursuant to this section, the contracting officer shall specifically denote the inapplicability of the paragraph at 652.225-72(a)(2) in the contract award.
(e) Upon making a determination to waive the requirements at 652.225-72(a)(2) pursuant to this section, the head of the contracting activity shall notify the Assistant Secretary of the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, or their designee in writing within 30 days.
(f) Nothing in any such waiver approved pursuant to this section shall negate any of the other requirements of clause 652.225-72.
The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 652.225-72, Nondiscrimination in Foreign Assistance, in full text in all solicitations and contracts using foreign assistance funds, including solicitations and contracts using FAR Part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services.
22 U.S.C. 2651a, 40 U.S.C. 121(c) and 48 CFR chapter 1.
As prescribed in 625.7103, insert the following clause:
(a) Unless expressly stated in the award, no contractor or subcontractor receiving a foreign assistance award shall discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, color, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, sex characteristics, pregnancy, national origin, disability, age, genetic information, indigeneity, marital status, parental status, political affiliation, or veteran's status against:
(1) Any end user, prospective end user, or beneficiary of the contract supplies or services, such as, but not limited to, discrimination by withholding, denying, or adversely impacting equitable access to the supplies or services; or
(2) Any employee, agent, or candidate for a position, who is or will be engaged directly in the performance of this contract and whose work will be funded in whole or in part by funds provided under this contract, unless expressly permitted by applicable U.S. law.
(b) Nothing in this clause is intended to limit the ability of a contractor to target activities toward the assistance needs of certain populations as defined in the contract or to otherwise comply with anti-discrimination programs.
(c) The Contractor shall inform its workforce and end users, in their predominant language(s), of the nondiscrimination notices required by paragraphs (d) and (f) of this clause. The Contractor shall display the notices in prominent and accessible places commonly available to its employees and end users.
(d) The Contractor shall notify end users and prospective end users that the Contractor is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, ethnicity, color, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, sex characteristics, pregnancy, national origin, disability, age, genetic information, indigeneity, marital status, parental status, political affiliation, or veteran's status within the target population of a foreign assistance award. The notice shall include the telephone number, email address, and mailing address of the Department of State Inspector General to report potential violations of this clause.
(e) The Contractor is responsible for compliance by its subcontractors with the terms and conditions of this clause, including sanctions for noncompliance, and shall take action to enforce them as the Contracting Officer may direct.
(f) The Contractor shall:
(1) Notify its employees and agents of:
(i) The prohibition on discrimination described in paragraph (a) of this clause;
(ii) The contact information of the Department of State Inspector General and the U.S. Government's Fraud, Waste, and Abuse hotline to report violations or suspected violations of this clause; and
(iii) The actions that will be taken against employees or agents for violations of this clause, which may include, but are not limited to, removal from the contract, reduction in benefits, or termination of employment; and
(2) Take appropriate action, up to and including termination, against employees, agents, or subcontractors that violate the nondiscrimination requirement in paragraph (a).
(1) The Contractor shall inform the Contracting Officer and the Department of State's Inspector General immediately of:
(i) Any credible information it receives from any source (including host country law
(ii) Any actions taken against a Contractor employee, subcontractor, subcontractor employee, or their agent pursuant to this clause.
(2) If the allegation may be associated with more than one contract, the Contractor shall inform the Contracting Officer for the contract with the highest dollar value.
(1) Requiring the Contractor to remove a Contractor employee or employees from the performance of the contract;
(2) Requiring the Contractor to terminate a subcontract;
(3) Suspension of contract payments until the Contractor has taken appropriate remedial action;
(4) Loss of award fee, consistent with the award fee plan, for the performance period in which the Government determined Contractor noncompliance;
(5) Declining to exercise available options under the contract;
(6) Termination of the contract for default or cause, in accordance with the termination clause of this contract; or
(7) Suspension or debarment.
(i) The Contractor shall insert this clause, including this paragraph, in all subcontracts under this contract.
(End of clause)
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice informs the public of the annual adjustments to the reimbursement rates for meals served in the Summer Food Service Program. These adjustments address changes in the Consumer Price Index, as required under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. The 2024 reimbursement rates are presented as a combined set of rates to highlight simplified cost accounting procedures. The 2024 rates are also presented individually, as separate operating and administrative rates of reimbursement, to show the effect of the Consumer Price Index adjustment on each rate. On average, the 2024 rates adjustment represents a 5.3 percent increase in the rates from last year.
This adjustment is applicable January 1, 2024.
Penny Burke, Program Monitoring and Operational Support Division, Child Nutrition Programs, Food and Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1320 Braddock Place, Suite 401, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, (303) 844-0357.
The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.559 and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR, 415 and final rule-related notice published at 48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983.)
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, no new recordkeeping or reporting requirements have been included that are subject to approval from the Office of Management and Budget.
This notice is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act. Additionally, this notice has been determined to be exempt from formal review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
The terms used in this notice have the meaning ascribed to them under 7 CFR part 225 of the SFSP regulations.
This notice informs the public of the annual adjustments to the reimbursement rates for meals served in SFSP. In accordance with sections 12(f) and 13, 42 U.S.C. 1760(f) and 1761 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) and SFSP regulations under 7 CFR part 225, the USDA announces the adjustments in SFSP payments for meals served to participating children during calendar year 2024.
The 2024 reimbursement rates are presented as a combined set of rates to highlight simplified cost accounting procedures. Reimbursement is based solely on a “meals times rates” calculation, without comparison to actual or budgeted costs.
Sponsors receive reimbursement that is determined by the number of reimbursable meals served, multiplied by the combined rates for food service operations and administration. However, the combined rate is based on separate operating and administrative rates of reimbursement, each of which is adjusted differently for inflation.
The combined rates are constructed from individually authorized operating and administrative reimbursements. Simplified procedures provide flexibility, enabling sponsors to manage their reimbursements to pay for any allowable cost, regardless of the cost category. Sponsors remain responsible, however, for ensuring proper administration of the Program, while providing the best possible nutrition benefit to children.
The operating and administrative rates are calculated separately. However, the calculations of adjustments for both cost categories are based on the same set of changes in the
Presentation of the 2024 maximum per meal rates for meals served to children in SFSP combines the results from the calculations of operational and administrative payments, which are further explained in this notice. The total amount of payments to State agencies for disbursement to SFSP sponsors will be based upon these adjusted combined rates and the number of meals of each type served. These adjusted rates will be in effect from January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024.
The portion of the SFSP rates for operating costs is based on payment amounts set in section 13(b)(1) of the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1761(b)(1). They are rounded down to the nearest whole cent, as required by section 11(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1759a(a)(3)(B)(iii).
The administrative cost component of the reimbursement is authorized under section 13(b)(3) of the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1761(b)(3). Rates are higher for sponsors of sites located in rural areas and for “self-prep” sponsors that prepare their own meals at the SFSP site or at a central facility instead of purchasing them from vendors. The administrative portion of SFSP rates are adjusted, either up or down, to the nearest quarter-cent.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) requests comments from the public—including the food industry and research community—to help inform future policy and decisions about potentially updating Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) cost estimates for the State of Hawaii. Specifically, FNS invites comments and ideas about food price data for the State of Hawaii—including communities in the State outside of the County of Honolulu—that may be available, potentially accessible to FNS, and of sufficient quality, format, sample size, and recent period to be used potentially by FNS to make cost adjustments for the State of Hawaii to the TFP pursuant to section 3(u)(2) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended. Comments must be received on or before March 4, 2024.
Written comments must be received on or before March 4, 2024.
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Kevin Meyers Mathieu, Economic Advisor, Nutrition Guidance and Analysis Division, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, at 703-946-7619.
FNS makes this request with the goal of maximizing the range of food price data specific to communities in the State of Hawaii outside of the County of Honolulu—that is, the Neighbor Islands—that may become accessible to the Agency and available for the Agency to assess in terms of feasibility to use for updating TFP cost estimates in Hawaii. Data should be of a similar quality, format, and sample size to data used for reevaluating the TFP for the mainland United States in August 2021 (Thrifty Food Plan, 2021, FNS-916)
The TFP represents a healthy, practical, cost-conscious diet for a family of four, and its cost forms the basis for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefit levels. Through a rigorous and transparent process, USDA used updated food price data to recalculate the cost estimates of the TFP for Alaska and Hawaii. This update ensured SNAP participants in Alaska and Hawaii have a data-driven benefit amount that is equitable to the benefits provided to people living in the 48 contiguous States and DC so they can afford nutritious food essential for health and well-being.
The updated cost estimates for Alaska and Hawaii were calculated in alignment with the existing statutory and regulatory framework. Namely, TFP costs for Alaska and Hawaii were calculated by comparing food prices in the 48 contiguous States and DC to those in Anchorage and Honolulu, respectively. The Anchorage TFP cost is further adjusted to reflect food prices throughout urban and rural areas of the State of Alaska, as per statute. In contrast, the Honolulu TFP cost, as per regulation, is used as the basis for SNAP benefits throughout the entire State of Hawaii. Evidence suggests that Honolulu was originally used because it was the only location in the State where the Bureau of Labor Statistics routinely collected food price information at the time. The availability of food price data in the State of Hawaii—including communities in the State outside of the County of Honolulu—of sufficient quality, format, sample size, and recent period may motivate a reexamination of the regulatory language that stipulates Honolulu as the basis for the Hawaii TFP cost estimate. The features of the data may also contribute to potential future decisions on a preferred methodology that could be used to calculate a Hawaii TFP cost using food price data from throughout the State of Hawaii.
The Agency requests responses to the following questions:
(a) Can these data be used to quantify price differences for identical foods and beverages as described in question 1?
(b) To what extent are the data representative of the State of Hawaii or any specific geographies, regions, and/or communities within the State? Are there any areas of the State of Hawaii that are not represented in the data?
(c) Are these data also collected outside of the State of Hawaii? If so, where? To what extent are the data representative of the other locations in which they are collected?
(d) At what level of geographic aggregation are the data available (
(e) At what unit of analysis are the data available? Specifically, do the data provide prices for individual Universal Product Codes (UPCs, also called barcodes) or for categories of foods and beverages? If the data are reported at the category-level, how were the categories constructed?
(f) Do the data include prices for food items that do not have barcodes (
(g) What is the sample size of foods and beverages (measured using the unit of analysis described above) in the data?
(h) To what extent do the foods and beverages included in the data reflect the foods and beverages in the TFP market basket? Are there any food and beverage categories that are excluded from or underrepresented in the data?
(i) By whom are the data collected and reported? For example, the data might be comprised of households self-reporting food and beverage acquisitions, in-store price quotes collected by surveyors, or sales records maintained by retailers.
(j) Do the data represent prices quoted by the retailer (
(k) What is the sample size of reporting units (
(l) If the data are collected at the household-level (
(m) What store types are represented in the data (
(n) When were the data collected? If the data are collected on a recurring basis, with what frequency are they collected? If the data are collected on a continuous basis, with what frequency are they reported?
(o) Do the data also include information on factors other than food prices (
(p) What quality assurance processes have the data undergone? To what extent can the Agency and the public trust that the data are accurate? For example, are units checked for accurate conversion to a common unit (
(q) Have these data been analyzed in the past? If so, how?
(r) Are there any known limitations or considerations when using the data?
(s) Are the data publicly available or are they proprietary/restricted access? If they are proprietary/restricted access, to what extent could the Agency release them to the public to enable reproduction of any related analyses?
(t) What is the approximate cost of accessing the data? Does data access require a contractual agreement or access to a specialized data hosting platform?
(u) In what format are the data available? Are the data machine readable?
Furthermore, this RFI does not mean and should not be construed to suggest that FNS will update TFP cost estimates for the State of Hawaii in the future. The current TFP cost estimate for Hawaii was calculated in alignment with the existing statutory and regulatory framework. Namely, the TFP cost for Hawaii was calculated by comparing food prices in the 48 contiguous States and DC to those in Honolulu. FNS seeks information about potentially available food price data for the State of Hawaii outside of Honolulu to properly assess the feasibility of potentially pursuing an update to the TFP cost estimate for the State of Hawaii that could potentially incorporate such food price data should such an update be permissible in the future. If sufficient food price data sources are identified and such data were to become available to FNS, the Agency would take such information into account as it considers the range of factors relevant to potentially pursuing an update to the TFP cost estimates for the State of Hawaii, but identifying food price data alone, whether as a result of an RFI response or not, is not in and of itself determinative for future cost estimate updates.
On December 8, 2023, the Department of Commerce received clearance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to conduct the second and third Census Household Panel topical operations (OMB No. 0607-1025, Exp. 6/20/26). The Census Household Panel is designed to ensure availability of frequent data collection for nationwide estimates on a variety of topics for a variety of subgroups of the population. This notice serves to inform of the Department's intent to request clearance from OMB to conduct topical operations 4, 5, and 6.
Topical surveys 4 and 5 will include content from Pew's National Public Opinion Reference Survey and the National Center for Health Statistics' Research and Development Survey. These are being asked for methodological reasons to study the representativeness of the originally recruited panel members along different benchmarked dimensions. Additionally, in Topical 4, we ask some questions about improving the CHP respondent experience. In Topical survey 6, we are incorporating a self-administered version of the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) roster and demographic questions into the Census Household Panel to test their usability in the field. The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
Panelists and households selected for the Panel were recruited from the Census Bureau's gold standard Master Address File. This ensures the Panel is rooted in this rigorously developed and maintained frame and available for linkage to administrative records securely maintained and curated by the Census Bureau. Invitations to complete the monthly surveys will be sent via email and SMS messages, and for experimental purposes, Topical 4 invitations will include pressure-sealed post-cards. Questionnaires will be mainly internet self-response. The Panel will maintain representativeness by allowing respondents who do not use the internet to respond via computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI). All panelists will receive an incentive for each complete questionnaire. Periodic replenishment samples will maintain representativeness and panelists will be replaced after a period of three years.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
On September 18, 2023, Patheon Pharmaceuticals Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 46K, in Cincinnati, Ohio.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On September 18, 2023, Epson Portland, Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 45F, in Hillsboro, Oregon.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Pursuant to section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, asamended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are being manufactured in the United States.
Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and be postmarked on or before February 8, 2024. Address written comments to Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 41006, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Please also email a copy of those comments to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of web conference.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Pacific Northwest Crab Industry Advisory Committee (PNCIAC) will meet via web conference.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 30, 2024, from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., Alaska Time.
The meeting will be a web conference. Join online through the link at
Sarah Marrinan, Council staff; phone: (907) 271-2809; email:
The Committee will discuss several topics including: (a) Red King Crab savings area initial review; (b) consider smaller size limits for opilio and bairdi crab; (c) crab rationalization program review elements (T); and (d) other business. The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted
You can attend the meeting online using a computer, tablet, or smart phone, or by phone only. Connection information will be posted online at:
Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
• Vessel EEZ Permit Application, including Golden Tilefish Endorsement and Smoothhound Shark Permit, 50 minutes;
• Wreckfish Permit Application, 55 minutes;
• Dealer Permit Application, 30 minutes;
• Aquacultured Live Rock Permitting and Reporting—New Permit—Deposit or Harvest Report, 15 minutes; Notice of Intent to Harvest, 10 minutes; Federal Permit Application, including Site Evaluation Report, 70 minutes;
• Aquacultured Live Rock Permitting and Reporting—Renew Permit—Deposit or Harvest Report, 15 minutes; Notice of Intent to Harvest, 10 minutes; Federal Permit Application, 50 minutes.
• Vessel Operator Card Application for Dolphin and Wahoo, or Rock Shrimp, 30 minutes;
• Fishing in Colombian Treaty Waters Vessel Permit Application, 50 minutes;
• Permit Holder Change of Information, 5 minutes;
• Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Permit Consolidation, 5 minutes;
• Duplicate Permit, Card, or Decal, 5 minutes;
• Notifications of Lost or Stolen Traps or Authorization for Retrieval (golden crab, reef fish, snapper-grouper, spiny lobster), 10 minutes;
• Golden Crab Permittee Zone Transit Notification, 10 minutes;
• Annual Landings Report for Gulf of Mexico Shrimp, 20 minutes;
• Vessel Permit Transfers and Notarizations, 10 minutes; and
• International Maritime Organization (IMO) Number Registration, 30 minutes.
The NMFS Southeast Region manages the U.S. Federal fisheries in the Caribbean, Gulf, and South Atlantic under the fishery management plans (FMPs) for each region. The regional fishery management councils prepared the FMPs pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The regulations implementing the FMPs, including those that have recordkeeping and reporting requirements, are located at 50 CFR part 622.
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements at 50 CFR part 622 form the basis for this collection of information. The NMFS Southeast Region requests information from fishery participants. This information, upon receipt, results in an increasingly more efficient and accurate database for management and monitoring of the Federal fisheries in the Caribbean, Gulf, and South Atlantic.
The SERO Permits Office proposes to extend and to revise the collection-of-information approved under OMB Control Number 0648-0205. NMFS proposes to revise the Federal permit applications for Vessels Fishing in the EEZ (Vessel EEZ), Change of Information Form, Vessel Fishing in the Colombian Treaty Waters, Duplicate Federal Fishery Permits, Operator Card or Decal, Aquacultured Live Rock (new permit), Aquacultured Live Rock (permit renewal), Harvest of Aquacultured Live Rock in the EEZ, Southeast Region Issued Operator Card, Consolidate Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish permits, Vessels Fishing for Wreckfish in the South Atlantic States (Wreckfish), and the Annual Dealer permit.
The proposed revisions to the specified application forms are administrative and would combine two socio-economic questions into one, along with making them optional instead of required. The revisions would also update the payment method of Floy tags. Instead of the permit holder sending a check to NMFS with the application, Floy Tag, Inc., will begin reaching out to the permit holder for payment once the permit is issued. NMFS estimates that the proposed revisions would not change the annual number of respondents or responses, or annual costs to affected permit applicants from estimates in the currently approved collection. Across the application forms, NMFS estimates these revisions would not increase the overall time burden.
The SERO Permits Office also proposes to modify the limited access permits by updating the form field name related to the selling price of the permit, along with removing the section related to the permit's selling price. NMFS does not anticipate these revisions will materially change the time burden to the applicants.
The SERO Permits Office also proposes to modify the Vessel EEZ application to include a checkbox and language related to the compliance of regulatory requirements. NMFS does not anticipate these revisions to the form will materially change the time burden to the applicants.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before March 19, 2024.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Moni Banerjee, Chief, Financial Services Division, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, (301) 427-8716 or
This request is for an extension of a currently approved information collection.
United States (U.S.) commercial fishermen may file claims for compensation for losses of, or damage to, fishing gear or vessels, plus 50 percent of resulting economic losses, attributable to oil and gas activities on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. To obtain compensation, applicants must comply with requirements set forth in 50 CFR part 296.
The requirements include a “report” within 15 days of the date the vessel first returns to port after the casualty incident to gain a presumption of eligible causation, and an “application” within 90 days of when the applicant first became aware of the loss and/or damage.
The report is NOAA Form 88-166 and it requests identifying information such as: Respondent's name; address; social security number; and casualty location. The information in the report is usually completed by NOAA during a telephone call with the respondent.
The application is NOAA Form 88-164 and it requires the respondent to provide information on the property and economic losses and/or damages including type of damage; purchase date and price of lost/damaged gear; and income from recent fishing trips. It also includes an affidavit by which the applicant attests to the truthfulness of the claim.
Respondents may telephone NOAA and provide the information for the report verbally or submit a paper or electronic report. Respondents have a choice of either electronic or paper forms for the application.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and continuing information collections, which help us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before March 19, 2024.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by mail to Arica Cox, Telecommunications Policy Analyst, Grants Management and Compliance, Office of internet Connectivity and Growth, National Telecommunication and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Room 4826, Washington, DC 20230, or by email to
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Arica Cox, Telecommunications Policy Analyst, Grants Management and Compliance, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Room 4826, Washington, DC 20230, via email at
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, 2021 (“Infrastructure Act” or “Act”), which was adopted on November 15, 2021, and is also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, provided $65 billion of funding for programs to close the digital divide and ensure that all Americans have access to affordable, reliable, high-speed internet. NTIA administers six broadband connectivity grant programs funded by the Act, including the State Digital Equity Planning Grant Program (“Planning Grant Program”) and the State Digital Equity Capacity Grant Program (“Capacity Grant Program”). The Planning Grant Program provides federal funding for grants to eligible applicants for the purpose of developing Digital Equity Plans. Through these Plans, entities will, among other things, identify barriers to digital equity in the State and strategies for overcoming those barriers. The Capacity Grant Program will provide federal funding to eligible applicants for the purpose of implementing the State Digital Equity Plans and pursuing digital inclusion activities consistent with the State Digital Equity Plan. In addition, the Capacity Grant Program will provide new federal funding for grants to Indian Tribes, Alaska Native entities, and Native Hawaiian organizations (“Native Entities”) to undertake digital equity planning activities and implement digital inclusion activities, consistent with the Planning Grant Program and the Capacity Grant Program.
NTIA will use the information collected from each Native Entity applicant to effectively review the proposed applications and budgets of Indian Tribes, Alaska Native entities, and Native Hawaiian organizations applying for funding under the Digital Equity Planning and Capacity Programs.
NTIA will collect data through both electronic and mail submission.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Deletions from the Procurement List.
This action deletes product(s) from the Procurement List that were furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely
Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 785-6404, or email
On 12/15/2024, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List. This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the product(s) listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product(s)) to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product(s) and service(s) deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following product(s) are deleted from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to delete product(s) from the Procurement List that were furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 355 E Street SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20024.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 785-6404, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
The following product(s) are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Office of the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The DoD is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Business Board (“the Board”) will take place.
Closed to the public February 6, 2024 from 9:15 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., 1:20 p.m. to 4:50 p.m., and from 5:00 p.m. to 7:05 p.m. and on February 7, 2024 from 9:20 a.m. to 11:05 a.m. Open to the public February 6 from 12:30 p.m. to 1:15 p.m. All Eastern time.
The open and closed portions of the meeting will be in room M2 of the Pentagon Library Conference Center, Nunn-Lugar Conference Room and 4D880 in the Pentagon, and at the U.S. Department of State, Washington DC.
Ms. Cara Allison Marshall, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) of the Board in writing at Defense Business Board, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Room 5B1088A, Washington, DC 20301-1155; or by email at
This meeting is being held under the provisions of chapter 10 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.) (commonly known as the “Federal Advisory Committee Act” or “FACA”), 5 U.S.C. 552b (commonly known as the “Government in the Sunshine Act”), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
The DFO will then adjourn the open session. The Board will reconvene in closed session from 1:20 p.m. to 4:50 p.m. The DFO will begin the closed session followed by a welcome by the Board Chair. The Board will receive a classified discussion on the State of the Workforce—Recruiting, Training, and Retention, Obstacles, and Solutions from Sergeant Major Troy E. Black, Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff The conversation is expected to delve into the multifaceted aspects of managing a contemporary workforce, addressing challenges in recruiting talent in the current environment, implementing effective training programs, and devising retention strategies. Discussion will focus on identifying obstacles such as changing workforce expectations, skill gaps to address future needs per the National Security Strategy and exploring innovative solutions to foster a resilient and high-performing workforce. Next the Board will receive a classified discussion on DoD Current Affairs from Hon. Lloyd Austin, Secretary of Defense. This session is expected to focus on the state of the current global security environment and its implications for current and future business operations. Following, the Board will receive a classified discussion on Current Operations, Crisis Action Planning, and Adaptive Decision Making in Dynamic Environments from LTG Douglass A. Sims II, Army, Director of Operations. This forum will explore the intersection of military operations and corporate crisis management, highlighting the parallels between the principles of current operations, crisis action planning, and adaptive decision-making in both contexts. Through this exploration, participants can gain valuable insights into proactive crisis management, strategic preparedness for “black swan” events, and the cultivation of an agile organizational culture that is capable of navigating complex and rapidly changing landscapes. The DFO will adjourn the closed session. The Board will transition to the Air Force Mess for their final closed session on February 6. The DFO will begin the closed session followed by remarks by Board Chair, Hon Deborah James and Deputy Secretary, Hon. Kathleen Hicks. Next, the Board will hear a classified update by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) from Dr. Stefanie Tompkins, Director. This discussion focuses on any significant updates from DARPA in support of the National Security Strategy, how they have a different remit from the DoD, and what best business practices could be imported to the rest of the DoD. The DFO will adjourn the closed session. The Board will meet in closed session February 7 from 9:20 a.m. to 11:05 a.m. The DFO will begin the closed session followed by the Chair's welcome. Next the Board will receive a classified Briefing on State Department (DoS) Business Operations/Management in Support of Current Efforts from Richard Verma, Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources. This discussion will focus on differences between DoD, DoS, and business operations management, and DoD and DoS unity of effort to achieve combined effects both militarily and diplomatically. The DFO will then adjourn the closed session.
The latest version of the agenda will be available on the Board's website at: https://dbb.dod.afpims.mil/Meetings/Meeting-February-2024/.
National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy.
Notice of availability.
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy (DOE), announces the availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Surplus Plutonium Disposition Program (SPDP EIS) (DOE/EIS-0549) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). NNSA prepared the Final SPDP EIS to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of dispositioning 34 metric tons (MT) of surplus plutonium.
NNSA will not issue a Record of Decision (ROD) on the proposal for a minimum of 30 days after the date that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes its Notice of Availability (NOA) in the
Requests for additional information related to the EIS should be sent by email to
The SPDP EIS is available on the internet at:
For further information about this notice, please contact Ms. Maxcine Maxted, NEPA Document Manager, National Nuclear Security Administration, Office of Material Management and Minimization, P.O. Box A, Bldg. 730-2B, Rm. 328, Aiken, SC 29802; phone: (803) 952-7434; email:
NNSA prepared the SPDP EIS pursuant to NEPA (Title 42 U.S.C. 4321
In 2015, NNSA completed the Surplus Plutonium Disposition Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SPD Supplemental EIS) (DOE/EIS-0283-S2). In the SPD Supplemental EIS, NNSA evaluated the environmental impacts of alternatives for dispositioning 13.1 MT of surplus plutonium (7.1 MT of pit and 6 MT of non-pit) for which a disposition path had not been assigned. The alternatives evaluated in the 2015 SPD Supplemental EIS included the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Alternative, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Alternative, and two variations of waste immobilization. In addition, NNSA evaluated four options for pit disassembly and conversion (pit disassembly and conversion is equivalent to pit disassembly and processing [PDP] as used in this Notice and the SPDP EIS) using facilities at the Savannah River Site (SRS) and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). In 2015, NNSA announced that its preferred alternative for disposition of the six MT of non-pit surplus plutonium evaluated in the SPD Supplemental EIS was to prepare the non-pit surplus plutonium for eventual disposal at the WIPP facility in Carlsbad, New Mexico (80 FR 80348, December 24, 2015). In a 2016 ROD, NNSA announced a decision to disposition the six MT of non-pit surplus plutonium by downblending it with an adulterant (downblending is a process equivalent to dilution in the dilute and dispose strategy as used in the SPDP EIS), packaging it as defense-related contact-handled transuranic (CH-TRU) waste, and shipping it to the WIPP facility for disposal (81 FR 19588). In the 2016 ROD, NNSA did not make a decision about the disposition of the 7.1 MT of pit plutonium or about the various options for pit disassembly and conversion that were analyzed in the 2015 SPD Supplemental EIS.
In 2016, NNSA, partnering with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, developed an independent cost estimate for the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) project and concluded that the cost of the project, upon completion of construction, would be approximately $17 billion and construction would not be complete until 2048. Congress directed NNSA to prepare a lifecycle cost estimate for disposal of surplus plutonium using the same approach announced for the six MT, now referred to as the dilute and dispose strategy. The completed cost estimate indicated that the estimate-to-complete lifecycle cost of the dilute and dispose strategy would be substantially lower than the cost to complete the MOX project. In response, the Secretary of Energy halted construction of the MOX fuel project in May 2018 by waiving the requirement to use funds for construction and support activities for the MFFF per the National Defense Authorization Act. In a letter dated May 10, 2018, the Secretary of Energy certified that “the remaining lifecycle cost for the dilute and dispose strategy will be less than approximately half of the estimated remaining lifecycle cost of the MOX fuel program.” On October 10, 2018, NNSA issued a notice terminating the contract for construction of MFFF. On February 8, 2019, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) terminated the construction license for MFFF (NRC 2019). NNSA is preparing this SPDP EIS to evaluate alternatives for disposition of the 34 MT of surplus plutonium previously designated for disposition using the MOX fuel program that no longer has a disposition path.
In 2020, NNSA prepared a Supplement Analysis (SA) based on the analysis presented in the 2015 SPD Supplemental EIS. NNSA determined that disposition of 7.1 MT of non-pit surplus plutonium was not a substantial change in the action analyzed in the 2015 SPD Supplemental EIS to disposition 7.1 MT of pit plutonium via the WIPP Alternative and that the environmental impacts had been sufficiently analyzed. NNSA subsequently issued an Amended ROD
The 7.1 MT of non-pit surplus plutonium referred to in the 2020 AROD is part of the 34 MT of surplus plutonium that NNSA had decided to disposition by fabricating it into MOX fuel for use in commercial reactors. The disposition of that 34 MT is the subject of this SPDP EIS.
Since the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s and the Presidential declarations of surplus fissile materials, DOE has been charged with the disposition of surplus plutonium.
NNSA's purpose and need for action is to safely and securely disposition plutonium that is surplus to the Nation's defense needs so that it is not readily usable in nuclear weapons. NNSA needs to disposition 34 MT of surplus plutonium in a safe and secure manner and in a reasonable time frame at a cost consistent with NNSA priorities and fiscal realities. To achieve this, NNSA must use mature methods and proven technologies that are based on processes requiring minimal research and engineering development.
Both the Preferred Alternative and the No Action Alternative in the SPDP EIS use the dilute and dispose strategy, and both address up to 7.1 MT of non-pit surplus plutonium that NNSA previously decided to dispose of using the dilute and dispose strategy (85 FR 53350). The dilute and dispose strategy includes processing surplus plutonium to plutonium oxide, diluting it with an adulterant to inhibit plutonium recovery, and disposing the resulting defense-related CH-TRU waste at the WIPP facility.
NNSA's Preferred Alternative is to use the dilute and dispose strategy for 34 MT of surplus plutonium comprised of both pit and non-pit surplus plutonium. The exact amounts of pit and non-pit forms of plutonium that compose the 34 MT are safeguarded, so they cannot be delineated further. Therefore, to bound the impacts, the analysis in the SPDP EIS evaluates the impacts of dispositioning 34 MT of surplus plutonium in pit form and the impacts of dispositioning 7.1 MT of non-pit surplus plutonium. The activities that are part of the Preferred Alternative would occur at five DOE sites—the Pantex Plant (Pantex) in Texas, LANL in New Mexico, SRS in South Carolina, the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12) in Tennessee, and the WIPP facility in New Mexico. NNSA has developed four sub-alternatives for the Preferred Alternative based on the location of activities.
Under the Base Approach Sub-Alternative, NNSA analyzes the impacts of shipping 34 MT of surplus pit plutonium from Pantex to LANL and disassembling and processing (
The SRS NPMP Sub-Alternative is similar to the Base Approach Sub-Alternative. NNSA analyzes the impacts of shipping 34 MT of surplus pit plutonium from Pantex to LANL and PDP of the 34 MT of surplus pit plutonium at LANL. The decontaminated and oxidized HEU would then be shipped to Y-12. This sub-alternative would rely on NNSA expanding existing capabilities at LANL in PF-4 for PDP and modifying or building additional support facilities. Plutonium oxide resulting from PDP would be shipped to SRS (K-Area). Unlike the Base Approach Sub-Alternative, under this sub-alternative, NNSA does not analyze NPMP at LANL. Instead, processing of 7.1 MT of non-pit surplus plutonium would occur in the SRS K-Area either in Building 105-K or in a modular system adjacent to the building. Under this sub-alternative, NNSA considers the impacts of dilution and characterization and packaging (C&P) of the diluted plutonium oxide as defense-related CH-TRU waste in SRS's K-Area for shipment to and disposal at the WIPP facility.
Under the All LANL Sub-Alternative, NNSA would use only capabilities at LANL for the entire disposition pathway prior to shipment to the WIPP facility. Under this Sub-Alternative, NNSA analyzes the impacts of shipping 34 MT of surplus pit plutonium from Pantex to LANL, PDP at LANL, and shipment of the decontaminated and oxidized HEU to Y-12. NNSA would rely on expanding existing capabilities at LANL in PF-4 and modifying or building additional support facilities. NNSA also analyzes the impacts of processing 7.1 MT of non-pit surplus plutonium at LANL in PF-4. Under the All LANL Sub-Alternative NNSA considers the impacts of dilution in PF-4 and C&P of the diluted plutonium oxide defense-related CH-TRU waste for shipment to and disposal at the WIPP facility.
Under the All SRS Sub-Alternative, NNSA would use only capabilities at SRS for the entire disposition pathway prior to shipment to the WIPP facility. Under this sub-alternative, NNSA analyzes the impacts of shipping 34 MT of surplus pit plutonium from Pantex to SRS and the disassembly and processing of the 34 MT of surplus pit plutonium and processing 7.1 MT of non-pit surplus plutonium in a new capability installed at SRS in either K-Area or F-Area. NNSA analyzes the subsequent shipment of the decontaminated and oxidized HEU to Y-12 and the shipment of by-product material to LANL. Under this Sub-Alternative, NNSA considers the impacts of dilution and C&P of the diluted plutonium oxide defense-related CH-TRU waste in SRS's K-Area for shipment to and disposal at the WIPP facility.
The No Action Alternative is the continued management of 34 MT of surplus plutonium. This includes (1) continued storage of surplus pits at Pantex, (2) continuing the plutonium mission at LANL to process up to 400 kg of actinides (including surplus plutonium) per year, and (3) disposition of up to 7.1 MT of non-pit surplus plutonium for which the disposition decision, using the dilute and dispose strategy, was announced in NNSA's 2020 AROD (85 FR 53350).
The SPDP EIS is an element of the NEPA strategy related to the disposition of surplus plutonium, which NNSA
On December 16, 2022, NNSA electronically published the Draft SPDP EIS and published an NOA in the
NNSA considered all comments received before May 2023, on the Draft SPDP EIS in preparing the Final EIS and revised the Draft EIS to incorporate changes as a result of public comments. The Final EIS also includes NNSA's responses to all comments received.
NNSA will consider the environmental impact analysis presented in the Final SPDP EIS, along with other information, when making decisions regarding surplus plutonium disposition. NNSA will then issue a ROD on the proposal no sooner than 30 days following the date that EPA publishes its NOA in the
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on December 19, 2023, by Jill Hruby, Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Sunlight Road Solar, L.L.C.'s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is February 1, 2024.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes.
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
k.
NorthWestern Energy is currently authorized to operate as a peaking facility while maintaining the reservoir elevation within a four-foot operating band (
NorthWestern Energy also proposes to revise the project boundary to more accurately follow the reservoir shoreline at the project's highest operating elevation and to enclose only those lands necessary for operation and maintenance. The boundary changes
l.
m. You may also register online at
n.
o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that on November 2, 2023, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) and the Utah State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) executed a Programmatic Agreement for the Weber Hydroelectric Project No. 1744.
On January 20, 2023, and April 18, 2023, PacifiCorp, the project's licensee, requested Commission approval to undertake certain construction, modification, and removal activities that have the potential to adversely affect properties included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. Thereafter, Commission staff determined that a Programmatic Agreement should be executed to ensure compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
On November 2, 2023, the Commission and the Utah SHPO executed the Programmatic Agreement. PacifiCorp was invited to concur in the agreement and did so on November 14, 2023. The Programmatic Agreement requires PacifiCorp to continue to implement the Historic Properties Management Plan approved in Article 407 of the project's license.
The executed Programmatic Agreement may be viewed on the Commission's website at
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
For further information, contact Jennifer Polardino at 202-502-6437 or
On December 31, 2020, Triton Power Company, licensee for the Chateaugay High Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 5698 (project), filed a Notice of Intent (NOI) to file an application for a new license for the project pursuant to section 15(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act (FPA).
The 1,710-kilowatt (kW) project is located on the Chateaugay River in Franklin County, New York. The project consists of: (1) an 82-foot-long, 56-foot-high concrete and masonry dam; (2) an intake structure equipped with a trashrack with 1-inch clear bar spacing and a 9-foot-wide, 9-foot-high sluice gate, located approximately 130 feet upstream of the dam; (3) an impoundment with a surface area of 2.9 acres at an elevation of 962.7 feet mean sea level; (4) a 6-foot-diameter, 480-foot-long steel penstock; (5) a 50-foot-wide, 40-foot-long concrete powerhouse containing a 1,260-kW turbine-generator unit and a 450-kW turbine-generator unit; (6) a tailrace; (7) a 1,020-foot-long, 4.16-kilovolt transmission line; and (8) appurtenant facilities. From 2010, through 2019, the project had an average annual energy production of 6,751 megawatt-hours.
Pursuant to section 15(c)(1) of the FPA
Therefore, pursuant to section 16.25(a) of the Commission's regulations, we are soliciting applications from potential applicants other than the existing licensee.
Questions concerning this notice should be directed to Arash Barsari at (202) 502-6207 or email at
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Notice of revision of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on revisions of the information collection FERC-725R (Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System: BAL Reliability Standards), which will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Comments on the collection of information are due February 20, 2024.
Send written comments on FERC-725R to OMB through
Please submit copies of your comments to the Commission. You may submit copies of your comments (identified by Docket No. IC24-2-000) by one of the following methods: Electronic filing through
•
• For those unable to file electronically, comments may be filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery.
○
○
Jean Sonneman may be reached by email at
On August 8, 2005, Congress enacted into law the Electricity Modernization Act of 2005, which is title XII, subtitle A, of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005).
On February 3, 2006, the Commission issued Order No. 672, implementing section 215 of the FPA.
This collection was last revised beginning on December 19, 2019 when NERC submitted for approval the proposed Reliability Standard BAL-003-2.
The requirements for each Reliability Standard—are as follows:
Our estimates are based on the NERC Compliance Registry as of September
Estimates for the average annual burden and cost
Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
Submission for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review; comment request.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted an information collection request to the OMB for extension under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a 3-year extension of Western Area Power Administration's (WAPA) Applicant Profile Data (APD), OMB Control Number 1910-5136. The proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of WAPA's functions. WAPA markets a limited amount of Federal hydropower. Due to the high demand for WAPA's power, WAPA needs the ability to collect information under the information collection request in order to evaluate who may receive an allocation of Federal power pursuant to specific marketing plans. This APD public process only determines the information WAPA will collect in its information collection request. The actual allocation of Federal power will be conducted through a separate marketing plan process outside the scope of this APD process.
Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before February 20, 2024. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the OMB Desk Officer of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at (202) 395-4718.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Please contact Mr. Christopher Magee, Records and Information Management Program Manager, Western Area Power Administration, PO Box 281213, Lakewood, CO 80228, telephone (720) 962-7139, or email
This information collection request contains: (1)
WAPA notes the Paperwork Reduction Act is the process whereby WAPA obtains approval from OMB to collect information from the public. It is a legal requirement WAPA must comply with before requesting an interested party submit an application for power. The Paperwork Reduction Act process is not the process in which interested parties apply for a new allocation of Federal power. The allocation of power from WAPA is outside the scope of this process and is completed in a separate marketing plan process by each WAPA region, when required; (5)
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on January 12, 2024, by Tracey LeBeau Administrator, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document, with the original signature and date, is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
Notice of proposed extension of the formula rates for use under WestConnect Regional Non-Firm Transmission Service.
The Colorado River Storage Project Management Center (CRSP MC), Desert Southwest Region (DSW), and Rocky Mountain Region (RM) of the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) propose extending the existing formula rates under Rate Schedule WC-8, without any changes, for on-peak and off-peak non-firm transmission service provided under the WestConnect Point-to-Point Regional Transmission Service Participation Agreement (WestConnect PA) through September 30, 2026. The existing formula rates expire on May 31, 2024.
A consultation and comment period will begin January 19, 2024 and end February 2, 2024. Written comments will be accepted any time during the consultation and comment period.
Written comments and requests to be informed of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) actions concerning the proposed extension to be submitted by WAPA to FERC for approval should be sent to: Barton V. Barnhart, Regional Manager, Rocky Mountain Region, Western Area Power Administration, 5555 East Crossroads Boulevard, Loveland, CO 80538-8986, or email:
Tamala D. Gheller, CRSP Rates Manager, (970) 702-8826 or email:
WestConnect consists of a group of electric utilities which provide hourly, non-firm transmission service in the Western Interconnection to eliminate pancaking of transmission charges, which is the practice of charging a transmission customer separately for the use of each utility's transmission system. The WestConnect membership, including WAPA and investor-owned and consumer-owned utilities, encompasses an interconnected electrical grid stretching from western Nebraska to southern California and from Wyoming to the United States-Mexico border.
On December 15, 2014, FERC confirmed and approved Rate Schedule WC-8, under Rate Order No. WAPA-163, effective June 1, 2014, through May 31, 2019.
In accordance with 10 CFR 903.23(a),
This extension will allow CRSP MC and RM to proceed with final negotiations for membership in the Southwest Power Pool Regional Transmission Organization (SPP RTO), with potential membership beginning in or around April 2026, after which CRSP MC and RM would no longer provide this transmission service. DSW would evaluate whether it will continue selling this service beyond that date, as will CRSP MC and RM if their proposed integration into the SPP RTO is delayed or is not successful.
In accordance with 10 CFR 903.23(a), CRSP MC, DSW, and RM have determined it is not necessary to hold a public information or public comment forum for this action but are initiating a 14-day consultation and comment period to give the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed extension. CRSP MC, DSW, and RM will review and consider all timely public comments at the conclusion of the consultation and comment period and adjust the proposal as appropriate.
By Delegation Order No. S1-DEL-RATES-2016, effective November 19, 2016, the Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) the authority to develop power and transmission rates to the WAPA Administrator; (2) the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary of Energy; and (3) the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on a final basis, or to remand or disapprove such rates, to FERC. By Delegation Order No. S1-DEL-S3-2023, effective April 10, 2023, the Secretary of Energy also delegated the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Under Secretary for Infrastructure. By Redelegation Order No. S3-DEL-WAPA1-2023, effective April 10, 2023, the Under Secretary for Infrastructure further redelegated the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to WAPA's Administrator.
Categorical exclusion determinations were previously issued for the underlying rates of the transmission projects included in the WestConnect PA under the following categorical exclusion listed in appendix B to subpart D of 10 CFR part 1021: B4.3 (Electric power marketing rate changes).
WAPA has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the Office of Management and Budget is required.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on January 12, 2024, by Tracey A. LeBeau, Administrator, Western Area Power Administration, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document, with the original signature and date, is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), notice is hereby given that the next meeting of the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee (FRRCC) will be held in-person and virtually January 30-31, 2024. The FRRCC provides independent policy advice, information, and recommendations to the Administrator on a range of environmental issues and policies that are of importance to agriculture and rural communities.
This meeting will be held in-person and virtually Tuesday, January 30, 2024-Wednesday, January 31, 2024, from approximately 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. (MST).
This meeting will take place in-person and virtually. To register and receive information on how to listen to the meeting and to provide comments, please visit:
The meeting will be held at 330 E Palace Avenue, Santa Fe, NM 87501.
Venus Welch-White, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), at
Meetings of the FRRCC are open to the public. An agenda will be posted at
Due to unforeseen administrative circumstances, EPA is announcing this
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Revision to FR Notice Published 01/05/2024; Extending the Comment Period from 02/20/2024 to 02/22/2024.
Export-Import Bank of the United States
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
The Export-Import Banks of the United States (EXIM), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this Notice is to announce the initiation of a 30-day period for public comment.
Comments must be received on or before February 20, 2024 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
To request additional information, please contact Jennifer Krause,
This form is used by an exporter (or broker acting on its behalf) in order to obtain approval for coverage of the repayment risk of export sales. The information received allows EXIM staff to make a determination of the eligibility of the applicant and the creditworthiness of one of the applicant's foreign buyers for EXIM assistance under its programs.
Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council.
Notice; request for comment.
The Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (Permitting Council) Executive Director invites the public and Federal agencies to comment on a proposed information collection request which is summarized below under
Please send your comments to the Permitting Council Executive Director on or before March 19, 2024. The Permitting Council Executive Director is soliciting comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The Permitting Council Executive Director will consider all comments and
Please submit your comments to
John Flores, at
The Permitting Council coordinates Federal environmental reviews
The Permitting Council Executive Director, with the approval of the OMB Director, also may transfer funds from the Environmental Review and Improvement Fund (ERIF) to Federal agencies and state, local, and tribal governments to make the environmental review and authorization process for FAST-41 covered projects more timely and efficient. 42 U.S.C. 4370m-8(d)(3). Executive Director has established the ERIF Tribal Assistance Program (TAP) to facilitate the distribution of ERIF funds to Tribal governments pursuant to this authority.
This collection is necessary for administration of the ERIF TAP in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 4370m-8(d)(3). The Executive Director seeks public comment on the application form that the Executive Director would use to collect information from Tribal governments that seek ERIF TAP funding. The form will be used by the Executive Director to evaluate the eligibility of each Tribal government applicant, and determine whether, the circumstances under which, and the amount of any ERIF funds that may be transferred to a Tribal government applicant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4370m-2(d)(3). Seeking ERIF funds under the ERIF TAP is voluntary with each Tribal government. The application form is planned as a one-time information collection per applicant. The Permitting Council estimates that it will take approximately 40 hours to complete the application form for ERIF TAP funds.
Completed application forms must be submitted to the Executive Director through
Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (the “Commission”) by ICL
Complainant ICL USA, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the New York with its principal place of business in Rosedale, New York and acts as a destination agent in the United States for various affiliated Commission registered non-vessel-operating common carriers.
Complainant identifies Respondent DHE as a corporation organized and existing under the laws of California with a principal place of business in Los Angeles, California and as a Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration motor carrier.
Complainant identified Respondent MSC as an entity headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland with an agent in the United States located in New York and as a vessel-operating common carrier.
Complainant alleges that the Respondents violated 46 U.S.C. 41104(a)(2)(A) and 41102(c) and 46 CFR 545.5, because Respondent DHE acted directly or indirectly in conjunction with Respondent MSC to assess unauthorized per diem related charges, including Admin Fees.
An answer to the complaint must be filed with the Commission within 25 days after the date of service.
The full text of the complaint can be found in the Commission's electronic Reading Room at
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) is seeking public comments on its proposal to extend for an additional three years the current Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) clearance for information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules and regulations under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 (“Wool Rules”). That clearance expires on June 30, 2024.
Comments must be filed by March 19, 2024.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Jock K. Chung, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Mail Code CC-9528, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2984.
As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing clearance for the information collection requirements contained in the Wool Rules.
FTC staff's burden estimates for the Wool Rules are based on data from the Department of Commerce's Bureau of the Census, the International Trade Commission, the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and data or other input from the main industry association, the American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA), and from
The relevant information collection requirements in these rules and staff's corresponding burden estimates follow. The estimates address the number of hours needed and the labor costs incurred to comply with the requirements. FTC staff believes that a significant portion of hours and labor costs currently attributable to burden below are time and financial resources usually and customarily incurred by persons in the course of their regular activity (
FTC staff believes that there are no current start-up costs or other capital costs associated with the Wool Rules. Because the labeling of wool products has been an integral part of the manufacturing process for decades, manufacturers have in place the capital equipment necessary to comply with the Rules. Based on knowledge of the industry, staff believes that much of the information required by the Wool Act and Rules would be included on the product label even absent their requirements. Similarly, recordkeeping and advertising disclosures are tasks performed in the ordinary course of business so that covered firms would incur no additional capital or other non-labor costs as a result of the Rules.
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC invites comments on: (1) whether the disclosure and recordkeeping requirements are necessary, including whether the information will be practically useful; (2) the accuracy of our burden estimates, including whether the methodology and assumptions used are valid; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information.
For the FTC to consider a comment, we must receive it on or before March 19, 2024. Your comment, including your name and your state, will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including the
You can file a comment online or on paper. Due to heightened security screening, postal mail addressed to the Commission will be subject to delay. We encourage you to submit your comments online through the
If you file your comment on paper, write “Wool Rules; PRA Comment: FTC File No. P072108” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580.
Because your comment will become publicly available at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must (1) be filed in paper form, (2) be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and (3) comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and
The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before March 19, 2024. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) is seeking public comment on its proposal to extend for an additional three years the current Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) clearance for its information collection requirements in the Privacy of Consumer Financial Information Rule (Privacy Rule or Rule). The current clearance expires on January 31, 2024.
Comments must be filed by February 20, 2024.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Jennifer Rimm, Attorney, Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, (202) 326-2277,
The Privacy Rule is designed to ensure that customers and consumers, subject to certain exceptions, will have access to the privacy policies of the covered financial institutions with which they conduct business—namely, motor vehicle dealers that do not routinely extend credit to consumers directly without assigning the credit to unaffiliated third parties (hereafter, “motor vehicle dealers”). As mandated by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”), 15 U.S.C. 6801-6809, the Rule requires motor vehicle dealers to disclose to consumers: (1) initial notice of the financial institution's privacy policy when establishing a customer relationship with a consumer and/or before sharing a consumer's nonpublic personal information with certain nonaffiliated third parties; (2) notice of the consumer's right to opt out of information sharing with such parties; (3) annual notice of the institution's privacy policy to any continuing customer;
On October 18, 2023, the FTC sought public comment on the information collection requirements associated with the Rule. 88 FR 71861. No germane comments were received. Pursuant to the OMB regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, that implement the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, such as anyone's Social Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any “trade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential” —as provided by section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)—including in particular competitively sensitive information such as costs,
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) is seeking public comment on its proposal to extend for an additional three years the Office of Management and Budget clearance for information collection requirements in the Trade Regulation Rule entitled Power Output Claims for Amplifiers Utilized in Home Entertainment Products (“Amplifier Rule” or “Rule”). This clearance expires on April 30, 2024.
Comments must be filed by March 19, 2024.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Hong Park, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, (202) 326-2158,
(a) Testing—High fidelity manufacturers—308 new products/year × 1 hour each = 308 hours; and
(b) Disclosures—High fidelity manufacturers—[(308 new products/year × 1 specification sheet) + (308 new products/year × 1 brochure)] × 15 minutes per specification sheet or brochure = 154 hours.
As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing clearance for the information collection requirements contained in the Rule.
The Rule's provisions require manufacturers making certain amplifier power output-related claims to test the power output in accordance with a specified FTC protocol. The Commission staff estimates that approximately 308 new models of covered products
In addition, the Rule requires disclosures if a seller makes a triggering power output-related claim for a covered product in an advertisement, specification sheet, or product brochure. This requirement does not impose any additional costs on sellers because, absent the Rule, media advertisements, as well as manufacturer specification sheets and product brochures, would contain a power specification obtained using an alternative to the Rule-required testing protocol. The Rule, however, also requires disclosure of harmonic distortion, power bandwidth, and impedance ratings in manufacturer specification sheets and product brochures that might not otherwise be included.
Staff assumes that manufacturers produce one specification sheet and one brochure each year for each new model. The burden of disclosing the harmonic distortion, bandwidth, and impedance information on the specification sheets and brochures is limited to the time needed to draft and review the language pertaining to the aforementioned specifications. Staff estimates the time involved for this task to be a maximum of fifteen minutes (or 0.25 hours) for each new specification sheet or brochure for a total of 154 hours (derived from [(308 new models × 1 specification sheet) + (308 new models × 1 brochure)] × 0.25 hours for each specification sheet or brochure). The total annual burden imposed by the Rule, therefore, is approximately 462 burden hours for testing and disclosures.
Generally, electronics engineers perform the testing of amplifiers. Staff estimates a labor cost of $17,131 for such testing (308 hours for testing × $55.62 mean hourly wages). Staff assumes advertising or promotions managers prepare the disclosures contained in product brochures and manufacturer specification sheet and estimates a labor cost of $10,888 (154 hours for disclosures × $70.70 mean hourly wages). Accordingly, staff estimates the total labor costs associated with the Rule to be approximately $28,019 per year ($17,131 for testing + $10,888 for disclosures).
The Rule imposes no capital or other non-labor costs because its requirements
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC invites comments on: (1) whether the disclosure and recordkeeping requirements are necessary, including whether the information will be practically useful; (2) the accuracy of our burden estimates, including whether the methodology and assumptions used are valid; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information.
For the FTC to consider a comment, we must receive it on or before March 19, 2024. Your comment, including your name and your state, will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including the
You can file a comment online or on paper. Due to heightened security screening, postal mail addressed to the Commission will be subject to delay. We encourage you to submit your comments online through the
If you file your comment on paper, write “Amplifier Rule, PRA Comment, P085405,” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by overnight service.
Because your comment will become publicly available at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must (1) be filed in paper form, (2) be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and (3) comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before March 19, 2024. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) is seeking public comments on its proposal to extend for an additional three years the current Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) clearance for information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules and regulations under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (“Textile Rules”). That clearance expires on June 30, 2024.
Comments must be filed by March 19, 2024.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Jock K. Chung, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Mail Code CC-9528, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2984.
As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing clearance for the information collection requirements contained in the Textile Rules.
FTC staff's burden estimates are based on data from the Department of Commerce's Bureau of the Census and International Trade Administration, the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and data or other input from the main industry association, the American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA), and from
FTC staff estimates that the burden of determining label content is 65 hours per year per firm, or a total of 621,725 hours, and the burden of drafting and ordering labels is 80 hours per firm per year, or a total of 765,200 hours. FTC staff believes that the process of attaching labels is now fully automated and integrated into other production steps for about 40 percent of all affected products. For the remaining 14.64 billion items (60 percent of 24.4 billion), the process is semi-automated and requires an average of approximately ten seconds per item, for a total of 40,666,667 hours per year. Thus, the total estimated annual disclosure burden for all firms is 42,053,592 hours (621,725 hours to determine label content + 765,200 hours to draft and order labels + 40,666,667 hours to attach labels).
FTC staff believes that there are no current start-up costs or other capital costs associated with the Textile Rules. Because the labeling of textile products has been an integral part of the manufacturing process for decades, manufacturers have in place the capital equipment necessary to comply with the Rules' labeling requirements. Industry sources indicate that much of the information required by the Textile Act and Rules would be included on the
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC invites comments on: (1) whether the disclosure and recordkeeping requirements are necessary, including whether the information will be practically useful; (2) the accuracy of our burden estimates, including whether the methodology and assumptions used are valid; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information.
For the FTC to consider a comment, we must receive it on or before March 19, 2024. Your comment, including your name and your state, will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including the
You can file a comment online or on paper. Due to heightened security screening, postal mail addressed to the Commission will be subject to delay. We encourage you to submit your comments online through the
If you file your comment on paper, write “Textile Rules; PRA Comment: FTC File No. P072108” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580.
Because your comment will become publicly available at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must (1) be filed in paper form, (2) be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and (3) comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before March 19, 2024. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) requests that the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) extend for an additional three years the current Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) clearance for information collection requirements in the Trade Regulation Rule entitled Labeling and Advertising of Home Insulation (“R-value Rule” or “Rule”). That clearance expires on March 31, 2024.
Comments must be filed by February 20, 2024.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Hampton Newsome, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Federal Trade Commission, Room CC-9528, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2889.
Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, such as anyone's Social Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is . . . privileged or confidential”—as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)—including, in particular, competitively sensitive information, such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), announces the opening of a docket to obtain comments on drafts of two updated toxicological profiles: chloroform and chloroethane. This action is necessary as this is the opportunity for members of the public and organizations to submit comments on drafts of the profiles. The intended effect of this action is to ensure that the public can note any pertinent additional information or reports on studies about the health effects caused by exposure to the substances covered in these two profiles for review.
Written comments must be received on or before April 18, 2024.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. ATSDR-2023-0005 by either of the methods listed below. Do not submit comments by email. ATSDR does not accept comments by email.
•
•
Farhana Rahman, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Office of Innovation and Analytics, 4770 Buford Highway, Mail Stop S106-5, Atlanta, GA 30329-4027; Email:
ATSDR has prepared drafts of two updated toxicological profiles based on current understanding of the health effects and availability of new studies and other information since their initial release. All toxicological profiles issued as “Drafts for Public Comment” represent the result of ATSDR's evidence-based evaluations of the available literature to provide important toxicological information on priority hazardous substances to the public and health professionals. ATSDR considers key studies for these substances during the profile development process, using a systematic review approach. To that end, ATSDR is seeking public comments and additional information or reports on studies about the health effects of these substances for review and potential inclusion in the profiles. ATSDR will evaluate the quality and relevance of such data or studies for possible inclusion in the profile.
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) [42 U.S.C. 9601
In addition, CERCLA provides ATSDR with the authority to prepare toxicological profiles for substances not found on the SPL. CERCLA authorizes ATSDR to establish and maintain an inventory of literature, research, and studies on the health effects of toxic substances (CERCLA Section 104(i)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. 9604(i)(1)(B)); to respond to requests for health consultations (CERCLA Section 104(i)(4); 42 U.S.C. 9604(i)(4)); and to support the site-specific response actions conducted by the agency (CERCLA Section 104(i)(6); 42 U.S.C. 9604(i)(6)).
ATSDR has now prepared drafts of two updated toxicological profiles based on current understanding of the health effects and availability of new studies and other information since their initial release.
The draft toxicological profiles and interaction profile are available online at
Interested persons or organizations are invited to participate by submitting written views, recommendations, and data. Please note that comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and are subject to public disclosure. Comments will be posted on
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting and request for comment.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting for the Advisory Committee to the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (ACD, CDC). This is a hybrid meeting, accessible both in person and virtually (webcast live via the World Wide Web). It is open to the public and limited only by the space available. Time will be available for public comment.
The meeting will be held on February 21, 2024, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., EST (times subject to change).
Written comments must be received on or before February 5, 2024.
Please note that the meeting location, the CDC Roybal Campus, is a federal facility and in-person access is limited to United States citizens unless prior authorizations, taking up to 30 to 60 days, have been made. Visitors must follow all directions for access to CDC facilities. Directions for visitors to CDC, including safety requirements related to COVID-19; are available at
•
•
Kerry Caudwell, D.P.A., Office of the Chief of Staff, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop H21-10, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027, Telephone: (404) 639-0390; Email Address:
Interested persons or organizations are invited to participate by submitting written views, recommendations, and data. Please note that comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and are subject to public disclosure. Comments will be posted on
The Director, Office of Strategic Business Initiatives, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Family and Youth Services Bureau, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for public comments.
The Family and Youth Service Bureau (FYSB) is proposing to collect comprehensive Prevention Plans from grant recipients that have been awarded funding for a new prevention demonstration project to design and implement prevention and intervention services tailored to prevent at-risk youth from experiencing homelessness.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The Prevention Plans can include:
• Grantee definition of prevention
• Summary of risk and protective factors for youth experiencing homelessness
• How grantees will identify at risk youth to include existing data to assist in identification
• Referral strategies for youth
• Explanation of the process of how youth with lived experience and community partners co-designed the prevention plan
• List of prevention interventions
• All related goals and performances measures planned
• List of community partners and their roles.
FYSB will utilize the Prevention Plans to provide technical assistance to grantees, as needed, and will post the Prevention Plans to the FYSB website for grantees' peer-to-peer learning.
FYSB awarded 11 grants in September 2023 and anticipates awarding a second cohort next year. The number of respondents reflects a potential second cohort of grant recipients that would also be required to submit the Prevention Plan.
Office of Community Services, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for public comments.
The Office of Community Services (OCS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is requesting to extend the currently approved Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) Model Plan Application (OMB #0970-0075, expiration 12/31/2023) through August 31, 2024, and then making significant revisions to the FY 2025 application to be effective September 1, 2024. This notice outlines the proposed revisions for FY 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The LIHEAP Model Plan is an electronic form and is submitted to ACF/OCS through the On-Line Data Collection (OLDC) system within GrantSolutions, which is currently being used by all LIHEAP grant recipients to submit other required LIHEAP reporting forms. To reduce the reporting burden, all data entries from each grant recipient's prior year's submission of the Model Plan in OLDC are saved and re-populated into the form for the following fiscal year's application.
OCS is requesting the current LIHEAP Model Plan form to be extended through August 31, 2024. The currently approved form and justification package can be reviewed here:
OCS proposes the following changes to the LIHEAP Model Plan form beginning with FY 2025 reporting effective September 1, 2024:
•
•
•
○ Remove Prefix, Suffix, Middle Name and Organizational Affiliation.
•
•
○
○ (1) Current State-Tribe Agreement between their state and the Consortium, signed by the State Chief Executive Officer (such as a Governor or the delegate) and the Consortium President;
○ (2) Consortium letter listing the Tribes and signed by the elected Tribal Chief or President of each Tribe in the Consortium and signed by the Consortium President;
○ (3) A current resolution letter from each tribe in the Consortium, signed by the elected Tribal Chief or President of that Tribe. Each resolution letter needs to state that the Consortium has the Tribes' permission to apply for, and administer, LIHEAP on their behalf; needs to designate a time period for the permission or until rescinded or revoked.
•
•
•
○ Eliminate 13a and b.—Already answered in #7; and Eliminate “Attach an additional list of Program/Project Congressional Districts, if needed.”
•
•
•
•
○ Add a data entry column and provide the breakdown of funding from the previous year's plan. This information is useful for the data dashboard.
○ Add language for “Tribal grant recipients: direct-grant tribes, tribal organizations, or territories with allotments of $20,000 or less may use for planning and administration up to 20% of the funds payable. Grant recipients that are direct-grant tribes, tribal organizations, or territories with allotments over $20,000 may use for planning and administration purposes up to 20% of the first $20,000 (or $4,000) plus 10% of the funds payable that exceeds $20,000. Any administrative costs in excess of these limits must be paid from non-Federal sources.”
○ Change “Crisis Assistance” to “Summer crisis assistance,” one question for “Winter crisis assistance,” and one for “Year-round assistance.”
•
○ Remove Other and entire column. All allowable options are listed, other is not applicable.
○ Insert “at least” before the word “one” in two places in this question. The edited question would be “Do you consider households categorically eligible if at least one household member receives at least one of the following categories of benefits in the left column below?”
• 1.4a—Add a text box “Provide your definition of categorical eligibility. Please explain how households are categorically eligible (
• If 1.4 is answered no, do not allow the table to be completed. Caused data inconsistencies in the data dashboard and requires manual review.
•
○ Hyperlink the word “nominal” to a description of the word: Nominal benefits are LIHEAP payments over $20 made to SNAP households with an energy burden that allow the household to claim the SNAP “heating/cooling standard utility allowance” (SUA).
• 1.8—Add “Other—Describe.” Grant recipients indicated there are exceptions and this box will allow those exceptions to be described and understood more clearly.
• 1.9—Remove SNAP and WIC as they cannot be counted as income.
•
•
○ A PDF version of the application is available online and can be downloaded, filled out, and mailed in for processing.
○ A state-wide online application that allows a customer to complete data
○ One or more locally available online applications that allows a customer to complete data entry and submit an application electronically for processing.
○ Online application that is also mobile friendly.
○ Other, please describe.
○ If any of the above boxes are checked, please include a link here:
•
• 1.11 Do you have a process for conducting and completing applications by phone (Yes/No)?
• 1.12 Do you or any of your subrecipients require in person appointments in order to apply (Yes/No)? If yes, please provide more information.
• 1.13 How can applicants submit documentation for verification? Select all that apply (in-person, mail, email, portal application, other-describe).
• 2.2—Correct the spelling of “assistance”
• 2.3—Change “Elderly” to “Older Adults” (60 years or older)
• 2.3—Change “Disabled” to “Individuals with a disability”
• 2.4—Add space between “to” and “vulnerable”
• 2.6—Add the following sentence: “Please note: the maximum and minimum benefits must be shown in the payment matrix.”
• 3.3—Change “Elderly” to “Older Adults”
• 3.3—Change “Disabled” to “Individuals with a disability”
• 3.4—Add space between “to” and “vulnerable”
• 3.6—Add the following sentence: “Please note: the maximum and minimum benefits must be shown in the payment matrix.”
• 4.2—Add to narrative, “If you administer multiple crisis assistance programs (winter, summer, and/or year-round), Include all program definitions.”
• 4.6-4.7 and 4.10-4.13—Modify so that it is no longer “yes or no” but mirrors question 4.15 so they can select which program the response is applicable. If the component is not selected under 1.2, the boxes will be grayed out so they cannot select that option. Modify the instructions for the section to be “Check appropriate boxes below to indicate type(s) of assistance provided”
• 4.6—Remove all CAPS from Crisis Assistance
• 4.7—Change “Elderly” to “Older Adults”
• 4.7—Change “Disabled” to “Individuals with a disability”
• 4.8—Modify “Fast Track” to “Benefit Fast Track, no separate amount of crisis funds is issued. Rather benefits are issued to crisis customers within crisis response time frames”
• 4.9—Add a box next to the question, “Amount to resolve crisis, up to a maximum amount”
• 4.11—Change “Physically Disabled” to “Individuals with a disability”
• 4.18—Add question that says, “Do you intend to utilize LIHEAP crisis funds to address disaster related crisis situations? “Yes” or “No” If yes, describe.” Add hover over box that states “OCS' block grant funding has built in flexibility to support grant recipients in disaster response. Please visit
• 5.3—Modify to “If yes, name the agency and attach a copy of the Internal Agreement or Contract.”
• 5.8—Change “Elderly” to “Older Adults”
• 5.8—Change “Disabled” to “Individuals with a Disability”
• 5.9—Add a 5.9a replace with current 5.10 “If yes, what is the maximum”
• 5.10—Change to “Do you use an Average Cost per Unit (ACPU).”
○ 5.10a If so, what is the ACPU amount?
• 5.11—This section needs two boxes for roof top solar and community solar projects.
• 6.1—This section needs to include other outreach including web posting, email, texting, events, and social media.
• 7.1—This section needs to include data entry field next to the first two boxes.
• Joint application for multiple programs (indicate programs included)
• Intake referrals to/from other programs (indicate programs)
• 8.1 -
○ Add “Economic Development Agency”
○ Change “Welfare” to “State Department of Welfare (administers TANF, SNAP, and/or Medicaid)”
○ Eliminate space between “Energy” and “/” and “Environment Agency”
•
• Add 8.10: “If an agency is no longer providing LIHEAP, are you aware of prior-year LIHEAP funds being mismanaged or misspent? Yes or No”
• 8.10a “If yes, please explain.”
• 8.10b “Were other federal programs impacted such as CSBG, SSBG, Head Start, TANF, and Dept. of Energy Weatherization funding, etc.? Yes or No”
• 8.10c “If yes, please explain.”
○ Questions added due to previous situations and questions needing a response to these specific items.
• Add option at the end of the section to attach a copy of the vendor agreement.
• 10.1—Revise the question as, “How do you ensure proper fiscal accounting and tracking of funds?” Add the following instructional sentence: “Be specific about tracking of grant award, tracking of expenditures, tracking vendor (benefit) refunds, fiscal reporting process, and fiscal software system being used.” Clarification for grant recipients.
• 10.1a—New Question: “Provide your definitions of the following:
○ Obligation (insert explanation box)
○ Expenditures (insert explanation box)
○ Expenditure timeframe (insert explanation box)
○ Administrative costs (insert explanation box)”
• 10.2a—Add question: “If yes, describe your auditor selection process.”
• 10.3—Change wording to “Describe any audit findings of the grant recipient (
• 10.5—Change question to “Describe your monitoring process for compliance at each level below.”
○ Change “Grant recipient employees” check box to state:
• Grant recipients have a policy in place for appropriate separation of duties and internal controls
• Other, describe
• 10.7—Rewrite the question as “Describe how you select local agencies for monitoring reviews. Attach a risk assessment if subrecipients are utilized.”
• 10.8—Add boxes “Annually,” “Bi-annually,” “Tri-annually,” and “Other.” Please attach a monitoring schedule if one has been developed.
• 10.9 and 10.10—Remove.
• 10.11—Revise the question to “How many local agencies are currently on corrective action plans?”
• 10.12—Remove.
• 11.1—Add explanation that Tribes do not need to hold a public hearing but must ensure participation through other means.
• 11.2—Remove. Removing because question is duplicative of 11.6.
• 11.3—Insert an option to add rows for additional dates and locations that they held public hearings on the proposed use and distribution of their LIHEAP funds.
• 11.6—Revise the question as follows: “What changes did you make to your LIHEAP plan as a result of public participation and solicitation of input?”
• 12.4—Change question: “Describe your fair hearing procedures for households whose applications are denied and/or not acted upon in a timely manner.”
• 12.5—Remove.
• 12.6—Remove.
• 13.3—Add the following instructional sentence: “Impact can be measured in many different ways by using: logic model, data tracking system, process evaluation, impact evaluation, number of households served vs applied, and performance management, etc.”
• 13.4—Add a space between “of” and “direct”
• 13.5—Remove.
• 14.3—Add a space between “of” and “45”
• 15.1a-c—Change question to be consistent with each entity type (grant recipient, local agency, vendor)
○ Formal training provided virtually, on-site, and/or formal training conference
• Annually
• Biannually
• As needed
• Other, describe.
• 17.1b—Add “Posted in local administering agencies offices.”
• 17.4—Change “aliens” to “qualified non-citizens” in intro text. The second option in the question is phrased as “legal residence” but it needs to be changed to “U.S. Citizen or Qualified Non-Citizen.” The second box option should read “Client's submission of certain Social Security Administration cards is accepted as proof of U.S. Citizen or Qualified Non-Citizen.”
• 17.4—Rewrite the question as “What are your procedures for ensuring LIHEAP recipients are U.S. citizens or qualified non-citizens who are eligible to receive LIHEAP benefits?”
• 17.6—Should also include how electronic files are protected in a secure location.
• 19.1—Place of Performance: Add instructional sentence that this must be physical address. No PO Boxes allowed.
• 21.1—Add the following acknowledgment statement and a check box: “By checking this box, the prospective primary participant is agreeing to the Assurances set out above.”
Add optional attachment section for the following items: Policy Manual; Subrecipient Contract; Model Plan Participation Notes for Tribes.
The estimated time per response for the FY 2025 Model Plan has been increased based on the revisions. The estimated time per response for the FY 2026 Model Plan will reduce back after revisions are in place and respondents can duplicate response in OLDC.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee (the Committee). The general function of the Committee is to provide advice and recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.
The meeting will be held on March 5, 2024, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
All meeting participants will be heard, viewed, captioned, and recorded for this advisory committee meeting via an online teleconferencing and/or video conferencing platform.
Answers to commonly asked questions about FDA advisory committee meetings, may be accessed at:
FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2023-N-5745. The docket will close on March 4, 2024. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Comments received on or before February 20, 2024, will be provided to the Committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by FDA. In the event that the meeting is cancelled, FDA will continue to evaluate any relevant applications or information, and consider any comments submitted to the docket, as appropriate.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” FDA will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Jessica Seo, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-7699, email:
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available on FDA's website at the time of the advisory committee meeting. Background material and the link to the online teleconference and/or video conference meeting will be available at
For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Jessica Seo (see
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 1001
Indian Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
This Notice advises the public that the Indian Health Service (IHS) proposes to expand the geographic boundaries of the Purchased/Referred Care Delivery Area (PRCDA) for the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation to include the counties of Fairfield, Hartford, Litchfield, Middlesex, New Haven, Tolland, and Windham in the State of Connecticut. The current PRCDA for the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation includes the Connecticut county of New London. Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation members residing outside of the PRCDA are eligible for direct care services, however, they are not eligible for Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) services. The sole purpose of this expansion would be to authorize additional Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation members and IHS beneficiaries to receive PRC services.
Comments must be submitted by February 20, 2024.
Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission. You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
1.
2.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3.
4.
CAPT John Rael, Director, Office of Resource Access and Partnerships, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 10E85C, Rockville, Maryland 20857. Telephone (301) 443-0969 (This is not a toll free number).
The regulations at 42 CFR part 136, subpart C provide that, unless otherwise designated, a PRCDA shall consist of a county which includes all or part of a reservation and any county or counties which have a common boundary with the reservation. 42 CFR 136.22(a)(6). The regulations also provide that after consultation with the Tribal governing body or bodies on those reservations included within the PRCDA, the Secretary may, from time to time,
(1) The number of Indians residing in the area proposed to be so included or excluded;
(2) Whether the Tribal governing body has determined that Indians residing in the area near the reservation are socially and economically affiliated with the Tribe;
(3) The geographic proximity to the reservation of the area whose inclusion or exclusion is being considered; and
(4) The level of funding which would be available for the provision of PRC. Additionally, the regulations require that any redesignation of a PRCDA must be made in accordance with the procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). 42 CFR 136.22(c). In compliance with this requirement, the IHS is publishing this Notice and requesting public comments.
The Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation's (MPTN, or Tribe) reservation is located in New London County, Connecticut. The PRC Program is operated as a Tribal Health Program by the MPTN in Mashantucket, CT. The MPTN estimates that approximately 32 Tribal members and MPTN employees who are members of other federally recognized Tribes reside in the proposed expansion counties, and would become PRC eligible through this proposal. The MPTN states that the Tribal members and American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) employees who reside in the expanded counties are socially and economically affiliated with the Tribe, including through employment and the utilization of direct health care services. The MPTN would like to recognize these persons as eligible for PRC. Through communication with MPTN's representatives, the IHS also understands that MPTN's members live in all of the counties requested. Accordingly, the IHS proposes to expand the PRCDA of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation to include the Connecticut counties of Fairfield, Hartford, Litchfield, Middlesex, New Haven, Tolland, and Windham.
If the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation's PRCDA expansion is finalized as proposed, the Tribe's PRCDA would overlap completely with the PRCDA of the Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut. The Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut has previously expressed support of any future request made by a federally recognized Tribe to establish the entire state of Connecticut as a PRCDA, and has not expressed any objection to the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation's proposed PRCDA expansion.
Under 42 CFR 136.23, those otherwise eligible Indians who do not reside on a reservation, but reside within a PRCDA, must be either members of the Tribe or other IHS beneficiaries who maintain close economic and social ties with the Tribe. In this case, applying the aforementioned PRCDA redesignation criteria required by operative regulations codified at 42 CFR part 136, subpart C, the following findings are made:
1. By expanding the PRCDA to include Fairfield, Hartford, Litchfield, Middlesex, New Haven, Tolland, and Windham Counties, the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation's eligible population will be increase by an estimated 32 Tribal members and AI/AN employees.
2. The IHS finds that the Tribal members and AI/AN employees within the expanded PRCDA are socially and economically affiliated with the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation based on a tribal resolution in which the MPTN Tribal Council identified its intent to expand the PRCDA to include all of Connecticut, and stated that the Native Americans residing in such areas are socially and economically affiliated with MPTN.
3. The expanded PRCDA counties form a contiguous area with the existing PRCDA, and within one of the smallest states. In addition to their AI/AN employees, MPTN's members reside in each of the counties proposed for inclusion. For these reasons, the IHS has determined the additional counties proposed for inclusion herein to be geographically proximate, meaning “on or near,” to the existing PRCDA.
4. The MPTN has indicated that its PRC program can continue providing the same level of care to the PRC eligible population if the PRCDA is expanded as proposed, without requiring additional funding or reduction of the current medical priority level.
This Notice does not contain reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to prior approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the NIH Clinical Center Research Hospital Board.
This will be a hybrid meeting held in-person and virtually and will be open to the public as indicated below. Individuals who plan to attend in-person or view the virtual meeting and need special assistance or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person(s) listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting can be accessed from the NIH Videocast at the following link:
Natascha Pointer, Management Analyst, Executive Assistant to Dr. Gilman, Office of the Chief Executive Officer, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, 10 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892,
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person(s) listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and, when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has procedures at
Information is also available on the CCRHB website:
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Office on Women's Health, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Notice of correction for request for information.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration published a document in the
Valerie Kolick, Designated Federal Officer, Advisory Committee for Women's Services, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Suite 18E01, Rockville, MD 20857. Phone: 240-276-1738 or Email:
Correction, from FR Doc. 2023-28890, Vol.89, No.6, pages 1110 and 1111.
In the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Notice.
Pursuant to the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, as amended, the Administrator of FEMA is publishing this notice describing the fiscal year (FY) 2023 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program application process, deadlines, and award selection criteria. This notice explains the differences, if any, between these guidelines and those recommended by representatives of the national fire service leadership during the annual meeting of the Criteria Development Panel (CDP), which was held July 18-19, 2023. The application period for the FY 2023 AFG Program is Jan. 29, 2024-March 8, 2024, and was announced on the FEMA AFG Program website at
Grant applications for the FY 2023 AFG Program are being accepted electronically through the FEMA Grant Outcomes (FEMA GO) system at https://go.fema.gov/, through 5 p.m. ET on March 8, 2024.
DHS/FEMA/GPD, Assistance to Firefighters Grants Branch, 400 C St. SW, 3N, FEMA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20472-3635.
Paul Parsons, Chief, Assistance to Firefighters Grants Branch, 1-866-274-0960 or
The AFG program awards grants directly to fire departments, nonaffiliated emergency medical service (EMS) organizations, and state fire training academies (SFTA) for enhancing the health and safety of first responders and improving their abilities to the public from fire and fire-related hazards. Applications for the FY 2023 AFG program are submitted and processed online through
For the FY 2023 AFG program, Congress appropriated $360 million through the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2023, Public Law 117-328. From this amount, $324 million will be made available for FY 2023 AFG Program awards. In addition, section 33 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, as amended (
The Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 further directs FEMA to administer these appropriations according to the following requirements:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Since 2001, AFG has awarded approximately $8.4 billion in grant funding to help firefighters and other first responders obtain critically needed equipment, protective gear, emergency vehicles, training, and other resources needed to protect the public and emergency personnel from fire and fire-related hazards. FEMA awards grants on a competitive basis to the applicants
• Operations and Safety;
• Vehicle Acquisition; and
• Regional Projects.
The priorities for each activity are fully outlined in the funding notice.
Before making a grant award, FEMA is required by
FEMA will rank all complete and submitted applications based on how well they align with program priorities for the type of jurisdiction(s) served. Answers to activity-specific questions provide information used to determine each application's ranking relative to the stated program priorities.
Funding priorities and criteria for evaluating AFG applications are established by FEMA based on the recommendations from the Criteria Development Panel (CDP). The CDP is composed of fire service professionals who make recommendations to FEMA regarding creating new, or modifying previously established, funding priorities, as well as developing criteria for awarding grants. The content of the funding notice reflects implementation of the CDP's recommendations with respect to the priorities and evaluation criteria for awards.
The nine major fire service organizations represented on the CDP:
AFG applications are reviewed through a multi-phase process. All applications are electronically pre-scored and ranked based on how well they align with the funding priorities outlined in the funding notice. Applications with the highest pre-score rankings are then scored competitively by no less than three members of a Peer Review Panel. Applications are also evaluated through a series of internal FEMA review processes for completeness, adherence to programmatic guidelines, technical feasibility, and anticipated effectiveness of the proposed project(s). Below is the process by which applications are reviewed:
The application undergoes an electronic pre-scoring process based on established program priorities listed in the funding notice and answers to activity-specific questions within the online application. Application narratives are not reviewed during pre-scoring. Request details and budget information should comply with program guidance and statutory funding limitations. The pre-score is 50% of the total application score.
Applications with the highest pre-score undergo peer review. The peer review is comprised of fire service representatives recommended by the organizations represented on the CDP. The panelists assess the merits of each application based on the narrative section of the application, including the evaluation elements listed in the Narrative Evaluation Criteria below. Panelists independently score each project within the application, discuss the merits and/or shortcomings of the application with their peers, and document the findings. A consensus is not required. The panel score is 50% of the total application score.
The highest ranked applications will be considered within the fundable range. Applications that are in the fundable range will undergo both a Technical Review by a subject-matter expert as well as a FEMA Program Office review before being recommended for award. The FEMA Program Office will assess the request with respect to costs, quantities, feasibility, eligibility, and recipient responsibility prior to recommending any application for award. Once the Technical Evaluation Process is complete, each application's cumulative score will be determined and a final ranking of applications will be created. FEMA will award grants based on this final ranking and the ability to meet statutorily required funding limitations outlined in the funding notice.
Applicants should describe their financial need and how consistent it is with the intent of the AFG program. This statement should include details describing the applicant's financial distress, summarized budget constraints, unsuccessful attempts to secure other funding, and proof that their financial distress is out of their control.
This statement should clearly explain the applicant's project objectives and the relationship between those objectives and the applicant's budget and risk analysis. The applicant should describe the activities, including program priorities or facility modifications, ensuring consistency with project objectives, the applicant's mission, and any national, state and/or local requirements. Applicants should link the proposed expenses to operations and safety, as well as the completion of the project goals.
Applicants should describe how they plan to address the operations and personal safety needs of their organization, including cost effectiveness and sharing assets. This statement should also include details about gaining the maximum benefits from grant funding by citing reasonable or required costs, such as specific overhead and administrative costs. The applicant's request should also be consistent with their mission and identify how funding will benefit their organization and personnel.
This statement should explain how these funds will enhance the applicant's overall effectiveness. It should address how an award will improve daily
• Clinics;
• Medical centers;
• Medical colleges or universities;
• Infirmaries;
• Surgery centers; and
• Any other institutions, associations, or foundations providing medical, surgical, or psychiatric care and/or treatment for the sick or injured
FEMA considers two or more separate fire departments or nonaffiliated EMS organizations with different funding streams, personnel rosters, and Employer Identification Numbers (EIN) but sharing the same facilities as being separate organizations for the purposes of AFG eligibility. If two or more organizations share facilities and each submits an application in the same program area (
• Nonaffiliated EMS organization requests for any activity that is specific or unique to structural/proximity/wildlands firefighting gear.
• Fire departments that are a Federal Government entity, or contracted by the Federal Government, and are solely responsible under a formally recognized agreement for suppression of fires on Federal installations or land.
• Fire departments or nonaffiliated EMS organizations that are not independent entities but are part of, controlled by, or under the day-to-day operational command and control of a larger department, agency or Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ).
○ However, if a fire department is considered to be the same legal entity as a municipality or other governmental organization, and otherwise meets the eligibility criteria, that municipality or other governmental organization may apply on behalf of that fire department as long as the application clearly states that the fire department is considered part of the same legal entity.
• Fire-based EMS organization applying as a nonaffiliated EMS organization.
• Auxiliaries, hospitals or fire service associations or interest organizations that are not the AHJ over the applicant.
• Dive teams, search and rescue squads, or similar organizations that do not provide medical transport.
• Fire departments, regional or nonaffiliated EMS organizations that are for profit.
• State or local agencies, or subsets of any governmental entity, or any authority that do not meet the requirements as defined by 15 U.S.C. 2229(a), (c).
• If an applicant submits two or more applications for the same equipment or other eligible activity (for example, if an applicant submits two or more applications, one under the Regional activity, and one under the Operations and Safety activity for self-contained breathing apparatus [SCBA]), both applications may be disqualified. If an applicant submits two separate applications for the same activity (
○ This is different from when an entity is applying on behalf of other organizations that are agencies or instrumentalities of the applicant (
○ Eligible Fire Department and nonaffiliated EMS applicants may submit only one application for each of the following application types: Individual Operations and Safety, Individual Vehicle, Regional Operations and Safety, and Regional Vehicle. Under the Operations and Safety applications, applicants may submit for multiple activities and for multiple items within each activity. Under the Vehicle application, applicants may submit one application for a vehicle activity (or activities) for their department and one separate application for a regional vehicle (the same vehicle(s) may not be
Congress has enacted statutory limits to the amount of funding that a grant recipient may receive from AFG in any single fiscal year based on the population served (
• In the case of a recipient that serves a jurisdiction with 100,000 people or fewer, the amount of available grant funds awarded to such recipient shall not exceed $1 million in any fiscal year.
• In the case of a recipient that serves a jurisdiction with more than 100,000 people, but not more than 500,000 people, the amount of available grant funds awarded to such recipient shall not exceed $2 million in any fiscal year.
• In the case of a recipient that serves a jurisdiction with more than 500,000 people, but not more than 1 million people, the amount of available grant funds awarded to such recipient shall not exceed $3 million in any fiscal year.
• In the case of a recipient that serves a jurisdiction with more than 1 million people, but not more than 2.5 million people, the amount of available grant funds awarded to such recipient is subject to the 1% aggregate cap of $3.24 million for FY 2023. FEMA may waive this aggregate cap in individual cases where FEMA determines that a recipient has an extraordinary need for a grant that exceeds the aggregate cap. If FEMA waives the aggregate cap, the amount of grant funds awarded to such a recipient shall not exceed $6 million for any fiscal year.
• In the case of a recipient that serves a jurisdiction with more than 2.5 million people, the amount of available grant funds awarded to such recipient is subject to the 1% aggregate cap of $3.24 million for FY 2023. FEMA may waive this aggregate cap in individual cases where FEMA determines that a recipient has an extraordinary need for a grant that exceeds the aggregate cap. If FEMA waives the aggregate cap, the amount of grant funds awarded to such recipient shall not exceed $9 million for any fiscal year.
• FEMA may not waive the population-based limits on the amount of grant funds awarded as set by
The cumulative total of the Federal share of awards in Operations and Safety, Regional, and Vehicle Acquisition activities will be considered when assessing award amounts and any limitations thereto. Applicants may request funding up to the statutory limit on each of their applications.
For example, an applicant that serves a jurisdiction with more than 100,000 people, but not more than 500,000 people, may request up to $2 million on their Operations and Safety Application and up to $2 million on their Vehicle Acquisition request. However, should both grants be awarded, the applicant would have to choose which award to accept if the cumulative value of both applications exceeds the statutory limits.
Grant recipients must share in the costs of the projects funded under this grant program as required by
In general, an eligible applicant seeking a grant shall agree to make available non-Federal funds equal to not less than 15% of the grant awarded. However, the cost share will vary as follows based on the size of the population served by the organization, with exceptions to this general requirement for entities serving smaller communities:
• Applicants that serve populations of 20,000 or less shall agree to make available non-Federal funds in an amount equal to not less than 5% of the grant awarded.
• Applicants serving areas with populations above 20,000, but not more than 1 million, shall agree to make available non-Federal funds in an amount equal to not less than 10% of the grant awarded.
• Applicants serving areas with populations above 1 million shall agree to make available non-Federal funds in an amount equal to not less than 15% of the grant awarded.
The cost share for SFTAs will apply the requirements above based on the total population of the state.
The cost share for a regional application will apply the requirements above based on the aggregate population of the primary first due response areas of the host and participating partner organizations that execute a Memorandum of Understanding as described in Appendix B, Section g., Regional Applications, of the FY 2023 AFG funding notice.
On a case-by-case basis, FEMA may allow a grant recipient that may already own assets (equipment or vehicles), acquired with non-Federal cash, to use the trade-in allowance/credit value of those assets as “cash” for the purpose of meeting the cost-share obligation of their AFG Program award. In-kind, cost-share matches are not allowed. Grant recipients under this grant program must also agree to a maintenance of effort requirement as required by
In cases of demonstrated economic hardship, and at the request of the grant recipient, the Administrator of FEMA may waive or reduce a grant recipient's cost-share requirement or maintenance of effort requirement. AFG applicants for FY 2023 must indicate at the time of application whether they are requesting a waiver and whether the waiver is for the cost-share requirement, for the maintenance of effort requirement, or both. As required by statute, the Administrator of FEMA is required to establish guidelines for determining what constitutes economic hardship. FEMA has published these guidelines on FEMA's website at
Before the start of the FY 2023 AFG application period, FEMA conducted applicant internet webinars to inform potential applicants. In addition, FEMA provided applicants with information at the AFG website,
Applicants can reach the AFG Program Help Desk through a toll-free
Organizations may submit one application per application period in each of the three AFG Program activities (
Applicants may access the grant application electronically at
Applicants are expected to answer questions about their grant request that reflect the AFG Program funding priorities. In addition, each applicant must complete four separate narratives for each project or grant activity requested. Grant applicants will also provide relevant information about their organization's characteristics, call volume, and existing organizational capabilities.
Per 2 CFR 25.200, all Federal grant applicants and recipients must register at
Effective April 4, 2022, the Federal Government transitioned from using the Data Universal Numbering System or DUNS number, to a new, non-proprietary identifier known as a Unique Entity Identifier or UEI. For entities that had an active registration in
FEMA will not make a Federal award until the applicant has complied with all applicable SAM requirements. Therefore, an applicant's SAM registration must be active not only at the time of application, but also during the application review period and when FEMA is ready to make a Federal award.
If there are any differences between the published AFG Program guidelines and the recommendations made by the CDP, FEMA must explain them and publish the information in the
Below is a list of changes between FY 2022 and FY 2023 to the AFG Program. The FY 2023 AFG Program funding notice contains some changes to definitions, descriptions, and priority categories. Changes include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Other equipment items were moved to Medium Priority. EMS equipment priority levels remain unchanged. Priority changes did not affect SFTA, and NAEMS applicants.
○ Phones (telephone/satellite/cell), carrier plans and vehicle mounted fans were added as ineligible items.
○ Clarity for reason for funding request (purpose) was added. Funding notice and application text updated from “Obtain equipment to achieve minimum operational and deployment standards for existing missions” to “Obtain equipment needed but not currently owned or replace equipment that is broken and/or damaged beyond repair to achieve minimum operational and deployment standards for existing missions” to better define the funding priorities.
○ Computing devices necessary to operate the awarded equipment were added as eligible.
•
○ Replacement of damaged/unsafe/unrepairable PPE (including SCBA) regardless of age is now allowable.
○ Language regarding PFAS in PPE was moved from the Application Tips section to PPE Activity section and updated to encourage award recipients to seek acquisition of PFAS-free gear when possible.
○ NFPA standard was added to the Chemical/Biological Suites under Specialized PPE.
•
•
• Recommendation to allow applicants replacement or new purchase of a second set of firefighter PPE was not adopted for FY 2023. This recommendation requires predictive modeling not currently available.
• Combination of the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) training line
• Addition of the following EMS equipment line items as a Medium Priority was not adopted:
• Recommendation from the National Volunteer Fire Council to reduce application requirements to simplify the process for the applicants was deferred until FEMA Grants Outcomes system is operating at full capacity.
Public Indian Housing (PIH) Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC), HUD.
Notice of a rescindment of a systems of records.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is issuing a public notice of its intent to rescind the Privacy Act system of records, Housing and Urban Development—Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing System (HUD-VASH), because the project was terminated and never went into development.
Comments will be accepted on or before February 20, 2024. This proposed action will be effective immediately upon publication.
You may submit comments, identified by one of the following methods:
LaDonne White, Chief Privacy Officer, 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 10139; Washington, DC 20410; telephone number (202) 708-3054 (this is not a toll-free number). HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals with speech or communication disabilities. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit
The HUD-VASH SORN is being terminated because the project never went into development. Back in 2012 when this SORN was published, the intent was to create the HUD-VASH system. HUD never developed the HUD-VASH system. Records are no longer maintained by HUD and have run the record retention period. All data containing PII has been deleted.
HUD-VASH system does not exist; it was never created hence a system number was not created/assigned.
Agency Docket Number FR-5613-N-03, 77 FR 26029 (June 01, 2012).
Office of Policy Development and Research, Chief Data Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, REE, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(5) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. This notice follows a proposed notice published on September 5, 2023, requesting comments on the renewal of this information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, REE, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A. The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A and more specifically regarding:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(5) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
The public comment period for the notice published on September 5, 2023, closed on November 6, 2023.
Office of Policy Development and Research, Chief Data Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, REE, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(5) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is proposing a new information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 20, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request additional information about this Information Collection Request (ICR), contact Sara McBride by email at
In accordance with the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
A
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How the agency might minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information (PII) in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your PII—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your PII from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, nor is a person required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the PRA.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of intent.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State Director intends to prepare a resource management plan (RMP) amendment with an associated Environmental Assessment for the Dodge Flat II Solar Energy Center and by this notice is announcing the beginning of the scoping period to solicit public comments and identify issues, and is providing the planning criteria for public review.
The BLM requests the public submit comments concerning the scope of the analysis, potential alternatives, and identification of relevant information and studies by February 20, 2024. To afford the BLM the opportunity to consider issues raised by the public, please ensure your comments are received prior to the close of the 30-day scoping period.
You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria related to the Dodge Flat II Solar Energy Center by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined online at
Katy Paiva, Realty Specialist, telephone (775) 885-6034; address 5665 Morgan Mill Rd., Carson City, NV 89701; email
This document provides notice that the BLM Nevada State Director intends to prepare an RMP amendment with an associated Environmental Assessment for the Dodge Flat II Solar Energy Center, announces the beginning of the scoping process, and seeks public input on issues and planning criteria. The RMP amendment is being considered to allow the BLM to evaluate the use of approximately 71 acres of public land that are identified as “exclusion lands” in the 2012 “Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States (Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah)” (Solar Programmatic EIS) Record of Decision due to slope criteria. The use of these exclusion lands for solar power generation would require amending the existing 2001 Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan, as amended by the Solar Programmatic EIS Record of Decision. The planning area is located in Washoe County, Nevada, and encompasses approximately 700 acres of public land. The scope of this land use planning process does not include addressing the evaluation or designation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), and the BLM is not considering ACEC nominations as part of this process.
The BLM's purpose for this Federal action is to respond to the right-of-way application submitted under Title V of the FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1761), and to amend the slope management direction in the 2001 Carson City Field Office
Under the No Action alternative, the BLM would not approve the proposed Dodge Flat II Solar Energy Center on public lands that are currently excluded from utility-scale solar energy development due to slopes exceeding 5 percent and would not amend the slope management direction in the 2001 Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan. Under the proposed action alternative, the BLM would change the slope management direction in the 2001 Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan to allow for the Dodge Flat II Solar Energy Center to be developed as currently proposed. The BLM welcomes comments and suggestions for additional alternatives.
The planning criteria guide the planning effort and lay the groundwork for effects analysis by identifying the preliminary issues and their analytical frameworks. Preliminary issues for the planning area have been identified by BLM personnel and from early engagement conducted for this planning effort with Federal, State, and local agencies; Tribes; and other stakeholders. The BLM has identified 10 preliminary issues for this planning effort's analysis. The planning criteria are available for public review and comment on the National NEPA Register website (see
This notice of intent initiates the scoping period and public review of the planning criteria, which guide the development and analysis of the RMP amendment and associated Environmental Assessment. The BLM will be holding one virtual scoping meeting. The specific date and time of the scoping meeting will be announced at least 15 days in advance through the National NEPA Register project web page
The BLM will use an interdisciplinary approach to develop the plan amendment in order to consider the variety of resource issues and concerns identified. Specialists with expertise in the following disciplines will be involved in this planning effort: air quality, cultural resources, botany, climate change (greenhouse gases), environmental justice, grazing, human health and safety, land use and authorizations, migratory birds, noise impacts, socioeconomics, transportation, visual resources, water quality, and wildlife.
The BLM will identify, analyze, and consider mitigation to address the reasonably foreseeable impacts to resources from the proposed plan amendment and all analyzed reasonable alternatives and, in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.14(e), include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed plan amendment or alternatives. Mitigation may include avoidance, minimization, rectification, reduction or elimination over time, and compensation; and may be considered at multiple scales, including the landscape scale.
The BLM will utilize and coordinate the NEPA and land use planning processes for this planning effort to help support compliance with applicable procedural requirements under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536) and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108) as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3), including public involvement requirements of section 106. The information about historic and cultural resources and threatened and endangered species within the area potentially affected by the proposed plan amendment will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources.
The BLM will consult with Indian Tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175, BLM MS 1780, and other Departmental policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with Indian Tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed Dodge Flat II Solar Energy Center project that the BLM is evaluating, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the environmental analysis as a cooperating agency.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Utility-scale Solar Energy Development and associated Resource Management Plan (RMP) Amendments and by this notice is providing information announcing the opening of the comment period on the Draft Programmatic EIS.
This notice announces the opening of a 90-day comment period for the Draft Programmatic EIS beginning with the date following the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) publication of its Notice of Availability (NOA) in the
To afford the BLM the opportunity to consider comments in the course of preparing the Proposed RMP Amendments/Final Programmatic EIS, please ensure your comments are received prior to the close of the 90-day
The BLM will hold two virtual and six in-person public meetings during the comment period. Public meetings will commence on February 5, 2024, with the first being a virtual meeting. In-person public meetings will be held in the following cities:
Additional information for all public meetings is available at the project website listed in the addresses section below.
The Draft Programmatic EIS is available for review on the BLM ePlanning project website at
Written comments related to the Draft Programmatic EIS may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Jeremy Bluma, Senior Advisor, National Renewable Energy Coordination Office, BLM Headquarters, email:
This document provides notice that the BLM has prepared, in collaboration with Cooperating Agencies, a Draft Programmatic EIS and is announcing the opening of the comment period. The Final Programmatic EIS may support a series of RMP amendments following its completion. The Draft Programmatic EIS identifies the land use plans that may be amended.
The planning area is located within the 11 States of Arizona, California (excluding the lands covered by the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan in seven southern California counties), Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming and encompasses approximately 162 million acres of BLM-administered public land.
The BLM is undertaking this programmatic evaluation to assess the potential environmental, cultural, and economic impacts of modifying its current solar energy program across the 11 Western States. Potential modifications, through land use plan amendments, are being considered to improve management consistency regarding utility-scale solar energy development, advance national renewable energy development priorities and goals, and address changes in solar technologies that have occurred since the BLM's last solar energy planning effort in 2012. Potential land use plan amendments would align with the principles of multiple use and sustained yield, consistent with FLPMA. Under FLPMA, the BLM strives to make land use decisions that meet the Nation's many needs, are environmentally responsible, and take into account the use and enjoyment of the public lands by present and future generations. The BLM seeks to advance its solar energy program consistent with balanced management for other important land uses such as recreational use; agricultural use, such as grazing; other energy and mineral development; resource protection, including National Monuments and National Conservation Areas; wilderness areas and wilderness study areas; other specially designated areas; wildlife and big game; water resources; cultural, historical, and paleontological resources; and restoration of lands and resources where appropriate.
The purpose of the proposed action is to facilitate improved siting of utility-scale solar energy development by identifying areas of BLM-administered lands where solar energy development proposals may encounter fewer resource conflicts as “solar application areas” and identifying areas of public lands with known high potential for resource conflicts as “exclusion areas.” There is a need to improve the solar development application process by providing development opportunities in specified “solar application areas” while maintaining sufficient flexibility to account for site-specific resource considerations on a case-by-case basis as part of subsequent project-specific decisions. Although additional site-specific environmental analysis under NEPA will be needed to support project-level decisions to authorize utility-scale solar energy development, this macro-scale programmatic land use planning effort will provide a framework for making those decisions in a systematic and consistent way. Applications processed under this framework are expected to have a higher likelihood of alignment with the BLM's multiple use and sustained yield mission than under current land use plans, leading to more expedient processing without jeopardizing critical resources or other uses of public lands.
This programmatic planning effort also responds to changes that have occurred since the BLM's last programmatic solar development planning effort. First, utility-scale solar energy development on and off public lands has significantly increased and is expected to continue to increase in view of a growing public interest in carbon pollution-free energy generation. Second, due to technological advancements and economic forces affecting power markets, the composition of proposed solar energy generation projects is now different, with one example being a focus by solar developers in the United States on using photovoltaic technology rather than solar thermal facilities. Third, due to some of the technological advancements mentioned above, the BLM is receiving increased interest in utility-scale solar energy development on public lands at more northern latitudes.
In response to these changes, the BLM needs to update its administration of the public lands to facilitate responsible siting of solar energy development. The BLM seeks to accomplish this by amending its land use plans in the 11 Western States to identify areas more suitable for solar development while appropriately excluding solar energy development applications from areas where protection is warranted based on critical need(s). Potential land use plan amendments may also involve updating design features and environmental evaluation processes and incorporating new information and additional environmental analysis.
The BLM has analyzed six alternatives in detail, including the no action alternative. Each alternative makes available varying amounts of public lands for solar development applications. In descending order from the most available public lands for solar development application, Alternative 1 would make available approximately 55 million acres; the No Action Alternative would maintain the availability of approximately 47 million acres; Alternative 2 would make available approximately 36 million acres; Alternative 3 would make available
A reasonably foreseeable development scenario (RFDS) was developed as part of the Draft Programmatic EIS to help define the potential magnitude of solar energy development that could occur within the 11-State study area by 2045. Based on the RFDS, the estimated demand for solar energy generation on public lands by 2045 will be approximately 93,000 megawatts, which would require making approximately 700,000 acres of public land available for utility-scale solar development.
The BLM has identified Alternative 3 as the preferred alternative in the Draft Programmatic EIS. Alternative 3 would make public lands within 10 miles of existing and planned transmission lines over 100 kilovolts available for solar applications unless otherwise excluded based on the resource-based exclusion criteria identified in the EIS. Alternative 3 would improve the solar development application process by excluding solar energy development applications from areas where protection is warranted and providing development siting opportunities in specified “solar application areas” while maintaining sufficient siting flexibility to account for site-specific resource considerations on a case-by-case basis under subsequent project-specific decisions.
Mitigation under the Programmatic EIS would generally take the form of avoidance and minimization. Avoidance would be achieved by excluding certain areas of public lands from solar energy development applications, depending on the alternative, based on defined criteria. Minimization would be achieved by requiring that various programmatic design features be incorporated into solar development proposals. Additional mitigation, including further avoidance, minimization, and compensation, may be required and incorporated into a solar development proposal at the project approval stage.
The BLM will provide this and additional opportunities for public participation consistent with NEPA and land use planning processes, including a 30-day public protest period and a 60-day Governor's consistency review on the Final Programmatic EIS and Proposed RMP Amendments. The Proposed RMP Amendments/Final Programmatic EIS is anticipated to be available for public protest in August 2024.
The BLM will continue to consult with Indian Tribal Nations on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175, BLM MS 1780, and other Departmental policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Consultation will continue on an individual basis with interested Tribes.
Comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS would be most helpful if provided at a level similar to that of master planning and zoning and with a focus on where solar development on public lands is most appropriate and where it should be disallowed and precluded from consideration. Comments about suggested design features that may be appropriate for the BLM to require are also encouraged.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces the availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the approved Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the Royal Gorge Field Office located in eastern Colorado. The Colorado State Director signed the ROD on January 9, 2024, which constitutes the final decision of the BLM and makes the approved RMP effective immediately.
The Colorado State Director signed the ROD on January 9, 2024.
The ROD/approved RMP is available online at
A copy of the Protest Resolution Report is available at:
John Smeins, Project Manager, telephone 719-252-8212; address 3028 E Main St., Cañon City, CO 81212; email
The BLM prepared the Eastern Colorado proposed RMP/final environmental impact statement (EIS) to evaluate and revise the management strategy for resources, resource uses, and special designations on public lands managed by the Royal Gorge Field Office, which is the planning area for the RMP. Existing management decisions for public lands and resources in the Royal Gorge Field Office are currently described in two documents: the 1986 Northeast RMP, as amended; and the 1996 Royal Gorge RMP, as amended.
The planning area encompasses approximately 35 million acres of land under various jurisdictions, including the BLM, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, State of Colorado, and local government, and private lands in 37 counties across south-central and eastern Colorado. The Browns Canyon National Monument is not part of the planning area for this RMP/EIS, as it is
The approved RMP emphasizes balancing resources and resource use among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resource values, while sustaining and enhancing ecological integrity across the landscape, including plant, wildlife, and fish habitat. This plan has four geographic landscapes with distinct management and incorporates a balanced level of protection, restoration, and enhancement, as well as the use of resources and services to meet ongoing programs and land uses with an emphasis on local community visions for the future of public lands.
Through this collaborative planning effort, the approved RMP describes the actions to guide future management and meet desired resource conditions. The preferred alternative for the draft plan was carried forward into the final with modifications.
The BLM provided the proposed RMP/final EIS on July 7, 2023, for a 30-day public protest period and received five protest letters. The BLM's Assistant Director for Resources and Planning resolved all protests. Responses to protest issues have been compiled and documented in a Protest Resolution Report (see
The BLM provided the proposed RMP/final EIS to the Governor of Colorado for a 60-day Governor's consistency review. No inconsistencies with State or local plans, policies, or programs were identified during the Governor's consistency review of the proposed RMP/final EIS. No changes to the Eastern Colorado proposed RMP/EIS were necessary as a result of the Governor's consistency review.
The decisions limiting camping are implementation decisions and are appealable under 43 CFR part 4. These decisions are contained in Tables II-16 and II-17 of the approved RMP. Any party adversely affected by the proposed camping limitations may appeal within 30 days of publication of this Notice of Availability pursuant to 43 CFR, part 4, subpart E. The appeal must be filed with the Royal Gorge Field Manager at the above listed address. Please consult the appropriate regulations (43 CFR, part 4, subpart E) for further appeal requirements.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of proposed official filing.
The plats of surveys for the lands described in this notice are scheduled to be officially filed 30 calendar days after the date of this publication in the BLM Montana State Office, Billings, Montana. The surveys, which were executed at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Great Plains Region, Aberdeen, South Dakota are necessary for the management of these lands.
A person or party who wishes to protest this decision must file a notice of protest in time for it to be received in the BLM Montana State Office no later than February 20, 2024.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the BLM Montana State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101, upon required payment. The plats may be viewed at this location at no cost.
Joshua Alexander, BLM Chief Cadastral Surveyor for South Dakota; telephone: (406) 896-5123; email:
The lands surveyed are:
A person or party who wishes to protest an official filing of a plat of survey identified earlier must file a written notice of protest with the BLM Chief Cadastral Surveyor for South Dakota at the address listed in the
If a notice of protest of the plat(s) of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing or during the 10 calendar day grace period provided in 43 CFR 4.401(a) and the delay in filing is waived, the official filing of the plat(s) of survey identified in the notice of protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. Upon receipt of a timely protest, and after a review of the protest, the Authorized Officer will issue a decision either dismissing or otherwise resolving the protest. A plat of survey will then be officially filed 30 days after the protest decision has been issued in accordance with 43 CFR part 4.
If a notice of protest is received after the date described in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in a notice of protest or statement of reasons, you should be aware that the documents you submit—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available in their entirety at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces the availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Libra Solar Project, Lyon and Mineral Counties, Nevada.
To afford the BLM the opportunity to consider comments in the final EIS, please ensure that the BLM receives your comments within 45 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes its Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIS in the
The Draft EIS is available for review on the BLM National NEPA Register Website at
Written comments related to the Libra Solar Project may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined online at the BLM National NEPA Register website at
Melanie Hornsby, BLM Project Manager, telephone (775) 885-6024; address 5665 Morgan Mill Road, Carson City, NV 89701; email
Libra Solar LLC (Applicant) submitted a right-of-way (ROW) application to construct, operate, maintain, and decommission a 700-megawatt alternating current solar photovoltaic power generating facility with battery storage and associated components on approximately 5,114 acres of BLM-managed land in Mineral and Lyon counties, Nevada. The proposal also includes the development of a 24.1-mile-long generation tie line, of which 22.9 miles would be located on BLM managed lands, to connect the solar site to the Fort Churchill Substation in Lyon County. The total right-of-way requested for the project is 5,778 acres. The project would sit approximately 55 miles southeast of the Reno metropolitan area, 11 miles southeast of the town of Yerington, 7 miles west of U.S. Route 95, and 8 miles east of State Route 208.
The BLM's purpose and need is to respond to the ROW application submitted by the Applicant under FLPMA Title V (43 U.S.C. 1761) (serial number NVNV105844599, legacy serial number NVN-099846). The need for this action is to fulfill the BLM's responsibility under FLPMA and its ROW regulations to manage the public lands for multiple uses, including the generation of electric energy. FLPMA, as amended, established a multiple-use mandate for the BLM's management of Federal lands, including “systems for generation, transmission, and distribution of electric energy, except that the proponent shall also comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the Federal Power Act, including part I thereof (41 Stat. 1063, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r).” (43 U.S.C. 1761(a)(4)). The BLM must consider compliance with FLPMA, BLM ROW regulations, the BLM NEPA Handbook (BLM 2008), Department of Interior NEPA regulations, and other applicable Federal and State laws and policies.
The BLM has analyzed the No Action Alternative, the proposed Action as submitted by the Applicant, and three action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, the solar facility, generation tie-line, battery storage, substation, and associated facilities would not be developed because the BLM would not issue the ROW grant. The three action alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS are as follows: Action Alternative 1: Major Drainage Avoidance, Fenced Corridors, and Vegetation and Topography Maintenance; Action Alternative 2: Alternative Supplemental Access During Construction; and Action Alternative 3: Alternative Gen-tie Connecting to proposed Greenlink West. Action Alternative 1 includes the use of specific construction methods to reduce impacts to vegetation, drainage, and topography within the solar array areas. Action Alternative 2 focuses on reduction of impacts associated with East Walker Road (the project's mostly unpaved access road) by providing supplemental access during construction. Action Alternative 3 entails connecting the generation tie-line from the project to the proposed Greenlink West Transmission Project through a new switching station under the proposed Greenlink West line, which would reduce impacts to air, vegetation, soils, wildlife, visual resources, and other resource areas from the 24.1-mile-long generation tie-line under the Proposed Action.
The BLM Preferred Alternative is a modification of the Proposed Action that combines Action Alternative 1 and Action Alternative 2 for the use of specific construction methods, as well as provides supplemental access to reduce total traffic on East Walker Road during construction. An overlay of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative since it reduces many of the resource impacts, including to vegetation communities, wildlife, hydrology, and other resources. It also allows for faster and more successful restoration at decommissioning, allowing for future uses of the land under multiple use. Alternative 2 reduces traffic impacts as well. Several additional action alternatives were considered, including alternative sites, technologies, and methods, but were eliminated as described in Chapter 2: Proposed Action of the Draft EIS.
This section includes Applicant-committed design features and mitigation measures. Key mitigation for
While no federally or State-listed threatened or endangered species have the potential to occur on-site that could be impacted by the project, several mitigation measures have been added to reduce effects to special status species, wildlife, and vegetation communities. These measures include development of a Site Restoration Plan and Integrated Weed Management Plan, development of a Worker Environmental Awareness Program, pre-construction surveys and avoidance where feasible for special status plants, and development of a Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy. To address conflicts with grazing permit holders, mitigation includes measures to work with the permit holder to provide infrastructure upgrades to move livestock around the solar facility.
If approved, the BLM would issue a ROW for the project. The term for the ROW would be for 30 years.
The final EIS is anticipated to be available in summer 2024 with a Record of Decision in summer or fall 2024.
The BLM will hold one virtual public meeting and one in-person public meeting during the public comment period. The BLM will announce the exact dates, times, and link for these meetings at least 15 days prior to the events. Announcements will be made by news release to the media and posting on the BLM National NEPA Register website:
The BLM will continue to consult with Indian Tribal Nations on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175, BLM MS 1780 and other Departmental policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
United States International Trade Commission
Notice of investigation and scheduling of a public hearing.
Following receipt on December 20, 2023, of a request from the U.S. Trade Representative (the Trade Representative), under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, the U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission) instituted Investigation No. 332-602,
All Commission offices, including the Commission's hearing rooms, are located in the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC. All written submissions should be addressed to the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Project Leader Alissa Tafti (202-205-3244 or
• A comparison of the relative U.S. market share of each of the above-listed
• Country-specific profiles of the apparel industries in the above-listed countries, including an assessment of the export competitiveness of each country in the U.S. market, using available statistical and qualitative information and taking into account major factors of competitiveness, including trade, industry structure, price and costs, product differentiation, and reliability;
○ The profiles should include information on investment, vertical integration, duty-free access to the U.S. market, wages and labor productivity, and sourcing of inputs;
• A review of general literature on the key determinants driving export competitiveness in the global apparel industry, to the extent that it is relevant to conditions in the selected countries; and
• To the degree that additional data relevant to competitiveness are identified by the review of the literature and are available, these should be released as a data appendix accompanying the report.
As requested by the Trade Representative, the Commission will deliver the report no later than August 30, 2024. The Trade Representative asked that the Commission not include confidential business or national security classified information in its report. However, as detailed below, participants may submit confidential information to the Commission to inform its understanding of these issues, and such information will be protected in accordance with the Commission's
Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed with the Secretary to the Commission no later than 5:15 p.m., February 21, 2024, in accordance with the requirements in the “Written Submissions” section below. Any requests to appear as a witness via videoconference must be included with your request to appear. Requests to appear as a witness via videoconference must include a statement explaining why the witness cannot appear in person; the Chairman, or other person designated to conduct the investigation, may at their discretion for good cause shown, grant such requests. Requests to appear as a witness via videoconference due to illness or a positive COVID-19 test result may be submitted by 3 p.m. the business day prior to the hearing.
All prehearing briefs and statements should be filed no later than 5:15 p.m., February 23, 2024. To facilitate the hearing, including the preparation of an accurate written public transcript of the hearing, oral testimony to be presented at the hearing must be submitted to the Commission electronically no later than noon, February 29, 2024. All posthearing briefs and statements should be filed no later than 5:15 p.m., March 22, 2024. Posthearing briefs and statements should address matters raised at the hearing. For a description of the different types of written briefs and statements, see the “Definitions” section below.
In the event that, as of the close of business on February 21, 2024, no witnesses are scheduled to appear at the hearing, the hearing will be canceled. Any person interested in attending the hearing as an observer or nonparticipant should check the Commission website as indicated above for information concerning whether the hearing will be held.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
In accordance with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.8) the document must identify on its cover (1) the investigation number and title and the type of document filed (
As requested by the Trade Representative, the Commission will not include any CBI in its report. However, all information, including CBI, submitted in this investigation may be disclosed to and used by: (i) the Commission, its employees and offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission, including under 5 U.S.C. appendix 3; or (ii) U.S. government employees and contract personnel for cybersecurity purposes. The Commission will not otherwise disclose any CBI in a way that would reveal the operations of the firm supplying the information.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
On January 10, 2024, the Department of Commerce published notice in the
January 10, 2024.
Caitlyn Hendricks-Costello (202-205-2058), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
Notice of these determinations was published in the
By order of the Commission.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Arista Biologicals has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before March 19, 2024. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before March 19, 2024.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on November 28, 2023, Arista Biologicals, 1101 Hamilton Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101-1043 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substances for the internal use as intermediates for formulation and analytical development purposes. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Siegfried USA, LLC has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before March 19, 2024. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before March 19, 2024.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on November 28, 2023, Siegfried USA, LLC, 33 Industrial Park Road, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070-3244, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for sale to its customers. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed revision of the International Price Program (IPP) U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes. A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the Addresses section of this notice on or before March 19, 2024.
Send comments to Nora Kincaid, BLS Clearance Officer, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room G225, 2 Massachusetts Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20212. Written comments also may be transmitted by email to
Nora Kincaid, BLS Clearance Officer, at 202-691-7628 (this is not a toll free number). (See
The U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes, produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics' International Price Program (IPP), measure price change over time for all categories of imported and exported products, as well as selected services. The IPP has produced the U.S. Import Price Indexes (MPI) continuously since 1973 and the U.S. Export Price Indexes (XPI) continuously since 1971. The Office of Management and Budget has listed the Import and Export Price Indexes (MXPI) as a Principal Federal Economic Indicator since 1982. The indexes are widely used in both the public and private sectors. The primary public sector use is the deflation of the U.S. monthly trade statistics and the quarterly estimates of U.S. Gross Domestic Product; the indexes also are used in formulating U.S. trade policy and in trade negotiations with other countries. In the private sector, uses of the Import Price Indexes include market analysis, inflation forecasting, contract escalation, and replacement cost accounting.
The MXPI are closely followed statistics and are viewed as a key indicator of the economic environment. The U.S. Department of Commerce uses the monthly statistics to produce monthly and quarterly estimates of
Additionally, Federal policymakers in the Department of Treasury, the Council of Economic Advisers, and the Federal Reserve Board utilize these statistics on a regular basis to improve these agencies' formulation and evaluation of monetary and fiscal policy and evaluation of the general business environment.
Office of Management and Budget clearance is being sought for a revision of the U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes information collection. The IPP revision is a transition from using survey data as a source of prices for approximately a third of the current sample of merchandise goods to using administrative data from the Census Bureau as an alternative source. This revision to data collection is in line with past actions to modernize data collection and to reduce reporter burden. Modernization was introduced in 2003 with the IPP web application. In 2018, paper surveys were eliminated, and the web application became the near universal method for respondents to update their data online and more rapidly than previously.
The IPP has implemented several systems changes over the years in order to reduce burden for web respondents. In 2019, the IPP adopted the use of a new web application format/layout. Previously, the web survey used separate pages for each part of the repricing process; now, the web application utilizes modal windows in combination with separate pages. In September 2022, the Program introduced new functionality (referred to internally as “Web Lite”), which allows respondents to upload files of price information without using a login; the files are reviewed by analysts who manually enter the price data into IPP's repricing application.
The current revision is focused on the planned implementation of an alternative data source for some of the Import and Export Price Indexes (MXPI); the data source is administrative data in the form of trade transaction records of shipments reported by U.S. importers and exporters. Beginning in fiscal year 2025, the IPP will calculate unit value indexes based on the trade transaction records from the Department of Commerce for a range of homogenous commodity and product areas and will calculate upper level price indexes by blending these unit value indexes with directly collected survey data for the other product areas, to calculate and publish the MXPI for merchandise goods. This approach is based on new research and new statistical methods.
Historically, unit value indexes have not been considered a good substitute for directly collected data in the calculation of price indexes for any but the most homogenous of commodities. The use of unit value indexes in the statistical community has been limited to homogenous commodities due primarily to the potential for unit value bias, which is a measurement of a price trend that imprecisely measures price changes due to product composition or quality change, instead of price changes due to markets. Advances and improvements in coverage, accuracy, and level of detail of the trade transaction records have improved, and new statistical methods for addressing and mitigating unit value bias have recently been developed. The necessity to address a recent downward trend in IPP's traditional data collection, in light of these improvements, prompted the Program to consider the use of unit value indexes in the MXPI.
In 2018, the IPP launched a major research initiative to analyze the fitness for use of unit value indexes based on administrative trade data in place of directly collected data for more homogenous product areas. With the application of new methods for mitigating unit value bias, the IPP has constructed research import and export price indexes based on administrative trade data for January 2012 through December 2021. Comparison of the research data sets to official (published and unpublished) import and export price indexes were sufficiently robust to indicate that unit value indexes based on administrative trade data can be used in place of directly collected data for many of IPP's homogenous product price indexes. Additional details and research data sets are accessible from the MXP Research page (
This new data source also allows for the expansion of published lower-level indexes and improves index quality; while the existing MXPI are based entirely on a modified Laspeyres formula (as current trade weights are not available), the availability of current period weights in the administrative trade data allows the IPP to apply a Tornqvist formula to lower-level aggregates. (The Tornqvist formula is considered superior to the Laspeyres formula for handling substitution bias, a well-known problem for fixed-basket price indexes which do not account for consumer expenditure switching from relatively more expensive products to cheaper ones as prices change.)
In addition to the expansion of published indexes and improvement in index quality, the implementation of the unit value indexes will result in a considerable drop in respondent burden as fewer companies will be contacted because fewer survey-based prices will be needed to support publication of the MXPI. A detailed technical explanation regarding the use of the alternative administrative data source and the methodological approach used to integrate the data source into the official MXPI are available in IPP's
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they also will become a matter of public record.
Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS), United States Department of Labor (DOL).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the DOL is soliciting public comments regarding this VETS-sponsored information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Comments pertaining to this information collection are due on or before March 19, 2024.
Randall Smith by telephone at 202-693-4745 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
The HIRE Vets Medallion Program is a voluntary employer recognition program administered by the Department of Labor—Veteran's Employment and Training Service (VETS). Through the HIRE Vets Medallion Program, VETS will solicit voluntary applications from employers for an award called the HIRE Vets Medallion Award. These awards are intended to recognize employer efforts to recruit, employ, and retain our Nation's veterans. All employers who employ at least one employee are eligible to apply for the Award.
This information collection is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
The DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an Information Collection Review cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that currently approved information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
National Endowment for the Humanities; National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice of meeting.
The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) will hold one meeting of the Humanities Panel, a federal advisory committee, during
See
Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 400 7th Street SW, Room 4060, Washington, DC 20506; (202) 606-8322;
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 10), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:
This video meeting will discuss applications for the National Digital Newspaper grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.
Because this meeting will include review of personal and/or proprietary financial and commercial information given in confidence to the agency by grant applicants, the meeting will be closed to the public pursuant to sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6) of Title 5, U.S.C., as amended. I have made this determination pursuant to the authority granted me by the Chair's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings dated April 15, 2016.
Peace Corps.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Peace Corps will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment in the
Submit comments on or before March 19, 2024.
Comments should be addressed to James Olin, FOIA/Privacy Act Officer. James Olin can be contacted by email at
James Olin, Peace Corps, at
a.
b.
c.
d.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern Market Dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3030, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern Competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
4.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is recognizing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the calculation of the assumed Federal income tax on competitive products income for Fiscal Year 2023. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3634 and 39 CFR 3060.40
In accordance with 39 CFR 3060.42, the Commission establishes Docket No. T2024-1 to review the calculation of the assumed Federal income tax and supporting documentation.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filing in this docket is consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3634 and 39 CFR 3060.40
The Commission appoints Jennaca D. Upperman to serve as Public Representative in this docket.
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. T2024-1 to consider the calculation of the assumed Federal income tax on Competitive products for FY 2023.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Jennaca D. Upperman is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than March 5, 2024.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on January 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on January 12, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on January 8, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on January 10, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on January 10, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on January 12, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Notice is given that the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “
Section 203(h) of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that if the Commission finds that any person registered under section 203, or who has pending an application for registration filed under that section, is no longer in existence, is not engaged in business as an investment adviser, or is prohibited from registering as an investment adviser under section 203A, the Commission shall by order cancel the registration of such person.
Each registrant listed in the attached Appendix either (a) has not filed a Form ADV amendment with the Commission as required by rule 204-1 under the Act
Notice is also given that any interested person may, by February 6, 2024, at 5:30 p.m., submit to the Commission in writing a request for a hearing on the cancellation of the registration of any registrant listed in the attached Appendix, accompanied by a statement as to the nature of such person's interest, the reason for such person's request, and the issues, if any, of fact or law proposed to be controverted, and the writer may request to be notified if the Commission should order a hearing thereon. Any such communication should be emailed to the Commission's Secretary at
At any time after February 6, 2024, the Commission may issue an order or orders cancelling the registrations of any or all of the registrants listed in the attached Appendix, upon the basis of the information stated above, unless an order or orders for a hearing on the cancellation shall be issued upon request or upon the Commission's own motion. Persons who requested a hearing, or who requested to be advised as to whether a hearing is ordered, will receive any notices and orders issued in this matter, including the date of the hearing (if ordered) and any postponements thereof. Any registrant whose registration is cancelled under delegated authority may appeal that decision directly to the Commission in accordance with rules 430 and 431 of the Commission's rules of practice (17 CFR 201.430 and 431).
The Commission:
Matthew Cook, Senior Counsel, at 202-551-6825; Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-8549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 18(a)(2), 18(c), 18(i) and section 61(a) of the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain closed-end management investment companies that have elected to be regulated as business development companies to issue multiple classes of
GC Advisors LLC and Golub Capital Private Credit Fund.
The application was filed on July 3, 2023, and amended on September 28, 2023.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
The Commission:
Shayna Gilmore, Senior Counsel, or Kyle R. Ahlgren, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and condition, please refer to Applicants' amended and restated application, dated September 28, 2023, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Small Business Administration.
30-Day notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB procedures, SBA is publishing this notice to allow all interested members of the public an additional 30 days to provide comments on the proposed collection of information.
Submit comments on or before February 20, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection request should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
You may obtain a copy of the information collection and supporting documents from the Agency Clearance Office at
To obtain the information needed to carry out its oversight and risk management responsibilities under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (the Act), the SBA requires applicants to the Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) program to submit information necessary for SBA to make decisions regarding the approval or denial of an applicant for an SBIC license. SBA uses this information to assess an applicant's ability to successfully operate an SBIC within the scope of the Act.
Comments may be submitted on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the Agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
The Department of State will conduct a public meeting at 1:00 p.m. EST on Tuesday, February 06, 2024, virtually via Microsoft Teams. The primary purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the eleventh session of the IMO Sub-Committee on Pollution Prevention and Response (PPR 11) to be held at IMO Headquarters in London, United Kingdom from February 19th to 23rd, 2024.
Members of the public may participate up to the capacity of the Microsoft Teams line. To RSVP, participants should contact the meeting coordinator, Ms. Nicole M. Schindler, by email at
Those who plan to participate should contact the meeting coordinator, Ms. Nicole M. Schindler, by email at
Additional information regarding this and other IMO public meetings may be found at:
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that a certain object being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with its foreign owner or custodian for temporary display in the exhibition “George Gershwin and Modern Art: A Rhapsody in Blue” at Artis—Naples, The Baker Museum, in Naples, Florida, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is of cultural significance, and, further, that its temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).
Notice.
Effective January 1, 2024, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) implemented certain changes to statistical reporting categories in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). As a result of these changes, USTR is making a conforming amendment to one previously reinstated exclusion associated with the Section 301 investigation of China Acts, Policies and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation.
The conforming amendment in the Annex to this notice is applicable as of January 1, 2024. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will issue instructions on entry guidance and implementation.
For general questions about this notice, contact Senior Associate General Counsel Philip Butler or Assistant General Counsel Rachel Hasandras at (202) 395-5725. For specific questions on customs classification or implementation of the product exclusion identified in the Annex to this notice, contact
Effective January 1, 2024, the USITC implemented certain changes to ten-digit statistical reporting categories of the HTSUS in accordance with its responsibility under section 484(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1484(f). One of the previously reinstated exclusions in the Section 301 investigation of China's Acts, Policies and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and
To maintain the pre-existing product coverage of the China 301 actions, one conforming amendment to the corresponding note provision in the HTSUS is required. In particular, the Annex to this notice makes one conforming amendment to U.S. note 20(ttt)(iii)(27) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS, as set out in the Annex at 87 FR 17380 (March 28, 2022).
Effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from the warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time on January 1, 2024, and before 11:59 p.m. eastern daylight time on May 31, 2024, U.S. note 20(ttt)(iii)(27) to subchapter III of Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by deleting “2929.90.5090” and by inserting “2929.90.5090 prior to January 1, 2024; described in statistical reporting number 2929.90.5095 effective January 1, 2024” in lieu thereof.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of provisional renewal of exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to provisionally renew the exemption currently held by WestRock from the hours-of-service (HOS) regulations that prohibit drivers from operating property-carrying commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) after 14 hours on duty and require 10 hours off duty before resuming driving. FMCSA renews this limited exemption for WestRock's shipping department employees and occasional substitute commercial driver's license (CDL) holders who transport paper mill products short distances on a public road between its shipping and receiving locations. The exemption is restricted to a specific route, measuring less than 300 feet in one direction, in Chattanooga, Tennessee. This exemption will allow these individuals to occasionally work up to 16 consecutive hours and be allowed to return to work with less than the mandatory 10 consecutive hours off duty. The Agency previously determined that the CMV operations of WestRock's drivers under this exemption would likely maintain a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level of safety that would be achieved in the absence of the exemption. The exemption renewal is for 5 years.
This renewed exemption is effective from April 17, 2024, and expires on April 16, 2029. Comments must be received on or before February 20, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System Number FMCSA-2010-0027 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2010-0027). Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
Pearlie Robinson, Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; FMCSA; (202) 366-4225;
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2010-0027), indicate the specific section of this document to which the comment applies and provide a reason for suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely maintain a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305).
The Agency must publish the decision in the
Under 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2) non-short haul drivers may not drive after having been on duty for a period of 14 consecutive hours until they have been off duty for a minimum of 10 consecutive hours, or the equivalent of at least 10 consecutive hours off duty. However, certain short-haul drivers are allowed a 16-hour driving window once a week, and other short-haul drivers not requiring a commercial driver's license are allowed two 16-hour duty periods per week provided specified conditions are met. (49 CFR 395.1).
WestRock (USDOT 153734) operates a paper mill located in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Its shipping and receiving departments are on opposite sides of the paper mill, requiring driver-employees to travel on a public road to shuttle trailers as needed. These drivers utilize a public road—Compress Street—an average of forty times per day to travel between WestRock's manufacturing facility, and shipping and receiving docks. These drivers do not transport any material farther than the paper mill lots and/or Compress Street. The distance traveled on Compress Street is approximately 275 feet in one direction, and one tractor is used to perform this work. Because the material being transported is received from or destined for other States, the local travel is interstate in nature.
WestRock's shipping department currently works 12-hour shifts for 4 days, and then allows employees 4 days off duty. However, this schedule is subject to change. There are usually two shipping department employees on each shift, one of whom drives a fork-lift truck loading trailers with finished goods, and another who operates the tractor shuttling trailers. These employees do not drive a CMV continuously during their shift(s).
At times, WestRock may operate on three 8-hour shifts with employees working a double (16-hour) shift when “rotating back.” According to WestRock, the problem arises because of the double-shift, and also on occasion when a shipping department driver does not report for work as scheduled. On a Monday, for example, if an individual worked the weekend, their shift would normally have to “hurry back” within 8 hours. As a result of the mandatory 10 hours off-duty requirement for drivers, without the exemption WestRock would be required to schedule these drivers' shifts to start later than other employees. This would create at least 2 hours when the company could not load or transport trailers with finished goods due to the absence of the drivers. Furthermore, as a result of the 14-hour driving window, they would “work short” without the exemption, creating on-time delivery issues for other employees, who are allowed to work an entire “double shift” (16 hours) when necessary.
WestRock (then known as RockTenn) submitted its initial exemption application for relief from the HOS rules in 2009; a copy of the application is in the docket. That application fully describes the nature of shipping operations encountered by CMV drivers employed by WestRock. On May 29, 2012, FMCSA granted WestRock the limited exemption (77 FR 31684). FMCSA has since renewed this limited exemption on three occasions: April 22, 2014 (77 FR 22571); July 25, 2016 (81 FR 48496) and July 29, 2019 (84 FR 36655). The current exemption expires on April 16, 2024.
WestRock has requested an additional five-year renewal of the exemption for its shipping department employees and occasional substitute CDL holders who transport paper mill products short distances (less than 300 feet in one direction) between its shipping and receiving locations on a public road. The exemption allows these employees to work up to 16 consecutive hours in a duty period and return to work with a minimum of at least 8 hours off duty when necessary for efficient operations.
Since 2012, FMCSA has determined that the operations of WestRock's drivers would likely maintain a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption. WestRock's shipping department employees and occasional substitute CDL holders covered by the exemption are exclusively assigned to a specific route on a public road for brief periods of time. This route is entirely on one street (Compress Street), between the shipping and receiving departments, measuring approximately 275 feet in one direction. FMCSA previously noted that the exemption is comparable to current HOS regulations that allow certain “short-haul” drivers a 16-hour driving “window” once a week and other non-CDL short-haul drivers two 16-hour duty periods per week, provided specified conditions are met.
FMCSA is unaware of any evidence of a degradation of safety attributable to the current exemption for WestRock's drivers. Further, WestRock asserted that, since the initial approval of its waiver, it has operated safely without incident. There is no indication of an adverse impact on safety while operating under the terms and conditions specified in the initial exemption or exemption renewals.
FMCSA therefore concludes that provisionally renewing the exemption granted on July 29, 2019, for another five years, under the terms and conditions listed below, will likely maintain a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption.
FMCSA provisionally renews the exemption for a period of five years, subject to the terms and conditions of this decision and the absence of adverse public comments that would cause the
During the exemption period, WestRock's shipping department employees and occasional substitute CDL holders who transport paper mill products between the shipping and receiving locations along the designated route on Compress Street in Chattanooga, TN, may work up to 16 consecutive hours in a duty period and return to work with a minimum of at least 8 hours off duty when necessary.
The exemption is restricted to shipping department employees and occasional substitute CDL holders employed by WestRock who are exclusively assigned to a specific route. This specific route is entirely on Compress Street, between WestRock's shipping and receiving departments, measuring approximately 275 feet in one direction.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), as implemented by 49 CFR 381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a firm or person operating under the exemption.
WestRock must notify FMCSA within 5 business days of any accident (as defined in 49 CFR 390.5), involving any of the motor carrier's CMVs operating under the terms of this exemption. The notification must include the following information:
(a) Name of the exemption: “WestRock”;
(b) Date of the accident;
(c) City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or which is closest to the accident scene;
(d) Driver's name and license number;
(e) Vehicle number and State license number;
(f) Number of individuals suffering physical injury;
(g) Number of fatalities;
(h) The police-reported cause of the accident;
(i) Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws, motor carrier safety regulations; and
(j) The driver's total driving time and total on-duty time prior to the accident.
Reports filed under this provision shall be emailed to
FMCSA does not believe the drivers covered by this exemption will experience any deterioration of their safety record. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) WestRock and drivers operating under the exemption fail to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objects of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons regarding WestRock's application for a renewal of the exemption. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if it determines safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may take immediate steps to revoke or modify the exemption.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA), as lead Federal agency, and the Austin Transit Partnership (ATP), as local project sponsor and joint lead agency (collectively, the Agencies), issue this notice to advise the public that they intend to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for Phase 1 of the Austin Light Rail Project (the Project) in Austin, Texas (City) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project is a proposed 9.8-mile light rail transit (LRT) branched line, including 15 stations, from points north, south, and east of downtown Austin, as well as an operations and maintenance facility (OMF), maintenance of way (MOW) shops, and associated LRT equipment storage functions. FTA has determined that the Project is sufficiently developed to allow for meaningful public comment and requires an EIS.
Comments related to the NEPA review of the Project must be received on or before March 4, 2024.
Comments on the scope of the EIS should be sent to: Austin Transit Partnership, 203 Colorado St., Austin, TX 78701 or via email at
For FTA: Mr. Terence Plaskon, Federal Transit Administration, Region VI, 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102, at (817) 978-0573 or
The Agencies will prepare the EIS in accordance with NEPA and its implementing regulations. The EIS will evaluate two alternatives: a No Build Alternative and a Build Alternative. After circulation of the draft EIS (DEIS) and consideration of comments received, FTA intends to issue a combined final EIS (FEIS)/Record of Decision (ROD) document pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 139(n)(2), unless statutory criteria preclude issuance of a combined document (
The Project is part of the Project Connect Long-Term Vision Plan (Project Connect). Project Connect includes high-capacity transit (HCT) corridors and is an integral part of the Austin Strategic Mobility Plan that was approved by the Austin City Council in 2019. In 2020, the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization adopted its 2045 Regional Transportation Plan which included
In 2020, FTA and CapMetro completed two Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) studies following Federal guidance that documented the alternatives analysis, the purpose and needs, and public outreach which led to the selection of a locally preferred alternative for an LRT system. The PEL process resulted in broad public support of the purpose and needs and the alternatives analysis. However, as the initial environmental review process unfolded and design work for LRT advanced, the estimated project construction costs increased. The primary cost drivers were increasing real estate costs, inflation, supply chain cost escalations, and desired scope refinements. Due to this material change in circumstances, it became clear the LRT alignment and design warranted adjustment to ensure ATP could deliver a project that was fiscally feasible and responsive to the needs of the public. In July 2022, taking the original PEL studies and cost escalation factors into account, ATP commenced community-driven planning efforts to develop a viable and affordable alternative LRT implementation plan that addresses the purpose and need of providing quality and reliable HCT to the Austin metropolitan area. On June 6, 2023, the City, ATP, and CapMetro unanimously approved the advancement of the Project into the next phase of implementation.
The purpose of the Project is to meet growing corridor travel demand with a reliable, safe, cost-effective, time competitive, sustainable, and equitable LRT system. The lack of transportation options and limited roadway capacity to accommodate growth in central Texas may hinder the continued vitality and economic health of the City and surrounding areas in the future. Inadequate transit access coupled with rising travel demand have resulted in longer travel times, decreased mobility, and additional travel costs for residents and businesses. The Project is needed to:
• increase transportation network capacity to meet existing travel demand;
• sustainably support the Austin area's population and employment growth;
• improve transit access between affordable housing and jobs; and
• support growth of and connectivity to regional activity centers designated in local land use plans.
The EIS will evaluate two alternatives: a No Build Alternative and a Build Alternative. The No Build, or No Action, Alternative includes existing and committed improvements to the regional transportation network, not including the Project, that are expected to be operational by 2045. The No Build Alternative is included as a benchmark against which the impacts of the Build Alternative can be compared. The Build Alternative is a 9.8-mile LRT branched line (see the project website at
An OMF would be located in the vicinity of the US-183/SH-71 interchange near Airport Commerce Drive in a light-industrial use area. The proposed site would include space for administration, operations and maintenance staff, an LRT control center, and light rail vehicle (LRV) maintenance. The OMF would also serve as an LRV storage yard with the capacity to support both LRV operations and fleet storage. The OMF would include MOW shops and associated LRT equipment storage functions.
The Agencies will evaluate the No Build and Build Alternatives for potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts (including benefits) to the natural, built, and social environments. Resources to be evaluated and potential impact areas include, but are not limited to, transportation, land use, socioeconomics and economic development, parklands and recreational facilities, neighborhoods and community facilities, environmental justice, noise and vibration, hazardous materials, ecosystems, water resources, residential and commercial displacements and relocations, historic and archaeological resources, visual quality, vegetation, air quality (including greenhouse gas emissions), and energy. The potential effects of the construction and operation of the Project on these resources will be evaluated for the short-term construction period and long-term operation of each alternative. Measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential adverse impacts will be evaluated and proposed.
The Agencies anticipate that required permits and other authorizations may include:
• U.S. Department of Transportation section 4(f) determination;
• U.S. Department of Interior approval under section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act;
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approval under section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or section 10 of the River and Harbors Act.
• Memorandum of Agreement with the State Historic Preservation Officer under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; and
Below is a tentative schedule of major milestones for the EIS:
•
•
•
As noted in the tentative schedule, the Agencies intend to complete the EIS for the Project within two years, measured from the date of the publication of this notice to the date the ROD is signed. The Agencies will accept public comments on the scope of the
Notices of public meetings, including hearings, have been, and will continue to be, given through a variety of media providing the time and place of the meeting along with other relevant information. Meeting date, time, and location information can be found on the Project website, Meetings and Events page, at
The Agencies invite all State, Tribal, local governments, and the public to comment on potential alternatives, information, impacts, and analyses to be considered in the EIS, as well as any other relevant information, studies, or analyses with respect to the proposed agency action.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Joint notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the OCC, the Board, and the FDIC (collectively, the “agencies”) may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), of which the agencies are members, has approved the agencies' publication for public comment of a proposal to revise and extend for three years, the Foreign Branch Report of Condition (FFIEC 030) and the Abbreviated Foreign Branch Report of Condition (FFIEC 030S), which are currently approved collections of information. The agencies are requesting comment on proposed revisions to the FFIEC 030 report that would incorporate new line items from the FR 2502q, Quarterly Report of Assets and Liabilities of Large Foreign Offices of U.S. Banks (OMB Control No. 7100-0079). The revisions are proposed to take effect as of the June 30, 2024, report date. There are no proposed revisions to the FFIEC 030S at this time.
Comments must be submitted on or before March 19, 2024.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to any or all of the agencies. All comments, which should refer to the “FFIEC 030 or FFIEC 030S,” will be shared among the agencies.
•
•
•
•
Following the close of this notice's 60-day comment period, the OCC will publish a second notice with a 30-day comment period. You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this information collection beginning on the date of publication of the second notice for this collection by the method set forth in the next bullet.
•
• For assistance in navigating
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available on the Board's Website at
•
•
•
•
•
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB desk officer for the agencies by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; by fax to (202) 395-6974; or by email to
For further information about the proposed revisions to the information collections discussed in this notice, please contact any of the agency staff whose names appear below. In addition, copies of the report forms for the FFIEC 030 and FFIEC 030S can be obtained at the FFIEC's website (
The agencies propose to extend for three years, with revision, the FFIEC 030 and the FFIEC 030S.
This information collection is mandatory: 12 U.S.C. 602 (Board); 12 U.S.C. 161 and 602 (OCC); and 12 U.S.C. 1828 (FDIC). This information collection is given confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and (8).
The FFIEC 030 collects asset and liability information for foreign branches of insured U.S. banks and insured U.S. savings associations (U.S. depository institutions) and is required for regulatory and supervisory purposes. The information is used to analyze the foreign operations of U.S. institutions. All foreign branches of U.S. institutions regardless of charter type file this report as provided in the instructions to the FFIEC 030 and FFIEC 030S.
A U.S. depository institution generally must file a separate report for each foreign branch, but in some cases may consolidate filing for multiple foreign branches in the same country, as described below.
A branch with either total assets of at least $2 billion or commitments to purchase foreign currencies and U.S. dollar exchange of at least $5 billion as of the end of a calendar quarter is considered a “significant branch” and an FFIEC 030 report is required to be filed quarterly. A U.S. depository institution with a foreign branch having total assets in excess of $250 million that does not meet either of the criteria to file quarterly must file the entire FFIEC 030 report for this foreign branch on an annual basis as of December 31, with respect to this foreign branch.
A U.S. depository institution with a foreign branch having total assets of $50 million, but less than or equal to $250 million that does not meet the criteria to file the FFIEC 030 report must file the FFIEC 030S report for this foreign branch on an annual basis as of December 31, with respect to this foreign branch. A U.S. depository institution with a foreign branch having total assets of less than $50 million is exempt from filing the FFIEC 030 and 030S reports.
The FR 2502q collects data on the claims and liabilities with U.S.-resident versus foreign-resident counterparties on the balance sheets of major foreign branches and large banking subsidiaries of U.S. head offices of bank holding companies, commercial banks and Edge and agreement corporations.
The Division of International Finance at the Board has an interest in knowing the amounts of the claims and liabilities of U.S.-chartered banks with respect to residents of the U.S. The FR 2502q provides data about activities in foreign offices by location and type of offices that are unavailable from other reporting forms. For example, because banks' submissions that underlie the quarterly Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) Country Exposure Report (FFIEC 009; OMB No. 7100-0035) are consolidated on a worldwide basis, they do not indicate which particular offices are involved in lending to or borrowing from U.S. or foreign residents.
Following a 2015 revision that substantially reduced the size of the FR 2502q report, the Board has assessed its use of the data collected in the FR 2502q and has determined that the data could instead be effectively collected through the FR 2314 and FFIEC 030, and that doing so would reduce overall respondent burden.
In addition, standardizing the collection of foreign branch lending data through the FFIEC reporting process will improve useability by the OCC and FDIC. The current 2502q collection is managed and run solely by the Board. The proposed shift of certain items to the FFIEC 030 will make it easier for the OCC and FDIC to use the data reported in those items, as well as providing those agencies with a more direct role in proposing changes to the data items to improve the usefulness of the collection for all three agencies.
Therefore, the agencies propose to add a new schedule to the FFIEC 030 to collect the information currently collected by the FR 2502q and add additional line items to collect granular detail related to loans and lease receivables. The title of the new schedule would be: “Schedule RAL-A—Due From, Due To, and Other.” In addition, the agencies are adding a schedule name to the current Assets; Liabilities; Derivatives and Off-Balance-Sheet Items; and Memoranda section of the report form. The title of this schedule will be “RAL—Assets and Liabilities.” Adding a schedule name to this section will help separate the current items from the proposed new items that will only be applicable to respondents that are required to submit their FFIEC 030 report on a quarterly basis. Respondents that submit their FFIEC 030 report on an annual basis will not need to complete the proposed new schedule.
Eight of the proposed line items would provide a granular breakout of what is currently collected on line items 8, 9, 16, and 17. The remaining six proposed line items would be new to the FFIEC 030 report. The agencies propose to incorporate the following line items from the FR 2502q into FFIEC 030, Schedule RAL-A—Due From, Due To, and Other:
In addition, the proposed line items below would provide the agencies with more granular data about certain categories of loans and lease receivables, which is expected to be reported in the balance of line item 5 above. Collection of the additional line items would provide the agencies with the ability to analyze lending by foreign branches of U.S. banks to U.S. addresses in different sectors. For example, it is not uncommon for foreign branches to make loans secured by U.S. real estate. As lending to nondepository institutions continues to increase, segmenting the lending between foreign and U.S. addresses improves the ability of agencies to assess risks to this type of lending. The same reasoning applies to commercial and industrial loans and all other loans and leases. The proposed sub-set of line items are as follows:
Assets that are claims on U.S. addressees other than depository institutions:
These proposed revisions would reduce the burden on respondents and assist the agencies in meeting shared data needs with shared resources. The Board will propose similar revisions to the FR 2314 in a separate notice. If these revisions are adopted, the Board expects to discontinue the FR 2502q, effective as of June 30, 2024.
The proposed revisions to the FFIEC 030 would first take effect as of the June 30, 2024, report date. The agencies invite comment on any difficulties that institutions would expect to encounter in implementing the systems changes necessary to accommodate the proposed revisions to the FFIEC 030.
Public comment is requested on all aspects of this joint notice. Comment is specifically invited on:
(a) Whether the information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agencies' functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agencies' estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Comments submitted in response to this joint notice will be shared among the agencies.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing a removal of an aircraft currently included on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List).
See
OFAC: Bradley T. Smith, Director, tel.: 202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or the Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490.
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
A. On January 8, 2024, OFAC removed from the SDN List the aircraft listed below, which was subject to prohibitions imposed pursuant to Executive Order 14024 of April 15, 2021, “Blocking Property With Respect To Specified Harmful Foreign Activities of the Government of the Russian Federation,” 86 FR 20249, 3 CFR, 2021 Comp., p. 542 (Apr. 15, 2021) (E.O. 14024).
1. 9H-OKO; Aircraft Manufacture Date 2018; Aircraft Model G650; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 6356; Aircraft Tail Number 9H-OKO (aircraft) [RUSSIA-EO14024] (Linked To: EMPEROR AVIATION LTD).
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”), prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including fans and blowers. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) to periodically determine whether more stringent standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in significant energy savings. In this notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”), DOE proposes energy conservation standards for two categories of fans and blowers: air circulating fans (“ACFs”), and fans and blowers that are not ACFs, referred to as general fans and blowers (“GFBs”) throughout this document. DOE also announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.
Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in the
The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 6E-069, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. See section VII of this document, “Public Participation,” for further details, including procedures for attending the in-person meeting, webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
No telefacsimiles (“faxes”) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see section VII of this document.
The docket web page can be found at
EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites input from market participants and other interested persons with views on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested persons may contact the Division at
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9870. Email:
Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2588. Email:
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
DOE maintains previously approved incorporations by reference (AMCA 210-16, AMCA 214-21, and ISO 5801:2017) and incorporates by reference the following material into part 431:
IEC 61800-9-2:2023,
IEC TS 60034-30-2:2016,
IEC TS 60034-31:2021,
Copies of IEC 61800-9-2:2023, IEC TS 60034-30-2:2016 and IEC TS 60034-31:2021 are available from the International Electrotechnical Committee (IEC), Central Office, 3, rue de Varembé, P.O. Box 131, CH-1211 GENEVA 20, Switzerland; + 41 22 919 02 11;
For a further discussion of these standards, see section VI.M of this document.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as amended (“EPCA”),
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C.
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this document, DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of six trial standard levels (“TSLs”) for two categories of fans and blowers: GFBs and ACFs. The TSLs and their associated benefits and burdens are discussed in detail in sections V.A through V.C of this document. As discussed in section V.C, DOE has tentatively determined that TSL 4 represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. The proposed standards, which are expressed in terms of a fan energy index (“FEI”) for GFBs, are shown in Table I-1 through Table I-3. The proposed standards, which are expressed in terms of efficacy in cubic feet per minute per watt (“CFM/W”) at maximum speed for ACFs, are shown in Table I-3. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all GFBs listed in Table I-1 and Table I-2 and ACFs listed in Table I-3 manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on the date 5 years after the publication of the final rule for this rulemaking. For GFBs, DOE proposes that every duty point at which the basic model is offered for sale would need to meet the proposed energy conservation standards. (
Table I-4 and Table I-5 present DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the proposed standards on consumers of GFBs and ACFs, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (“LCC”) savings and the simple payback period (“PBP”).
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on consumers is described in section IV.F of this document.
The industry net present value (“INPV”) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the analysis period (2024-2059). Using a real discount rate of 11.4 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of fans and blowers in the case without new standards is $649 million in 2022 dollars for ACFs and $4,935 million in 2022 dollars for GFBs. Under the proposed standards, the change in INPV is estimated to range from −10.9 percent to less than 0.1 percent for ACFs, which represents a change in INPV of approximately −$71 million to less than $0.1 million, and from −9.2 percent to less than 0.1 percent for GFBs, which represents a change in INPV of approximately −$455 million to $1 million. In order to bring products into compliance with new standards, it is estimated that the industry would incur total conversion costs of $118 million for ACFs and $770 million for GFBs.
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this document. The analytic results of the manufacturer impact analysis (“MIA”) are presented in section V.B.2 of this document.
This section presents the combined results for GFBs and ACFs. Specific results for GFBs and ACFs are also discussed in sections I.C.1 and I.C.2 of this document, respectively.
DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation standards for GFBs and ACFs would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without new standards, the lifetime energy savings for GFBs and ACFs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated first full year of compliance with the new standards (2030-2059) amount to 18.3 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or quads.
The cumulative net present value (“NPV”) of total consumer benefits of the proposed standards for GFBs and ACFs ranges from $19.0 billion (at a 7 percent discount rate) to $49.5 billion (at a 3 percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment and installation costs for GFBs and ACFs purchased in 2030-2059.
In addition, the proposed standards for GFBs and ACFs are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the proposed standards would result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 317.9
DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in greenhouse gases (“GHG”) using four different estimates of the social cost of CO
DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO
Table I-6 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to result from the proposed standards for GFBs and ACFs. There are other important unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate benefits, unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of toxic air pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security benefits, and distributional effects, among others.
The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and installation costs, plus (3) the monetized value of climate and health benefits of emission reductions, all annualized.
The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered products and are measured for the lifetime of GFBs and ACFs shipped in 2030-2059. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the proposed standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of GFBs and ACFs shipped in 2030-2059. Total benefits for both the 3 percent and 7 percent cases are presented using the average GHG social costs with a 3-percent discount rate.
Table I-7 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs associated with the proposed standard, expressed in terms of annualized values. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7 percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from reduced NO
Using a 3 percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards is $374 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $3,302 million in reduced operating costs, $963 million in monetized climate benefits, and $1,869 million in monetized health benefits. In this case, the monetized net benefit would amount to $5,760 million per year.
DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is described in sections IV.H, IV.K and IV.L of this document.
DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation standards for GFBs would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without new standards, the lifetime energy savings for GFBs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated first full year of compliance with the new standards (2030-2059) amount to 13.8 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or quads.
The cumulative net present value (“NPV”) of total consumer benefits of the proposed standards for GFBs ranges from $13.7 billion (at a 7 percent discount rate) to $36.9 billion (at a 3 percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment and installation costs for GFBs purchased in 2030-2059.
In addition, the proposed standards for GFBs are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the proposed standards would result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 239.4 Mt of CO
DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in greenhouse gases (“GHG”) using four different estimates of the social cost of CO
DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO
Table I-8 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to result from the proposed standards for GFBs. There are other important unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate benefits, unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of toxic air pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security benefits, and distributional effects, among others.
The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and installation costs, plus (3) the monetized value of climate and health benefits of emission reductions, all annualized.
The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered products and are measured for the lifetime of GFBs shipped in 2030-2059. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the proposed standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of GFBs shipped in 2030-2059. Total benefits for both the 3 percent and 7 percent cases are presented using the average GHG social costs with a 3-percent discount rate.
Table I-9 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs associated with the proposed standard, expressed in terms of annualized values. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7 percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from reduced NO
Using a 3 percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards is $340 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $2,524 million in reduced operating costs, $703 million in monetized climate benefits, and $1,384 million in monetized health benefits. In this case, the monetized net benefit would amount to $4,271 million per year.
DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is described in sections IV.H, IV.K and IV.L of this document.
DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation standards for ACFs would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without new standards, the lifetime energy savings for ACFs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated first full year of compliance with the new standards (2030-2059) amount to 4.5 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or quads.
The cumulative net present value (“NPV”) of total consumer benefits of the proposed standards for ACFs ranges from $5.3 billion (at a 7 percent discount rate) to $12.6 billion (at a 3 percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment costs for ACFs purchased in 2030-2059.
In addition, the proposed standards for ACFs are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the proposed standards would result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 78.5 Mt
DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in greenhouse gases (GHG) using four different estimates of the social cost of CO
DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO
Table I-10 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to result from the proposed standards for ACFs. There are other important unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate benefits, unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of toxic air pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security benefits, and distributional effects, among others.
The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and installation costs, plus (3) the monetized value of climate and health benefits of emission reductions, all annualized.
The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered products and are measured for the lifetime of GFBs shipped in 2030-2059. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the proposed standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of GFBs shipped in 2030-2059. Total benefits for both the 3 percent and 7 percent cases are presented using the average GHG social costs with 3 percent discount rate.
Table I-11 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs associated with the proposed standard, expressed in terms of annualized values. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from reduced NO
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards is $34 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $778 million in reduced operating costs, $261 million in monetized climate benefits, and $485 million in monetized health benefits. In this case, the monetized net benefit would amount to $1,489 million per year.
DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is described in sections IV.H, IV.K and IV.L of this document.
DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in the significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regards to technological feasibility products achieving these standard levels are already commercially available for all equipment classes covered by this proposal. As for economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that the benefits of the proposed standard exceed, to a great extent, the burdens of the proposed standards.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and NO
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and NO
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.
As previously mentioned, the proposed standards are projected to result in estimated national energy savings of 13.8 quad FFC for GFBs and 4.5 quads FFC for ACFs, the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 148 and 48 million homes, respectively. In addition, they are projected to reduce CO
DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as potential standards, and is still considering them in this rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of the more stringent energy
Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in response to this document and related information collected and analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt energy efficiency levels presented in this document that are either higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for fans and blowers.
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part C of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency.
EPCA specifies a list of equipment that constitutes covered equipment (hereafter referred to as “covered equipment”).
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) There are currently no Federal energy conservation standards for fans and blowers. However, as noted in the Existing Efficiency Standards subsection of section IV.C.1.b of this document, the California Energy Commission (“CEC”) has finalized a rulemaking that requires manufacturers to report fan operating boundaries that result in operation at a FEI of greater than or equal to 1.00 for all fans within the scope of that rulemaking.
Furthermore, EPCA prescribes that all representations of energy efficiency and energy use, including those made on marketing materials and product labels, for certain equipment, including fans and blowers, must be made in accordance with an amended test procedure, beginning 180 days after publication of the final rule in the
DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295I) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the Federal test procedures as the basis for: (1) certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for fans and blowers appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 431, subpart J, appendices A and B.
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered equipment, including fans and blowers. Any new or
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) for certain equipment, including fans and blowers, if no test procedure has been established for the equipment, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the equipment subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered equipment that are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or, as applicable, water) savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered equipment likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”) considers relevant.
Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing equipment complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered equipment type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for covered equipment that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type or class of equipment that has the same function or intended use, if DOE determines that equipment within such group: (A) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered equipment within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other equipment within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of equipment, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate.
DOE does not currently have energy conservation standards for fans and blowers. The following section summarizes relevant background information regarding DOE's consideration of energy conservation standards for fans and blowers.
On May 10, 2021, DOE published a request for information requesting comments on a potential fan or blower definition. 86 FR 24752. DOE followed this with a publication of a final determination on August 19, 2021, classifying fans and blowers as covered equipment (“August 2021 Final Coverage Determination”). 86 FR 46579. At this time, DOE determined that the term “blower” is used interchangeably in the U.S. market with the term “fan.” 86 FR 46579, 46583. DOE defines a fan (or blower) as a rotary bladed machine used to convert electrical or mechanical power to air power, with an energy output limited to 25 kilojoule (“kJ”) per kilogram (“kg”) of air. It consists of an impeller, a shaft and bearings and/or driver to support the impeller, as well as a structure or housing. A fan (or blower) may include a transmission, driver, and/or motor controller. 10 CFR 431.172.
In considering whether to establish standards, on June 28, 2011 DOE published a notice of proposed determination of coverage to initiate an energy conservation standards rulemaking for fans, blowers, and fume hoods. 76 FR 37678. Subsequently, DOE published a notice of public meeting and availability of the Framework document for GFBs in the
On December 10, 2014, DOE published a notice of data availability (“December 2014 NODA”) that estimated the potential economic impacts and energy savings that could result from promulgating energy conservation standards for fans. 79 FR 73246. The December 2014 NODA analysis used FEI, a “wire-to-air” fan electrical input power metric, to characterize fan performance.
In October 2014, several representatives of fan manufacturers and energy efficiency advocates
Concurrent with these efforts, DOE established an Appliance Standards Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (“ASRAC”) Working Group (“Working Group”) to discuss negotiated energy conservation standards and test procedures for fans.
The Working Group concluded its negotiations on September 3, 2015, and, by consensus vote,
On November 1, 2016, DOE published a third notification of data availability (“November 2016 NODA”) that presented a revised analysis for GFBs consistent with the scope and metric recommendations in the term sheet. 81 FR 75742, 75743. As recommended by the working group, the November 2016 NODA used the fan electrical input power metric (FEP)
On October 1, 2021, DOE published a request for information pertaining to test procedures for fans and blowers (“October 2021 TP RFI”). 86 FR 54412. As part of the October 2021 TP RFI, DOE discussed definitions and potential scope for ACFs. 86 FR 54412, 54414-54415. DOE published a separate request for information on February 8, 2022 (“February 2022 RFI”), to seek input to aid in its development of the technical and economic analyses regarding whether standards for ACFs may be warranted. 87 FR 7048. On October 13, 2022, DOE published a notice of data availability (“October 2022 NODA”) to present its preliminary engineering analysis for ACFs and to seek input to support DOE in completing a notice of proposed rulemaking analysis for all fans and blowers. 87 FR 62038.
DOE received comments in response to the October 2022 NODA from the interested parties listed in Table II-1.
DOE also acknowledges that it received numerous identical comments via a mass email campaign stating that standards for fans and blowers is an important issue and requesting that DOE pursue an approach that is fair and equitable to both businesses and consumers.
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (“Process Rule”), DOE notes that it is deviating from the provision in the Process Rule regarding the pre-NOPR and NOPR stages for an energy conservation standards rulemaking.
Section 6(a)(2) of the Process Rule states that if DOE determines it is appropriate to proceed with a rulemaking, the preliminary stages of a rulemaking to issue or amend an energy conservation standard that DOE will undertake will be a framework document and preliminary analysis, or an advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
As described in section II.B.2 of this document, DOE published the 2013 Framework Document, the December 2014 NODA, the May 2015 NODA, and the November 2016 NODA for GFBs. 78 FR 7306; 79 FR 73246; 80 FR 24841; 81 FR 75742. The three NODAs presented DOE's analysis at various points, provided stakeholders opportunity to review and provide comment. Furthermore, while DOE published the February 2022 RFI and October 2022 NODA for ACFs, DOE did not publish a framework document in conjunction with the NODA for ACFs. 87 FR 62038. DOE notes that ACFs and GFBs are analyzed separately, however, the general analytical framework that DOE uses in evaluating and developing potential new energy conservation standards for both GFBs and ACFs is similar. As such, publication of a separate framework document for ACFs would be largely redundant of previously published documents.
Section 6(f)(2) of the Process Rule specifies that the length of the public comment period for a NOPR will be not less than 75 calendar days. For this NOPR, DOE is instead providing a 60-day comment period, consistent with EPCA requirements. 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p). DOE is opting to deviate from the 75-day comment period because of the robust opportunities already afforded to stakeholders to provide comments on this proposed rulemaking.
DOE is providing a 60-day comment period, which DOE believes is appropriate given the substantial stakeholder engagement for general fans and blowers to date, as discussed in section II.B.2 of this document. Furthermore, the request for information on air circulating fans that was published on February 8, 2022, provided early notice to interested parties that DOE was interested in evaluating potential energy conservation standards for air circulating fans. DOE also provided a 45-day comment period for the notice of data availability that was published on October 13, 2022. Therefore, DOE believes a 60-day comment period is appropriate and will provide interested parties with a meaningful opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.
DOE developed this proposal after considering oral and written comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent a variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues raised by these commenters.
This section summarizes general comments received from interested parties in response to the October 2022 NODA regarding rulemaking timing, process, and impact.
In response to many of DOE's requests for comment, AMCA recommended that DOE obtain the requested information through confidential interviews with fan manufacturers. (AMCA, No. 132 at pp. 6-14) DOE notes that it used information collected during manufacturer interviews to inform its engineering, market, and manufacturer analyses.
NEMA commented that its interpretation of DOE's analysis in the October 2022 NODA was that DOE was proposing energy efficiency requirements for motors that are used in ACFs, which would be confusing and problematic for the motor industry, since there is a separate rulemaking for motors. (NEMA, No. 125 at pp. 2, 4). Additionally, NEMA stated that DOE's inclusion of higher efficiency small, non-“small electric motor” electric motors (“SNEMs”) as a technology option for increasing the efficiency of ACFs could be an issue because of an ongoing rulemaking for SNEMs. (NEMA, No. 125 at p. 2) DOE notes that in a NOPR for expanded scope electric motors (“ESEMs”) published on December 15, 2023 (“December 2023 ESEM NOPR”), motors that were previously referred to as SNEMs were redefined to be ESEMs. 88 FR 87062 DOE will use the term “ESEM” throughout the remainder of this document to refer to these motors. Morrison commented that it is concerned about the small motors rulemaking being in progress at the same time as this fans and blowers rulemaking. (Morrison, No. 128 at p. 1)
DOE notes that it is proposing energy conservation standards for fans and blowers, including ACFs and GFBs, and that it is not proposing energy conservation standards for motors in this rulemaking. DOE typically defines a likely design path to structure its engineering analysis; however, DOE notes that this design path is not prescriptive. DOE heard from ACF manufacturers that replacing a less efficient motor with a more efficient motor would be one of the first options they would evaluate. Therefore, DOE considered more efficient motors as an option that a manufacturer might apply to reach a given ACF efficiency level. DOE acknowledges that the electric motors rulemaking involving ESEMs is ongoing (
AMCA commented that it generally supports NEMA's comments. (AMCA, No. 132 at pp. 2, 21) DOE therefore notes that throughout this document, reference to comments made by NEMA are understood to be representative of the viewpoints of AMCA as well.
Greenheck stated that it would be beneficial for the ACF rulemaking to be delayed until after AMCA 230-2023 is
MIAQ commented that it disagrees with DOE's decision to provide a 45-day comment period instead of the usual 75-day comment period for the October 2022 NODA. (MIAQ, No. 124 at p. 2) In the October 2022 NODA, DOE discussed its decision to deviate from section 3(a) of appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430 and reduce the comment period. 87 FR 62038, 62039. DOE provided a 45-day comment period given the substantial stakeholder engagement prior to the publication of the NODA and to provide DOE with ample time to review comments to inform this NOPR analysis.
The CA IOUs commented that they are concerned that the energy conservation standards may supersede the fan input power limits currently in place for building codes, such as the California Building Energy Code (Title 24), American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (“ASHRAE”) Standard 90.1, “Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings,” and the International Energy Conservation Code (“IECC”) 2021, which would reduce the influence of these building codes and ultimately result in an increase in the energy consumption of the equipment in which fans are embedded because the fan power limits in those codes are significantly more stringent than the FEI requirements and ensure the overall fan system in a building is designed efficiently. (CA IOUs, No. 127 at p. 6) Damas and Boldt also expressed their concern that energy conservation standards may preempt the limits on fan system power in building energy codes such as ASHRAE 90.1 and therefore could potentially increase energy use in new construction. (Damas and Boldt, No. 131 at p. 5) AHRI commented that an energy conservation standard is not needed for fans because all States are obligated to comply with ASHRAE 90.1. (AHRI, No. 130 at pp. 16-17)
DOE notes that neither ASHRAE 90.1 nor IECC 2021 are federally mandated standards. Although ASHRAE 90.1 and IECC 2021 may be incorporated into municipal and/or building codes, this is not required and is performed on a State and local level. Furthermore, their incorporation does not always mandate standard efficiency requirements. DOE also acknowledges that as stated in section II.A, Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, if energy conservation standards for fans and blowers were to be adopted, they would supersede State laws and regulations for the efficiency of individual fans and blowers at the product or equipment level. DOE considered the fan efficiency requirements in ASHRAE 90.1 and IECC 2021 in its analysis, as discussed in section IV.C.1.b of this document. With regard to CA IOUs concern that DOE's regulation would supersede current regulations for fan input power limits, DOE notes that the standards proposed in this NOPR apply only to individual fans, whether embedded or standalone, that are within the proposed scope of this rulemaking. DOE is not proposing minimum input power requirements for fan systems that may be incorporated into buildings. Therefore, although the individual fans used in fan systems would be required to comply with DOE's minimum FEI requirements if the fan is within the proposed scope of this rulemaking, DOE's proposed regulations would not supersede input power requirements for fan systems.
This NOPR covers those commercial and industrial equipment that meet the definition of “fan” or “blower,” as codified at 10 CFR 431.172 and for which DOE has finalized test procedures in subpart J of 10 CFR part 431.
As discussed, DOE defines a “fan” or “blower” as a rotary bladed machine used to convert electrical or mechanical power to air power, with an energy output limited to 25 kJ/kg of air. It consists of an impeller, a shaft and bearings and/or driver to support the impeller, as well as a structure or housing. A fan or blower may include a transmission, driver, and/or motor controller. 10 CFR 431.172. DOE separates fans and blowers into general fans and blowers and air circulating fans.
An “air circulating fan” means a fan that has no provision for connection to ducting or separation of the fan inlet from its outlet using a pressure boundary, operates against zero external static pressure loss, and is not a jet fan. 10 CFR 431.172. Fans and blowers that are not ACFs are referred to as general fans and blowers (“GFBs”) throughout this document.
In response to the October 2022 NODA, DOE received comments on the fans considered within the scope of its analysis.
Greenheck, AMCA, and Morrison commented that ACFs should be considered in a separate rule from GFBs since ACFs and GFBs are utilized in different applications and use different industry test procedures (
DOE acknowledges that ACFs and GFBs have separate utilities and test procedures. In the test procedure final rule that was published on May 1, 2023 (“May 2023 TP Final Rule”), DOE adopted separate test procedures for GFBs and ACFs (
In the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE established the scope of the test procedure. 88 FR 27312. In this NOPR, DOE is proposing energy conservation standards for GFBs consistent with the scope of coverage defined in the May 2023 TP Final Rule.
Specifically, in this NOPR, DOE proposes energy conservation standards for the following GFB categories, as defined in the DOE test procedure: (1) axial inline fan; (2) axial panel fan; (3) centrifugal housed fan; (4) centrifugal unhoused fan; (5) centrifugal inline fan; (6) radial housed fan; and (7) power roof/wall ventilator (“PRV”). Furthermore, consistent with the DOE test procedure, DOE proposes that the scope of this energy conservation standards rulemaking for GFBs would apply to fans with duty points with a fan shaft input power equal to or greater than 1 hp and a fan static or total air power equal to or less than 150 hp.
Additionally, DOE did not evaluate or consider potential energy conservation standards for GFBs that were not included in the scope of its test procedure.
DOE requests comment on its proposed clarification for fans that create a vacuum. Specifically, DOE requests comment on whether fans that are manufactured and marketed exclusively to create a vacuum of 30 inches water gauge or greater could also be used in positive pressure applications. Additionally, DOE requests information on the applications in which a fan not manufactured or marketed exclusively for creating a vacuum would be used to create a vacuum of 30 inches water gauge or greater.
Consistent with the test procedure, DOE has excluded certain embedded fans, listed in Table III-1, from its analysis.
In response to the October 2022 NODA, DOE received comments regarding the scope of the energy conservation standards for GFBs.
AHAM agreed with DOE's proposal to only cover GFBs that were rated at 1 hp or higher because it effectively excluded most fans used in consumer product applications. (AHAM, No. 123 at p. 5) AHRI commented that regulating GFBs
In response to both the October 2022 NODA and the July 2022 TP NOPR, AHRI and Morrison commented that they were concerned about how energy conservation standards would apply to replacement fans. (Morrison, No. 128 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 130 at pp. 2, 5, 12) Morrison and AHRI stated that replacement fans should be exempt from the standards rulemaking because a fan with the same specific performance and safety devices needs to be used for replacement in order to achieve the same system performance and to comply with safety requirements.
CA IOUs stated that consumers seeking to replace low-pressure fans in constrained spaces may not be able to find replacement fans that meet a higher FEI. Since a more efficient fan may require a larger diameter, it might not fit in the constrained space. Therefore, either the constrained space will need to be enlarged to fit the larger fan (which is likely to be costly for the consumer) or the consumer would select a replacement fan of the same size but with higher pressure (resulting in more power use to achieve the same airflow). (CA IOUs, No. 127 at p. 6) CA IOUs therefore proposed a narrow exception for [non-embedded] centrifugal fans with a rated pressure not greater than 1.5 inches water gauge. (CA IOUs, No. 127 at p. 7)
Consistent with DOE's response to these comments in the April 2023 Final Rule, DOE is proposing to exclude certain embedded fans from potential energy conservation standards in this rulemaking, whether sold for incorporation into the equipment or already incorporated in the equipment, if embedded in equipment listed in Table III-1. This approach would exclude replacement fans for the equipment listed in Table III-1. For equipment not listed in Table III-1, DOE notes that it is not excluding replacement fans from the scope of the rulemaking, consistent with the scope of the DOE test procedure. In its analysis, which is discussed in further detail in section IV.C.1 of this document, DOE evaluated improved efficiency options while maintaining constant diameter and duty point (
DOE also received multiple comments from stakeholders about fans that should be excluded from the scope of the rulemaking; these comments were similar to the comments received in response to the July 2022 TP NOPR. Morrison and AHRI commented that they are concerned over double regulation of products. (Morrison, No. 128 at pp. 2-3; AHRI, No. 130 at p. 2) AHRI commented that fans embedded in boilers and commercial water heaters should be excluded. (AHRI, No. 130 at pp. 10-11) DOE notes that these comments were summarized and responded to in the May 2023 TP Final Rule. 88 FR 27312, 27329-27330. Additionally, AHRI commented that the regulation of fans within air-cooled water chillers would not improve the efficiency of the entire equipment, nor would it lead to net energy savings because ASHRAE 90.1 already sets efficiency standards for the equipment and the entire system is designed to meet the ASHRAE 90.1 efficiency standards. (AHRI, No. 130 at pp. 9-10) MIAQ commented that energy conservation standards for embedded fans would not necessarily improve the performance of the products in which the fans are embedded if the products are already regulated. (MIAQ, No. 124 at p. 4)
As previously discussed, DOE is exempting fans embedded in the equipment listed in Table III-1, consistent with the DOE test procedure, and continues to exclude fans in covered equipment in which the fan energy use is already captured in the equipment-specific test procedures. Furthermore, as discussed in section III.A of this document, ASHRAE 90.1 is not a federally mandated standard, though it may be adopted by State and local governments, and therefore DOE is not specifically exempting fans that are in equipment that are regulated by IECC and ASHRAE 90.1.
More details regarding the scope of GFBs that are included in this NOPR can be found in the May 2023 TP Final Rule. 88 FR 27312, 27317-27336.
In the October 2022 NODA, DOE stated that it was considering all air circulating fans in its analysis of potential energy conservation standards for fans and blowers, including unhoused air circulating fan heads and housed air circulating fan heads. 87 FR 62038, 62041. DOE received comments from stakeholders in response to the scope discussion in the October 2022 NODA.
AHAM commented there is a lack of clarity about which products are included and excluded in DOE's proposed scope and that DOE was improperly expanding the scope of products included in the fans and blowers category by including residential products. AHAM stated that it did not believe that the metric, technology options, assumptions, and test procedure discussed in the October 2022 NODA are relevant to residential fans. (AHAM, No. 123 at pp. 1-2) Specifically, AHAM commented that the proposed test procedure from the July 2022 TP NOPR and AMCA 214-21 are not applicable to residential fans and that no energy conservation standards should be set for residential fans until a test procedure for residential fans is established. (AHAM, No. 123 at pp. 5, 9) AHAM, Greenheck, and AMCA also commented that ACFs with an input power less than 125 W should be excluded from scope to coincide with the scope limit in AMCA 230-23 and IEC 60879. (AHAM, No. 123
AHAM commented that the terminology used in the October 2022 NODA for fan head diameter, rather than fan blade diameter, is inconsistent with how residential ACFs are typically analyzed. (AHAM, No. 123 at p. 8) DOE notes that while it works to use terminology that is consistent with industry terminology, it is not always possible given the size and maturity of test standards development in a given industry. DOE clarifies that its usage of the term “fan head diameter” in the October 2022 NODA was intended to be analogous to “fan blade diameter.” Additionally, DOE notes that it is proposing a definition for “diameter” for fans and blowers that is consistent with the term “fan blade diameter” in this NOPR, which is discussed in section IV.A.1.b of this document.
AHAM also commented that it did not believe that DOE has enough data on residential fans to analyze them. AHAM stated that DOE's analysis in the October 2022 NODA had an ACF with a 24-inch (“in.”) blade and a 0.5 hp motor, which is not representative of residential ACFs. (AHAM, No. 123 at p. 8) DOE notes that in the October 2022 NODA, it analyzed ACFs at multiple representative sizes and motor horsepowers, including a 12 in. diameter, 0.1 motor hp unit; a 20 in. diameter, 0.33 motor hp unit; a 24 in. diameter, 0.5 motor hp unit; a 36 in. diameter, 0.5 motor hp unit; and 50 in. diameter, 1 motor hp unit. 87 FR 62038, 62046. DOE had determined that these diameters and motor horsepowers were representative of the full scope of ACFs considered in the October 2022 NODA.
AHAM stated that the size of motors that are typically used in residential ACFs are excluded from the scope of the ongoing electric motors rulemaking; therefore, residential ACFs should be excluded from this rulemaking since DOE would not see potential savings. (AHAM, No. 123 at p. 9) DOE notes that this is a rulemaking for fans and blowers. For ACFs, DOE considers higher-efficiency motors as a design option as well as other design options but emphasizes that the approach that DOE uses to evaluate potential efficiency standards is not prescriptive (
Additionally, AHAM commented that it was their understanding that the proposed definitions for ACFs in the July 2022 TP NOPR did not include bladeless fans and agreed with the exclusion of bladeless ACFs from scope. (AHAM, No. 123 at p. 5) The definition of air circulating fan, “a fan that has no provision for connection to ducting or separation of the fan inlet from its outlet using a pressure boundary, operates against zero external static pressure loss, and is not a jet fan,” does not exclude bladeless fans.
NEMA expressed concern that the July 2022 TP NOPR proposed only including fans with a shaft input power between 1 hp and 150 hp, but that the October 2022 NODA proposed including fans with a shaft input power of less than 1 hp. (NEMA, No. 125 at p. 2). DOE notes that, as specified in the test procedure, the 1 hp and 150 hp limits are applicable to GFBs, and that GFBs with an input power of less than 1 hp are excluded from scope.
DOE explained in the coverage determination that fans and blowers, the subjects of this rulemaking, do not include ceiling fans, as defined at 10 CFR 430.2. See 86 FR 46579, 46586 and 10 CFR 431.171. Therefore, as stated in the May 2023 TP Final Rule, equipment that meets the definition of a ceiling fan would be excluded from the scope of equipment included under “fan and blower”. 88 FR 27312, 27365. A ceiling fan means a nonportable device that is suspended from a ceiling for circulating air via the rotation of fan blades. 10 CFR 430.2. In the ceiling fan test procedure final rule published on August 16, 2022, DOE finalized an amendment to the ceiling fan definition at 10 CFR 430.2 to specify that a ceiling fan provides “circulating air,” which means “the discharge of air in an upward or downward direction. A ceiling fan that has a ratio of fan blade span (in inches) to maximum rotation rate (in revolutions per minute) greater than 0.06 provides circulating air.” 87 FR 50396, 50402. Specifically, the 0.06 in/RPM ratio was added in the ceiling fans definition to distinguish fans with directional airflow from circulating airflow.
DOE also finalized a definition for “high-speed belt-driven ceiling fan” (“HSBD”) and added language to clarify that high-speed belt-driven ceiling fans were to be subject to the AMCA 230-15
In the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE established the definitions of ACF and related terms. DOE defined the term air circulating fan as “a fan that has no provision for connection to ducting or separation of the fan inlet from its outlet using a pressure boundary, operates against zero external static pressure loss, and is not a jet fan”. In addition, DOE defined an unhoused circulating fan as “an air circulating fan without housing, having an axial impeller with a ratio of fan blade span (in inches) to maximum rate of rotation (in revolutions per minute) less than or equal to 0.06. The impeller may or may not be guarded.” 88 FR 27312, 27389-27390. DOE relied on the blade span to maximum rpm ratio to distinguish these ACFs from ceiling fans. 87 FR 44194, 44216. For housed ACFs however, DOE defined a housed ACF as an air circulating fan with an axial or centrifugal impeller, and a housing. 88 FR 27312, 27390. This definition aligns with the housed ACF definition in AMCA 230-23 and does not specify a diameter to speed ratio limit because housed ACFs can have blade span to maximum rpm ratios that are in the same range as ceiling fans (
In the Ceiling Fan ECS NOPR published on June 22, 2023, DOE noted that that a ceiling fan must be “distributed in commerce with components that enable it to be suspended from a ceiling.” 88 FR 40932, 40943. Belt-driven fans are often distributed in commerce without components that enable the fan to be suspended from a ceiling. For example, some belt-driven fans are sold connected to wheels or to a pedestal base. In this case, such a fan would not meet the definition of a ceiling fan because it has not been manufactured to be suspended from the ceiling, and therefore would not be subject to the HSBD test procedure or any potential energy conservation standards for HSBDs even though a consumer could independently purchase their own straps or chains and elect to hang this fan from the ceiling. 88 FR 40932, 40943.
DOE stated that HSBD ceiling fans, in contrast to belt-driven fans connected to wheel or a pedestal base, are distributed in commerce with specific straps, chains, or other similar components that are designed and tested by the manufacturer to safely support the weight of the ceiling fan in an overhead configuration. Further, they circulate air since they meet the 0.06 blade span to maximum rpm ratio. 88 FR 40932, 40943.
Many belt-driven fans are housed (
In response to the June 2023 Ceiling Fan ECS NOPR (88 FR 40932), CA IOUs commented that CFEI is not intended for small-diameter ceiling fans.
DOE notes that VES did not make a statement as to whether or not the 0.06 blade span to rpm ratio would appropriately distinguish between their circulating fans and traditional ceiling fans. However, as the air circulating fan definitions have pointed out, the 0.06 blade span to rpm ratio is most appropriate for distinguishing between unhoused air circulating fans. Housed air circulating fans may exceed the 0.06 blade span to rpm ratio and commonly do, despite the fact that they are typically thought of in industry as air circulating fans and not ceiling fans, even if they are ceiling mounted.
Based on the interpretation of the ceiling fan definition in the June 2023 Ceiling Fan ECS NOPR, an identical fan product could switch between being regulated as a high-speed belt-driven ceiling fan and a housed air circulating fan based only on if the equipment is sold with straps or chains for mounting overhead. Similarly, an identical direct drive fan product could switch between being regulated as a high-speed small-diameter ceiling fan and a housed air circulating fan based only on the if the product is sold with straps or chains for mounting overhead. Further complicating the analysis is the fact that high-speed belt-driven ceiling fans, air circulating fans and high-speed small-diameter ceiling fans are subject to different test procedures and different efficiency standards. DOE believes this confusion necessitates further refinement.
To avoid this confusion, DOE is reinterpreting the scope of the ceiling fan definition based on the potential overlap of products with housed air circulating fans. As DOE noted in the September 2019 Ceiling Fan TP NOPR, the intent of the ceiling fan definition is to be limited to “nonportable” devices that “circulate air”. 84 FR 51440, 51444. Specifically, to clarify the distinction between air circulating fans and ceiling fans, DOE is interpreting the elements of the ceiling fan definition in the following way:
• Portable—means: (1) that a fan is offered for mounting on surfaces other than or in addition to the ceiling; and (2) that a consumer can vary the location of the product/equipment throughout the product/equipment lifetime. A ceiling fan is only mounted to the ceiling and is not intended to be installed in any other mounting configuration or change location after it's been installed. This is in contrast to housed air circulating fans sold with straps and chains, where the products are intended to be regularly modified to direct air in different directions or move airflow around different obstacles or in different areas. DOE also notes that once a ceiling fan is mounted to the ceiling, it is often hard-wired in place;
• Not for the purpose of circulating air—While DOE has traditionally emphasized the 0.06 fan blade span to maximum rotation rate ratio as the distinction between circulating air and direction airflow, DOE notes that the definition of “circulating air” in the ceiling fan definition is provided in contrast to directional airflow. DOE is interpreting the presence of a housing as evidence of airflow that is intended to be directional. In addition, DOE is interpreting the ability for the consumer
Based on the interpretation, the scope of the ceiling fan definition would be limited to only traditional ceiling fan products that are connected to the ceiling via a downrod, flush mounting, or similar, non-portable device. All other portable ceiling mounted fans that provide directional airflow would be regulated under the air circulating fan regulation. While the June 2023 Ceiling Fan ECS NOPR included proposed efficiency standards for high-speed belt-driven ceiling fans, under the proposed interpretation of the ceiling fan definition, all high-speed belt-driven ceiling fan products identified by DOE would not be within the scope of the ceiling fan definition and would instead meet the definition of housed air-circulating fans. Further, any direct-drive ceiling-mounted fan that is portable and provides directional airflow (
EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)) Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product.
As previously discussed, DOE published its test procedure final rule on May 1, 2023, which established separate uniform test procedures for GFBs and ACFs. 88 FR 27312. The test procedure for GFBs is based on American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”)/AMCA Standard 214-21 “Test Procedure for Calculating Fan Energy Index (FEI) for Commercial and Industrial Fans and Blowers” (“AMCA 214-21”) with some modification and prescribes test methods for measuring the fan electrical input power and determining the FEI of GFBs. The test procedure for ACFs is based on ANSI/AMCA Standard 230-23 “Laboratory Methods of Testing Air Circulating Fans for Rating and Certification” (“AMCA 230-23”) with some modification and prescribes test methods for measuring the fan airflow in cubic feet per minute per watt (“CFM/W”) of electric input power to an ACF. (
In response to the October 2022 NODA, AHAM commented that the test procedure proposed in the July 2022 TP NOPR was inconsistent with agreements made in the 2015 ASRAC negotiations, which diminishes the value of participating in ASRAC negotiations. (AHAM, No. 123 at pp. 10-11) DOE notes that the context of this comment is the same as an AHAM comment submitted by AHAM to the July 2022 TP NOPR that DOE summarized and responded to in the May 2023 TP Final Rule. 88 FR 27312, 27377.
DOE is proposing energy conservation standards for GFBs in terms of FEI, which is calculated in accordance with the DOE test procedure.
FEI provides for evaluation of the efficiency of a GFB across a range of operating conditions, captures the performance of the motor, transmission, or motor controllers (if any), and allows for the differentiation of fans with motors, transmissions, and motor controllers with differing efficiency levels. FEI is a wire-to-air metric, which means that it considers the efficiency from the input power to the output power of a fan, including the efficiencies of the motor, motor controller (if included), transmission, and fan itself. The inclusion of all of these components encourages the improvement of motor, motor controller, and transmission efficiencies, in addition to the improvement of a fan's aerodynamic efficiency. In addition, FEI aligns with the industry test standard (AMCA 214-21) and can help drive better fan selections by making it easier to compare performance of different fans. AMCA 214-21 defines FEI as the ratio of the electrical input power (“FEP”) of a reference fan to the FEP of the fan for which the FEI is calculated, both established at the same duty point. The DOE test procedure provides methods to calculate both FEP and FEI of a fan at a given duty point.
In response to the October 2022 NODA, DOE received comment on the metric used for GFBs. Morrison and AHRI commented that they disagreed with using the weighted FEI (“WFEI”) metric that was discussed in the July 2022 TP NOPR. (Morrison, No. 128 at pp. 1, 3; AHRI, No. 130 at p. 2-3). DOE notes that these comments are similar to the comments submitted to the July 2022 TP NOPR that DOE summarized in the May 2023 TP Final Rule. MIAQ commented in support of using FEI as the metric used for regulation and disagreed with the use of WFEI because it has not been evaluated by fan manufacturers or their customers (MIAQ, No. 124 at p. 2). In the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE responded to similar comments and ultimately defined FEI as the metric for general fans and blowers. 88 FR 27312, 27367-27369.
Morrison commented that the FEI metric aligned well with the agreements made in the ASRAC Term Sheet and that FEI is now being used by numerous standards as the metric for efficiency. (Morrison, No. 128 at pp. 2-3) DOE interprets Morrison's comment as support for using the FEI metric.
Morrison commented that variable-frequency drive (“VFD”) control provides a good method to dynamically achieve part-load operation to promote energy savings. Morrison stated that since the FEP calculation metric penalizes the use of VFDs, DOE should consider providing an equivalent bonus factor, at a minimum, to gain back the losses in the calculation. Morrison commented that operating at part load saves significantly more energy than any other efficiency change. (Morrison, No. 128 at p. 3) As discussed in the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE is not adopting a control credit in the calculation of FEP for fans with a motor controller, such as a VFD; however, as shown in Table I-1, DOE is proposing lower standards for fans sold with motor controllers to account for the motor controller losses in the FEP metric associated with testing a fan with a controller.
As discussed in the May 2023 TP Final Rule, to the extent that manufacturers of general fans and blowers are making voluntary representations of FEI, then they would need to ensure that the product is tested in accordance with the DOE test
For fans with a polyphase regulated motor and a controller, AMCA 214-21 allows testing these fans using a shaft-to-air test (
Section 6.4.2.4 of AMCA 214-21, which relies on Annex B, “Motor Constants if Used With VFD (Normative),” and Annex C, “VFD Performance Constants (Normative),” provides a method to estimate the combined motor and controller part-load efficiency for certain electric motors and controller combinations that meet the requirements in sections 6.4.1.3 and 6.4.1.4 of AMCA 214-21, which specify that the motor must be polyphase regulated motor (
In the July 2022 TP NOPR, DOE stated its concerns that the equations described in section 6.4.2.4 of AMCA 214-21 may not be appropriately representative, resulting in FEI ratings that would be higher than FEI ratings obtained using the wire-to-air test method described in section 6.1 of AMCA 214-21. Therefore, in the July 2022 TP NOPR, DOE did not propose to allow the use of section 6.4.2.4 of AMCA 214-21. Instead, DOE proposed that fans with a motor and controller be tested in accordance with section 6.1 of AMCA 214-21. DOE indicated that manufacturers would still be able to rely on a mathematical model (including the same mathematical model as described in section 6.4.2.4 of AMCA 214-21, if the mathematical model met the AEDM requirements) in lieu of testing to determine the FEI of a fan with a motor and controller. 87 FR 44194, 44223. In the July 2022 TP NOPR, DOE also reviewed the reference motor and controller (“power drive system”) efficiency provided in IEC 61800-9-2:2017 “Adjustable speed electrical power drive systems Part 9-2: Ecodesign for power drive systems, motor starters, power electronics and their driven applications—Energy efficiency indicators for power drive systems and motor starters,” which also provides equations to represent the performance of a motor and controller used with fans, and found that the IEC model predicted values of efficiency that were significantly lower (more than 10 percent on average) than the model included in AMCA 214-21.
In the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE further reviewed the model in AMCA 214-21 section 6.4.2.4 and stated that it continued to have concerns that applying the model in section 6.4.2.4 of AMCA 214-21 may result in fan FEI ratings that would be higher than FEI ratings obtained using the wire-to-air test method described in section 6.1 of AMCA 214-21. 88 FR 27312, 27347. Specifically, DOE reviewed information provided by AMCA analyzing the AHRI 1210 database of certified motor controllers and providing graphical representations comparing the AHRI data to the AMCA 207 model and found that there were several AHRI-certified motor and motor controller combinations that had a tested efficiency that is lower than the model in section 6.4.2.4 of AMCA 214-21. (Docket No. EERE-2021-BT-TP-0021-0046, AMCA, No. 41 at pp. 18-19) In their comments, AMCA stated that the model in AMCA 214-21, section 6.4.2.4, was not intended to be a conservative estimate of losses. Instead, according to AMCA, the model was intended to provide a level playing field between manufacturers that chose to test wire-to-air and those that chose to test fan shaft power and calculate wire-to-air losses. (Docket No. EERE-2021-BT-TP-0021-0046, AMCA, No. 41 at p. 18) 88 FR 27312, 27348.
Therefore, to minimize the possibility that using the calculation approach would result in better energy efficiency ratings than when testing the equipment inclusive of the motor and controller, in the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE did not allow the use of section 6.4.2.4 of AMCA 214-21. Instead, DOE required that fans with motor and controller be tested in accordance with section 6.1 of AMCA 214-21. DOE noted that manufacturers would still be able to rely on a mathematical model (including the same mathematical model as described in section 6.4.2.4 of AMCA 214-21) in lieu of testing to determine the FEI of a fan with a motor and controller, as long as the mathematical model meets the AEDM requirements.
Since the publication of the May 2023 Final Rule, the IEC published a new version of IEC 61800-9-2 (“IEC 61800-9-2: 2023”). Compared to IEC 61800-9-2:2017, which included a calculation method to directly establish typical losses of a reference motor and motor controller combination (or “Power Drive System”, “PDS”), this version provides the reference motor controller. It also points to a separate IEC publication (IEC TS 60034-30-2:2016 “Rotating electrical machines—Part 30-2: Efficiency classes of variable speed AC motors (IE-code)”) for establishing the reference motor losses. The detailed calculations of losses for a reference motor and motor controller are also described in IEC TS 60034-31: 2021 (“Rotating electrical machines—Part 31: Selection of energy-efficient motors including variable speed applications—Application guidelines”).
IEC 61800-9-2:2023 also characterizes the reference motor controller or “complete drive module” (“CDM”) as corresponding to an IE1 efficiency class.
In order to support an alternative credit calculation (See discussion in section IV.C.1.b) and potentially reduce test burden, DOE evaluated the model in IEC 61800-9-2:2023 assuming a polyphase regulated motor that exactly meets the standards at 10 CFR 431.25, and a motor controller at IE2 level. In addition, DOE adjusted the IE3 levels
Therefore, DOE proposes to reduce test burden by adding a combined motor and controller efficiency calculation to allow establishing the FEI of fans sold with a regulated polyphase motor and a motor controller based on a shaft-to-air test and calculated motor and controller efficiency. DOE proposes that the performance of the motor and motor controller combination be allowed for certain electric motors and controller combinations that meet the requirements in sections 6.4.1.3 and 6.4.1.4 of AMCA 214-21, which specify that the motor must be polyphase regulated motor (
DOE requests comments and feedback on the proposed methodology and calculation of motor and motor controller losses as well as potentially using an alternative calculation based on adjusted AMCA 214-21 equations.
In the October 2022 NODA, DOE used FEI as the metric for ACFs in its analysis. DOE requested feedback on the FEI values that it determined and its approach for estimating FEI values for ACFs. 87 FR 62038, 62050.
AHAM commented that FEI is not an appropriate metric to use for residential ACFs because the reference fan used for FEI is based on a commercial fan. (AHAM, No. 123 at p. 7) Furthermore, AHAM commented that the AMCA 214-21 test procedure, which DOE proposed to incorporate by reference in the July 2022 TP NOPR, is not applicable to residential ACFs. (AHAM, No. 123 at p. 6) DOE notes that, as discussed in section III.B.2 of this document, ACFs with an input power of less than 125 W are excluded from the scope of the rulemaking.
The CA IOUs and AMCA commented that the reason FEI values are much higher for ACFs at diameters less than 20 in. is because the airflow constant in the FEI calculation (3,210 CFM) is more impactful for ACFs with lower CFM. (CA IOUs, No. 127 at pp. 4-5; AMCA, No. 132 at pp. 10-11, 19) To support their comment, the CA IOUs provided data demonstrating how, at lower airflows, there is a “bonus” value added to reference shaft input power as a result of the airflow constant. (CA IOUs, No. 127 at pp. 4-5) Ultimately, the CA IOUs recommended that DOE consider using a different airflow constant for lower airflow fans to counter this effect.
Based on additional evaluation and stakeholder feedback on the airflow constant in the FEI calculation, DOE has adopted the efficacy metric in terms of CFM/W at maximum speed for ACFs in appendix B to subpart J of 10 CFR part 431 (
In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the equipment that is the subject of the rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially available equipment or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. 10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 6I(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) (“Process Rule”).
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. 10 CFR 431.4; Sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process Rule. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for fans and blowers, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking,
When DOE proposes to adopt a standard for a type or class of covered equipment, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for fans and blowers, using the design parameters for the most efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C of this proposed rule and in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
For each trial standard level (“TSL”), DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to fans and blowers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the first full year of compliance with the proposed standards (2030-2059).
DOE used its national impact analysis (“NIA”) spreadsheet model to estimate national energy savings (“NES”) from potential new standards for fans and blowers. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.I of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by equipment at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. DOE also calculates NES in terms of FFC energy savings. The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (
To adopt any new or amended standards for covered equipment, DOE must determine that such action would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.
As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking.
In determining the impacts of a potential new standard on manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of this document. DOE first uses an annual cash flow approach to determine the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment—based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the regulation—and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows, (2) cash flows by year, (3) changes in revenue and income, and (4) other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in LCC and PBP associated with new standards. These measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a standard.
EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered equipment that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of equipment (including its installation) and the operating expense (including energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of the equipment. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as equipment prices, equipment energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, equipment lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as equipment lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of more efficient equipment through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the covered equipment in the first full year of compliance with new standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this document.
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section III.E, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.
In establishing equipment classes and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the considered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards proposed in this document would not reduce the utility or performance of the equipment under consideration in this rulemaking.
EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy of this proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will publish and respond to the Attorney General's determination in the final rule. DOE invites comment from the public regarding the competitive impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule. In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ regarding these potential impacts. See the
DOE also considers the need for national energy and water conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the proposed standards are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of this document.
DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take into account when considering the need for national energy conservation. The proposed standards are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) associated with energy production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in section V.B.6 of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section V.C.1 of this document.
In determining whether an energy conservation standard is economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the other categories described previously, DOE could consider such information under “other factors.”
EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the equipment that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to calculate the effects that proposed energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of
This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking with regard to fans and blowers. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses.
DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the standards proposed in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential new energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and calculates national energy savings and net present value of total consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the Government Regulatory Impact Model (“GRIM”), to assess manufacturer impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are available on the DOE website for this proposed rulemaking:
DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment that provides an overall picture of the market for the equipment concerned, including the purpose of the equipment, the industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the equipment. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this rulemaking include (1) determination of equipment classes, (2) scope of the analysis and data availability, and (3) technology and design options that could improve the energy efficiency of fans and blowers. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections.
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE is required to establish separate standards for a group of covered equipment (
As discussed, DOE develops equipment classes based on specific performance-related features that impact utility and may necessarily impact efficiency in serving that utility. For GFBs, DOE identified the direction of airflow through the fan, the outlet configuration of the fan, housing features, and impeller features as characteristics that may justify establishing separate equipment classes. DOE also considered the presence of motor controllers as an additional factor for developing equipment classes.
Based on the direction of airflow through a fan impeller, the classification of a fan may be either axial or centrifugal. Axial fans move air parallel to their axis of rotation and are suitable for applications requiring high airflow at relatively low pressures. Alternatively, centrifugal fans move air radially outward from the axis of rotation, resulting in a change in direction of the air from the inlet of the fan to the impeller edge occurring at or close to 90 degrees. This air is often redirected by a housing, which may concentrate the airflow into a perpendicular outlet, as in the case of a scroll housing, or again redirect the air to move parallel to the inlet flow, as in the case of an inline fan. Centrifugal fans can overcome much higher pressures than axial fans, but operate at lower airflow, resulting in a difference in utility where different airflows and pressures are required. DOE has tentatively determined that the differences between axial- and centrifugal-flow fans result in a difference in utility based on the pressure and airflow ranges under which they are able to operate. For example, an axial fan may be better suited for a general-purpose ventilation application, in which large volumes of air are required at low pressure, whereas a centrifugal fan may be more appropriate for an air conditioning application, which may require a greater operating pressure than could be achieved by an axial fan. Mixed-flow fans utilize a combination of axial and centrifugal flows to provide similar pressures at higher airflows compared to centrifugal fans where the outlet flow is parallel to the inlet flow. Based on a review of the market, DOE has tentatively determined that mixed-flow fans do not provide a unique utility from centrifugal fans in similar arrangements, due to their similar operating pressure and airflow ranges. Therefore, DOE separated GFBs into equipment classes based on whether they utilize an axial or centrifugal airflow in this NOPR.
The outlet configuration of a fan can also affect its efficiency. In the DOE test procedure, DOE established test configuration and measurement requirements based on whether the immediate outlet of a fan is ducted or not ducted.
DOE has determined that a fan's housing may also impact utility. A fan housing is the structure that encloses and guides the airflow of a fan. Fans require certain housing features for specific utilities. For example, PRVs require a special housing to prevent precipitation from entering buildings. Further, different fan housings result in different outlet directions for airflow. For example, centrifugal fans with a scroll-shaped housing redirect airflow perpendicular to the fan inlet, while centrifugal fans with a cylindrical or inline housing have parallel inlet and outlet airflow. In applications that require continuous airflow in a single direction, such as in a long ventilation duct, a centrifugal fan with inline housing could be directly placed in the duct to push air along the single direction. Inserting a centrifugal fan with a scroll housing in the same application, however, would create unnecessary complexity because it would create multiple changes of direction of airflow, may require changes to the ducting work, and could lead to reduced performance in a space-constrained environment. Because the described housings have specific utilities and DOE has observed different FEI ranges for fans with the described housings, DOE is proposing to separate GFBs into separate equipment classes by whether they are housed or unhoused, and to further separate GFBs by the types of housings described.
DOE also considered impeller features for separating fans into equipment classes. DOE identified that radial impellers as defined in AMCA 214-21 offer unique self-cleaning characteristics that allow them to be utilized with significantly less maintenance in airstreams with a high density of particulate matter, such as fume exhaust from a mine.
The last feature that DOE evaluated for separating GFBs into equipment classes was the use of motor controllers, which allow a fan to adapt to changing load requirements. This enables a fan to run at lower speed when the system requirements allow, thus saving energy. While this may result in energy savings during operation, the DOE test procedure for fans does not account for these possible changes in operation and energy savings. Furthermore, FEI is a wire-to-air metric, as discussed in section III.C.1 of this document, which means that the use of a motor controller would act to reduce the FEI of a fan at each of its individual operating points. Any efficiency standard set without consideration of the motor controller would be more stringent. DOE recognizes the energy savings benefits of using a motor controller with a fan to allow the energy consumption of fan to be adjusted based on the changing load requirements of the system; therefore, to avoid penalizing the use of such technology, DOE proposes to create equipment classes for GFBs sold with and without motor controllers.
In the DOE Test Procedure, DOE adopted definitions consistent with AMCA 214-21 for several categories of fans and blowers that are within the scope of this NOPR.
During its analysis, DOE tentatively determined that additional definitions would help to clarify certain fan equipment classes. DOE is proposing in this NOPR to adopt the definitions for “radial impeller”, “mixed-flow impeller” and “housing” presented in Table IV-2. DOE notes that these proposed definitions are consistent with those in AMCA 214-21, with some minor modifications for clarity.
DOE found some fans are sold as radial fans but have impellers that incorporate both radial and non-radial features, such as blades with a slight backward-inclined design or blades with both straight and backward-curved portions. To ensure that these fans are properly and consistently classified as either radial or centrifugal housed, DOE
Additionally, DOE is proposing to define “mixed flow impeller” to distinguish mixed flow impellers from axial and centrifugal impellers and to ensure that fans sold with a mixed flow impeller are correctly classified. DOE notes that, as defined in Table IV-1, inline fans with mixed flow impellers are considered in the centrifugal inline equipment class.
Lastly, DOE is proposing to define “fan housing” since housing is a criterion used to separate equipment classes. In its evaluation of the market, DOE found some fans that may not be easily classified without a clear and consistent definition for housing. For example, cabinet fans are sold with an enclosure surrounding their internal moving components and an additional enclosure further directing airflow. DOE has observed that cabinet fans are commonly marketed as inline fans since the outermost enclosure directs the airflow to be inline; however, the internal enclosure, which directs airflow into and out of the impeller, directs airflow at a 90-degree angle, which would be consistent with a centrifugal housed fan. Based on DOE's proposed definitions, cabinet fans would be part of the centrifugal housed equipment class.
DOE evaluated each of the fan categories defined in the DOE test procedure using the identified GFB performance features and proposes that each fan category defined in the test procedure will be evaluated as a separate equipment class. For PRVs, DOE has found that they can be either axial or centrifugal, and their outlets can either be ducted or not ducted. PRVs used for supply will have a ducted outlet, while PRVs used for exhaust will not have a ducted outlet. DOE notes that while centrifugal PRVs serve both supply and exhaust functions, DOE did not find a significant number of axial PRVs being used for supply in the market. Therefore, DOE is proposing to further divide PRVs into three distinct equipment classes: axial PRVs, centrifugal PRV exhaust fans, and centrifugal PRV supply fans. Table IV-3 presents the proposed definitions for each of the three PRV fan equipment classes, which align with the definitions in AMCA 214-21.
Additionally, DOE is proposing that each GFB equipment class be split into a class of fans that are sold with motor controllers and a class of fans that are sold without motor controllers. For example, there would be two equipment classes for axial PRVs—one for axial PRVs sold with motor controllers and one for axial PRVs sold without motor controllers. This would be the same for all remaining proposed GFB equipment classes.
In summary, DOE is proposing to separate GFBs into 18 equipment classes in this NOPR. These equipment classes are shown in Table IV-4. As just discussed, DOE notes that each equipment class shown in the table has a variable-speed and a constant-speed variant. As mentioned previously, these equipment classes directly correspond to the GFB fan categories defined in the DOE test procedure, with the exception of PRVs.
Although GFBs were not discussed in the October 2022 NODA, DOE received comment on GFB equipment classes. Specifically, AHRI commented that forward-curved fans, which are typically used in low-pressure applications, could be removed from the market by energy conservation standards. (AHRI, No. 130 at pp. 12-13) AHRI stated that forward-curved fans should have a separate equipment class because they provide code-required sound quality in low-pressure and low-speed ranges.
DOE notes that the FEI metric is a function of the operating pressure. As mentioned in section III.C.1 of this document, FEI is the ratio of the reference FEP to the actual FEP. The reference fan is used to normalize the FEI calculation by evaluating fan performance compared to a consistent reference fan at each duty point and configuration. Evaluating FEI in this manner allows for comparison of different fans independent of the wide variety of fan types and duty points. Consequently, a return or relief fan operating at a lower pressure than a supply fan at a given airflow would be compared to a reference FEP specific to that duty point, which accounts for the lower operating pressure and mitigates disproportionate impacts; therefore, DOE has tentatively concluded that return and relief fans do not need a separate equipment class.
To address AHRI's comment that forward-curved fans provide code-required sound quality in low-pressure and low-speed ranges, DOE evaluated data on inlet and outlet noise obtained from manufacturer fan selection software for centrifugal-housed fans at low-pressure duty points. Based on this analysis, DOE observed centrifugal-housed fans with both backward-inclined and airfoil impellers that provided equivalent or nearly equivalent noise levels, in A-weighted decibels, to forward-curved fans operating at the same duty point. Furthermore, DOE observed that noise levels significantly decreased as the FEI of the fan increased, indicating that energy conservation standards would not inhibit fans from complying with sound quality requirements. Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined that forward-curved fans do not require a separate equipment class. However, to ensure that forward-curved fans were adequately evaluated, DOE evaluated a parallel design path in which it assumed that all forward-curved fans would be redesigned to meet any proposed energy conservation standards, rather than replacing the forward-curved impeller with another impeller topology such as airfoil or backward-inclined. DOE evaluated this parallel design path to consider the costs required to preserve forward-curved fans in the market. Additional details on the parallel design path for forward-curved fans are provided in section IV.C.1.b of this document and chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
DOE received no further comments on GFB equipment classes and is therefore proposing the equipment classes in Table IV-4.
In response to the October 2022 NODA, AMCA recommended that DOE use the same ACF definitions as those used in AMCA 230-23. (AMCA, No. 132 at pp. 2, 18) As discussed in the May 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule, the definitions that DOE adopted for ACF, unhoused air circulating fan head (“ACFH”), housed ACFH, air circulating axial panel fan, box fan, cylindrical
In the October 2022 NODA, DOE did not evaluate separate equipment classes for housed and unhoused ACFs and requested comment and supporting data on whether housed and unhoused ACFs have significant differences in utility and/or efficiency. 87 FR 62038, 62045. NEEA stated that DOE should analyze unhoused and housed ACFs separately in its analysis because the efficiencies of housed and unhoused fans differ enough that an analysis of both together could result in non-representative EL values. To support this point, NEEA referenced a plot that was included in the supplementary spreadsheet for the October 2022 NODA that showed ACF efficiency distribution overlayed on the efficiency levels analyzed in the NODA
The Efficiency Advocates commented that DOE should group ACFHs, box fans, panel fans, and personnel coolers together into a single axial ACF class since they are all axial fans that provide directional airflow and do not differ significantly in FEI. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 126 at p. 3) They noted that the ACF subcategories in AMCA 230 are delineated in AMCA 230 primarily for descriptive purposes and not for regulatory purposes.
DOE's review of the ACF market generally indicated that air circulating axial panel fans, box fans, cylindrical ACFs, and unhoused ACFHs could all be used interchangeably for air circulation applications. DOE did observe that cylindrical ACFs are sometimes marketed toward high-velocity applications. To verify whether design in high-velocity applications would warrant separating cylindrical ACFs into their own equipment class, DOE reviewed available air velocity and thrust data for air circulating axial panel fans, box fans, cylindrical ACFs, and unhoused ACFHs. Based on this analysis, DOE did not find a consistent trend of one or more of these subcategories of ACFs producing more air velocity or thrust than another, further indicating that they may be used interchangeably. DOE therefore
DOE requests comment on whether there are specific fans that meet the axial ACF definition that provide utility substantially different from the utility provided from other axial ACFs and that would impact energy use. If so, DOE requests information on how the utility of these fans differs from other axial ACFs and requests data showing the differences in energy use due to differences in utility between these fans and other axial ACFs.
In the October 2022 NODA, DOE also requested comment on whether each of the following design characteristics may impact the utility of air circulating fans: presence or absence of a safety guard, presence or absence of housing, housing design, blade type, power requirements, and air velocity or throw. 87 FR 62038, 62045. Additionally, DOE requested information on any additional design characteristics that may impact ACF utility.
In the October 2022 NODA, DOE additionally requested comment and supporting data on whether belt-driven and direct-driven ACFs have significant differences in utility or efficiency. 87 FR 62038, 62045. The Efficiency Advocates commented that DOE should not consider belt-driven fans as a separate equipment class because those fans are merely a low-cost alternative to the more efficient direct-drive fans rather than a different performance or utility consideration, and that a separate equipment class for belt-driven ACFs could undermine the potential energy savings for larger diameter ACFs. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 126 at p. 3) DOE's review of belt-driven ACFs on the market indicated that, while belt drives do provide a utility for adjusting the rotational speed of the ACF, VFDs also allow users to adjust the rotational speed of the ACF. Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined that belt drives do not provide a unique utility and DOE did not treat belt-driven ACFs as an equipment class in its NOPR analysis. The shift from belt drive to direct drive is instead discussed as a design option in section IV.C.2.b of this document.
DOE further reviewed the ACF market to determine if additional equipment classes were appropriate for axial ACFs. DOE observed that axial ACFs with larger impeller diameters tended to be more efficient than axial ACFs with smaller impeller diameters. DOE also received feedback during manufacturer interviews that fans with larger diameters are generally more efficient. Therefore, DOE considered diameter as a class-setting variable for axial ACFs in this NOPR. DOE found multiple efficiency incentive programs that provide rebates to agricultural fan manufacturers if they meet certain efficiency targets.
The term “diameter” in the context of fans and blowers refers to the impeller diameter of a fan. Impeller diameter is typically determined by measuring the radial distance from the tip of one of the impeller blades to the center of the impeller hub and doubling that value. DOE is therefore proposing to define diameter for fans and blowers as “the impeller diameter of a fan, which is twice the measured radial distance between the tip of one of the impeller blades of a fan to the center axis of its impeller hub.” DOE notes that impeller diameter may often be different than nominal diameter.
Additionally, in the October 2022 NODA, DOE summarized a comment from the Efficiency Advocates stating that portable blowers may require an equipment class separate from other ACFs because they provide a unique application (
DOE conducted the GFB engineering analysis for this NOPR using a database of confidential sales information provided by AMCA (“AMCA sales database”), performance data from manufacturer online fan selection software, and performance data provided from confidential manufacturer interviews.
In response to the July 2022 TP NOPR, DOE received comments about the data used in its historical analyses. Specifically, AHRI expressed concern with DOE's use of the AMCA sales database in the December 2014 NODA, the May 2015 NODA, and the November 2016 NODA, which contains efficiencies established at a variety of different speeds. (Docket No. EERE-2021-BT-TP-0021, AHRI, No. 40 at p. 13). AHRI stated that this approach was inconsistent with the ASRAC Working Group agreement for establishing product performance and, as disclosed during ASRAC negotiations, much of the data in the database was not certified performance and may not be reliable for evaluating the impact of efficiency standards.
With respect to the AMCA sales database providing efficiency data at a variety of speeds, DOE notes that, in accordance with the DOE test procedure, fans must be tested at a range of duty points over which they may operate. Duty points are characterized by a given airflow and pressure at a corresponding operating speed. In other words, fans could be tested at a variety of different speeds depending on the duty point at which the fan is being operated. As discussed in section IV.B of this document, DOE evaluated the entire range of duty points when developing the proposed efficiency levels for each class; therefore, DOE has used the performance data provided in the AMCA sales database as a basis for its engineering analysis. Furthermore, in response to the data in the database not being certified performance data, DOE compared the fan models in the AMCA sales database with the fan models in the AMCA Certified Rating Program.
The AMCA sales database that DOE used in this analysis is the same database that was used in the May 2015 NODA and the November 2016 NODA. To validate that the AMCA sales database remains representative of the current market, DOE verified the data with current manufacture product literature. DOE selected several fans from the AMCA sales database from each manufacturer and equipment class and verified that those fans are currently available with the same performance data. DOE specifically checked that the model, diameter, operating pressure, airflow, and brake horsepower (“bhp”) aligned between the AMCA sales database and current product literature. DOE was able to verify a majority of the fans selected from each manufacturer and equipment class. Additionally, DOE obtained recent performance and sales data from confidential manufacturer interviews and determined that the data were consistent with the data in the AMCA sales database; therefore, DOE has tentatively concluded that the AMCA sales database that it uses in its engineering analysis for this NOPR is representative of the current market.
DOE notes that it made some updates to the AMCA sales database to ensure consistency with the proposed scope and equipment classes for PRVs. The AMCA sales database grouped all centrifugal PRVs together; however, as discussed in section IV.A.1.a, DOE has separated centrifugal PRVs by whether they are supply or exhaust (ducted or non-ducted). To separately analyze the two classes, DOE manually recategorized the centrifugal PRVs as either supply or exhaust fans using the manufacturer and model provided in the AMCA sales database for most fans to identify from manufacturer literature which centrifugal PRVs were supply and which were exhaust. Centrifugal PRVs that could not be identified by their model name were left categorized as exhaust for the analysis since, based on data collected during confidential manufacturer interviews, DOE believes that there are more centrifugal PRV exhaust fan product lines and models than centrifugal PRV supply fans.
Additionally, DOE determined that the AMCA sales database included many radial fans that are considered out of scope in the DOE test procedure. 10 CFR 431.174((a)2)(i). As discussed in section III.B.1, radial fans that are unshrouded and have an impeller diameter less than 30 in. or a blade width of less than 3 in. are excluded from the scope of the DOE test procedure. DOE identified these radial fans by looking up each model in manufacturer product literature to determine whether it contained a shrouded impeller. Some fans in the database could not be identified by model, or the impeller characteristics could not be determined from their catalogs. DOE opted to include these fans in the database for analysis because including them likely results in a more conservative estimate of FEI since DOE has found that unshrouded impellers typically have lower FEI.
DOE acknowledges that there are limitations to the data provided in the AMCA sales database. For example, factors such as drive type, motor horsepower, and the presence of motor controllers were not specified in the AMCA sales database, unless indicated by the model number. Additionally, DOE estimates that AMCA members make up 60 percent of fan manufacturers. DOE understands that the AMCA sales database includes only a portion of the sales data from AMCA members; however, given the range in equipment classes, FEIs, and costs in the AMCA sales database, DOE believes that the data are representative of the U.S. GFB market. Furthermore, to supplement the data from the AMCA sales database, DOE also pulled
More detail on the databases DOE used in its analyses can be found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
During manufacturer interviews conducted prior to the October 2022 NODA, manufacturers recommended that DOE use ACF data from a publicly available database provided by the Bioenvironmental and Structural Systems Laboratory associated with the University of Illinois-Champaign (“BESS Labs database”).
As discussed in section III.B.2, all ACFs with input power less than 125 W are outside the proposed scope of this rulemaking. Therefore, DOE removed all ACFs with input powers less than 125 W from the BESS Labs combined database prior to its analysis for this NOPR.
In the October 2022 NODA, DOE requested comment on whether the BESS Labs combined database was representative of the performance of the entire ACF market. 87 FR 62038, 62045. In response, AMCA commented that it expects the fan efficiencies reported in the BESS Labs database to be higher than the typical efficiencies seen on the market for ACFs. AMCA stated that this is because the fans in the BESS Labs database are typically agricultural fans, and these fans are the subject of utility rebates to encourage the production of higher-efficiency fans. AMCA further stated that it is unlikely performance data for a fan was voluntarily added to the public BESS Labs database unless the fan was eligible for these utility rebates. (AMCA, No. 132 at p. 4-5) Greenheck also commented that the ACF efficiencies in the BESS Labs database would generally be higher than typical ACFs on the market because of their participation in rebate efficiency incentive programs, and Greenheck suggested that DOE utilize more data sources than just the BESS Labs combined database. (Greenheck, No. 122 at p. 2)
In the October 2022 NODA, DOE also requested information on ACF performance data. 87 FR 62038, 62045. In response, AMCA commented that ACF catalog data is publicly available. However, AMCA also stated that it believes that public performance data for fans not listed in the BESS Labs database was likely either not collected using the most recent version of AMCA 230 or not collected using any version of AMCA 230 at all. AMCA further commented that testing of ACFs at an AMCA-accredited facility yielded performance data that was inconsistent with the performance data published in catalogs for certain tested fans, and because of this, AMCA cautioned DOE on the use of catalog data that has not been certified by a third party. (AMCA, No. 132 at p. 5-6) Similarly, Greenheck recommended that DOE only use ACF data that has been certified by an independent performance certification program to ensure that the data are accurate. (Greenheck, No. 122 at p. 2) In the October 2022 NODA, DOE discussed a comment from AMCA stating that ACF product literature may advertise performance calculated using outdated versions of AMCA 230 and that all versions aside from AMCA 230-15 had at least one error pertaining to the calculations of thrust, airflow, or input power. 87 FR 62038, 62043-62044. A table summarizing these errors can be found in the October 2022 NODA.
In the October 2022 NODA, DOE also requested comment on whether the fan affinity laws could be used to extrapolate ACF performance data to smaller and larger diameters to increase the size of its ACF dataset. 87 FR 62038, 62045. In response, NEEA stated that since the fan affinity laws assume that efficiency remains constant, utilizing them for determining efficiency gains would be incorrect. Instead, NEEA recommended that DOE obtain data on smaller- and larger-diameter ACFs by either testing additional smaller- and larger-diameter ACFs or by using empirical relationships to extrapolate data to smaller and larger diameters. (NEEA, No. 129 at p. 3-4) AMCA stated that the fan affinity laws require knowledge of the impeller shaft power, which is often not measured for ACFs. AMCA added that electrical input power, which is often measured for ACFs, cannot be scaled to obtain reasonable estimates. (AMCA, No. 132 at p. 6) In response to this feedback, DOE did not utilize the fan affinity laws to extrapolate fan performance data to different diameters and instead included catalog data in its dataset for this NOPR.
DOE acknowledges that the BESS Labs combined database likely contains higher efficiency fans than the overall ACF market, since many agricultural incentive programs require that fans be tested at BESS Labs and meet certain performance requirements. Additionally, DOE notes that the BESS Labs combined database contains data on axial ACFs only. Therefore, to supplement the BESS Labs combined database and gain additional information representative of the ACF market, DOE collected ACF catalog data from manufacturer and distributor websites. DOE did not consider catalog data in the October 2022 NODA because catalog data did not include information on the air density measured during testing, which is required to calculate FEI. Since DOE updated the ACF metric to be efficacy instead of FEI, DOE was able to use catalog data for this NOPR. In response to AMCA and Greenheck's concerns about the accuracy of catalog data that have not been certified by a third party, DOE notes that, while the catalog data it collected is not certified by a third party, there were no ACFs listed in AMCA's certified product
In response to AMCA's concerns about manufacturers' use of outdated and inaccurate versions of AMCA 230 to generate catalog data, DOE applied a correction factor to some catalog data. DOE is aware that many ACF manufacturers may use an outdated version of AMCA 230 and that the calculation methods used in these older versions do not align with AMCA 230-15 or with AMCA 230-23, which is referenced by the DOE test procedure.
DOE also removed outliers from the dataset using a box plot approach. For axial ACF catalog data, DOE removed extremely high-efficacy outliers and did not identify any extremely low-efficacy outliers. For axial ACFs from the BESS Labs combined database, DOE only removed extremely high-efficacy outliers because ACFs in the BESS Labs combined database are generally expected to have higher efficacies than the overall ACF market. DOE did not remove outliers for housed centrifugal ACFs.
In the February 2022 RFI, DOE identified five technology options that would be expected to improve the efficiency of ACFs, as expected to be measured by a future DOE test procedure. These technology options were improved aerodynamic design, blade shape, more efficient motors, material selection, and variable-speed drives (“VSDs”). 87 FR 7048, 7052. In the October 2022 NODA, DOE focused its analyses on aerodynamic redesign and more efficient motors. 87 FR 62038, 62042. In response to the October 2022 NODA, the CA IOUs suggested that DOE investigate individual components of improved aerodynamic design so that incremental efficiency levels could be evaluated in the engineering analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 127 at p. 2) DOE has since identified several additional technology options that would be expected to improve the efficiency of GFBs and ACFs, including options that are components of aerodynamic design. The technology options that DOE considered for this NOPR are:
• Improved housing design;
• Reduced manufacturing tolerances;
• Addition of guide vanes;
• Addition of appurtenances;
• Improved impeller design;
• Impeller topology;
• Increased impeller diameter;
• Impeller material;
• More efficient transmissions;
• More efficient motors; and
• Motor controllers.
DOE notes that not every technology option listed above will be analyzed for each equipment class in this NOPR. For example, DOE did not analyze increased impeller diameter for ACFs because impeller diameter is used to separate ACF equipment classes (
Improved housing design includes any changes to the enclosure of a fan, such as modifying the volute
The addition of guide vanes reduces pressure loss by directing and smoothing airflow as it exits a fan. DOE observed in its market research that the integration of guide vanes into the outlet of a fan can improve efficiency by over 10 percent. For example, DOE observed that vane axial fans can achieve up to 20-percent higher FEIs than similarly sized tube axial fans. Appurtenances are similar to guide vanes but are not integral to the fan—rather, appurtenances can be added to change the performance of a fan and fans may be sold with different appurtenances to provide the end user with the desired effect. In the October 2022 NODA, DOE summarized a comment from ebm-papst stating that the use of outlet guide vanes or appurtenances, such as inlet cones on housings or winglets on impellers, could improve the fan efficiency. 87 FR 62038, 62042. DOE recognizes that the addition of appurtenances described by ebm-papst has the potential to increase fan efficiency. Therefore, DOE considered the addition of guide vanes and appurtenances as technology options in this NOPR.
Regarding impeller design, DOE considered any aerodynamic improvement of an impeller that does not include a change to its topology under the impeller design technology option. This includes modifications, such as incorporating beneficial ridges into the blade surface as well as improving impeller blade surface quality. DOE observed the presence of these modifications to blade design during teardowns of GFBs and ACFs. Therefore, DOE considered improved impeller design as a technology option in this NOPR.
Regarding fan impeller topology, DOE considered changes in the orientation or basic shape of the blades, such as switching from a backward-curved blade to an airfoil blade. In the October 2022 NODA, DOE summarized a comment from the Joint Commenters encouraging DOE to evaluate more efficient blade designs as a technology option because of their energy savings potential. The Joint Commenters added that the use of advanced blade designs,
In response to the October 2022 NODA, AHAM commented that DOE's use of general blade design as a technology option for ACFs did not factor in specific differences in application of different blade shapes between unique fan configurations, including ACFs with horizontal axes, ACFs with vertical axes, or bladeless ACFs. AHAM added that DOE has not tested these different fan configurations. (AHAM, No. 123 at p. 8) DOE notes that the DOE test procedure specifies testing ACFs only in a horizontal configuration. DOE also notes that bladeless fans are excluded from the proposed scope for ACFs, as discussed in section III.B.2 of this document. Therefore, DOE did not consider differences in axis orientation or bladeless fans in its evaluation of ACF impeller topology or improved impeller design.
DOE received feedback during confidential GFB manufacturer interviews that increasing the diameter of a fan impeller can improve the efficiency of a fan. Additionally, when comparing fans on the market with different diameters and otherwise similar characteristics, DOE observed that fans with larger diameters were typically more efficient for certain equipment classes; therefore, DOE considered increased impeller diameter as a technology option in this NOPR.
When reviewing available data from the market, its databases, and information received during confidential manufacturer interviews, DOE could not distinguish between the effects of improved housing design, reduced manufacturing tolerances, addition of appurtenances, and improved impeller design on the performance of GFBs; therefore, DOE has grouped these technology options together and collectively refers to them as “aerodynamic redesign” for GFBs in the remainder of this document. For ACFs, DOE additionally lacked quantitative efficiency data regarding specific impeller topologies and the addition of guide vanes, and therefore grouped the addition of guide vanes as well as any blade adjustments that improve the efficiency of ACFs, such as the curvature or pitch, along with improved housing design, reduced manufacturing tolerances, addition of appurtenances, and improved impeller design under the umbrella of aerodynamic redesign for ACFs in the remainder of this document. The technology options considered under aerodynamic redesign for both GFBs and ACFs are summarized in Table IV-7.
DOE previously considered “material selection” in general as a technology option in the February 2022 RFI. 87 FR 7048, 7052. For this NOPR, DOE is clarifying that material selection is specific to impeller materials. DOE did not receive comments from stakeholders pertaining to material selection for either the February 2022 RFI or the October 2022 NODA; however, during confidential interviews, manufacturers stated that minimal efficiency gains would be achieved by changing the blade material. When reviewing manufacturer fan selection software data, DOE identified similar fans with different blade materials and investigated the impact of different materials on FEI. Consistent with manufacturer feedback, DOE found that material selection of the impeller had minimal or no impact on efficiency for either GFBs or ACFs. Therefore, DOE did not consider material selection as a technology option in this NOPR.
With regard to transmissions, DOE notes that the DOE test procedure includes a loss factor associated with belt-drive transmissions, while direct-drive transmissions are treated as having no loss when calculating efficiency. This indicates that replacing a belt-drive with a direct-drive transmission can improve efficiency. For ACFs, DOE considered the change from belt-drive to direct-drive as a technology option. For GFBs, as discussed in section IV.A.1.a, DOE is proposing to establish separate equipment classes for GFBs sold with or without motor controllers to account for the added utility provided by GFBs with motor controllers (
Regarding motors, motor efficiency can depend on motor topology as well as the individual design features of a single motor topology. For example, most motors used in ACFs are permanent split capacitor (“PSC”) motors, and these motors have a wide range of operating efficiencies. In addition, some ACFs use electronically commutated motors (“ECMs”). ECMs operate in a higher efficiency range than PSC motors, so using an ECM may improve the overall efficiency of an ACF. In this NOPR, DOE considers both switching to a more efficient motor topology and improved efficiency of a single motor topology in the more efficient motors technology option.
For GFBs, DOE learned from confidential manufacturer interviews that motors are not always sold as integral parts of a fan. Many sales of GFBs do not include a motor and require the customer to provide this part. Furthermore, the motors used for GFBs are nearly all 3-phase induction motors currently regulated by DOE, including motors between 100 and 150 hp.
Because of the new 2027 electric motor standards, there will be impacts on the motor market from a product availability, size, and technology standpoint as the efficiency moves from IE 3 to IE 4. These changes would need to be considered in this rulemaking, but electric motor manufacturers are still in the design and planning process to migrate their product offerings to be in compliance with the 2027 electric motors standards recently adopted. If DOE were closer to the 2027 compliance date or this was a first-time regulation for these induction motors, DOE would be able to better understand how manufacturers were going to fully
DOE evaluated more efficient motors for ACFs in the October 2022 NODA. 87 FR 62038, 62042. DOE also assumed that all ACFs are sold with a motor.
In the October 2022 NODA, DOE assumed that most motors paired with ACFs are lower efficiency induction motors that were not regulated by DOE and requested comment on that assumption. 87 FR 62038, 62042. DOE also requested data on the percentage of ACFs sold with split-phase, PSC, shaded-pole and ECMs. 87 FR 62038, 62049. In response, AMCA commented that some of its members sell ACFs with shaded-pole motors, PSC motors, polyphase motors, or ECMs. (AMCA, No. 132 at p. 3) NEMA commented that, depending on the horsepower requirements, a split-phase, shaded-pole, capacitor start/capacitor run, or three-phase motor could be used for ACFs. NEMA added that shaded-pole motors are often used at 0.1 hp and under for ACFs, while PSC motors are very common for 1 hp and under. (NEMA, No. 125 at p. 3) In response to this feedback, DOE conducted a review of its updated ACF database (discussed further in section IV.A.2.b) and identified ACFs sold with multiple different motor topologies, including PSC, polyphase, and EC motors. Additionally, DOE identified many ACFs using PSC motors at high and low motor efficiencies. Because DOE has identified that ACF motor efficiency may be improved through changing motor topology as well as improving efficiency within a single motor topology, it considered both switching to a more efficient motor topology and improving efficiency within a single motor topology as components of the more efficient motors technology option for ACFs.
Regarding motor controllers, motor controllers are used to change the operating point of fans by altering their motor speed. This allows a fan to operate at a lower speed when possible, which can result in a reduction of power consumption. In response to the October 2022 NODA, the Efficiency Advocates encouraged DOE to evaluate fans that operate at multiple speeds, rather than just the highest speed, because lowering the fan speed can significantly reduce the amount of power used by a fan. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 126 at p. 2-3) Conversely, AMCA stated that the utility of ACFs to provide the necessary air-throw distance and air velocity may be diminished or removed entirely by reducing the fan speed with motor controllers, which is a negative impact on product utility. (AMCA, No. 132 at p. 3) While DOE acknowledges that fan power consumption can be reduced by lowering the speed of a fan, it notes that the DOE test procedure for ACFs specifies testing and reporting efficacy for ACFs at the maximum speed of the fan.
In response to the October 2022 NODA, the CA IOUs commented that choosing a low-speed range for a particular impeller improves its efficiency. (CA IOUs, No. 127 at p. 2) DOE notes the speed and operating point of a fan are strongly related and that any change to the speed of a fan will likely change the utility of that fan. Therefore, DOE did not consider reduced speed as a technology option for this NOPR.
As discussed in section IV.A.1.a, GFBs with motor controllers allow a fan to adapt to changing load requirements. While this may result in energy savings during application, the DOE test procedure for fans does not account for these possible changes in operation and energy savings. As a result, DOE is proposing to establish separate equipment classes for GFBs sold with and without motor controllers and is not considering motor controllers as a technology option.
Table IV-7 lists the technology options for GFBs and ACFs that DOE evaluated in its screening analysis. Both GFBs and ACFs include an aerodynamic redesign technology option, which contains technology options that DOE determined to be viable, but for which DOE lacked sufficient data to fully analyze individually.
Further details on technology options that DOE considered for this NOPR can be found in chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD.
DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy conservation standards rulemaking:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(c)(3) and 7(b).
In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering analysis.
Through a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that the technologies listed in Table IV-7 of this document met all five screening criteria to be examined further as design options in DOE's NOPR analysis. Comments DOE received regarding screening for these technologies are discussed below.
In response to the October 2022 NODA, DOE received several comments pertaining to how the screening criteria apply to aerodynamic redesign, blade shape, and motors. AMCA stated that aerodynamic efficiency improvements can often lead to an increase in the cost and complexity of manufacturing, which can have an adverse impact on the practicability of manufacturing. AMCA added that some ACF components that can be adjusted to improve efficiency are patentable, including impellers, impeller blades, impeller rings, housings, outlet appurtenances, and motors, which relates to the screening criteria for unique-pathway proprietary technologies. (AMCA, No. 132 at p. 3). AMCA also commented that the removal of a safety guard on an ACF to increase its efficiency would decrease the safety of an ACF, which is an adverse impact on health or safety.
Regarding AMCA's comment on the potential for increased cost or complexity of manufacturing associated with an aerodynamic redesign, DOE notes that it accounted for this increased cost and complexity through conversion costs, which are discussed in section IV.J. Regarding patentable technologies, DOE notes that in manufacturer interviews, it specifically asked about whether patentable technologies could pose a problem in meeting energy conservation standards. In response, no GFB or ACF manufacturers expressed concerns regarding patents. Therefore, DOE has tentatively concluded that none of the proposed design options meet the unique pathway-proprietary technologies screening criteria.
In terms of safety guards, DOE agrees that the removal of a safety guard would compromise the safety of a fan.
DOE notes that the motor efficiency technology options are based on general industry standards rather than specific motor designs that could be patented; therefore, DOE has tentatively concluded that the unique-pathway proprietary technologies screening criterion does not apply to the more-efficient motor technology option.
DOE did not receive comment related to screening for any other technology options. The remaining technology options that DOE did not screen from its analysis are listed in Table IV-8.
DOE has initially determined that these technology options are technologically feasible because they are being used or have previously been used in commercially available equipment or working prototypes. DOE also finds that all of the remaining technology options meet the other screening criteria (
The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the relationship between the efficiency and cost of fans and blowers. There are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of efficiency levels to analyze (
For each equipment class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as a reference point for each class, and measures changes resulting from potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The baseline model in each equipment class represents the typical characteristics of that class (
As discussed in section II.B.1, there are currently no energy conservation standards for GFBs. In this analysis, DOE set the baseline efficiency as the lowest reasonable efficiency on the market after removing potential outliers for each analyzed equipment class.
DOE established baseline ELs using performance data in the AMCA sales database. DOE filtered the database by equipment class and evaluated the fan performance range for each equipment class. Additionally, as described in section IV.A.3, DOE based its GFB analysis on design options that specifically improve fan performance. DOE did not consider improvements to the motor, transmission, or motor controllers. Therefore, for this analysis, DOE calculated FEI according to the bare shaft method described in the DOE Test Procedure.
Based on a review of the market, DOE tentatively determined that the FEI values corresponding to the 5th percentile in the AMCA sales database were generally representative of baseline efficiency across all diameters and duty points within a given equipment class. Defining baseline efficiency at the 5th percentile enabled DOE to remove potential outlier fans and fans that may no longer exist on the market. DOE compared the 5th percentile for each equipment class to data retrieved from manufacturer fan selection software to ensure that baseline efficiencies were representative of the current market. In instances where the 5th percentile removed a substantial number of models that had FEI values consistent with what was seen on the market, DOE adjusted the baseline efficiency to align with the distribution of FEIs observed in the manufacturer fan selection software. Additional details on the development of baseline efficiency levels for each equipment class are included in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed efficiency levels in the market (
In this NOPR, DOE relied on a combination of the efficiency level and design-option approaches. DOE used the efficiency level approach to determine the baseline, max-tech, and aerodynamic redesign efficiency levels and used the design-option approach to gap fill intermediate efficiency levels.
DOE applied design options to the initial efficiency levels evaluated above baseline for each equipment class. As discussed in section IV.A.3, DOE has identified the following design options for GFBs:
• Impeller topology;
• Addition of guide vanes;
• Increased impeller diameter; and
• Aerodynamic redesign (improved housing design, reduced manufacturing tolerances, addition of appurtenances, improved impeller design).
For each equipment class, DOE evaluated both the AMCA sales database as a whole and data from manufacturer fan selection software for specific representative diameters and operating points to set the efficiency levels and associated design options for its analysis. DOE used data pulled from manufacturer fan selection software to understand the incremental impact of design options on fan performance and cost. DOE then applied these incremental FEI increases to the baseline fan for each equipment class to set intermediate efficiency levels.
To estimate the incremental increases in FEI, DOE first selected between three and six representative operating points based on the fan diameters, operating pressures, and airflows that were most common for each equipment class in the AMCA sales database, as discussed in section IV.A.2.a. DOE then used manufacturer fan selection software to obtain data for each representative operating point at a specific diameter, airflow, and pressure. From the manufacturer fan selection software, DOE evaluated how FEI changed as various design options were applied while holding constant the diameter (for all equipment classes except PRVs) and duty point. DOE calculated bare shaft FEI for fans evaluated using manufacturer fan selection software to eliminate the effects of transmission on the efficiency. Additional details on how manufacturer fan selection software was evaluated and used in the development of intermediate efficiency levels are included in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
DOE recognizes that relying on data from fans at representative diameters and operating points to characterize efficiency improvements may not sufficiently account for the entire range of duty points and diameters typical for each equipment class. Therefore, after determining the impact of potential design options on fan efficiency using the manufacturer fan selection software, DOE used the AMCA sales database to validate the estimated incremental FEI increases for each design option. In its review of the market, DOE found that most manufacturer model numbers correspond to a specific impeller type and design. To make comparisons between fan models in the AMCA sales database, DOE used the model numbers included in the AMCA sales database to characterize each fan's impeller. DOE then evaluated the potential efficiency gain of each design option across the entire range of operating points in the AMCA sales database. For example, for centrifugal housed fans, DOE calculated the average increase in FEI that would be observed for a fan with a backward-inclined impeller at a given diameter compared to a fan with a forward-curved impeller at the same diameter. DOE evaluated the AMCA sales database in this way to confirm that its estimated increases in FEI seemed feasible across the range of operating duty points, since the AMCA sales database contains data points at a variety of duty points for each equipment class.
In response to the July 2022 TP NOPR, AHRI commented that fan performance in the AMCA sales database was never confirmed to be reflective of embedded fans, including system effect, and that finalizing the determination using the analysis conducted to date, especially if embedded fans are within the scope, would be inappropriate. (Docket No. EERE-2021-BT-TP-0021, AHRI, No. 40 at p. 13) DOE notes that, as discussed in III.B.1, embedded fans listed in Table III-1 are outside the scope of this analysis. All other fans within the scope of this rulemaking would be tested in accordance with the DOE test procedure, which reflects performance of fans outside of equipment into which they may be installed and does not evaluate system effects.
Additionally, in response to the October 2022 NODA, Morrison suggested that the data evaluation and analysis conducted in the 2016 NODA should be restarted to address current stakeholder concerns and account for changes in the market environment, including widespread adoption of building codes and use of the FEI metric. (Morrison, No. 128 at p. 3) In response to the July 2022 TP NOPR, AHRI commented that it is not reasonable to assume that substitutions can be made for any fan within 20 percent of static pressure or airflow requirements and within two inches of the original diameter tolerances. AHRI stated that selecting a fan that two inches larger in diameter would translate to a four-inch increase in housing size. Additionally, AHRI commented that commercial heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (“HVAC”) equipment fan selection requires design to a specific airflow and static pressure and that in virtually all cases, a two-percent selection window is required so the 20 percent selection window would not satisfy the heating, cooling or ventilation needs for the application. (Docket No. EERE-2021-BT-TP-0021, AHRI, No. 40 at p. 12-13) Furthermore, AHRI commented that variable air volume systems and systems with economizers need to operate over a range of airflow. Low static, high airflow fans (forward-curved fans) are used in these applications; therefore, the number of fans that would require redesign is closer to 100 percent than the 30 percent included in the NODA 3 (2016 NODA) analysis.
DOE notes that all analyses from the 2016 NODA have been reevaluated in this NOPR to reflect current market trends and industry standards. While DOE maintained some structural elements from the 2016 NODA, such as some equipment classes and use of the AMCA sales database, DOE updated its efficiency levels and cost analyses based on manufacturer feedback from recent interviews, publicly available sales data, and a thorough review of the current market. Additionally, in this analysis, DOE did not assume that static pressure or airflow could vary by 20 percent or that the diameter of embedded fans could increase by any amount. In its analysis for this NOPR, DOE evaluated efficiency increases with operating point and diameter remaining constant for fan equipment classes that could be embedded in equipment, which is discussed in more detail in section IV.C.1.b (subsection Determination of Efficiency Levels). Additionally, DOE's analysis reflects that forward-curved fans should be preserved in the market and would likely be redesigned to do so. In section IV.C.1.b (see subsection Parallel Design Path for Forward-curved Fans), DOE describes how it analyzed forward-curved fans. DOE also evaluated the potential impact of duty point on whether a fan could be redesigned to higher FEI levels. Using the AMCA sales database, DOE developed FEI distributions for each equipment class to evaluate how FEI varied with specified design pressure, airflow, and diameter. Based on these FEI distributions, DOE was not able to identify any duty point ranges with disproportionately lower fan availability at higher FEI values for any equipment class. DOE has tentatively determined that the efficiency relationships it developed based on the selected representative operating points could be applied to fans at other diameters and duty points; therefore, there is only one set of efficiency levels for each equipment class.
The first design option that DOE evaluated for most equipment classes was changing the fan impeller. Based on its review of the market, DOE determined that manufacturers often have a variety of impeller topologies available for each fan class. For example, some manufacturers have economy impellers, which are less efficient and less expensive than other available impellers. DOE also found that manufacturers may have impellers that are designed to operate at different duty points, such as high-pressure impellers. These impellers achieve different levels of performance based on blade shape, blade pitch, number of blades, etc. Therefore, rather than attempt to characterize each of these individual impellers and how they may impact FEI, DOE evaluated manufacturer fan selection software to estimate the average increase in FEI for a typical impeller change for each equipment class and then used the AMCA sales database to validate that these increases are applicable to the broader fans market. DOE notes that the centrifugal housed equipment class is the only equipment class for which specific impeller changes were characterized. This is because DOE was able to identify distinct differences in efficiency between forward-curved, backward-inclined or backward-curved,
DOE followed a similar method of analyzing both the manufacturer fan selection software and the AMCA sales database to estimate the increase in FEI that could be achieved for design options other than impeller changes, including substituting a tube axial fan for a vane axial fan, substituting a mixed flow fan for a centrifugal inline fan, and increasing the PRV fans diameter. Additional details on how DOE estimated the incremental increases in FEI for each design option and for each equipment class are included in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
For many categories of fans, increasing the diameter of a fan could increase efficiency when a fan operates at the same duty point; however, during manufacturer interviews, DOE received feedback that increasing the diameter of a fan is only applicable to certain fan classes. Specifically, DOE learned that increasing the diameter of a fan that would be embedded in OEM equipment could impact the overall performance of the equipment, could impact its utility for use in space-constrained OEM equipment, and would substantially increase OEM redesign costs. Alternatively, for fan types that do not have space-constraints, a fan could typically be increased by one or two sizes without impacting the utility of the fan.
For fan equipment classes that could be embedded, either into other equipment or into spaced constrained applications, such as ducted ventilation systems, DOE did not consider increased impeller diameter as a design option. These types of fans include axial inline, panel, centrifugal housed, centrifugal unhoused, and centrifugal inline fans.
For radial fans, DOE analyzed the diameter increase design option since this fan class is typically not used in space-constrained applications; However, DOE did not observe consistent efficiency changes with increased diameter for radial fans; therefore, DOE did not consider larger fan diameter as a design option for radial fans.
In general, PRVs (axial PRV, centrifugal PRV exhaust, and centrifugal PRV supply) are not subject to the same size and weight constraints experienced by other embedded fan classes. These units are placed in open air environments to supply or exhaust air from the top of a building, which enables them to increase in size. DOE found that increasing PRV diameter consistently increases the efficiency; therefore, DOE considered diameter increase as a design option for axial and centrifugal PRVs.
DOE requests comment on its understanding that the diameter increase design option could be applied to non-embedded, non-space-constrained equipment classes.
In its analysis for axial and centrifugal PRVs, DOE used an 18-percent increase in diameter to represent a diameter increase and rounded the impeller diameter to the nearest whole number, since DOE found that the 18-percent increase was representative of the fan sizes available on the market. For example, the increased diameter design option for a 15-in. diameter fan would increase the fan diameter to 18-in. and a 36-in. diameter fan would increase to a 42-in. diameter fan. When analyzing its data sources, DOE found that this 18 percent diameter increase when maintaining the operating point could result in a range of FEI increases, from as low as 4-percent to as high as 30-percent, corresponding to a FEI increase of approximately 0.03 to 0.30. For this NOPR analysis, DOE assumed that a diameter increase for centrifugal PRV exhaust and supply fans would result in a 0.03 increase in FEI and a diameter increase for axial PRV fans would result in a 0.09-0.10 increase in FEI. DOE recognizes that initial diameter size, operating airflow, and operating pressure may impact how effective an impeller diameter increase is for increasing FEI. Specifically, the duty points that DOE chose to evaluate may be duty points where a diameter increase is very effective at increasing fan efficiency or may be duty points where a diameter increase has minimal impact on fan efficiency. DOE could adjust the efficiency gains from an impeller diameter increase in its analysis so that there is a larger FEI gain for all PRVs, and where PRVs could reach higher FEI values for a lower cost. Alternately, DOE could decrease the FEI gain for axial PRVs from an impeller diameter increase, allowing axial PRVs to reach higher FEI values for a higher cost since the impeller diameter increase would no longer provide such a large increase in FEI.
DOE requests comment on whether the FEI increases associated with an impeller diameter increase for centrifugal PRVs and for axial PRVs are realistic. Specifically, DOE requests comment on whether it is realistic for axial PRVs to have a FEI increase that is 3 times greater than that for centrifugal PRVs when starting at the same initial diameter. Additionally, DOE requests comment on the factors that may impact how much an impeller diameter increase impacts a FEI increase.
In its analysis, DOE applied the impeller changes and aerodynamic redesigns for PRVs to the baseline fan such that PRVs could reach higher efficiency levels while maintaining the baseline impeller diameter. While manufacturers would have the option of achieving higher efficiencies by increasing fan diameter, DOE assumed that if manufacturers were to change the impeller or redesign a PRV, manufacturers would apply these design changes to their entire diameter range, enabling the baseline diameter fan to reach the higher efficiency levels.
The design path for all PRVs is shown in Table IV-11. For the PRV equipment classes, the impeller change(s) and diameter increase(s) are ordered by FEI increase, where the design option with the smallest FEI increase is ordered first. DOE could consider an analysis with a different ordering of design option based on MSP increase or cost-effectiveness. Alternately, DOE could consider an analysis that does not include increased fan diameter as a design option. In this alternative analysis, DOE could consider an additional impeller change as a design option to increase FEI. However, based on its analysis, DOE expects that removing increased fan diameter as a design option in its analysis would increase the cost to achieve a higher efficiency of a PRV.
DOE requests comment on the ordering and implementation of design options for centrifugal PRV exhaust and supply fans and axial PRV fans.
DOE additionally determined that manufacturers may improve efficiency through aerodynamic redesign, as described in section IV.A.3 of this document. It is DOE's understanding that aerodynamic redesign may require significant product and capital investment. Accordingly, DOE only applied aerodynamic redesign after applying the design options DOE expected would be less cost-intensive for manufacturers. Additionally, the impact of aerodynamic redesign on efficiency is expected to vary significantly depending on the design choices made by the manufacturer. Therefore, DOE determined that the design option approach would not be appropriate for evaluating efficiency improvements for aerodynamic redesign. Instead, DOE evaluated aerodynamic redesign using the efficiency level approach. Generally, DOE set the FEIs for aerodynamic redesigns by assigning evenly spaced FEIs between the highest non-redesign EL (
DOE also evaluated other efficiency programs to inform the development of its efficiency levels. Energy efficiency provisions for commercial fans are prescribed in U.S. building codes, primarily developed by the International Code Council and specified in the International Energy Conservation Code (“IECC”). The IECC was most recently updated in 2021 (“IECC-2021”) and specifies that commercial buildings shall comply with the requirements of ASHRAE 90.1.
Based on this feedback and to align with the aforementioned standards, DOE elected to evaluate an efficiency level at an FEI of 1.00 for all fan classes. The efficiency level and design option that corresponds to an FEI of 1.00 differs for each equipment class depending on the FEI difference between the baseline and max-tech efficiency levels for each equipment class and the efficiency gain identified for each design option. For the axial inline, centrifugal inline, and centrifugal unhoused equipment classes, DOE determined that an FEI of 1.00 could be achieved using the identified design options. Therefore, each of these equipment classes has specific design options associated with the EL set at an FEI of 1.00. For example, for the centrifugal inline equipment class, DOE tentatively determined through the design option approach that an FEI of 1.00 could be achieved by using a mixed flow impeller (EL 3). For all other equipment classes, DOE assumed that manufacturers could achieve an FEI of 1.00 through an aerodynamic redesign.
For equipment classes that had an aerodynamic redesign assigned at an EL with an FEI of 1.00, DOE evenly spaced all other aerodynamic redesign ELs at FEIs above and below a value of 1.00, where applicable. For example, the centrifugal PRV exhaust equipment class has a total of four aerodynamic redesign ELs, with the second aerodynamic redesign (EL 4) corresponding to an FEI of 1.00. The highest non-redesign EL occurs at EL 2, corresponding to an FEI of 0.76, and max- tech occurs at EL 6, corresponding to an FEI of 1.37. Therefore, the first aerodynamic redesign was set at the midpoint between EL 2 and EL 4, corresponding to an FEI of 0.88, and the third aerodynamic redesign was set as the midpoint between an FEI of 1.00 and the max-tech EL, corresponding to an FEI of 1.19.
DOE received feedback during interviews that forward-curved impellers should be preserved in the market because they offer distinct utility over backward-inclined or airfoil impellers and typically operate at lower pressures where efficiency is inherently lower. However, as discussed in section IV.A.1.a, DOE has tentatively determined that forward-curved fans do not require a separate equipment class since the FEI metric is a function of operating pressure and accounts for the inherently lower efficiency at lower pressures.
Instead, to assess any costs associated with preserving forward-curved fans, DOE evaluated two parallel design paths for centrifugal housed fans. DOE used the first design path (hereafter referred to as the “primary design path”) to evaluate all fans with impellers other than forward-curved impellers. For the primary design path, DOE observed a significant number of fans with backward-inclined impellers that exhibited FEIs similar to those with forward-curved impellers, despite backward-inclined impellers generally being more efficient. Therefore, DOE assigned the same baseline FEI to both design paths and assumed baseline efficiency on the primary design path to be represented by an inefficient backward-inclined fan which would meet EL 1 via aerodynamic redesign of the backward-inclined impeller. EL 2 on the primary design path represents substituting a more typical backward-inclined impeller with an airfoil impeller to achieve an FEI of 1.00.
For the second design path (hereafter referred to as the “forward-curved design path”), DOE assumed that the baseline efficiency was represented by a forward-curved fan that would meet all subsequent ELs via aerodynamic redesign while maintaining a forward-curved impeller. The design options for both design paths are summarized in Table IV-9 and additional details on how DOE defined the efficiency levels for the separate centrifugal housed design paths are provided in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
Additionally, for the forward-curved design path, EL 4 approaches max-tech for forward-curved fans. Although DOE identified fans with forward-curved impellers above this EL, DOE could not confirm that forward-curved fans could be designed above this EL at all duty points. Therefore, DOE defined the third aerodynamic redesign on the forward-curved design path (EL 4) as the max-tech for forward-curved impellers and assumed that any fans above this FEI would need to transition to a backward-inclined or airfoil impeller. As such, all fans above EL 4 were analyzed using the primary design path.
DOE notes that, in practice, manufacturers may substitute forward-curved impellers with a backward-inclined or airfoil impeller to improve efficiency. However, based on DOE's review of the market and stakeholder feedback on the importance of maintaining fans with forward-curved impellers, DOE could not determine a representative percentage of forward-curved fans that would be redesigned versus substituted with a different impeller. Therefore, to avoid underestimating the costs required to preserve forward-curved impellers, DOE assumed that all forward-curved fans currently on the market would maintain their impellers and follow the forward-curve design path.
DOE utilized a dual-design path approach for centrifugal housed fans to consider the fact that manufacturers may be required to incur higher conversion costs to maintain use of forward-curved impellers. DOE estimated the costs associated with redesigning forward-curved fans using
DOE requests comment on its approach for estimating the industry-wide conversion costs that may be necessary to redesign fans with forward-curved impellers to meet higher FEI values. Specifically, DOE is interested in the costs associated with any capital equipment, research and development, or additional labor that would be required to design more efficient fans with forward-curved impellers. DOE additionally requests comment and data on the percentage of forward-curved impellers that manufacturers would expect to maintain as a forward-curved impeller relative to those expected to transition to a backward-inclined or airfoil impeller.
As discussed in the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE adopted the FEP and FEI calculations specified in AMCA 214-21, which provides a method for calculating the FEI of fans sold with motors based on a table of polyphase regulated motors (
In a final rule published on June 1, 2023, DOE finalized amended energy conservation standards for electric motors. These standards adopted amended efficiency requirements for motors rated at or between 100 hp and 250 hp. Therefore, for GFBs sold with a motor rated at or between 100 hp and 250 hp, FEI would be evaluated using the amended efficiencies specified in table 8 of 10 CFR 431.25, in accordance with the DOE test procedure. However, the motor efficiencies used to calculate the reference fan FEP have not been similarly updated based on the amended standards for electric motors. Therefore, the reference fan FEP for GFBs with a motor rated at or between 100 hp and 250 hp would be calculated using a motor efficiency that would not be compliant with the adopted energy conservation standards for electric motors and would no longer be available on the market. In other words, the reference fan used in the FEI calculation would have a lower efficiency than that required for electric motors, resulting in an inappropriately greater FEI for the tested fan.
To avoid providing an unintended advantage to these GFBs, DOE proposes that the FEI level for GFBs sold with a motor rated at or between 100 hp and 250 hp would be calculated by applying a correction factor to the FEI standard for GFBs sold with any other sized motor. This correction factor would be designed to offset the difference in motor efficiencies specified for the reference fan versus the amended motor efficiency standards. DOE found that, at a given duty point, the correction factor, A, can be expressed as a function of the motor efficiency as follows:
Where η
As discussed in the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE adopted the FEP and FEI calculation as specified in AMCA 214-21 but did not develop a control credit for fans with a controller to offset
To avoid penalizing GFBs sold with a motor controller, DOE proposes that the FEI standard for GFBs sold with a motor controller be calculated by applying a credit to the FEI standard for GFBs sold without a motor controller, where the credit is designed to offset the losses inherent to the motor controller. To determine the credit, DOE compared the FEP values of fans with a motor controller (
Where
To convert the credit into a multiplier to the FEI and to calculate the FEI values at each efficiency level considered for GFBs with a motor controller, DOE relied on the following equation:
Where
When applying this equation, DOE observed that for GFBs with a motor controller and with FEP values above 20 kW, the value of the multiplier to the FEI is approximately constant and equal to 0.966. Therefore, DOE proposes to simplify the calculation of FEI standards for fans with motor controllers as follows:
Further, considering the proposed addition of default calculation methods to represent the combined motor and motor controller efficiency (see section III.C.1.b), in the final rule, DOE may also consider an alternative credit calculation based on the proposed equations in section III.C.1.b which represent baseline (and not typical) motor and motor controller performance, and would potentially result in a higher credit.
DOE requests comment on the equations developed to calculate the credit for determining the FEI standard for GFBs sold with a motor controller and with an FEP
As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. DOE also defines a “max-tech” efficiency level to represent the maximum possible efficiency for a given product. Similar to the baseline efficiency levels, DOE established max-tech efficiency levels by reviewing the performance data in the AMCA sales database. DOE initially evaluated max-tech for each class using the FEI corresponding to the 95th percentile (
As previously described, DOE assigned design options and corresponding FEIs to each equipment class based on the analysis described in sections IV.C.1.a-b. DOE conducted this analysis up to a max-tech EL for each equipment class. Final results are shown in Table IV-11. These results were used in all downstream analyses for this NOPR.
GFBs can be certified by AMCA to bear the AMCA certified ratings seal. AMCA publishes a manual prescribing the technical procedures to be used in connection with the AMCA Certified Ratings Program for fan air performance: “AMCA 211-22 (Rev. 01-23)—Certified Ratings Program—Product Rating Manual for Fan Air Performance” (“AMCA 211-22”)
Certified AMCA GFBs are subject to precertification and periodic check tests as defined in section 10 of AMCA 211-22. When products are check tested, the check test performance must be within the tolerance for airflow, pressure, and power when compared with the manufacturer's catalog data. Specifically, section 10 of AMCA 211-22 allows for a 5 percent tolerance on the fan shaft power when conducting a precertification check test and a 7.5 percent tolerance when conducting a periodic check test.
As discussed in section IV.A.2.a, DOE conducted the GFB engineering analysis for this NOPR primarily using a database of confidential sales information provided by AMCA, which includes AMCA certified data related to fan shaft power at a given duty point. DOE also relied on manufacturer fan selection software from manufacturers that are AMCA members, which frequently provided data that was AMCA certified.
DOE understands that it may be common practice for manufacturers to include the AMCA 211-22 tolerance when submitting performance data to AMCA. As a result, the fan shaft power data included in the AMCA sales database and manufacturer fan selection software may include a 5 to 7.5-percent tolerance and may be underestimated.
DOE may consider revising the brake horsepower values in the AMCA sales database and from manufacturer fan selection software by increasing each value by 5 percent. DOE used the 5-percent precertification check test tolerance for the adjustments, as DOE expects this would be the tolerance applied to any ratings certified to AMCA. This would result in lower FEI values for each data point and could result in lower FEI values associated with each EL.
To determine how this may impact the analysis, DOE increased the brake horsepower values in the AMCA sales database by 5 percent and recalculated the bare shaft FEIs of all fans in the database. As discussed in section IV.C.1, the baseline and max-tech FEIs of all equipment classes were determined based on percentiles in the AMCA sales database. DOE used the same percentiles to determine the baseline and max-tech for each equipment class using the recalculated bare shaft FEIs. For efficiency levels that were based on the design option approach (
DOE requests comments on whether it should apply a correction factor to the analyzed efficiency levels to account for the tolerance allowed in AMCA 211-22 and if so, DOE requests comment on the appropriate correction factor. DOE requests comment on the potential revised levels as presented in Table IV-12. Additionally, DOE requests comments on whether it should continue to evaluate an FEI of 1.00 for all fan classes if it updates the databases used in its analysis to consider the tolerance allowed in AMCA 211-22.
Additionally, DOE does not anticipate that the efficiency levels captured in Table IV-12 would impact the cost, energy, and economic analyses presented in this document. As such, DOE considers the results of these analyses presented throughout this document applicable to the efficiency levels with a 5% tolerance allowance. DOE seeks comment on the analyses as applied to the efficiency levels in Table IV-12.
The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated equipment, and the availability and timeliness of purchasing the equipment on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
•
•
•
In the present case, DOE conducted its analysis for GFBs using a combination of price surveys from manufacturer fan selection software, the AMCA sales database, and physical teardowns. DOE notes that due to time constraints and the variety of fans available in the market (
DOE recognizes that fan costs would not follow a simple scaling model as there are several factors that could impact the sales price of a fan, including construction class,
DOE used data from both the AMCA sales database and sales data pulled from manufacturer fan selection software to create an MSP versus diameter curve for each equipment class. First, DOE averaged the MSPs in the AMCA sales database, as discussed earlier, to generate an MSP-versus-diameter curve. DOE then calibrated this curve with MSPs from manufacturer fan selection software. DOE used the MSP-versus-diameter curves to determine the baseline MSP for each equipment class at a given diameter.
As discussed in section IV.C.1.b, DOE used individual design options for the lower ELs in each class and aerodynamic redesign for the higher ELs. To determine the incremental costs associated with the design option ELs above baseline, DOE compared the MSPs of similarly constructed fans operating at the same duty point. For example, DOE evaluated the increase in MSP for impeller changes by calculating the percentage change in MSP for two fans operating at the same duty point and with similar housings, but different impeller designs. DOE averaged changes in MSP for each analyzed fan within each equipment class to obtain typical incremental costs for each design option, which were applied above baseline to obtain MSPs for each efficiency level. For fans where diameter increases were evaluated as a design option, DOE used the diameter-versus-MSP curves to estimate the increase in MSP relative to the baseline fan. As discussed in section IV.C.1.b, DOE used an 18-percent increase as the standard value for each impeller diameter increase. MSPs corresponding to each EL assume no change in motor or drive costs since DOE kept the motor and drive costs constant over all ELs; therefore, the change in MSP at each design option EL is reflective of the cost of incorporating the corresponding design option.
DOE additionally conducted teardowns to validate the MSPs applied to each EL. For axial inline fans, DOE initially estimated a high MSP from manufacturer fan selection software for replacing a tube axial fan with a vane axial fan; however, teardown data suggested that a lower MSP would be more realistic. DOE believes this discrepancy is due to differences in production volume between tube axial and vane axial fans, with vane axial fans having lower production volumes in the current market. In the presence of energy conservation standards, however, DOE expects that production volumes for vane axial fans would increase, reducing this price difference. Therefore, DOE adjusted the MSP for substituting a tube axial fan with a vane axial fan assuming equivalent production volumes in the presence of energy conservation standards.
Similarly, for centrifugal inline fans, DOE found that the average MSP when substituting a centrifugal inline impeller with a mixed-flow impeller was higher than would have been expected based on the teardown data. DOE believes this may be due to a mix of lower production volumes in the current market, underlying conversion costs, and increased markups for mixed-flow fans in the current market. Therefore, DOE reduced the MSP when substituting a centrifugal inline impeller with a mixed-flow impeller. To account for any costs associated with redesigning a centrifugal inline fan, DOE modelled most costs for applying a mixed-flow impeller as conversion costs, similar to those applied for aerodynamic redesigns.
As discussed, DOE evaluated aerodynamic redesigns as the final ELs for all equipment classes. DOE assumed a constant MSP for each aerodynamic redesign EL, with no change in MSP from the last design option EL to the first aerodynamic redesign EL. DOE assumed that the redesign, reengineering, and new production equipment required for aerodynamic redesign efficiency levels would result in significant one-time capital and product conversion costs. To account for expected manufacturer markups at these ELs, DOE applied a conversion cost markup that increases as capital costs increase. Aerodynamic redesign conversion costs are further discussed in section IV.J.2.c of this NOPR.
DOE assumed that shipping costs remained constant over all analyzed ELs for all equipment classes except for PRVs, where the increased diameter design options are expected to have a substantial impact on equipment dimensions and weight. To estimate shipping costs for PRVs, DOE used data from product teardowns and product literature for the representative operating points. DOE compared measured shipping dimensions from physical teardowns with listed unit dimensions in manufacturers' product literature and extrapolated the difference between them to estimate representative shipping dimensions for the units that DOE did not tear down. These dimensions were then used to estimate the number of PRVs that could be shipped per truck load. Based on this analysis, an additional shipping cost for each individual PRV was then applied to DOE's estimated MSPs.
DOE requests comment on its method to use both the AMCA sales database and sales data pulled from manufacturer fan selection data to estimate MSP. DOE also requests comment on the use of the MSP approach for its cost analysis for GFBs or whether an MPC-based approach would be appropriate. If interested parties believe an MPC-based approach would be more appropriate, DOE requests MPC data for the equipment classes and efficiency levels analyzed, which may be confidentially
In the following sections, DOE discusses the engineering analysis performed to establish a relationship between ACF efficacy and MPC.
When performing engineering analyses for energy conservation standards rulemakings, rather than model every possible set of characteristics an equipment could have, DOE often evaluates the efficiency and cost of specific units that are most representative of the equipment. These representative units are typically chosen based on size or performance-related features. In the October 2022 NODA, DOE modeled five ACF representative units: a 12-in. ACF with a 0.01 hp motor; a 20-in. ACF with a 0.33 hp motor; a 24-in. ACF with a 0.5 hp motor, a 36-in. ACF with a 0.5 hp motor; and a 50-in. ACF with a 1 hp motor. 87 FR 62038, 62046. In the October 2022 NODA, DOE requested comment on whether the motor hp it has associated with each representative diameter (
In response to the October 2022 NODA, AMCA commented that DOE should consider decoupling fan size and motor nameplate hp for its representative units because the motor nameplate hp is not always representative of how much loading is placed on the motors and may therefore mislead any estimates of efficiency. (AMCA, No. 132 at p. 7)
In response to stakeholder concerns about establishing representative motor powers for the engineering analysis, DOE reevaluated its approach. After reviewing the updated ACF database, which contains catalog data not included in the October 2022 NODA analysis, DOE found that motor nameplate power may vary too much from fan to fan to establish a single representative motor power for a given fan diameter. Instead, for this NOPR analysis, DOE used the distribution of motor nameplate powers for each representative diameter to determine weighted averages for motor efficiency and motor costs. Further details on these distributions and their use can be found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
For this NOPR, DOE evaluated slightly different representative units than it evaluated in the October 2022 NODA analysis. DOE did not consider a 12-in. representative unit for the NOPR because ACFs with input powers less than 125 W were excluded from the scope, which significantly reduced the number of in-scope 12-in. ACFs in DOE's updated ACF database. As discussed in section IV.A.1.b, DOE identified three equipment classes for axial ACFs, a 12-in. to less than 36-in. diameter axial ACF class, a 36-in. to less than 48-in. diameter axial ACF class, and a 48-in. diameter or greater axial ACF class. DOE defined a single representative unit for each axial ACF equipment class. DOE reviewed ACF diameters in its updated ACF database and determined that the most common diameters for the 12-in. to less than 36-in. diameter range, the 36-in. to less than 48-in. diameter range, and the 48-in. diameter or greater range were 24 in., 36 in., and 52 in., respectively. Therefore, DOE used these three diameters as its representative units for the ACF analysis. DOE did not consider the 20-in. or 50-in. representative units included in the October 2022 NODA because neither of these sizes were the most common diameter for axial ACFs in the corresponding diameter range. For housed centrifugal ACFs, DOE chose 11 in. as the representative unit, since it is the most common diameter for housed centrifugal ACFs in the updated ACF database, Further details regarding the selection of representative units can be found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
As discussed in section IV.C.1.a, baseline models are typically either the most common or the least efficient units on the market. In the October 2022 NODA, DOE assigned split-phase motors to be the baseline technology option for ACFs because split-phase motors are the least efficient type of motor used for ACFs. 87 FR 62038, 62048. As discussed in the October 2022 NODA, the BESS Labs combined database contained ACFs sold with PSC motors, polyphase motors, and ECMs, but no split-phase motors.
In the October 2022 NODA, DOE requested feedback on the methodology used to determine the baseline efficiency values for the representative units and on the expected average improvement in ACF efficiency when a split-phase motor is replaced by a low-efficiency PSC motor. 87 FR 62038, 62049. In response, the Efficiency Advocates stated that, since DOE utilized the BESS Labs combined database to determine efficiency in the October 2022 NODA, that baseline efficiency could be higher than the actual least efficient ACFs on the market. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 126 at p. 1) In response to stakeholder feedback and after reviewing its updated ACF database, DOE utilized a different methodology for determining baseline efficiency in this NOPR. Rather than determining EL 1 and back-calculating baseline from EL 1, DOE defined the baseline efficiencies for each representative unit using the minimum efficiency values in its updated ACF database. Additionally, as discussed in section IV.A.3 of this NOPR, additional review of the ACF market indicated that very few ACFs use split-phase motors compared to the number of ACFs that use PSC motors. Therefore, DOE decided to consider low-efficiency PSC motors as a baseline design option for ACFs in this NOPR.
As discussed in section IV.A.2.b, DOE included catalog data in its updated ACF database to supplement the BESS Labs combined database. DOE did not consider catalog data in the October 2022 NODA because catalog data did not include information on the air density measured during testing, which is required when calculating FEI. Since DOE updated the ACF efficiency metric to be efficacy instead of FEI, DOE was able to use catalog data for efficiency information for this NOPR. Therefore, DOE expects the minimum efficacy values used in this NOPR analysis to be more representative of the baseline fans on the market than those used in the October 2022 NODA.
In the October 2022 NODA, since DOE did not consider more efficient transmissions as a design option, the baseline fan was not defined by a transmission type. However, in this NOPR analysis, DOE is considering more-efficient transmissions as a design option for ACFs. As discussed in section IV.A.3, using a direct-drive transmission instead of a belt-drive transmission can increase the efficiency of a fan. Manufacturers also indicated in interviews that the fan industry is transitioning away from using belt-drive transmissions in favor of direct-drive transmissions. Therefore, DOE decided to assign a belt-drive transmission as a
For the 36-in. and 52-in. axial ACF representative units, DOE determined EL 1 by applying an efficacy delta to the baseline efficacy representing a transition from a belt-drive transmission to a direct-drive transmission. To estimate this incremental impact on efficacy when transitioning from a belt-drive transmission to a direct-drive transmission, DOE used the equations defined in sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 of AMCA 214-21. The equations in section 6.3.1 of AMCA 214-21 define the efficiency of direct-drive transmissions as 100 percent and define the efficiency of belt-drive transmissions based on the shaft power of the fan. Since shaft powers are generally unknown for ACFs, DOE used the equation defined in section 6.3.2 of AMCA 214-21 to determine theoretical motor output powers associated with given shaft powers and transmission efficiencies. DOE then plotted a curve to estimate belt-drive transmission efficiency as a function of motor output power, which was used to estimate the belt-drive efficiencies for all motor hp values in its updated ACF database. To account for the range of motor hp values that could be used in ACFs for each representative unit, DOE determined the percentage of fans in its updated ACF database that corresponded to each motor hp in the database. DOE then used these percentages as weights to calculate a weighted-average belt-drive efficiency for each motor hp.
DOE evaluated the relationship between transmission efficiency and fan efficacy and determined that transmission efficiency and fan efficacy are directly proportional. Therefore, the percent increase in fan efficacy associated with using a more efficient transmission is equal to the percent increase in transmission efficiency. Further details of this analysis can be found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. DOE applied the percent increase in efficiency when transitioning from a belt-drive transmission to a direct-drive transmission to the baseline efficacies for the 36-in. axial ACF and 52-in. axial ACF representative units to determine EL 1. DOE used the resulting weighted-average belt-drive efficiency to determine the percent difference in efficiency between a belt-drive transmission and a direct-drive transmission. Based on this approach, DOE estimated 13.5-percent and 10.4-percent improvements in efficacy when changing from a belt-drive transmission to a direct-drive transmission for the 36-in. axial ACF and 52-in. axial ACF representative units, respectively.
As mentioned previously, DOE defined both the baseline fan and EL 1 as direct driven for the 24-in. axial ACF and the housed centrifugal ACF representative units. Therefore, for these two representative units, DOE set EL 1 equal to the baseline efficacy to account for the fact that there would be no efficacy gain associated with the more-efficient transmission design option. This was done to maintain consistent design options for each EL for all ACF equipment classes.
Further discussion of DOE's methodology for determining baseline efficiency and EL 1 can be found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
In this section, DOE discusses comments it received on its ACF efficiency analysis in the October 2022 NODA and describes the efficiency analysis methodology it used for this NOPR. As discussed in section IV.C.1.b, DOE typically uses either an efficiency-level approach, a design-option approach, or a combination of the two for its efficiency analysis. In this NOPR, DOE used a combination efficiency-level and design-option approach for its analysis of ACFs. DOE used the efficiency-level approach to determine the baseline and aerodynamic redesign ELs and used the design-option approach to gap fill intermediate ELs. For the design-option approach, DOE used the efficiencies determined for the baseline design options and more-efficient design options to assign incremental efficiency gains for each EL.
In the October 2022 NODA, DOE evaluated more-efficient motors and aerodynamic redesign as options for increasing ACF efficiency. 87 FR 62038, 62048. DOE did not conduct a formal screening analysis in the October 2022 NODA; however, as discussed in section IV.B, DOE conducted a formal screening analysis for this NOPR, and screened in the following design options for ACFs:
• Aerodynamic redesign (improved housing design, reduced manufacturing tolerances, addition of appurtenances, improved impeller design, addition of guide vanes, impeller topology);
• Increased impeller diameter;
• More-efficient transmissions (belt drive and direct drive); and
• More-efficient motors.
DOE did not evaluate the efficiency impacts of all these design options in the engineering analysis for ACFs. Specifically, DOE did not consider the efficiency impacts of increased impeller diameter since DOE defined equipment classes based on diameter in section IV.A.1.b. Therefore, when developing the proposed ELs, DOE only considered more-efficient transmissions, more-efficient motors, and aerodynamic redesign as design options for its analysis of ACFs in this NOPR. More-efficient transmissions were associated with EL 0 and EL 1, which were discussed in section IV.C.2.b.
Regarding motors, DOE evaluated multiple motor options for ACFs in the October 2022 NODA, specifically split-phase motors at baseline, PSC 1 motors at EL 1, PSC 2 motors at EL 2, and ECMs at EL 3. 87 FR 62038, 62048. PSC 1 motors were defined as basic PSC motors, while PSC 2 motors were defined as “more efficient PSC motors”.
In response, AMCA commented that, provided the shaft speed does not change much, the fan affinity laws can be used to predict airflow and total pressure. However, AMCA added that there can be discrepancies between the torque required by the load and the torque produced by the motor for low-power motors. AMCA further stated that, given the very low starting torque
DOE investigated the issue of higher-efficiency motors having higher speeds in the December 2023 ESEMs NOPR TSD.
DOE requests feedback on whether using a more efficient motor would require an ACF redesign. Additionally, DOE requests feedback on what percentage of motor speed change would require an ACF redesign.
Regarding stakeholder feedback that ACFs may need to be redesigned to accommodate differences in motor size or shape when changing to more-efficient motors, DOE expects this type of redesign could be done with minimal efficiency impact because it expects that only motor supports would be redesigned. As discussed in section IV.C.2.d, DOE found that there is sufficient space for an increase in motor volume without needing to redesign other fan components, such as housing or safety guards. Consequently, DOE assumed that the only redesign required for an ACF when switching to a larger motor would be to increase the weight of the motor supports to accommodate an increase motor weight. Therefore, DOE assumed that when changing to a more-efficient motor, the only significant impact to the efficiency of an ACF was the efficiency gained from the motor.
Additionally, AMCA commented in response to the October 2022 NODA that motor nameplate information is generally not very relevant for ACFs because ACF manufacturers often use motors in power ranges outside those listed on motor nameplates. AMCA stated that operating motors above their nameplate load may provide the best material efficiency and that this is possible for ACFs because motors are very well ventilated when used for ACFs. AMCA also stated that the use of a flatter pitch blade may not load a fan to its listed motor horsepower, while a steeper pitch blade may load the motor past its listed horsepower. (AMCA, No. 132 at pp. 6-8) Further, AMCA stated that motor nameplate efficiencies depend on the number of phases and the synchronous speed of the motors and that the actual motor efficiency would be different since motors are used at higher power ratings than their nameplate power ratings for ACFs. (AMCA, No. 132 at pp. 16-17)
In consideration of AMCA's comments, DOE analyzed confidential ESEM testing data to examine how motor efficiency is impacted when motors are operated at loads above their nameplate rating. DOE compared the efficiencies of motors tested at nameplate load, 115 percent of nameplate load, and 125 percent of nameplate load. Through its analysis, DOE found that, on average, motor efficiency increased by a percent change of 1.01 percent for motors tested at 115 percent of nameplate load and motor efficiency increased by a percent change of 1.23 percent for motors tested at 125 percent of nameplate load. DOE notes that these percentages represent percentage changes, rather than nominal changes in motor efficiency. For example, a 0.25 hp motor might have an efficiency of 72.84 percent when tested at 100 percent load compared to an efficiency of 73.54 percent when tested at 115 percent load, representing a percentage increase in efficiency of 0.96 percent (
As discussed in section IV.A.3, DOE considered split-phase motors, low-efficiency PSC motors, high-efficiency PSC motors, and ECMs in its October 2022 NODA analysis. 87 FR 62038, 62048. DOE has since reviewed its updated ACF database in response to comments from AMCA and NEMA about motors used in ACFs. Based on the distribution of motor types in the database, DOE tentatively concluded that very few ACFs use shaded-pole, split-phase, or capacitor start/capacitor run motors. Rather, DOE found that the most common motors used in ACFs are PSC motors, and that some ACFs utilize polyphase motors and ECMs. Specific percentages of ACFs in the updated ACF database with each motor type can be found in Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
Furthermore, in the October 2022 NODA, DOE requested comment on whether ACFs with single-phase motors and polyphase motors would be used for different utilities or have different efficiencies because of their end-use applications. 87 FR 62038, 62045. In response, NEMA stated that three-phase motors typically have slightly higher efficiencies than single-phase motors but added that if only a single-phase power supply is available, a three-phase motor could not be used in place of a single-phase motor. NEMA added that at higher motor powers (1.5 hp and above), three-phase motors tend to be equally as or slightly less expensive than single-phase motors. (NEMA, No. 125 at p. 4). DOE's review of motor literature and testing data for motors used in ACFs indicated that polyphase motors are generally more efficient than PSC motors, as stated by NEMA.
As discussed in section IV.C.2.b, DOE considered low-efficiency PSC motors and belt-drive transmissions as baseline design options and considered direct-drive transmissions as the design option for EL 1.
DOE received feedback during confidential manufacturer interviews that ACF manufacturers were more likely to improve the efficiency of a motor before performing an aerodynamic redesign. Therefore, DOE considered a high-efficiency PSC motor as the design option for EL 2, prior to considering aerodynamic redesign. DOE modeled the efficiency gain associated with changing from a low-efficiency PSC motor to a high-efficiency PSC motor. DOE determined the efficacy for EL 2 for all equipment classes by estimating efficiencies for low-efficiency PSC motors and high-efficiency PSC motors, determining the efficiency delta between them, and applying that efficiency delta to EL 1. In the October 2022 NODA, DOE estimated the efficiencies of low-efficiency PSC motors and high-efficiency PSC motors using DOE's database of catalog motor data (“motors database”). 87 FR 62038, 62049. DOE associated low-efficiency PSC motors with EL 1 and high-efficiency PSC motors with EL 2 in the October 2022 NODA analysis. DOE estimated the increase in FEI from EL 1 to EL 2 by applying the percent increase in efficiency from a low-efficiency PSC motor to a high-efficiency PSC motor directly to the EL 1 FEI value. DOE requested comment on its determined efficiency gains when replacing a low-efficiency PSC motor with a high-efficiency PSC motor and whether catalog performance data for PSC motors were representative of the performance of motors used in ACFs.
In response, NEEA commented that it agreed with DOE's approach to model the efficiency improvements for the overall fan as equal to the motor efficiency improvements when only the motor is changed and nothing else, such as the duty point, motor speed, drive type, etc. (NEEA, No. 129 at p. 3) Greenheck expressed concern that the motor efficiencies used by DOE in its analysis may not have been accurate and stated that Greenheck could not confirm the accuracy of the efficiencies used since the motor database was not included with the supplementary information. Greenheck also requested clarity on which motors were included in DOE's analyses of low-efficiency PSC and high-efficiency PSC motors. Specifically, Greenheck stated motors that DOE deemed low-efficiency PSC motors should be analyzed as a separate dataset from high-efficiency PSC motors, rather than determining low-efficiency PSC motor performance from the average efficiency of all PSC motors. (Greenheck, No. 122 at p. 2) AMCA commented that determining general values for the change in efficiency between one motor type and another is difficult to do with confidence because motors with the same topology and power rating can have different efficiencies. (AMCA, No. 132 at p. 8-9) NEMA commented that the efficiencies of fan motors are often not quantified and that it is incorrect to assume that all ACFs use low-efficiency motors. (NEMA, No. 125 at p. 3) NEMA added that the source of DOE's ESEM catalog data is unclear, given that most motor manufacturers do not publish performance information for the fractional horsepower, single-phase motors that DOE assumed were used for ACFs in its October 2022 NODA analysis. NEMA further stated that catalog motors typically meet or exceed the ratings listed for them in catalogs. (NEMA, No. 125 at p. 3)
In response to stakeholder feedback, DOE adjusted its methodology for determining efficiencies associated with low-efficiency PSC motors and high-efficiency PSC motors in this NOPR. In the October 2022 NODA, DOE determined low-efficiency PSC motor efficiency from the average of all air-over PSC motors in the motors database. 87 FR 62038, 62049. For this NOPR, DOE instead determined low-efficiency PSC motor efficiency from the minimum efficiency of all 6-pole, fan-specific motors in the motors database. The use of the minimum efficiency, rather than the average efficiency, produced a more conservative estimate for low-efficiency PSC motor efficiency. DOE analyzed 6-pole motors specifically because DOE's review of the ACF market indicated that 6-pole motors are most common for ACFs. DOE determined low-efficiency PSC motor efficiencies at all motor powers in its updated ACF database and calculated a weighted average efficiency using the distribution of motor powers for each representative unit. Regarding Greenheck and NEMA's concerns about the accuracy of the motor data in the motors database, DOE acknowledges that the motors in the database are unregulated and therefore the data may be inaccurate. However, DOE notes that it received no additional information on ACF motor efficiencies from stakeholders that it could use instead of the information in the motors database. Regarding NEMA's concerns about the source of the PSC motor data in the motors database, DOE notes that the information it compiled from the database for fan-specific, 6-pole PSC motors consisted of published catalog data from four different motor brands. In response to AMCA's concerns about variations in motor efficiency with the same topology and power rating, DOE acknowledges that motors with the same topology and power rating can have different efficiencies. Therefore, DOE used weighted-average motor efficiencies in this NOPR analysis, which allowed DOE to consider the effects of a wide range of motor efficiencies across many power ratings for a particular motor topology.
Unlike low-efficiency PSC motors, DOE did not use the motors database to determine efficiencies for high-efficiency PSC motors in this NOPR. As part of the electric motors rulemaking, stakeholders made a joint recommendation for the efficiencies at which they believe the standards for ESEMs should be set. (Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-STD-0007, Joint Stakeholders, No. 38 at p. 6, Table 2) The joint recommendation represented the motors industry, energy efficiency organizations and utilities (collectively, “the Electric Motors Working Group”) and addressed energy conservation standards for high-torque, medium-torque, low-torque, and polyphase ESEMs that are 0.25-3 hp and polyphase, and air-over ESEMs. In reference to this ongoing rulemaking, DOE has tentatively defined its high-efficiency PSC motor efficiencies using the efficiencies recommended by the
DOE evaluated the relationship between motor efficiency and fan efficacy and determined that motor efficiency and fan efficacy are directly proportional. Therefore, the percent increase in efficacy associated with changing to a more efficient motor is equal to the percent increase in motor efficiency. Further details of this analysis can be found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. DOE applied the percent increase in motor efficiency when transitioning from a low-efficiency PSC motor to a high-efficiency PSC motor to EL 1 to determine EL 2 for each representative unit.
DOE recognizes that if it sets a standard at the recommended ESEM efficiencies, high-efficiency PSC motors would effectively become the baseline motor for ACFs. DOE performed a sensitivity analysis to evaluate the impact of setting ESEM standards at the recommended efficiencies on its ACF analysis. DOE found that, given the small number of shipments at EL 0 and EL 1 for ACFs, if EL 2 were set as the baseline EL, there would be a minimal impact on proposed ACF standards due to the low shipments below EL2 (see IV.F.8). DOE notes that if it sets a standard in the ESEM rulemaking at the recommended ESEM levels, DOE may consider using EL2 proposed in this NOPR as baseline for ACFs in a future final rule.
In response to the October 2022 NODA, NEEA commented that DOE's assumption that the least-efficient fans in the BESS Labs combined database used the least-efficient motors may be incorrect, since these fans could instead have non-motor-related performance features that caused them to have low efficiencies. NEEA added that this could cause non-representative ELs in DOE's analysis since some of DOE's ELs are based on motor efficiency increases. (NEEA, No. 129 at p. 2) DOE notes that information on the specific motor models integrated into ACFs, including motor efficiency, is not often publicly available. DOE also notes that it requested quantitative efficiency data on ACF motors in the October 2022 NODA, and it has not received any quantitative information on motor efficiency from stakeholders. 87 FR 62038, 62063. As discussed in section IV.A.2.b, DOE's dataset now includes catalog data in addition to the BESS Labs combined database. Therefore, as discussed in section IV.C.2.b, DOE expects the baseline efficacies that it used in this analysis to be more representative of the least efficient ACFs on the market than the baseline used in the October 2022 NODA. Additionally, as previously discussed, DOE updated its methodology for determining motor efficiencies for low-efficiency and high-efficiency PSC motors. Given these adjustments, DOE expects that the EL 2 efficacies are representative of ACFs with high-efficiency PSC motors.
In the October 2022 NODA, DOE considered ECMs as the design option for EL 3 and considered aerodynamic redesign as the design option for EL 4. In response, the CA IOUs commented that DOE should consider aerodynamic efficiency improvements at ELs lower than max-tech because they expect that manufacturers would consider aerodynamic redesigns before switching to ECMs. The CA IOUs also recommended that DOE consider intermediate aerodynamic redesign levels rather than a single “maximum” option. (CA IOUs, No. 127 at p. 2) The Efficiency Advocates recommended that DOE consider more ELs in its efficiency analysis to better represent the range of ACF efficiencies presented in its analysis, and that DOE specifically consider aerodynamic redesign. The Efficiency Advocates stated that additional ELs could be used to bridge the large gap between EL 3 and EL 4 in the October 2022 NODA. (Efficiency Advocates, No. 126 at p. 2)
In response to this feedback, DOE did not consider ECMs as a design option immediately after considering high-efficiency PSC motors in this NOPR; rather, DOE evaluated three aerodynamic redesign ELs—EL 3, EL 4, and EL 5—and considered ECMs as the max-tech design option at EL 6. DOE assumed that more complex aerodynamic redesign would be needed for EL 4 compared to EL 3 and for EL 5 compared to EL 4.
In response to the October 2022 NODA, NEEA stated that the wide distribution of efficiencies in the BESS Labs combined database was likely due to factors other than variation in motor efficiency since the database consists of fans that use the same kind of motor (PSC). DOE infers from this comment that variations in ACF efficiency in the updated ACF database, which, like the BESS Labs combined database, contained many ACFs with PSC motors, can largely be attributed to differences in aerodynamic efficiency between fans. Therefore, although DOE could not relate specific design options to a given efficacy for its three aerodynamic redesign levels, DOE defined aerodynamic redesign levels using an efficiency-level approach from its updated ACF database. Since DOE anticipated that more complex redesigns would be required at EL 4 than EL 3, DOE defined EL 3 as 33 percent of the way between EL 2 and EL 4 for all equipment classes.
DOE took different approaches for establishing EL 4 for axial ACFs and housed centrifugal ACFs. For axial ACFs, DOE referenced agricultural fan efficiency incentive programs to set the efficacies at EL 4. All agricultural fan efficiency incentive programs that DOE found use units of thrust per kilowatt (“thrust/kW”) to define minimum performance targets to qualify for the incentives. DOE converted these targets into units of CFM/W. Details of this conversion can be found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. As discussed in section IV.C.2.a of this NOPR, ACF performance targets are defined by diameter. To be consistent with its lowest-diameter equipment class, DOE averaged the incentive program performance targets for the 12-in. to less than 24-in. diameter range and the 24-in. to less than 36-in. diameter range to estimate EL 4 for the 24-in. axial ACF representative unit. DOE used the performance targets for the 36-in. to 48-in. diameter range and 48-in. or greater diameter range to estimate EL 4 for the 36-in. axial ACF and 52-in. axial ACF representative units, respectively.
For housed centrifugal ACFs, DOE could not use the agricultural fan efficiency incentive programs to define EL 4 because housed centrifugal ACFs are not used in agricultural applications. Since DOE assumed that more complex redesigns would be required at EL 5 than EL 4, DOE also assumed that the efficiency gain between EL 5 and EL 4 would be greater than the efficiency gain between EL 4 and EL 3. To reflect this assumption, DOE defined EL 4 as halfway between EL 2 and EL 5 for housed centrifugal ACFs.
DOE defined EL 5 for each equipment class based on the maximum efficacies in the updated ACF database. DOE used the maximum efficacies in the updated ACF database to define EL 5 since DOE found that the maximum efficacy ACFs in the updated ACF database did not have ECMs. Therefore, these ACFs did not correspond to the max-tech level, and DOE instead assumed that these ACFs utilized highly efficient
As discussed previously, DOE considered an ACF with an ECM and a highly efficient aerodynamic design to be the max-tech design option. DOE's research indicated that ECMs are the most efficient type of motor used in ACFs, and, as indicated in the CA IOUs' comment on aerodynamic redesign, ACF manufacturers may consider implementing aerodynamic redesign prior to switching to an ECM. To determine the max-tech efficiency, DOE applied an incremental efficiency gain associated with changing from a high-efficiency PSC motor to an ECM to EL 5 for each equipment class.
In the October 2022 NODA, DOE used a database of dedicated-purpose pool pump (“DPPP”) motors to determine efficiencies for ECMs and high-efficiency PSC motors and the efficiency gain expected when switching from a high-efficiency PSC motor to an ECM. 87 FR 62038, 62050. DOE requested comment on its use of DPPP motors for comparing efficiencies of PSC motors and ECMs.
In response to NEMA's concerns about its use of DPPP motors to model the efficiencies of ECMs, DOE adjusted its methodology for determining ECM efficiencies. To determine the efficiencies of ECMs, DOE first considered the motor efficiencies specified in IEC 60034-30-1:2014. The motor efficiencies defined in the IE code are intended to serve as reference points for governments to use when defining efficiency standards. DOE understands that the current IE 1 through IE 4 efficiencies defined in IEC 60034-30-1:2014 are intended to represent induction motor efficiencies. DOE also understands that, should a higher IE motor efficiency, IE 5, be defined in a future standard, the IE 5 efficiencies would likely align with ECM efficiencies. DOE used theoretical IE 5 efficiencies to estimate the efficiencies of ECMs and assumed that the efficiencies included the effects of ECM controllers. The IE 1 through IE 4 levels defined in IEC 60034-30-1:2014 are based on a 20-percent reduction in power losses going from one IE level to the next. For example, IE 4-level efficiency is determined from IE 3-level efficiency by assuming a 20-percent reduction in power losses. Therefore, DOE estimated IE 5 efficiency by assuming a 20-percent reduction in power losses from the IE 4 efficiency. DOE determined the percent difference between the estimated IE 5 efficiency and the estimated high-efficiency PSC motor efficiency. As discussed previously, DOE determined that a percent increase in motor efficiency corresponds to an equal percent increase in efficacy. Therefore, DOE applied the percent increase in motor efficiency when transitioning from a high-efficiency PSC motor to an ECM to EL 5 to determine EL 6. Further details on the methodology DOE used to determine the efficacies for each EL can be found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. The efficacies determined for each EL and representative unit and design options associated with each EL are shown in Table IV-13.
As discussed in section V.C.1.b, DOE notes that the standards it is proposing for axial ACFs are discrete efficacy values in CFM/W. This approach aligns with the method used by agricultural fan efficiency incentive programs, where performance targets are specified for certain diameter ranges. However, DOE notes that setting a standard for efficacy in this way may not fully incorporate the effect of diameter on the ACF efficacy. Setting a standard using this approach could also make it easier for larger diameter fans to meet the standard and more difficult for smaller diameter fans to meet the standard. DOE recognizes that there is generally a linear relationship between efficacy in CFM/W and fan diameter. DOE notes that it is additionally considering setting efficacy standards for axial ACFs as a linear function of diameter, similar to the approach used for ceiling fans (
DOE requests feedback on whether setting an ACF standard using discrete efficacy values over a defined diameter range appropriately represents the differences in efficacy between axial ACFs with different diameters, and if not, would a linear equation for efficacy as a function of diameter be appropriate.
In addition to determining efficacy values associated with each EL, DOE also developed estimates of input power associated with each EL. These input power estimates were used in the LCC and PBP analyses, discussed in section IV.F. For each representative unit, DOE developed input power versus efficacy curves based on the data in the updated ACF database and then estimated the input powers associated with each efficiency level. Further details on DOE's methodology for estimating input powers are discussed in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
In this section, DOE discusses its approach to estimating MPCs for ACFs in this NOPR and discusses comments relating to its cost analysis in the October 2022 NODA. As discussed in section IV.C.1.d, the cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted using physical teardowns, catalog teardowns, price surveys, or a combination of these approaches. In the case of ACFs, DOE conducted its analysis using physical teardowns, which involve deconstructing equipment and recording every part and material used to make them. The resulting bill of materials (“BOM”) provided the basis for DOE's MPC estimates. DOE builds these MPCs based on the cumulative estimated cost of materials, labor, depreciation, and overhead for each equipment. Further details on these cost inputs can be found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
To support the October 2022 NODA, DOE estimated the MPCs of unhoused and housed ACFs across all efficiency levels and representative diameters using data gathered from teardowns of nine ACFs. 87 FR 62038, 62052. In the October 2022 NODA, DOE assumed that all ACFs were manufactured in China and that all materials and parts were sourced from China. DOE used the BOMs developed for each ACF and catalog teardowns to estimate MPCs for baseline ACFs. DOE then used incremental MPCs estimated for each design option to estimate MPCs for higher efficiency levels.
DOE made several updates to its MPC estimation approach pertaining to axial ACFs in this NOPR. First, DOE adjusted how it considered ACF housings compared to the October 2022 NODA. As discussed in section IV.A.1.b, DOE considered air circulating axial panel fans, box fans, cylindrical ACFs, and unhoused ACFHs under the axial ACFs class. To account for the different housing configurations used in these four subcategories, DOE developed separate MPC estimates for housed ACFs with panel housing, housed ACFs with cylindrical housing, and unhoused ACFHs. DOE assumed that the costs of box housing and panel housing were comparable; therefore, DOE did not generate separate MPC estimates for ACFs with box housing. DOE averaged the MPCs of air circulating axial panel fans (and box fans), cylindrical ACFs, and unhoused ACFHs to estimate an overall MPC for axial ACFs. DOE did not include the cost of mounting gear, casters, or wheels in its MPC estimates for any equipment class because these features do not affect the efficacy of an ACF. Second, based on information received during confidential manufacturer interviews and further review of the ACF market, DOE updated its assumptions about manufacturing location and the source of purchased parts for this NOPR. Specifically, DOE concluded that most ACFs are made in the United States and that most ACF manufacturers source parts from suppliers in the United States and abroad. DOE understands that there are variations between OEMs in the ACF industry and chose production factors and modeling methods to reflect the range of OEMs. Further details on the development of the MPC estimates for axial ACFs can be found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
DOE did not evaluate housed centrifugal ACFs in the October 2022 NODA. To develop the MPC estimates for housed centrifugal ACFs, DOE performed teardowns on three housed centrifugal ACFs and created BOMs for each. DOE assumed that all housed centrifugal ACFs are manufactured in China and that all parts were purchased in China based on its review of the housed centrifugal market. DOE used these BOMs and catalog teardowns to estimate MPCs for housed centrifugal ACFs. Further details of the development of the MPC estimates for housed centrifugal ACFs can be found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
In the October 2022 NODA, DOE assumed that motors included in ACFs are purchased parts and determined the incremental MPCs associated with changing from a split-phase motor to a low-efficiency PSC motor, high-efficiency PSC motor, or ECM using data in its internal parts database. 87 FR 62038, 62053. DOE did not have sufficient pricing information for split-phase motors, so DOE approximated the split-phase motor MPC using prices for shaded-pole motors for the October 2022 NODA.
In response to the October 2022 NODA, NEMA commented that DOE's estimated motor costs were lower than actual motor costs. NEMA further stated that the cost of motors for commercial applications would generally be lower than those for industrial applications. (NEMA, No. 125 at p. 6) In response to this feedback, DOE reevaluated its motor costs for this NOPR. DOE's research indicates that most ACFs are sold in higher volumes, which suggests a commercial market, rather than an industrial market. In general, DOE finds that industrial equipment is sold in lower volumes and is manufactured for specific applications, and DOE has not observed that ACFs are typically sold or manufactured in this way. Therefore, DOE did not consider a separate MPC for industrial ACFs in this NOPR. DOE reviewed market information for fan motors and determined current fan motor sales prices. As such, DOE believes that its updated motor costs are more representative of the current fan motor market than those estimated in the October 2022 NODA.
In this NOPR, DOE also reevaluated how it estimated motor costs. For both low-efficiency PSC motors and high-efficiency PSC motors, DOE identified specific PSC fan motors and used the costs of these motors to estimate MPCs. Rather than using a single motor cost, DOE determined a weighted-average motor cost at each hp in its updated
Additionally, as discussed in section IV.C.2.c of this NOPR, DOE received feedback from NEMA and AMCA that changing to a more-efficient motor could also require changes to fan design. Specifically, NEMA commented that changing ACF motor efficiencies could require the use of a larger, heavier motor and could therefore require other design changes to the fan. (NEMA, No. 125 at p. 2) AMCA stated that replacing a motor with a more-efficient motor may result in the need for aerodynamic redesign or redesign of a fan's mounting and supports because of differences in motor size, shape, or weight. (AMCA, No. 132 at p. 12)
To evaluate these concerns, DOE estimated costs to redesign an ACF if a larger motor replaced a smaller motor. DOE evaluated the effects of motor volume and motor weight when considering a change from a smaller motor to a larger motor. DOE found during ACF teardowns that there is sufficient space for an increase in motor volume without needing to redesign other fan components, such as housing or safety guards. Therefore, DOE assumed that the only redesign required for an ACF when switching to a larger motor would be to increase the weight of the motor supports to accommodate an increased motor weight, which is consistent with what DOE has observed in teardowns. DOE used data gathered during ACF teardowns to approximate a relationship between motor weight and the cost of motor support materials. DOE used this relationship to estimate the increase in cost that would be expected for a given increase in motor weight. DOE found that even for a 100-percent increase in motor weight, which DOE believes is highly conservative, motor support costs increased fan MPC by 1.5 percent or less. Therefore, DOE has tentatively concluded that additional material costs would be minimal if a manufacturer incorporated a heavier motor into an ACF.
For this NOPR, DOE evaluated belt drives and low-efficiency PSC motors as the baseline design options, as discussed in section IV.C.2.c. To determine the baseline costs, DOE first determined the cost of a baseline ACF without a motor or transmission (“bare-shaft ACF”) for each representative unit. Then, DOE added the costs determined for a belt drive and a low-efficiency PSC motor to the base-shaft ACF to calculate the MPC of the baseline ACF for each representative unit. DOE did not find a significant difference in MPC between belt drives associated with different motor hp, so DOE chose a single belt drive cost for each representative unit. Further details on belt drive costs and baseline MPCs can be found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
For this NOPR, DOE assigned a direct-drive transmission as the design option for EL 1. DOE assumed that a change from a belt-drive transmission to a direct-drive transmission would involve the removal of the belt drive with no other adjustments to the ACF. Therefore, for the 36-in. and 52-in. axial ACF representative units, DOE estimated the cost associated with this design option by subtracting the belt drive MPC from the baseline MPC. For the 24-in. axial ACF and housed centrifugal ACF representative units, DOE set the EL 1 MPC equal to the baseline MPC.
DOE assigned a high-efficiency PSC motor as the ACF design option for EL 2 in this NOPR. For all equipment classes, DOE determined the EL 2 MPC by adding the estimated cost difference between a high-efficiency PSC motor and a low-efficiency PSC motor to the EL 1 MPC. The MPCs DOE estimated for low-efficiency PSC motors and high-efficiency PSC motors are included in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
DOE associated EL 3, EL 4, and EL 5 in this NOPR with three different levels of aerodynamic redesign. In the October 2022 NODA, DOE defined a single aerodynamic redesign level at max-tech. DOE assumed that the redesign, reengineering, and new equipment that could be required for the aerodynamic redesign would result in a significant one-time conversion cost, such that aerodynamic redesigns would have a significantly greater impact on conversion costs than they would on MPCs. Therefore, DOE assumed that the change in MPC associated with the aerodynamic redesign was negligible compared to the conversion costs incurred by the manufacturer to implement this redesign. In this NOPR, DOE assumed that MPCs for EL 3, EL 4, and EL 5 were equal to the MPC for EL 2 for all equipment classes. DOE assumed that the complexity of ACF redesign would increase as ELs increase; therefore, DOE estimated that manufacturer investment in engineer time and equipment would increase with each EL. Information on DOE's estimated conversion costs can be found in section IV.J.2.c of this NOPR and in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
DOE defined an ECM as the design option for EL 6. For all equipment classes, DOE determined the EL 6 MPC by adding the estimated cost delta between an ECM and a high-efficiency PSC motor to the EL 5 MPC. The MPCs DOE estimated for high-efficiency PSC motors and ECMs can be found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit margin, DOE applies a multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (“MSP”) is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce. DOE developed an average manufacturer markup by examining the annual Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K reports filed by publicly traded manufacturers primarily engaged in air circulating fan manufacturing. DOE then adjusted these manufacturer markups based on feedback manufacturers during interviews. DOE used a manufacturer markup of 1.5 in this NOPR analysis. The manufacturer markups used in this NOPR are discussed in more detail in section IV.J.2.a of this document and in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. The MSPs determined for ACFs are shown in Table IV-14.
The results of the engineering analysis are reported as cost-efficiency data (or “curves”) in the form of FEI versus MSP (in dollars) for GFBs or efficacy versus MSP for ACFs.
For GFBs, as discussed in section IV.C.1.d, DOE developed baseline MSP versus diameter curves and incremental costs for each design option for each equipment class. DOE used these correlations to estimate the MSP at each EL for each equipment class at all nominal impeller diameters. As such, each equipment class has multiple MSP versus FEI curves representing the range of impeller diameters that exist on the market. As discussed in section IV.C.1.b, the FEIs at each EL remain constant for each equipment class, regardless of impeller diameter. These FEIs were developed by determining the FEIs for the baseline equipment and implementing design options above baseline until all available design options were employed (
For ACFs, DOE developed curves for each representative unit. The methodology for developing the curves started with determining the efficacy for baseline equipment and the MPCs for this equipment. Above the baseline, DOE implemented design options until all available design options were employed (
Table IV-15 provides example cost-efficiency results from the GFB engineering analysis for the axial inline equipment class. Results are provided at an impeller diameter of 15 in. and an impeller diameter of 48 in.; however, as noted previously, DOE applied the same relative increases in MSP to obtain results at all impeller diameters for GFBs.
Table IV-16 contains example cost-efficiency results from the ACF engineering analysis for the 24-in. representative unit. As noted previously, ACF results were not scaled to all impeller diameters. Rather, the cost-efficiency results in Table IV-16 are relevant to all ACFs with an impeller diameter greater than or equal to 12 in. and less than 36 in.
The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (
For GFBs, the main parties in the distribution chain are OEMs, distributors (including manufacturer in-house distributors), and contractors. DOE distinguished fan manufacturers in-house by OEMs from other fans and blowers and identified the distribution channels and associated fraction of shipments (
For ACFs, the main parties in the distribution chain distributors (including ACF manufacturer in-house distributors) and contractors. In the October 2022 NODA, DOE identified the distribution channels and fraction of shipments associated with each channel based on feedback from manufacturer interviews. 87 FR 62038, 62054. DOE did not receive any comments on these channels and relied on the same distribution channels for this NOPR. In addition, as discussed in section IV.F.5 of this document, DOE included a motor or belt replacement as potential repairs for ACFs. Therefore, DOE additionally identified distribution channels associated with the purchase of a replacement motor or belt.
DOE developed baseline and incremental markups for each actor in the distribution chain. Baseline markups are applied to the price of equipment with baseline efficiency, while incremental markups are applied to the difference in price between baseline and higher-efficiency models (the incremental cost increase). The incremental markup is typically less than the baseline markup and is designed to maintain similar per-unit operating profit before and after new or amended standards.
DOE relied on economic data from the U.S. Census Bureau as well as data from RS Means
Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE's development of markups for fans and blowers.
DOE seeks comment on the distribution channels identified for GFBs and ACFs and fraction of sales that go through each of these channels.
The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual energy consumption of fans and blowers at different efficiencies in representative applications, and to assess the energy savings potential of increased fan and blower efficiency. The energy use analysis estimates the range of energy use of fans and blowers in the field (
To characterize variability and uncertainty, the energy use is calculated for a representative sample of fan and blower consumers. This method of analysis, referred to as a Monte Carlo method, is explained in more detail in section IV.F of this document. Results of the energy use analysis for each equipment class group or representative unit were derived from a sample of 10,000 consumers. This section presents DOE's approach to develop consumer samples and energy use inputs that DOE applied in the energy use analysis.
For GFBs, annual energy use depends on the annual hours of operation, operating pressure and airflow, and load profile. It includes the electricity consumed by the motor driving the fan, as well as losses related to any belts and motor controller (
DOE developed a consumer sample to represent consumers of GFBs in the commercial and industrial sectors. DOE used the sample to determine fan and blower annual energy consumption as well as to conduct the LCC and PBP analyses.
To develop this sample, DOE used 2012 sales data from AMCA corresponding to 92,287 units sold
In addition, each consumer in the sample was assigned a sector and a configuration (
To develop distributions of annual operating hours, DOE relied on information from the MSMA report, which provides distributions of annual operating hours for fans used in the commercial and industrial sector.
DOE relied on the design flow and pressure, associated shaft input power, and fan configuration information of each fan in the sample to characterize the operating flow and pressure and associated shaft input power. DOE further relied on information from manufacturer interviews to estimate the share of fans that operate at constant load or at variable load by equipment class.
For fans operating at constant load, DOE reviewed information from the MSMA report which indicates that the majority of constant load fans operate at or above 75 percent of the motor full load.
For fans used at variable load, in the commercial sector, DOE relied on information previously provided by AHRI to develop a variable load profile (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006, AHRI, No. 129, at p. 2). In the industrial sector, DOE did not find any data to characterize the typical load profile and given the wide range of possible applications, DOE assumed equal weights at each of the considered load points.
NEEA commented that the assumptions made for the load profiles presented in the 2016 NODA LCC are outdated and that DOE should collect additional information on load profiles for fans and blowers.
In response to the October 2022 NODA, NEEA commented that DOE should account for different power load relationships associated with different fan control methods. NEEA stated that fans can operate below 100 percent of the design flow. NEEA noted that DOE captured this operation in its 2016 NODA analysis through the use of load profiles.
As noted by NEEA, different categories of controls result in different energy savings, which do not always follow the fan affinity laws. However, based on the MSMA report, DOE estimates that the majority of fans do not have load control (88 percent), and that the majority of fans with load control utilize VFDs (9 percent), while 1 percent of fans with load control rely on other categories of controls and another 1 percent of fans had an unknown configuration.
The fan energy use calculation includes motor, VFD (if present) and transmission (
DOE calculated the energy use of ACFs by combining ACF input power consumption from the engineering analysis with annual operating hours. For each consumer in the sample, DOE associates a value of ACF annual operating hours drawn from statistical distributions as described in the remainder of this section.
In the October 2022 NODA, DOE included commercial, industrial, and agricultural applications in the energy use analysis of ACFs with input power greater than or equal to 125 W. 87 FR 62038, 62056. DOE did not receive any comments on this approach. Accordingly, in the NOPR, DOE created a sample of 10,000 consumers for each representative unit to represent the range of air-circulating fan energy use in the commercial, industrial, and agricultural sectors.
In the October 2022 NODA, DOE estimated that air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to 125 W operate, on average, 12 hours per day, consistent with the hours of use estimated for large-diameter ceiling fans in the Ceiling Fan Preliminary Analysis.
In response to the October 2022 NODA, ebm-papst stated that the usages of agricultural fans, residential fans, commercial fans, and basket fans used for distribution transformers are all very different. (ebm-papst, No. 8 at p. 4) AMCA commented that ACFs and ceiling fans in commercial and industrial buildings serve similar functions during warmer months, which is to provide a low-energy method for cooling. AMCA added however that ACFs are often not used during cooler months, while ceiling fans are either used in a reversed direction mode or run at a lower speed. Therefore, only ceiling fan usage during warmer months can be used as a proxy for ACF usage, and the annual operating hours of ceiling fans will be greater than those of ACFs. AMCA added that ACFs used for horticulture applications may have different usage hours than that of other ACFs or ceiling fans. (AMCA, No. 132 at p. 13)
DOE established the annual operating hours as the product of the daily operating hours and the number of operating days per year. In line with the information presented in the October 2022 NODA, for all ACFs except centrifugal housed ACFs, DOE assumed average daily operating hours of 12 hours per day. To reflect the variability in usage by application as noted by ebm-papst, DOE relied on a uniform distribution between 6 and 18 hours per day. For centrifugal housed ACFs, DOE relied on lower operating hours as these fans are primarily used for carpet drying applications and are less likely to operate 12 hours per day on average. DOE did not receive any feedback on daily operating hours and assumed average daily operating hours of 6 hours per day. To represent a range of possible operating hours around this representative value, DOE relied on a uniform distribution between 0 hours per day and 12 hours per day.
With the exception of centrifugal housed ACFs, ACFs are primarily used for cooling purposes in the commercial sector (
In the October 2022 NODA, DOE described that DOE may consider calculating the energy use by combining air circulating fan input power consumption in each mode (
Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE's energy use analysis for fans and blowers.
DOE seeks comment on the overall methodology and inputs used to estimate GFBs and ACFs energy use. Specifically, for GFBs, DOE seeks feedback on the methodology and assumptions used to determine the operating point(s) both for constant and variable load fans. For ACFs, DOE requests feedback on the average daily operating hours, annual days of operation by sector and application, and input power assumptions. In addition, DOE requests feedback on the market share of GFBs and ACFs by sector (
DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for fans and blowers. The effect of new or amended energy conservation standards on individual consumers usually involves a reduction in operating costs and an increase in purchase cost. DOE used the following two metrics to measure consumer impacts:
• The LCC is the total consumer expense of the equipment over the life of that equipment, consisting of total installed cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the equipment.
• The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of more efficient equipment through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.
For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the estimated efficiency distribution of fans and blowers in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards. The PBP for a given efficiency level is also measured relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution.
For each considered TSL in each equipment class, DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of consumers. As stated previously, DOE developed consumer samples from a variety of data sources as described in section IV.F of this document. For each sample consumer, DOE determined the energy consumption for the fans and blowers and the appropriate energy price. By developing a representative sample of consumers, the analysis captured the variability in energy consumption and energy prices associated with the use of fans and blowers.
Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost of the equipment—which includes MPCs, manufacturer markups (including the additional manufacturer conversion cost markups where appropriate), retailer and distributor markups, and sales taxes—and installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and maintenance costs, equipment lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE created distributions of values for equipment lifetime, discount rates, and sales taxes, with probabilities attached to each value, to account for their uncertainty and variability.
The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC relies on a Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input values from the probability distributions and fan and blower user samples. The model calculates the LCC for equipment at each efficiency level for 10,000 consumers per simulation run and equipment class. The analytical results include a distribution of 10,000 data points showing the range of LCC savings for a given efficiency level relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. In performing an iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation for a given consumer, equipment efficiency is chosen based on its probability. If the chosen equipment efficiency is greater than or equal to the efficiency of the standard level under consideration, the LCC calculation reveals that a consumer is not impacted by the standard level. By accounting for consumers who already purchase more efficient equipment, DOE avoids overstating the potential benefits from increasing equipment efficiency.
DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for consumers of fans and blowers as if each were to purchase new equipment in the expected year of required compliance with new or amended standards. New standards would apply to fans and blowers manufactured 5 years after the date on which any new standard is published. (42 U.S.C 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(2)) At this time, DOE estimates publication of a final rule in the second half of 2024. Therefore, for the purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2030 as the first full year of compliance with any new standards for fans and blowers.
Table IV-18 Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis* summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow provide further discussion. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD and its appendices.
In response to the October 2022 NODA, AMCA commented that DOE should refer to interviews with individual manufacturers for feedback on the inputs and considered methods used for the LCC and PBP analyses. (AMCA, No. 132 at p. 14) As noted throughout this section, DOE relied on input from manufacturer interviews where available.
To calculate equipment costs, DOE multiplied the MSPs developed in the engineering analysis by the distribution channel markups described previously (along with sales taxes). DOE used different markups for baseline equipment and higher-efficiency equipment because DOE applies an incremental markup to the increase in MSP associated with higher-efficiency equipment. Further, as described in section IV.C of this document, at ELs with associated manufacturer conversion costs, DOE applied a manufacturer conversion markup when calculating the equipment price of re-designed units.
Economic literature and historical data suggest that the real costs of many products may trend downward over time according to “learning” or “experience” curves. Experience curve analysis implicitly includes factors such as efficiencies in labor, capital investment, automation, materials prices, distribution, and economies of scale at an industry-wide level.
For GFBs, to develop an equipment price trend for the NOPR, DOE derived an inflation-adjusted index of the Producer Price Index (PPI) for industrial and commercial fans and blowers equipment over the period 2003-2022.
For ACFs, DOE did not find PPI data specific to ACFs, and instead, DOE adopted a component-based approach to develop a price trend by identifying ACF components most likely to undergo a price variation over the forecast period. Using this approach, the price trend only applies to the cost of the component and not to the total cost of the ACF. For EL0 through EL5, which are efficiency levels that assume AC induction motors, DOE determined that ACF motors are the most likely component to undergo price variation over time and analyzed long-term trends in the integral and fractional horsepower motors PPI series.
DOE requests feedback on the price trends developed for GFBs and ACFs.
Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and parts needed to install the equipment.
For GFBs, DOE found no evidence that installation costs would be impacted with increased efficiency levels and did not include installation costs in its analysis, except at efficiency levels where an increase in size is assumed (
For ACFs, DOE stated in the October 2022 NODA that it found no evidence that installation costs would be impacted with increased efficiency levels and, as a result, DOE was not planning on including installation costs in the LCC. 87 FR 62038, 62058. DOE did not receive any comments to the October 2022 NODA related to installation costs and continued with this approach for ACFs.
DOE requests feedback on the installation costs developed for GFBs and on whether installation costs of ACFs may increase at higher ELs.
For each sampled consumer, DOE determined the energy consumption for a fan at different efficiency levels using the approach described previously in section IV.E of this document.
Because marginal electricity prices more accurately capture the incremental savings associated with a change in energy use from higher efficiency, they provide a better representation of incremental change in consumer costs than average electricity prices. Therefore, DOE applied average electricity prices for the energy use of the equipment purchased in the no-new-standards case, and marginal electricity prices for the incremental change in energy use associated with the other efficiency levels considered.
DOE derived electricity prices in 2022 using data from EEI Typical Bills and Average Rates reports. Based upon comprehensive, industry-wide surveys, this semi-annual report presents typical monthly electric bills and average kilowatt-hour costs to the customer as charged by investor-owned utilities. For the commercial and industrial sector, DOE calculated electricity prices using the methodology described in Coughlin and Beraki (2019).
DOE's methodology allows electricity prices to vary by sector, region, and season. In the analysis, variability in electricity prices is chosen to be consistent with the way the consumer economic and energy use characteristics are defined in the LCC analysis. For fans and blowers, DOE considered sector-specific electricity prices.
To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the 2022 energy prices by the projection of annual average price changes from the Reference case in
Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing equipment components that have failed in an appliance; maintenance costs are associated with maintaining the operation of the equipment. Typically, small incremental increases in equipment efficiency entail no, or only minor, changes in repair and maintenance costs compared to baseline efficiency equipment.
For GFBs, DOE found no evidence that maintenance and repair costs would be impacted with increased efficiency levels. Therefore, because DOE expresses results in terms of LCC savings, DOE did not account for maintenance and repair costs in the LCC.
For ACFs, in the October 2022 NODA, DOE stated that it did not find any information supporting changes in maintenance costs as a function of efficiency. 87 FR 62038, 62058. DOE did not receive any comments in response to the October 2022 NODA related to maintenance costs; DOE continues to believe these do not vary by efficiency and did not include maintenance costs in its analysis.
In the October 2022 NODA, DOE identified the motor replacement as a potential repair for ACFs. DOE requested feedback on its assumptions about repair practices of ACFs. 87 FR 62038, 62058.
In response, AMCA commented that belt replacement could be the only significant maintenance or repair necessary for ACFs. AMCA added that DOE should reference manufacturer interviews for further information. AMCA added that ACFs are often used in environments with harsher conditions than other fans and experience higher temperatures, higher moisture content, higher particulate concentrations, and more power source fluctuations than do other fans. Because of this, AMCA stated that ACF repairs and replacements are more frequent than for other fans. (AMCA, No. 132 at pp. 14-15)
For ACFs, DOE found no evidence that maintenance costs would be impacted with increased efficiency levels and did not include maintenance costs in its analysis. However, DOE did include repair costs associated with belt repair at EL 0, which represents belt driven ACFs as appropriate. In addition, although stakeholder feedback did not indicate the possibility of a motor repair for ACFs, DOE identified several ACF manufacturers offering replacement motors. DOE assumed such repair is not frequent as it was not identified as a potential repair by stakeholders. Therefore, DOE assumed that only 5 percent of ACFs include a motor repair and estimated the repair costs associated with motor replacement. In order to calculate these repair costs, DOE relied on inputs from the engineering analysis.
DOE requests feedback on whether the maintenance and repair costs of GFBs may increase at higher ELs. Specifically, DOE requests comments on the frequency of motor replacements for ACFs. DOE also requests comments on whether the maintenance and repair costs of ACFs may increase at higher ELs and on the repair costs developed for ACFs.
For GFBs, in the NODA DOE used average lifetimes of 30 years in the industrial sector based on input from a subject matter expert, and 15 years in the commercial sector based on the expected lifetimes of HVAC equipment. Across all sectors and equipment classes, the average lifetime for GFBs is 16 years. To characterize the range of possible lifetimes, DOE developed Weibull distributions of equipment lifetimes.
For ACFs, in the October 2022 NODA, DOE stated that it did not find lifetime data specific to ACFs and was considering using 30 years, similar to GFBs lifetimes in a previous DOE analysis. (November 2016 NODA)
In response to the October 2022 NODA, AMCA commented that DOE should assume a lifetime of 10 years instead of 30, because ACFs often are used in non-conditioned spaces or agricultural environments that expose them to dust, debris, moisture, and other debilitating factors. In addition, AMCA stated that in a previous report,
In this analysis, as suggested by AMCA, DOE relied on separate lifetimes for ACFs and GFBs. DOE considered two separate lifetimes for ACFs depending on whether the lifetime included a motor replacement or not. For ACFs that do not include a motor replacement, DOE assumed the average lifetime was equal to the estimated average motor lifetime of 6 years based on input from manufacturer interviews. DOE believes this value is more representative of ACF motor lifetimes as it is more recent and specific to the ACFs compared to the estimate provided by AMCA, which relied on a general motor and pump study published in 1980. For ACFs that include a motor replacement, DOE assumed an average lifetime of 12 years (
DOE requests comments on the average lifetime estimates used for GFBs and ACFs.
In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate for consumers to estimate the present value of future operating cost savings. DOE estimated a distribution of discount rates for fans and blowers based on the opportunity cost of consumer funds.
DOE applies weighted average discount rates calculated from consumer debt and asset data, rather than marginal or implicit discount rates.
To establish commercial, industrial, and agricultural discount rates for fans and blowers, DOE estimated the weighted-average cost of capital using data from Damodaran Online.
DOE did not receive any comments related to discount rates.
To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be affected by a potential energy conservation standard at a particular efficiency level, DOE's LCC analysis considered the projected distribution (market shares) of equipment efficiencies under the no-new-standards case (
To estimate the energy efficiency distribution of GFBs for 2030, DOE relied on the 2012 AMCA sales data from the sample (
In the October 2022 NODA, DOE stated that it would rely on information from the BESS Labs dataset to develop efficiency distribution and that it would randomly assign an equipment efficiency to each consumer drawn from the consumer samples. 87 FR 62038, 62060. DOE did not receive any comments on this topic.
For ACFs, DOE collected model performance data from the BESS Labs database as well as information from manufacturer catalogs. As noted in section IV.A.1.a, the BESS Labs database contains fans with higher efficiencies than the overall ACF market and is not representative of the ACF market as a whole. DOE collected catalog data from manufacturer and distributor websites to supplement the BESS Labs database. DOE relied on the performance data from both datasets establish the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution of ACFs in 2030 and used a weighted average when calculating the overall efficiency distributions to reflect that fact that the models in the BESS Labs database are representative of the top of the market in terms of efficiency.
The LCC Monte Carlo simulations draw from the efficiency distributions and randomly assign an efficiency to the fans and blowers purchased by each sample consumer in the no-new-standards case. The resulting percentage shares within the sample match the market shares in the efficiency distributions.
DOE requests feedback and information on the no-new-standards case efficiency distributions used to characterize the market of GFBs and ACFs. DOE requests information to support any efficiency trends over time for GFBs and ACFs.
The payback period is the amount of time (expressed in years) it takes the consumer to recover the additional installed cost of more-efficient equipment, compared to the no-new-standards case equipment, through energy cost savings. Payback periods that exceed the life of the equipment mean that the increased total installed cost is not recovered in reduced operating expenses.
The inputs to the PBP calculation for each efficiency level are the change in total installed cost of the equipment and the change in the first-year annual operating expenditures relative to the baseline. DOE refers to this as a “simple PBP” because it does not consider changes over time in operating cost savings. The PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis when deriving first-year operating costs.
As noted previously, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing equipment complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C
DOE uses projections of annual equipment shipments to calculate the national impacts of potential amended or new energy conservation standards on energy use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows.
DOE first estimated total shipments in the base year. For fans sold as a standalone equipment by equipment class, DOE relied on the estimate in the November 2016 NODA, which relied on a market research report,
AHRI provided feedback on shipments values published in the November 2016 NODA. Specifically, AHRI disagreed with DOE's estimate of air handling units and estimated the shipments to be 65,000 units per year. AHRI further commented that 75 percent of these units have variable air volume (“VAV”) capability, and that 60-70% of those are equipped with variable speed drives; AHRI questioned whether DOE accounted for this in its energy use analysis. Finally, AHRI commented that they identified approximately 40 percent of air handling units with either a return or an exhaust fan, as opposed to 50 percent assumed in the November 2016 NODA. (AHRI, No. 130 at pp. 7-8)
DOE reviewed the information provided by AHRI and agrees with the more recent shipments estimate of 65,000 units per year. In addition, DOE accounted for variable load operation in its energy use analysis as described in section IV.E.1 of this document. However, DOE did not estimate the percentage of VAV units by HVAC equipment but by GFBs equipment class (up to 65 percent depending on the equipment class). Finally, for this NOPR, DOE estimated the percentage of air handling units with either a return or an exhaust fan as 30 percent based on more recent input from manufacturer interviews.
AHRI disagreed with DOE's estimate of panel fans per air-cooled water chiller and the number of air-cooled water chillers shipped. AHRI stated that the average number of panel fans per unit is seven instead of the DOE estimate of 14 in the November 2016 NODA. AHRI also stated that the number of air-cooled chillers shipped is 26,000 per year. (AHRI, No. 130 at pp. 9-10)
DOE reviewed the information provided by AHRI as well as additional information from previous comments estimating average annual shipments of air-cooled chillers to 27,000 units per year based on the U.S. Census MA35M/MA333M series.
AHRI disagreed with DOE's estimate of commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps with and without return/exhaust fans. AHRI stated that less than 10 percent of units under 240,000 Btu/h have return/exhaust fans and about 70 percent of units over 240,000 Btu/h have return/exhaust fans. AHRI also commented that 80 percent of units over 240,000 Btu/h have variable speed drives and VAVs. AHRI commented that these estimates were based on a survey of its members. (AHRI, No. 130 at p. 9)
DOE reviewed the information provided by AHRI and agrees with the more recent percentage values to estimate the fraction of units with a return or exhaust fan. As such DOE relied on these estimates rather than on the values published in the November 2016 NODA to estimate the number of fans per unit in commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps.
To project shipments of fans in the industrial sector, DOE assumed in the no-new-standards case that the long-term growth of fan shipments will be driven by long-term growth of fixed investments in equipment including fans, which follow the same trend as the gross domestic product (“GDP”). DOE relied on fixed investment data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and
DOE also derived high and low shipments projections based on
DOE further assumed that standards would have a negligible impact on fan shipments and applied a zero price-elasticity under standards cases. It is likely that following a standard, rather than foregoing a fan purchase under a standards case, a consumer might simply switch brands or fans to purchase a fan that is best suited for their application. As a result, DOE used the same shipments projections in the standards case as in the no-new-standards case.
DOE requests feedback on the methodology and inputs used to project shipments of GFBs in the no-new-standards case. DOE requests comments and feedback on the potential impact of standards on GFB shipments and information to help quantify these impacts.
In the October 2022 NODA, DOE estimated total shipments of ACFs to over 2 million using information from manufacturer interviews indicating shipments estimates of 494,950 units of unhoused air circulating fan heads and 255,100 units of cylindrical air circulating fans and applying expansion factors to determine the shipments of other categories of ACFs included in the scope. 87 FR 62038, 62061. DOE did not
For this NOPR, DOE reviewed the information from manufacturer interviews and has determined that the shipments estimates provided were for the total market of axial ACFs (rather than specific to unhoused air circulating fan heads and cylindrical air circulating fans only, as previously determined). In addition, DOE estimated that housed centrifugal ACFs represent one percent of the total ACF market based on the small number of manufacturers identified in the catalog data collected by DOE from manufacturer and distributor websites.
In the October 2022 NODA, DOE estimated that shipments of ACFs follow similar trends as shipments of large-diameter ceiling fans. Therefore, DOE stated that it was considering projecting shipments of air circulating fans with input power greater than or equal to 125 W based on the growth rates projected for shipments of large-diameter ceiling fans.
DOE agrees with the qualitative comment from ebm-papst regarding the potential causes for future ACF market growth. However, DOE notes that this information does not allow for a quantitative estimation of projected shipments. DOE did not receive any additional feedback on this approach and applied this methodology in the NOPR. In 2030, DOE estimates the total shipments of fans to be 1.30 million units.
DOE requests feedback on the methodology and inputs used to estimate and project shipments of ACFs in the no-new-standards case. DOE requests comments and feedback on the potential impact of standards on ACF shipments and information to help quantify these impacts.
The NIA assesses the national energy savings (“NES”) and the NPV from a national perspective of total consumer costs and savings that would be expected to result from new or amended standards at specific efficiency levels.
DOE evaluates the impacts of new or amended standards by comparing a case without such standards with standards-case projections. The no-new-standards case characterizes energy use and consumer costs for each equipment class in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards. For this projection, DOE considers historical trends in efficiency and various forces that are likely to affect the mix of efficiencies over time. DOE compares the no-new-standards case with projections characterizing the market for each equipment class if DOE adopted new or amended standards at specific energy efficiency levels (
DOE uses a spreadsheet model to calculate the energy savings and the national consumer costs and savings from each TSL. Interested parties can review DOE's analyses by changing various input quantities within the spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet model uses typical values (as opposed to probability distributions) as inputs.
Table IV-21 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA analysis for the NOPR. Discussion of these inputs and methods follows the table.
A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency projected for the no-new-standards case and each of the standards cases. Section IV.F.8 of this document describes how DOE developed an energy efficiency distribution for the no-new-standards case (which yields a shipment-weighted average efficiency) for each of the considered equipment classes for the first full year of anticipated compliance with an amended or new standard. To project the trend in efficiency absent amended standards for GFBs and ACFS over the entire shipments projection period, DOE assumed a constant efficiency trend. The approach is further described in chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD.
For the standards cases, DOE used a “roll-up” scenario to establish the shipment-weighted efficiency for the first full year that standards are assumed to become effective (2030). In this scenario, the market shares of equipment in the no-new-standards case that do not meet the standard under consideration would “roll up” to meet the new standard level, and the market share of equipment above the standard would remain unchanged.
To develop standards case efficiency trends after 2030, DOE assumed a constant efficiency trend, similar to the no-new standards case.
The national energy savings analysis involves a comparison of national energy consumption of the considered equipment between each potential standards case (“TSL”) and the case with no new or amended energy conservation standards. DOE calculated the national energy consumption by multiplying the number of units (stock) of each equipment (by vintage or age) by the unit energy consumption (also by vintage). DOE calculated annual NES based on the difference in national energy consumption for the no-new standards case and for each higher efficiency standard case. DOE estimated energy consumption and savings based on site energy and converted the electricity consumption and savings to primary energy (
Use of higher-efficiency equipment is sometimes associated with a direct rebound effect, which refers to an increase in utilization of the equipment due to the increase in efficiency. For example, when a consumer realizes that a more efficient fan used for cooling will lower the electricity bill, that person may opt for increased comfort in the building by using the equipment more, thereby negating a portion of the energy savings. In commercial buildings, however, the person owning the equipment (
DOE requests comment and data regarding the potential increase in utilization of GFBs and ACFs due to any increase in efficiency.
In 2011, in response to the recommendations of a committee on “Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy Efficiency Standards” appointed by the National Academy of Sciences, DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of energy use and greenhouse gas and other emissions in the national impact analyses and emissions analyses included in future energy conservation standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, DOE published a statement of amended policy in which DOE explained its determination that EIA's National Energy Modeling System (“NEMS”) is the most appropriate tool for its FFC analysis and its intention to use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public domain, multi-sector, partial equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector
The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits experienced by consumers are (1) total annual installed cost, (2) total annual operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance costs), and (3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and savings. DOE calculates net savings each year as the difference between the no-new-standards case and each standards case in terms of total savings in operating costs versus total increases in installed costs. DOE calculates operating cost savings over the lifetime of each equipment shipped during the projection period.
As discussed in section IV.F.1 of this document, DOE developed price trends for GFBs and ACFs based on historical PPI data. DOE applied the same trends to project prices for each equipment class at each considered efficiency level.
For GFBs, DOE applied constant equipment price trends. For ACFs, DOE also applied a constant price trend except for ACFs at EL6 where a declining price trend was used. By 2059, which is the end date of the projection period, the average ACF price at EL6 is projected to drop 14 percent relative to 2022. DOE's projection of product prices is described in appendix 10C of the NOPR TSD.
To evaluate the effect of uncertainty regarding the price trend estimates, DOE investigated the impact of different product price projections on the consumer NPV for the considered TSLs for GFBs and ACFs. In addition to the default price trend, DOE considered two product price sensitivity cases: (1) a high price decline case based on historical PPI data and (2) a low price decline case based on the
The energy cost savings are calculated using the estimated energy savings in each year and the projected price of the appropriate form of energy. To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the average regional energy prices by the projection of annual national-average commercial and industrial energy price changes in the Reference case from
In addition, for ACFs, the NPV calculation also includes the total repair costs which are calculated based on the outputs from the life-cycle analysis.
In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this NOPR, DOE estimated the NPV of consumer benefits using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent real discount rate. DOE uses these discount rates in accordance with guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory analysis.
In analyzing the potential impact of new or amended energy conservation standards on consumers, DOE evaluates the impact on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be disproportionately affected by a new or amended national standard. The purpose of a subgroup analysis is to determine the extent of any such disproportional impacts. DOE evaluates impacts on particular subgroups of consumers by analyzing the LCC impacts and PBP for those particular consumers from alternative standard levels. For this NOPR, DOE analyzed the impacts of the considered standard levels on small businesses. DOE used the LCC and PBP spreadsheet model to estimate the impacts of the considered efficiency levels on these subgroups, and used inputs specific to that subgroup. Chapter 11 in the NOPR TSD describes the consumer subgroup analysis.
DOE performed an MIA to estimate the financial impacts of new energy conservation standards on manufacturers of fans and blowers and to estimate the potential impacts of such standards on employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA has both quantitative and qualitative aspects and includes analyses of projected industry cash flows, the INPV, investments in research and development (“R&D”) and manufacturing capital, and domestic manufacturing employment. Additionally, the MIA seeks to determine how new energy conservation standards might affect manufacturing employment, capacity, and competition, as well as how standards contribute to overall regulatory burden. Finally, the MIA serves to identify any disproportionate impacts on manufacturer subgroups, including small business manufacturers.
The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies on the GRIM, an industry cash flow model with inputs specific to this rulemaking. The key GRIM inputs include data on the industry cost structure, unit production costs, equipment shipments, manufacturer markups, and investments in R&D and manufacturing capital required to produce compliant equipment. The key GRIM outputs are the INPV, which is the sum of industry annual cash flows over the analysis period, discounted using the industry-weighted average cost of capital, and the impact on domestic manufacturing employment. The model uses standard accounting principles to estimate the impacts of new energy conservation standards on a given industry by comparing changes in INPV and domestic manufacturing employment between a no-new-standards case and the various standards cases (
The qualitative part of the MIA addresses manufacturer characteristics and market trends. Specifically, the MIA
DOE conducted the MIA for this rulemaking in three phases. In Phase 1 of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of the fan and blower manufacturing industry based on the market and technology assessment, preliminary manufacturer interviews, and publicly available information. This included a top-down analysis of fan and blower manufacturers that DOE used to derive preliminary financial inputs for the GRIM (
In Phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared a framework industry cash flow analysis to quantify the potential impacts of new energy conservation standards. The GRIM uses several factors to determine a series of annual cash flows starting with the announcement of the standard and extending over a 30-year period following the compliance date of the standard. These factors include annual expected revenues, costs of sales, SG&A and R&D expenses, taxes, and capital expenditures. In general, energy conservation standards can affect manufacturer cash flow in three distinct ways: (1) creating a need for increased investment, (2) raising production costs per unit, and (3) altering revenue due to higher per-unit prices and changes in sales volumes.
In addition, during Phase 2, DOE developed interview guides to distribute to manufacturers of fans and blowers in order to develop other key GRIM inputs, including capital and product conversion costs, and to gather additional information on the anticipated effects of energy conservation standards on revenues, direct employment, capital assets, industry competitiveness, and subgroup impacts.
In Phase 3 of the MIA, DOE conducted structured, detailed interviews with representative manufacturers. During these interviews, DOE discussed engineering, manufacturing, procurement, and financial topics to validate assumptions used in the GRIM and to identify key issues or concerns.
DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in cash flow due to new energy conservation standards that result in a higher or lower industry value. The GRIM uses a standard, annual discounted cash flow analysis that incorporates manufacturer costs, markups, shipments, and industry financial information as inputs. The GRIM models changes in costs, distribution of shipments, investments, and manufacturer margins that could result from new energy conservation standards. The GRIM spreadsheet uses the inputs to arrive at a series of annual cash flows, beginning in 2024 (the base year of the analysis) and continuing to 2059. DOE calculated INPVs by summing the stream of annual discounted cash flows during this period. For manufacturers of fans and blowers, DOE used a real discount rate of 11.4 percent, which was derived from industry financials and then modified according to feedback received during manufacturer interviews.
The GRIM calculates cash flows using standard accounting principles and compares changes in INPV between the no-new-standards case and each standards case. The difference in INPV between the no-new-standards case and a standards case represents the financial impact of the new energy conservation standards on manufacturers. As discussed previously, DOE developed critical GRIM inputs using a number of sources, including publicly available data, results of the engineering analysis, and information gathered from industry stakeholders during the course of manufacturer interviews and subsequent Working Group meetings. The GRIM results are presented in section V.B.2. Additional details about the GRIM, the discount rate, and other financial parameters can be found in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
Manufacturing more efficient equipment is typically more expensive than manufacturing baseline equipment due to the use of more complex components, which are typically more costly than baseline components. The changes in the MPCs of covered equipment can affect the revenues, gross margins, and cash flow of the industry.
For GFBs, DOE developed baseline MSP versus diameter curves and incremental costs for each design option for each equipment class. DOE used these correlations to estimate the MSP at each EL for each equipment class at all nominal impeller diameters. As such, each equipment class has multiple MSP versus FEI curves representing the range of impeller diameters that exist on the market. For ACFs, DOE developed curves for each representative unit. The methodology for developing the curves started with determining the efficiency for baseline equipment and the MPCs for this equipment. Above the baseline, DOE implemented design options until all available design options were employed (
For a complete description of the MPCs,
The GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues based on total unit shipment projections and the distribution of those shipments by efficiency level. Changes in sales volumes and efficiency mix over time can significantly affect manufacturer finances. For this analysis, the GRIM uses the NIA's annual shipment projections derived from the shipments analysis from 2024 (the base year) to 2059 (the end year of the analysis period).
New energy conservation standards could cause manufacturers to incur conversion costs to bring their production facilities and equipment designs into compliance. DOE evaluated the level of conversion-related
In response to the October 2022 NODA, AMCA commented that DOE should conduct interviews with individual manufacturers to gather information regarding potential conversion costs for fan and blower manufacturers. (AMCA, No. 132 at p. 12) DOE conducted manufacturer interviews with several interested parties, including several fan and blower manufacturers, after the publication of the October 2022 NODA and prior to conducting this NOPR analysis. The results and methodology for estimating conversion costs are described in this section.
DOE used a bottom-up cost estimate to arrive at a total product conversion cost at each EL for all equipment classes. DOE first estimated the number of unique basic models for each equipment class and at each EL using the AMCA sales database for GFBs and the updated ACF database for ACFs. Next, DOE estimated the percentage of models that would not meet each analyzed EL based on information from the appropriate database. DOE also estimated the percentage of failing models that are assumed to be redesigned at each analyzed EL. DOE then estimated the amount of engineering time needed to redesign and test a single non-compliant basic model into a compliant model and the time necessary to conduct additional air, sound, and certification testing once the model is redesigned. DOE used data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
DOE estimated the capital conversion costs based on information received during manufacturer interviews. During manufacturer interviews, manufacturers provided estimates on the percentage of total conversion costs that would be associated with the purchasing on equipment and machinery (capital conversion costs) and the percentage of total conversion costs that would be associated with engineering resources to conduct redesigns and testing (product conversion costs). In addition to assuming increased product costs at higher ELs, DOE also assumed that the ratio of product conversion costs to capital conversion costs would decrease at higher ELs (
CA IOUs stated that some ACF manufacturers purchase the impellors that they use rather than design and manufacture them in-house. Therefore, CA IOUs stated purchasing more efficient impeller designs may be possible without significant design and capital costs. (CA IOUs, No. 127 at p.3) DOE conducted manufacturer interviews with a variety of ACF manufacturers. The cost estimates included in this analysis assume that ACF manufacturers produce their impellors in-house. While some ACF manufacturers might purchase impellors from another company, whatever company that is manufacturing the more efficient impellors is will incur additional product and capital conversion costs and those costs will likely be passed on to their customers. Section IV.J.2.d discusses how an increase in product and capital conversion costs (regardless of if an impellor manufacturer or an ACF manufacturer incurs them) could result in an increased ACF MSP that is incorporated into all down-stream and consumer analyses.
In general, DOE assumes all conversion-related investments occur between the year of publication of the final rule and the year by which manufacturers must comply with the new standard. The conversion cost figures used in the GRIM can be found in section V.B.2 of this document. For additional information on the estimated capital and product conversion costs,
MSPs include direct manufacturing production costs (
Under the conversion cost recovery markup scenario, DOE modeled a scenario in which manufacturers increase their markups in response to new energy conservation standards. For
Under the preservation of operating profit markup scenario, DOE modeled a markup scenario where manufacturers are not able to increase their per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in MPCs. Under this scenario, as the MPCs increase, manufacturers reduce their markups (on a percentage basis) to a level that maintains the no-new-standards operating profit (in absolute dollars). The implicit assumption behind this manufacturer markup scenario is that the industry can only maintain its operating profit in absolute dollars after compliance with new standards. Therefore, the percentage of the operating margin is reduced between the no-new-standards case and the analyzed standards cases. DOE adjusted the manufacturer markups in the GRIM at each TSL to yield approximately the same earnings before interest and taxes in the standards case as in the no-new-standards case. This manufacturer markup scenario represents the lower bound to industry profitability under new energy conservation standards.
A comparison of industry financial impacts under the two manufacturer markup scenarios is presented in section V.B.2.a of this document.
DOE interviewed a variety of fan and blower manufacturers prior to conducting this NOPR analysis. During these interviews, DOE asked manufacturers to describe their major concerns regarding this rulemaking. The following section highlights manufacturer concerns that helped inform the projected potential impacts of a new standard on the industry. Manufacturer interviews are conducted under non-disclosure agreements (“NDAs”), so DOE does not document these discussions in the same way that it does public comments in the comment summaries and DOE's responses throughout the rest of this document.
Several fan and blower manufacturers stated that they are concerned that including fans and blowers that are embedded in other products or equipment already regulated by DOE creates redundant regulations. Additionally, manufacturers stated that the electricity used by the fan or blower in these systems is a relatively insignificant portion of the energy consumed by the entire system. Lastly, manufacturers stated that increasing the efficiency of a fan or blower used in a product or equipment already regulated by DOE could limit the effectiveness of a future energy conservation standard on the performance of those products or equipment covered by DOE.
DOE is proposing to exclude fans and blowers that are embedded in specific types of equipment. Table III-1 lists the embedded fans and blowers that are excluded from the scope of this energy conservation standards rulemaking.
Several fan and blower manufacturers stated that a concern that compliance with energy conservation standards would require fan and blower manufacturers to test all covered fans and blowers. Manufacturers specifically are concerned that the legacy testing data that they have already conducted for the AMCA certification testing program would need to be re-tested to demonstrate compliance with a DOE energy conservation standard. As stated in the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE understands that manufacturers of fans and blowers likely have historical test data which were developed with methods consistent with the DOE test procedure adopted in the May 2023 Final Rule, and does not expect manufacturers to regenerate all of the historical test data unless the rating resulting from the historical methods would no longer be valid. 88 FR 27312, 27378.
Additionally, manufacturers were concerned that requiring a test sample of two fans or blowers would be overly burdensome for manufacturers to comply with an energy conservation standard. As stated in the May 2023 TP Final Rule “DOE believe it is appropriate to allow a minimum of one unit for fans and blowers other than air circulating fans” to be tested to comply with any DOE energy conservation standard. 88 FR 27312, 27378.
Lastly, some manufacturers were concerned that if DOE did not allow the use of an alternative energy determination method (“AEDM”) to determine fan performance, manufacturers would have to physically test all covered fans and blowers. Manufacturers stated that physically testing every fan and blower would place a larger and costly testing burden on manufacturers. As stated in the May 2023 TP Final Rule, “DOE allows the use of an AEDM in lieu of testing to determine fan performance, which would mitigate the potential cost associated with having to physically test units.” 88 FR 27312, 27372.
AHRI stated that for end-use products (
AHRI stated that there is a significant monetary impact for OEMs for a fan swap, as a significant amount of re-testing and potential re-certification would need to be conducted for a fan swap, even if the size of the cabinet does not change. AHRI stated that based on a review of their AHRI Certification Program they identified approximately 6,000 basic models that have a covered fan embedded in these end-use products. AHRI continued by stating they estimate it would cost approximately $300,000 for each end-use product basic model that would be required to incorporate a new fan if the existing fan used in their end-use product does not comply with DOE's energy conservation standards for that fan. (AHRI, No. 130 at p. 6-7) DOE acknowledges that OEMs may incur re-testing and re-certification costs if the fan used in their equipment does not meet the adopted energy conservation standard for fans. The MIA for this rulemaking specifically examines the conversion costs that fan and blower manufacturers would incur due to the analyzed energy conservation standards for fans and blowers in comparison to the revenue and free cash fan and blower manufacturers receive. The OEM testing and certification costs were not included in the MIA, and neither were the OEM revenues and free cash flows, as these costs and revenue are not specific to fan and blower manufacturers.
MIAQ also stated that redesign of the end-use product to accommodate a new fan will result in retesting and possible recertification and model number changes for end-use products, which will be a massive, costly, and time-consuming undertaking (and could even cause a disruption in the market) as there would be changes to electrical, physical, or functional characteristics of the end-use product that affect energy consumption/efficiency. (MIAQ, No. 124 at pp. 2-3) DOE is proposing to exclude fans that are embedded in commercial HVAC equipment that is already covered by DOE energy conservation standards as well as a variety of other products. The full list of embedded fans proposed for exclusion from the scope of this energy conservation standards rulemaking can be found in Table III-1.
DOE requests comment on the number of end-use product (
MIAQ and AHRI stated that it was not realistic to expect manufacturers to comply with any energy conservation standards within 180 days. (MIAQ, No. 124 at p. 2-3; AHRI, No. 130 at p. 5) DOE notes that the May 2023 TP Final Rule stated that beginning 180 days after the publication of the May 2023 TP Final Rule, any representations made with respect to energy use or efficiency of fans or blowers must be made based on testing in accordance with the May 2023 TP Final Rule. Neither the May 2023 TP Final Rule nor this NOPR requires that fan and blower manufacturers meet a minimum energy conservation standard 180 days after the publication of the May 2023 TP Final Rule. Compliance with any energy conservation standards would not be required until 5 years after publication of the energy conservation standard final rule.
AHRI expressed concern about unfair advantage given to imported HVAC products that may not need to comply with components regulations. AHRI stated that imported HVAC products with embedded fans are excluded from the fan and blower energy conservation standard, but fans assembled into similar equipment manufactured domestically would be subject to DOE energy conservation standards (AHRI, No. 130, at p. 4) DOE is proposing to require fans and blowers that are imported in HVAC products to comply with the energy conservation standards established in this rulemaking as long as those products or equipment are not listed in Table III-1. This is the same requirement that applies to fans and blowers that are assembled into the same equipment manufactured domestically.
The emissions analysis consists of two components. The first component estimates the effect of potential energy conservation standards on power sector and site (where applicable) combustion emissions of CO
The analysis of electric power sector emissions of CO
FFC upstream emissions, which include emissions from fuel combustion during extraction, processing, and transportation of fuels, and “fugitive” emissions (direct leakage to the atmosphere) of CH
The emissions intensity factors are expressed in terms of physical units per MWh or MMBtu of site energy savings. For power sector emissions, specific emissions intensity factors are calculated by sector and end use. Total emissions reductions are estimated using the energy savings calculated in the national impact analysis.
DOE's no-new-standards case for the electric power sector reflects the
SO
However, beginning in 2016, SO
CSAPR also established limits on NO
The MATS limit mercury emissions from power plants, but they do not include emissions caps and, as such, DOE's energy conservation standards would be expected to slightly reduce Hg emissions. DOE estimated mercury emissions reduction using emissions factors based on
As part of the development of this proposed rule, for the purpose of complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866, DOE considered the estimated monetary benefits from the reduced emissions of CO
To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the
DOE estimates the monetized benefits of the reductions in emissions of CO
DOE exercises its own judgment in presenting monetized climate benefits as recommended by applicable Executive orders, and DOE would reach the same conclusion presented in this proposed rulemaking in the absence of the social cost of greenhouse gases. That is, the social costs of greenhouse gases, whether measured using the February 2021 interim estimates presented by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases or by another means, did not affect the rule ultimately proposed by DOE.
DOE estimated the global social benefits of CO
The SC-GHGs estimates presented here were developed over many years, using transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, the best science available at the time of that process, and with input from the public. Specifically, in 2009, the IWG, which included the DOE and other executive branch agencies and offices, was established to ensure that agencies were using the best available science and to promote consistency in the social cost of carbon (SC-CO
On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13990, which re-established the IWG and directed it to ensure that the U.S. Government's estimates of the social cost of carbon and other greenhouse gases reflect the best available science and the recommendations of the National Academies (2017). The IWG was tasked with first reviewing the SC-GHG estimates currently used in Federal analyses and publishing interim estimates within 30 days of the E.O. that reflect the full impact of GHG emissions, including by taking global damages into account. The interim SC-GHG estimates published in February 2021 are used here to estimate the climate benefits for this proposed rulemaking. The E.O. instructs the IWG to update the interim SC-GHG estimates by January 2022 taking into consideration the advice of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine as reported in Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide (2017) and other recent scientific literature. The February 2021 SC-GHG TSD provides a complete discussion of the IWG's initial review conducted under E.O. 13990. In particular, the IWG found that the SC-GHG estimates used under E.O. 13783 fail to reflect the full impact of GHG emissions in multiple ways.
First, the IWG found that the SC-GHG estimates used under E.O. 13783 fail to fully capture many climate impacts that affect the welfare of U.S. citizens and residents, and those impacts are better reflected by global measures of the SC-GHG. Examples of omitted effects from the E.O. 13783 estimates include direct effects on U.S. citizens, assets, and investments located abroad; supply chains, U.S. military assets and interests abroad, and tourism; and spillover pathways such as economic and political destabilization and global migration that can lead to adverse impacts on U.S. national security, public health, and humanitarian concerns. In addition, assessing the benefits of U.S. GHG mitigation activities requires consideration of how those actions may affect mitigation activities by other countries, as those international mitigation actions will provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and residents by mitigating climate impacts that affect U.S. citizens and residents. A wide range of scientific and economic experts have emphasized the issue of reciprocity as support for considering global damages of GHG emissions. If the United States does not consider impacts on other countries, it is difficult to convince other countries to consider the impacts of their emissions on the United States. The only way to achieve an efficient allocation of resources for emissions reduction on a global basis—and so benefit the United States and its citizens—is for all countries to base their policies on global estimates of damages. As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees with this assessment and, therefore, in this proposed rule DOE centers attention on a global measure of SC-GHG. This approach is the same as that taken in DOE regulatory analyses from 2012 through 2016. A robust estimate of climate damages that accrue only to U.S. citizens and residents does not currently exist in the literature. As explained in the February 2021 TSD, existing estimates are both incomplete and an underestimate of total damages that accrue to the citizens and residents of the U.S. because they do not fully capture the regional interactions and spillovers discussed above, nor do they include all of the important physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change literature. As noted in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the
Second, the IWG found that the use of the social rate of return on capital (7 percent under current OMB Circular A-4 guidance) to discount the future benefits of reducing GHG emissions inappropriately underestimates the impacts of climate change for the purposes of estimating the SC-GHG. Consistent with the findings of the National Academies (2017) and the economic literature, the IWG continued to conclude that the consumption rate of interest is the theoretically appropriate discount rate in an intergenerational context
Furthermore, the damage estimates developed for use in the SC-GHG are estimated in consumption-equivalent terms, and so an application of OMB Circular A-4's guidance for regulatory analysis would then use the consumption discount rate to calculate the SC-GHG. DOE agrees with this assessment and will continue to follow developments in the literature pertaining to this issue. DOE also notes that while OMB Circular A-4, as published in 2003, recommends using 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates as “default” values, Circular A-4 also reminds agencies that “different regulations may call for different emphases in the analysis, depending on the nature and complexity of the regulatory issues and the sensitivity of the benefit and cost estimates to the key assumptions.” On discounting, Circular A-4 recognizes that “special ethical considerations arise when comparing benefits and costs across generations,” and Circular A-4 acknowledges that analyses may appropriately “discount future costs and consumption benefits . . . at a lower rate than for intragenerational analysis.” In the 2015 Response to Comments on the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis, OMB, DOE, and the other IWG members recognized that “Circular A-4 is a living document” and “the use of 7 percent is not considered appropriate for intergenerational discounting. There is wide support for this view in the academic literature, and it is recognized in Circular A-4 itself.” Thus, DOE concludes that a 7% discount rate is not appropriate to apply to value the social cost of greenhouse gases in the analysis presented in this analysis.
To calculate the present and annualized values of climate benefits, DOE uses the same discount rate as the rate used to discount the value of damages from future GHG emissions, for internal consistency. That approach to discounting follows the same approach that the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD recommends “to ensure internal consistency—
There are a number of limitations and uncertainties associated with the SC-GHG estimates. First, the current scientific and economic understanding of discounting approaches suggests discount rates appropriate for intergenerational analysis in the context of climate change are likely to be less than 3 percent, near 2 percent or lower.
DOE's derivations of the SC-CO
The SC-CO
For 2051 to 2070, DOE used SC-CO
DOE multiplied the CO
The SC-CH
DOE multiplied the CH
For the NOPR, DOE estimated the monetized value of NO
The utility impact analysis estimates the changes in installed electrical capacity and generation projected to result for each considered TSL. The analysis is based on published output from the NEMS associated with
The output of this analysis is a set of time-dependent coefficients that capture the change in electricity generation, primary fuel consumption, installed capacity and power sector emissions due to a unit reduction in demand for a given end use. These coefficients are multiplied by the stream of electricity savings calculated in the NIA to provide estimates of selected utility impacts of potential new or amended energy conservation standards.
DOE considers employment impacts in the domestic economy as one factor in selecting a proposed standard. Employment impacts from new or amended energy conservation standards include both direct and indirect impacts. Direct employment impacts are any changes in the number of employees of manufacturers of the equipment subject to standards, their suppliers, and related service firms. The MIA addresses those impacts. Indirect employment impacts are changes in national employment that occur due to the shift in expenditures and capital investment caused by the purchase and operation of more efficient appliances. Indirect employment impacts from standards consist of the net jobs created or eliminated in the national economy, other than in the manufacturing sector being regulated, caused by (1) reduced spending by consumers on energy, (2) reduced spending on new energy supply by the utility industry, (3) increased consumer spending on the equipment to which the new standards apply and other goods and services, and (4) the effects of those three factors throughout the economy.
One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for labor of such shifts in economic activity is to compare sector employment statistics developed by the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”). BLS regularly publishes its estimates of the number of jobs per million dollars of economic activity in different sectors of the economy, as well as the jobs created elsewhere in the economy by this same economic activity. Data from BLS indicate that expenditures in the utility sector generally create fewer jobs (both directly and indirectly) than expenditures in other sectors of the economy.
DOE estimated indirect national employment impacts for the standard levels considered in this NOPR using an input/output model of the U.S. economy called Impact of Sector Energy Technologies version 4 (“ImSET”).
DOE notes that ImSET is not a general equilibrium forecasting model, and that the uncertainties involved in projecting employment impacts especially changes in the later years of the analysis. Because ImSET does not incorporate price changes, the employment effects predicted by ImSET may overestimate actual job impacts over the long run for this rule. Therefore, DOE used ImSET only to generate results for near-term timeframes (2034), where these uncertainties are reduced. For more details on the employment impact analysis,
The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for GFBs and ACFs. It addresses the TSLs examined by DOE, the projected impacts of each of these levels if adopted as energy conservation standards for GFBs and ACFs, and the standards levels that DOE is proposing to adopt in this NOPR. Additional details regarding DOE's analyses are contained in the NOPR TSD supporting this document.
In general, DOE typically evaluates potential standards for products and equipment by grouping individual efficiency levels for each class into TSLs. Use of TSLs allows DOE to identify and consider manufacturer cost interactions between the equipment classes, to the extent that there are such interactions, and market cross elasticity from consumer purchasing decisions that may change when different standard levels are set.
For GFBs, in the analysis conducted for this NOPR, DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of 6 TSLs. DOE developed TSLs that combine efficiency levels for each analyzed equipment class.
Table V-1 presents the TSLs and the corresponding efficiency levels that DOE has identified for potential new energy conservation standards for GFBs. TSL 6 represents the max-tech energy efficiency for all product classes. TSL 5 represents the highest efficiency level with positive LCC savings. TSL 4 is an intermediate level consisting of the next level below TSL 5 with positive LCC savings. TSL 3 is an intermediate level consisting of the same level as TSL 4 or in the next level below TSL 4 with positive LCC savings and above TSL 2, where available. TSL 2 represents a combination of efficiency levels that correspond to a FEI of 1 across all equipment classes as required in ASHRAE 90.1, except for Axial Power Roof Ventilator—Exhaust, where it is set one efficiency level lower due to negative LCC savings at the EL corresponding to a FEI value of 1 (EL 5). TSL 1 represents combination of efficiency levels that corresponds to one efficiency level below the efficiency level corresponding to a FEI value of 1.
DOE constructed the TSLs for this NOPR to include ELs representative of ELs with similar characteristics (
For ACFs, in the analysis conducted for this NOPR, DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of six TSLs. DOE developed TSLs that combine efficiency levels for each analyzed equipment class.
Table V-2 presents the TSLs and the corresponding efficiency levels that DOE has identified for potential new energy conservation standards for ACFs. TSL 6 represents the max-tech energy efficiency for all equipment classes. TSL 5 represents a level corresponding to EL 5 for all axial ACFs and EL 3 for housed centrifugal ACFs. It represents the highest EL below max-tech with positive LCC savings. TSL 4 is constructed with the same efficiency level EL 4 for all axial ACFs and represents EL 0 for housed centrifugal ACFs. Similarly, TSL 3 through TSL 1 represent levels corresponding to EL 3 through EL 1 for all axial ACFs and EL 0 for housed centrifugal ACFs.
DOE constructed the TSLs for this NOPR to include ELs representative of ELs with similar characteristics (
DOE analyzed the economic impacts on fan and blower consumers by looking at the effects that potential new standards at each TSL would have on the LCC and PBP. DOE also examined the impacts of potential standards on selected consumer subgroups. These analyses are discussed in the following sections.
In general, higher-efficiency equipment affects consumers in two ways: (1) purchase price increases and (2) annual operating costs decrease. Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total installed costs (
Table V-3 through Table V-20 show the LCC and PBP results for the TSLs considered for each equipment class for GFBs. Table V-21 through Table V-28 show the LCC and PBP results for the TSLs considered for each equipment class for ACFs. The simple payback and other impacts are measured relative to the efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case in the compliance year (
In the consumer subgroup analysis, DOE estimated the impact of the considered TSLs on small businesses. Table V-29 and Table V-30 compare the average LCC savings and PBP at each efficiency level for the consumer subgroup with similar metrics for the entire consumer sample for GFBs and ACFs, respectively. In most cases, the average LCC savings and PBP for small businesses at the considered TSLs are not substantially different from the average for all consumers. Chapter 11 of
As discussed in section III.F.2, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the increased purchase cost for equipment that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first-year energy savings resulting from the standard. In calculating a rebuttable presumption payback period for each of the considered TSLs, DOE used discrete values and, as required by EPCA, based the energy use calculation on the DOE test procedure for fans and blowers. In contrast, the PBPs presented in section V.B.1.a were calculated using distributions that reflect the range of energy use in the field.
Table V-31 and Table V-32 present the rebuttable-presumption payback periods for the considered TSLs for GFBs and ACFs. While DOE examined the rebuttable-presumption criterion, it considered whether the standard levels considered for the NOPR are economically justified through a more detailed analysis of the economic impacts of those levels, pursuant to 42 U.S.C 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), that considers the full range of impacts to the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, and environment. The results of that analysis serve as the basis for DOE to definitively evaluate the economic justification for a potential standard level, thereby supporting or rebutting
DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of new energy conservation standards on manufacturers of fans and blowers. The following section describes the expected impacts on manufacturers at each considered TSL. Chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD explains the analysis in further detail.
In this section, DOE provides GRIM results from the analysis, which examines changes in the industry that would result from new standards. The following tables summarize the estimated financial impacts (represented by changes in INPV) of potential new energy conservation standards on manufacturers of fans and blowers, as well as the conversion costs that DOE estimates manufacturers of fans and blowers would incur at each TSL. DOE analyzes the potential impacts on INPV separately for ACFs and GFBs. To evaluate the range of cash flow impacts on the fan and blower industry, DOE modeled two manufacturer markup scenarios using different assumptions that correspond to the range of anticipated market responses to new energy conservation standards: (1) the conversion cost recovery markup scenario and (2) the preservation of operating profit markup scenario.
To assess the less severe end of the range of potential impacts, DOE modeled a conversion cost recovery markup scenario in which manufacturers are able to increase their manufacturer markups in response to new energy conservation standards. To assess the more severe end of the range of potential impacts, DOE modeled a preservation of operating profit markup scenario in which manufacturers are not able to maintain their original manufacturer markup, used in the no-new-standards case, in the standards cases. Instead, manufacturers maintain the same operating profit (in absolute dollars) in the standards cases as in the no-new-standards case, despite higher MPCs.
Each of the modeled manufacturer markup scenarios results in a unique set of cash flows and corresponding industry values at the given TSLs for each group of fan and blower manufacturers. In the following discussion, the INPV results refer to the difference in industry value between the no-new-standards case and each standards case resulting from the sum of discounted cash flows from 2024 through 2059. To provide perspective on the short-run cash flow impact, DOE includes in the discussion of results a comparison of free cash flow between the no-new-standards case and the standards case at each TSL in the year before new standards take effect.
DOE presents the range in INPV for GFB manufacturers in Table V-33 and Table V-34 and the range in INPV for ACF manufacturers in Table V-36 and Table V-37.
At TSL 6, for GFB manufacturers, DOE estimates the impacts on INPV will range from −$2,287 million to $40 million, which represents a change of −46.4 percent to 0.8 percent, respectively. At TSL 6, industry free cash flow decreases to −$1,132 million, which represents a decrease of approximately 336 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value of $480 million in 2029, the year before the modeled compliance year. The negative cash flow in the years leading up to the modeled compliance date implies that most, if not all, GFB manufacturers will need to borrow funds in order to make the investments necessary to comply with standards. This has the potential to significantly alter the market dynamics as some smaller manufacturers may not be able to secure this funding and could exit the market as a result of standards set at TSL 6.
TSL 6 would set energy conservation standards at max-tech for all GFBs. DOE estimates that approximately 4 percent of the GFB shipments would already meet the efficiency levels required at TSL 6 in 2030, in the no-new-standards case. Therefore, DOE estimates that manufacturers would have to redesign models representing approximately 96 percent of GFB shipments by the estimated compliance date. It is unclear if most GFB manufacturers would have the engineering capacity to complete the necessary redesigns within the 5-year compliance period. If manufacturers require more than 5 years to redesign their non-compliant GFB models, they will likely prioritize redesigns based on sales volume, which could result in customers not being able to obtain compliant GFBs covering the duty points that they require.
At TSL 6, DOE expects GFB manufacturers to incur approximately $698 million in product conversion costs to conduct aerodynamic redesigns for non-compliant GFB models.
In the conversion cost recovery markup scenario, manufacturers increase their manufacturer markups to fully recover the conversion costs they incur to redesign non-compliant equipment. At TSL 6, the $3,750 million in conversion costs are fully recovered, over the 30-year analysis period, causing INPV at TSL 6 to remain approximately equal to the no-new-standards case INPV in this conversion cost recovery scenario. Given the large size of the conversion costs, approximately 1.3 times the sum of the annual free cash flows over the years between the estimated final rule announcement date and the estimated standards year (
Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, manufacturers earn the same per-unit operating profit as would be earned in the no-new-standards case, but manufacturers do not earn additional profit from their investments or potentially higher MPCs. In this scenario, the shipment weighted average MPC increases by approximately 2.2 percent, causing a reduction in the manufacturer margin after the analyzed compliance year. This reduction in the manufacturer margin and the $3,750 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a significantly negative change in INPV at TSL 6 in this preservation of operating profit scenario. This represents the lower-bound, or most severe impact, on manufacturer profitability.
At TSL 5, for GFB manufacturers, DOE estimates the impacts on INPV will range from −$1,263 million to $11 million, which represents a change of −25.6 percent to 0.2 percent, respectively. At TSL 5, industry free cash flow decreases to −$407 million, which represents a decrease of approximately 185 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value of $480 million in 2029, the year before the modeled compliance year. The negative cash flow in the years leading up to the modeled compliance date implies that most, if not all, GFB manufacturers will need to borrow funds in order to make the investments necessary to comply with standards. This has the potential to significantly alter the market dynamics as some smaller manufacturers may not be able to secure this funding and could exit the market as a result of standards set at TSL 5.
TSL 5 would set energy conservation standards for axial inline fans at EL 4; axial panel fans at EL 5; centrifugal housed fans at EL 5; centrifugal inline fans at EL 6; centrifugal unhoused fans at EL 5; axial PRVs at EL 4; centrifugal PRV exhaust fans at EL 4; centrifugal PRV supply fans at EL 6; and radial housed fans at EL 5. DOE estimates that approximately 7 percent of the GFB shipments would already meet or exceed the efficiency levels required at TSL 5 in 2030, in the no-new-standards case. Therefore, DOE estimates that manufacturers would have to redesign models representing approximately 93 percent of GFB shipments by the estimated compliance date. It is unclear if most GFB manufacturers would have the engineering capacity to complete the necessary redesigns within the 5-year compliance period. If manufacturers require more than 5 years to redesign their non-compliant GFB models, they will likely prioritize redesigns based on sales volume, which could result in customers not being able to obtain compliant GFBs covering the duty points that they require.
At TSL 5, DOE expects GFB manufacturers to incur approximately $435 million in product conversion costs to conduct aerodynamic redesigns for non-compliant GFB models. Additionally, GFB manufacturers would incur approximately $1,640 million in capital conversion costs to purchase new tooling and equipment necessary to produce compliant GFB models to meet these energy conservation standards.
In the conversion cost recovery markup scenario, manufacturers increase their manufacturer markups to fully recover the conversion costs they incur to redesign non-compliant equipment. At TSL 5, the $2,075 million in conversion costs are fully recovered causing INPV to remain approximately equal to the no-new-standards case INPV in this conversion cost recovery scenario. Given the large size of the conversion costs, approximately 90 percent of the sum of the annual free cash flows over the years between the estimated final rule announcement date and the estimated standards year (
Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, manufacturers earn the same per-unit operating profit as would be earned in the no-new-standards case, but manufacturers do not earn additional profit from their investments or potentially higher MPCs. In this scenario, the shipment weighted average MPC increases by approximately 2.2 percent, causing a reduction in the manufacturer margin after the analyzed compliance year. This reduction in the manufacturer margin and the $2,075 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a significantly negative change in INPV at TSL 5 in this preservation of operating profit scenario. This represents the lower-bound, or most severe impact, on manufacturer profitability.
At TSL 4, for GFB manufacturers, DOE estimates the impacts on INPV will range from −$455 million to $1 million, which represents a change of −9.2 percent to less than 0.1 percent, respectively. At TSL 4, industry free cash flow decreases to $161 million, which represents a decrease of approximately 66.4 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value of $480 million in 2029, the year before the modeled compliance year.
TSL 4 would set energy conservation standards for axial inline fans at EL 3; axial panel fans at EL 4; centrifugal housed fans at EL 4; centrifugal inline fans at EL 5; centrifugal unhoused fans at EL 4; axial PRVs at EL 4; centrifugal PRV exhaust fans at EL 4; centrifugal PRV supply fans at EL 5; and radial housed fans at EL 4. DOE estimates that approximately 25 percent of the GFB shipments would already meet or exceed the efficiency levels required at TSL 4 in 2030, in the no-new-standards case. Therefore, DOE estimates that manufacturers would have to redesign models representing approximately 75 percent of GFB shipments by the estimated compliance date.
At TSL 4, DOE expects GFB manufacturers to incur approximately $260 million in product conversion costs to conduct aerodynamic redesigns for non-compliant GFB models. Additionally, GFB manufacturers would
In the conversion cost recovery markup scenario, manufacturers increase their manufacturer markups to fully recover the conversion costs they incur to redesign non-compliant equipment. At TSL 4, the $770 million in conversion costs are fully recovered causing INPV to remain approximately equal to the no-new-standards case INPV in this conversion cost recovery scenario. At TSL 4, conversion costs represent approximately 33 percent of the sum of the annual free cash flows over the years between the estimated final rule announcement date and the estimated standards year (
Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, manufacturers earn the same per-unit operating profit as would be earned in the no-new-standards case, but manufacturers do not earn additional profit from their investments or potentially higher MPCs. In this scenario, the shipment weighted average MPC increases by approximately 1.1 percent, causing a reduction in the manufacturer margin after the analyzed compliance year. This reduction in the manufacturer margin and the $770 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a moderately negative change in INPV at TSL 4 in this preservation of operating profit scenario. This represents the lower-bound, or most severe impact, on manufacturer profitability.
At TSL 3, for GFB manufacturers, DOE estimates the impacts on INPV will range from −$238 million to $1 million, which represents a change of −4.8 percent to less than 0.1 percent, respectively. At TSL 3, industry free cash flow decreases to $316 million, which represents a decrease of approximately 34.3 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value of $480 million in 2029, the year before the modeled compliance year.
TSL 3 would set energy conservation standards for axial inline fans at EL 3; axial panel fans at EL 3; centrifugal housed fans at EL 3; centrifugal inline fans at EL 4; centrifugal unhoused fans at EL 3; axial PRVs at EL 4; centrifugal PRV exhaust fans at EL 4; centrifugal PRV supply fans at EL 5; and radial housed fans at EL 4. DOE estimates that approximately 60 percent of the GFB shipments would already meet or exceed the efficiency levels required at TSL 3 in 2030, in the no-new-standards case. Therefore, DOE estimates that manufacturers would have to redesign models representing approximately 40 percent of GFB shipments by the estimated compliance date.
At TSL 3, DOE expects GFB manufacturers to incur approximately $154 million in product conversion costs to redesign all non-compliant GFB models. Additionally, GFB manufacturers would incur approximately $248 million in capital conversion costs to purchase new tooling and equipment necessary to produce compliant GFB models to meet these energy conservation standards.
In the conversion cost recovery markup scenario, manufacturers increase their manufacturer markups to fully recover the conversion costs they incur to redesign non-compliant equipment. At TSL 3, the $402 million in conversion costs are fully recovered, causing INPV to remain approximately equal to the no-new-standards case INPV in this conversion cost recovery scenario. This represents the upper-bound, or least-severe impact, on manufacturer profitability and is the manufacturer markup scenario used in all down-stream consumer analyses.
Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, manufacturers earn the same per-unit operating profit as would be earned in the no-new-standards case, but manufacturers do not earn additional profit from their investments or potentially higher MPCs. In this scenario, the shipment weighted average MPC increases by approximately 1.1 percent, causing a reduction in the manufacturer margin after the analyzed compliance year. This reduction in the manufacturer margin and the $402 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a negative change in INPV at TSL 3 in this preservation of operating profit scenario. This represents the lower-bound, or most severe impact, on manufacturer profitability.
At TSL 2, for GFB manufacturers, DOE estimates the impacts on INPV will range from −$87 million to $5 million, which represents a change of −1.8 percent to 0.1 percent, respectively. At TSL 2, industry free cash flow decreases to $420 million, which represents a decrease of approximately 12.4 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value of $480 million in 2029, the year before the modeled compliance year.
TSL 2 would set energy conservation standards for axial inline fans at EL 2; axial panel fans at EL 2; centrifugal housed fans at EL 2; centrifugal inline fans at EL 3; centrifugal unhoused fans at EL 1; axial PRVs at EL 4; centrifugal PRV exhaust fans at EL 4; centrifugal PRV supply fans at EL 4; and radial housed fans at EL 3. DOE estimates that approximately 85 percent of the GFB shipments would already meet or exceed the efficiency levels required at TSL 2 in 2030, in the no-new-standards case. Therefore, DOE estimates that manufacturers would have to redesign models representing approximately 15 percent of GFB shipments by the estimated compliance date.
At TSL 2, DOE expects GFB manufacturers to incur approximately $62 million in product conversion costs to redesign all non-compliant GFB models. Additionally, GFB manufacturers would incur approximately $86 million in capital conversion costs to purchase new tooling and equipment necessary to produce compliant GFB models to meet these energy conservation standards.
In the conversion cost recovery markup scenario, manufacturers increase their manufacturer markups to fully recover the conversion costs they incur to redesign non-compliant equipment. At TSL 2, the $147 million in conversion costs are fully recovered causing INPV to remain approximately equal to the no-new-standards case INPV in this conversion cost recovery scenario. This represents the upper-bound, or least-severe impact, on manufacturer profitability and is the manufacturer markup scenario used in all down-stream consumer analyses.
Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, manufacturers earn the same per-unit operating profit as would be earned in the no-new-standards case, but manufacturers do not earn additional profit from their investments or potentially higher MPCs. In this scenario, the shipment weighted average MPC increases by approximately 0.6 percent, causing a reduction in the manufacturer margin after the analyzed compliance year. This reduction in the manufacturer margin and the $147 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a slight negative change in INPV at TSL 2 in this preservation of operating profit scenario. This represents the lower-bound, or most severe impact, on manufacturer profitability.
At TSL 1, for GFB manufacturers, DOE estimates the impacts on INPV will range from −$28 million to $13 million,
TSL 1 would set energy conservation standards for axial inline fans at EL 1; axial panel fans at EL 1; centrifugal housed fans at EL 1; centrifugal inline fans at EL 2; centrifugal unhoused fans at EL 1; axial PRVs at EL 4; centrifugal PRV exhaust fans at EL 3; centrifugal PRV supply fans at EL 3; and radial housed fans at EL 2. DOE estimates that approximately 91 percent of the GFB shipments would already meet or exceed the efficiency levels required at TSL 1 in 2030, in the no-new-standards case. Therefore, DOE estimates that manufacturers would have to redesign models representing approximately 9 percent of GFB shipments by the estimated compliance date.
At TSL 1, DOE expects GFB manufacturers to incur approximately $20 million in product conversion costs to redesign all non-compliant GFB models. Additionally, GFB manufacturers would incur approximately $23 million in capital conversion costs to purchase new tooling and equipment necessary to produce compliant GFB models to meet these energy conservation standards.
In the conversion cost recovery markup scenario, manufacturers increase their manufacturer markups to fully recover the conversion costs they incur to redesign non-compliant equipment. At TSL 1, the $43 million in conversion costs are fully recovered causing INPV to remain approximately equal to the no-new-standards case INPV in this conversion cost recovery scenario. This represents the upper-bound, or least-severe impact, on manufacturer profitability and is the manufacturer markup scenario used in all down-stream consumer analyses.
Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, manufacturers earn the same per-unit operating profit as would be earned in the no-new-standards case, but manufacturers do not earn additional profit from their investments or potentially higher MPCs. In this scenario, the shipment weighted average MPC increases by approximately 0.6 percent, causing a reduction in the manufacturer margin after the analyzed compliance year. This reduction in the manufacturer margin and the $43 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a very slight negative change in INPV at TSL 1 in this preservation of operating profit scenario. This represents the lower-bound, or most severe impact, on manufacturer profitability.
At TSL 6, for ACF manufacturers, DOE estimates the impacts on INPV will range from −$734 million to $3 million, which represents a change of −113.1 percent to 0.5 percent, respectively. At TSL 6, industry free cash flow decreases to −$456 million, which represents a decrease of approximately 999 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value of $51 million in 2029, the year before the modeled compliance year. The negative cash flow in the years leading up to the modeled compliance date implies that most, if not all, ACF manufacturers will need to borrow funds in order to make the investments necessary to comply with standards. This has the potential to significantly alter the market dynamics as some smaller manufacturers may not be able to secure this funding and could exit the market as a result of standards set at TSL 6.
TSL 6 would set energy conservation standards at max-tech for all ACFs. DOE estimates that approximately 1 percent of the ACF shipments would already meet the efficiency levels required at TSL 6 in 2030, in the no-new-standards case. Therefore, DOE estimates that manufacturers would have to redesign models representing approximately 99 percent of ACF shipments by the estimated compliance date. It is unclear if most ACF manufacturers would have the engineering capacity to complete the necessary redesigns within the 5-year compliance period. If manufacturers require more than 5 years to redesign their non-compliant ACF models, they will likely prioritize redesigns based on sales volume, which could result in customers not being able to obtain compliant ACFs covering the duty points that they require.
At TSL 6, DOE expects ACF manufacturers to incur approximately $239 million in product conversion costs to conduct aerodynamic redesigns for non-compliant ACF models. Additionally, ACF manufacturers would incur approximately $928 million in capital conversion costs to purchase new tooling and equipment necessary to produce compliant ACF models to meet these energy conservation standards.
In the conversion cost recovery markup scenario, manufacturers increase their manufacturer markups to fully recover the conversion costs they incur to redesign non-compliant equipment. At TSL 6, the $1,167 million in conversion costs are fully recovered causing INPV to remain approximately equal to the no-new-standards case INPV in this conversion cost recovery scenario. Given the large size of the conversion costs, over 5 times the sum of the annual free cash flows over the years between the estimated final rule announcement date and the estimated standards year (
Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, manufacturers earn the same per-unit operating profit as would be earned in the no-new-standards case, but manufacturers do not earn additional profit from their investments or potentially higher MPCs. In this scenario, the shipment weighted average MPC increase by approximately 4.7 percent, causing a reduction in the manufacturer margin after the analyzed compliance year. This reduction in the manufacturer margin and the $1,167 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause an extremely negative change in INPV at TSL 6 in this preservation of operating profit scenario. This represents the lower-bound, or most severe impact, on manufacturer profitability.
At TSL 5, for ACF manufacturers, DOE estimates the impacts on INPV will range from −$633 million to $3 million, which represents a change of −97.5 percent to 0.5 percent, respectively. At TSL 5, industry free cash flow decreases to −$400 million, which represents a decrease of approximately 889 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value of $51 million in 2029, the year before the modeled compliance year. The negative cash flow in the years leading up to the modeled compliance date implies that most, if not all, ACF manufacturers will need to borrow funds in order to make the investments necessary to comply with standards. This has the potential to significantly alter the market dynamics as some smaller manufacturers may not be able to secure this funding and could exit the market as a result of standards set at TSL 5.
TSL 5 would set energy conservation standards at EL 5 for all ACFs, except housed centrifugal ACFs which are set at EL 3. DOE estimates that approximately 4 percent of the ACF shipments would already meet or exceed the efficiency levels required at
At TSL 5, DOE expects ACF manufacturers to incur approximately $214 million in product conversion costs to conduct aerodynamic redesigns for non-compliant ACF models. Additionally, ACF manufacturers would incur approximately $829 million in capital conversion costs to purchase new tooling and equipment necessary to produce compliant ACF models to meet these energy conservation standards.
In the conversion cost recovery markup scenario, manufacturers increase their manufacturer markups to fully recover the conversion costs they incur to redesign non-compliant equipment. At TSL 5, the $1,043 million in conversion costs are fully recovered causing INPV to remain approximately equal to the no-new-standards case INPV in this conversion cost recovery scenario. Given the large size of the conversion costs, over 4.5 times the sum of the annual free cash flows over the years between the estimated final rule announcement date and the estimated standards year (
Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, manufacturers earn the same per-unit operating profit as would be earned in the no-new-standards case, but manufacturers do not earn additional profit from their investments or potentially higher MPCs. The $1,043 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a significantly negative change in INPV at TSL 5 in this preservation of operating profit scenario. This represents the lower-bound, or most severe impact, on manufacturer profitability.
At TSL 4, for ACF manufacturers, DOE estimates the impacts on INPV will range from −$71 million to no change, which represents a maximum possible change of −10.9 percent. At TSL 4, industry free cash flow decreases to $1 million, which represents a decrease of approximately 99.0 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value of $51 million in 2029, the year before the modeled compliance year.
TSL 4 would set energy conservation standards at EL 4 for all ACFs, except housed centrifugal ACFs which would not have any energy conservation standard. DOE estimates that approximately 36 percent of the ACF shipments would already meet or exceed the efficiency levels required at TSL 4 in 2030, in the no-new-standards case. Therefore, DOE estimates that manufacturers would have to redesign models representing approximately 64 percent of ACF shipments by the estimated compliance date.
At TSL 4, DOE expects ACF manufacturers to incur approximately $27 million in product conversion costs to conduct aerodynamic redesigns for non-compliant ACF models. Additionally, ACF manufacturers would incur approximately $91 million in capital conversion costs to purchase new tooling and equipment necessary to produce compliant ACF models to meet these energy conservation standards.
In the conversion cost recovery markup scenario, manufacturers increase their manufacturer markups to fully recover the conversion costs they incur to redesign non-compliant equipment. At TSL 4, the $118 million in conversion costs are fully recovered causing INPV to remain approximately equal to the no-new-standards case INPV in this conversion cost recovery scenario. At TSL 4, conversion costs represent approximately 50 percent of the sum of the annual free cash flows over the years between the estimated final rule announcement date and the estimated standards year (
Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, manufacturers earn the same per-unit operating profit as would be earned in the no-new-standards case, but manufacturers do not earn additional profit from their investments or potentially higher MPCs. The $118 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a moderately negative change in INPV at TSL 4 in this preservation of operating profit scenario. This represents the lower-bound, or most severe impact, on manufacturer profitability.
At TSL 3, for ACF manufacturers, DOE estimates the impacts on INPV will range from −$4 million to no change, which represents a maximum change of −0.6 percent. At TSL 3, industry free cash flow decreases to $48 million, which represents a decrease of approximately 6.2 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value of $51 million in 2029, the year before the modeled compliance year.
TSL 3 would set energy conservation standards at EL 3 for all ACFs, except housed centrifugal ACFs which would not have any energy conservation standard. DOE estimates that approximately 84 percent of the ACF shipments would already meet or exceed the efficiency levels required at TSL 3 in 2030, in the no-new-standards case. Therefore, DOE estimates that manufacturers would have to redesign models representing approximately 16 percent of ACF shipments by the estimated compliance date.
At TSL 3, DOE expects ACF manufacturers to incur approximately $1.9 million in product conversion costs to conduct aerodynamic redesigns for non-compliant ACF models. Additionally, ACF manufacturers would incur approximately $5.5 million in capital conversion costs to purchase new tooling and equipment necessary to produce compliant ACF models to meet these energy conservation standards.
In the conversion cost recovery markup scenario, manufacturers increase their manufacturer markups to fully recover the conversion costs they incur to redesign non-compliant equipment. At TSL 3, the $7.4 million in conversion costs are fully recovered causing INPV to remain equal to the no-new-standards case INPV in this conversion cost recovery scenario. This represents the upper-bound, or least-severe impact, on manufacturer profitability and is the manufacturer markup scenario used in all down-stream consumer analyses.
Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, manufacturers earn the same per-unit operating profit as would be earned in the no-new-standards case, but manufacturers do not earn additional profit from their investments or potentially higher MPCs. The $7.4 million in conversion costs incurred by
At TSL 2, for ACF manufacturers, DOE estimates there will be no substantive change to INPV. At TSL 2, industry free cash flow sightly decreases by approximately 0.1 percent in 2029, the year before the modeled compliance year.
TSL 2 would set energy conservation standards at EL 2 for all ACFs, except housed centrifugal ACFs which would not have any energy conservation standard. DOE estimates that approximately 96 percent of the ACF shipments would already meet or exceed the efficiency levels required at TSL 2 in 2030, in the no-new-standards case. Therefore, DOE estimates that manufacturers would have to redesign models representing approximately 4 percent of ACF shipments by the estimated compliance date.
At TSL 2, DOE expects ACF manufacturers to incur approximately $0.2 million in product conversion costs to redesign the few non-compliant ACF models. DOE estimates that ACF manufacturers would not incur any capital conversion costs, as manufacturers already have the tooling and production equipment necessary to produce ACF models that meet these energy conservation standards.
The conversion costs incurred by manufacturers, which are relatively minor due to the majority of shipments already meeting the energy conservation standards, and changes in MPCs at TSL 2 are not severe enough to have a significant impact on ACF manufacturers in either of the manufacturer markup scenarios.
At TSL 1, for ACF manufacturers, DOE estimates the impacts on INPV will range from no change to an increase of $0.5 million, which represents a maximum change of 0.1 percent. At TSL 1, industry free cash flow sightly decreases by less than 0.1 percent in 2029, the year before the modeled compliance year.
TSL 1 would set energy conservation standards at EL 1 for all ACFs, except housed centrifugal ACFs which would not have any energy conservation standard. DOE estimates that approximately 96 percent of the ACF shipments would already meet or exceed the efficiency levels required at TSL 1 in 2030, in the no-new-standards case. Therefore, DOE estimates that manufacturers would have to redesign models representing approximately 4 percent of ACF shipments by the estimated compliance date.
At TSL 1, DOE expects ACF manufacturers to incur approximately $0.1 million in product conversion costs to redesign the few non-compliant ACF models. DOE estimates that ACF manufacturers would not incur any capital conversion costs, as manufacturers already have the tooling and production equipment necessary to produce ACF models that meet these energy conservation standards.
The conversion costs incurred by manufacturers, which are relatively minor due to the majority of shipments already meeting the energy conservation standards, and the change in MPCs at TSL 1 are not severe enough to have a significant impact on ACF manufacturers in either of the manufacturer markup scenarios.
To quantitatively assess the potential impacts of new energy conservation standards on direct employment in the fan and blower industry, DOE used the GRIM to estimate the domestic labor expenditures and number of direct employees in the no-new-standards case and in each of the standards cases during the analysis period.
Production employees are those who are directly involved in fabricating and assembling equipment within manufacturer facility. Workers performing services that are closely associated with production operations, such as materials handling tasks using forklifts, are included as production labor, as well as line supervisors.
DOE used the GRIM to calculate the number of production employees from labor expenditures. DOE used statistical data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2021 Annual Survey of Manufacturers
Non-production employees account for those workers that are not directly engaged in the manufacturing of the covered equipment. This could include sales, human resources, engineering, and management. DOE estimated non-production employment levels by multiplying the number of fan and blower production workers by a scaling factor. The scaling factor is calculated by taking the ratio of the total number of employees, and the total production workers associated with the industry North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”) code 333413, which covers fan and blower manufacturing.
Using the GRIM, DOE estimates that there would be approximately 13,819 domestic production workers, and 6,091 non-production workers for GFBs in 2030 in the absence of new energy conservation standards. DOE estimates that there would be approximately 648 domestic production workers and 286 non-production workers for ACFs in 2030 in the absence of new energy conservation standards. Table V-39 shows the range of the impacts of energy conservation standards on U.S. production of GFBs and Table V-40 shows the range of the impacts of energy conservation standards on U.S. production of ACFs.
The direct employment impacts shown in Table V-39 and Table V-40 represent the potential changes in direct employment that could result following the compliance date for GFBs and ACFs. Employment could increase or decrease due to the labor content of the various equipment being manufactured domestically that meet the analyzed standards or if manufacturers decided to move production facilities abroad because of new standards. At one end of the range, DOE assumes that all manufacturers continue to manufacture the same scope of equipment domestically after new standards are required. However, since the labor content of GFBs and ACFs vary by efficiency level, this can either result in an increase or decrease in domestic employment, even if all domestic production remains in the U.S.
The lower end of the range assumes that some domestic manufacturing either is eliminated or moves abroad due to the analyzed new standards. DOE assumes that for TSL 1 and TSL 2 ACF and GFB manufacturers already have the tooling and production equipment necessary to produce ACF and GFB models that meet these energy conservation standards, making it unlikely that manufacturers would move any domestic product abroad at these analyzed TSLs. At TSL 3 through TSL 6, DOE conservatively estimates that some domestic manufacturing could move abroad as these TSLs require manufacturers to make larger investments in production equipment that could cause some manufacturers to consider moving production facilities to a lower-labor cost country.
During manufacturer interviews most manufacturers stated that any standards set at max-tech would severely disrupt manufacturing capacity. Many fan and blower manufacturers do not offer any GFB or ACF models that would meet these max-tech efficiency levels. Based on the shipments analysis used in the NIA, DOE estimates that approximately 4 percent of all GFB shipments and approximately 1 percent of ACF shipments will meet max-tech efficiency levels, in the no-new-standards case in 2030, the modeled compliance year of new energy conservation standards. Manufacturers stated that they do not have the necessary engineers that would be required to convert models that represent approximately 96 percent of GFB shipments and approximately 99 percent of ACF shipments into compliant models.
Additionally, most manufacturers stated they would not be able to provide a full portfolio of fans and blower, covering their current offering of operating pressure and airflow ranges, for any equipment class that required max-tech efficiency levels. Most manufacturers stated that they do not currently have the machinery, technology, or engineering resources to manufacture these fans and blowers. Additionally, the few manufacturers that do have the capability of producing max-tech fans and blowers are not able to produce these fans and blowers for all necessary operating pressures and airflows that the market requires and in the volumes that would fulfill the entire fan and blower markets. Lastly, most
For fan and blower manufacturers to either completely redesign their fan and blower production lines to be capable of producing max-tech fans and blowers or to significantly expand their limited max-tech fan and blower production lines to meet larger production volumes would require a massive retooling and engineering effort, which would take more than the five-year compliance period.
DOE estimates there is a strong likelihood of manufacturer capacity constraints for any equipment classes that require max-tech efficiency levels.
As discussed in section IV.J.1 of this document, using average cost assumptions to develop an industry cash flow estimate may not be adequate for assessing differential impacts among manufacturer subgroups. Small manufacturers, niche manufacturers, and manufacturers exhibiting a cost structure substantially different from the industry average could be affected disproportionately. DOE used the results of the industry characterization to group manufacturers exhibiting similar characteristics. Consequently, DOE considered three manufacturer subgroups in the MIA: GFB manufacturers, ACF manufacturers, and small manufacturers as a subgroup for a separate impact analysis. DOE discussed the potential impacts on GFB manufacturers and ACF manufacturers separately in sections V.B.2.a and V.B.2.b.
For the small business subgroup analysis, DOE applied the small business size standards published by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) to determine whether a company is considered a small business. The size standards are codified at 13 CFR part 121. To be categorized as a small business under NAICS code 333413, “industrial and commercial fan and blower and air purification equipment manufacturing,” a fan and blower manufacturer and its affiliates may employ a maximum of 500 employees. The 500-employee threshold includes all employees in a business's parent company and any other subsidiaries. For a discussion of the impacts on the small manufacturer subgroup,
One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves looking at the cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the equipment-specific regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon product lines or markets with lower expected future returns than competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to appliance efficiency.
DOE requests information regarding the impact of cumulative regulatory burden on manufacturers of fans and blowers associated with multiple DOE standards or product-specific regulatory actions of other Federal agencies.
DOE evaluates product-specific regulations that will take effect approximately 3 years before or after the estimated 2030 compliance date of any new energy conservation standards for fans and blowers. This information is presented in Table V-41.
MIAQ and AHRI expressed concerns about the HVAC industry burden of multiple DOE energy conservation standards and safety standards being passed in close succession, requiring significant retesting to be performed on equipment. (MIAQ, No. 124 at p. 3-4) and (AHRI, No. 130 at p.13-14) DOE conducts a cumulative regulatory burden on the manufactures of the products or equipment that is being regulated, so for this rulemaking that is a cumulative regulatory burden on fan and blower manufacturers. Table V-41 lists other products or equipment that fan and blower manufacturers make that also have a potential DOE energy conservation standard required within 3 years of the compliance date for this rulemaking, modeled to be 2030. Additionally, Table III-1 listed products and equipment, including several HVAC equipment that if they have a fan embedded in the equipment, the fans would be excluded for this energy conservation standard, if finalized as proposed.
This section presents DOE's estimates of the national energy savings and the NPV of consumer benefits that would result from each of the TSLs considered as potential amended standards.
To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential standards for fans and blowers, DOE compared their energy consumption under the no-new-standards case to their anticipated energy consumption under each TSL. The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the first full year of anticipated compliance with new standards (2030-2059). Table V-42 and Table V-43 present DOE's projections of the national energy savings for each TSL considered for GFBs and ACFs. The savings were calculated using the approach described in section IV.H of this document.
OMB Circular A-4
DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for consumers that would result from the TSLs considered for fans and blowers. In accordance with OMB's guidelines on regulatory analysis,
The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical period are presented in Table V-48 and Table V-49 for GFBs and ACFs. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of products purchased in 2030-2038. As mentioned previously, such results are presented for informational purposes only and are not indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology or decision criteria.
The previous results reflect the use of a default trend to estimate the change in price for fans and blowers over the analysis period (
It is estimated that new energy conservation standards for fans and blowers would reduce energy expenditures for consumers of those products, with the resulting net savings being redirected to other forms of economic activity. These expected shifts in spending and economic activity could affect the demand for labor. As described in section IV.N of this document, DOE used an input/output model of the U.S. economy to estimate indirect employment impacts of the TSLs that DOE considered. There are uncertainties involved in projecting employment impacts, especially changes in the later years of the analysis. Therefore, DOE generated results for near-term timeframes (2030-2035), where these uncertainties are reduced.
The results suggest that the proposed standards would be likely to have a negligible impact on the net demand for labor in the economy. The net change in jobs is so small that it would be imperceptible in national labor statistics and might be offset by other, unanticipated effects on employment. Chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD presents detailed results regarding anticipated indirect employment impacts.
As discussed in section III.F.1.d of this document, DOE has tentatively concluded that the standards proposed in this NOPR would not lessen the utility or performance of the fans and blowers under consideration in this rulemaking. Manufacturers of these equipment currently offer units that meet or exceed the proposed standards.
DOE considered any lessening of competition that would be likely to result from new or amended standards. As discussed in section III.F.1.e, the Attorney General determines the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard, and transmits such determination in writing to the Secretary, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of such impact. To assist the Attorney General in making this determination, DOE has provided DOJ with copies of this NOPR and the accompanying NOPR TSD for review. DOE will consider DOJ's comments on the proposed rule in determining whether to proceed to a final rule. DOE will publish and respond to DOJ's comments in that document. DOE invites comment from the public regarding the competitive impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule. In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ regarding these potential impacts. See the
Enhanced energy efficiency, where economically justified, improves the Nation's energy security, strengthens the economy, and reduces the environmental impacts (costs) of energy production. Reduced electricity demand due to energy conservation standards is also likely to reduce the cost of maintaining the reliability of the electricity system, particularly during peak-load periods. Chapter 15 in the NOPR TSD presents the estimated impacts on electricity generating capacity, relative to the no-new-standards case, for the TSLs that DOE considered in this rulemaking.
Energy conservation resulting from potential energy conservation standards for fans and blowers is expected to yield environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of certain air pollutants and greenhouse gases. Table V-50 and Table V-51 provide DOE's estimate of cumulative emissions reductions expected to result from the TSLs considered in this rulemaking for GFBs and ACFs, respectively. The emissions were calculated using the multipliers discussed in section IV.K of this document. DOE reports annual emissions reductions for each TSL in chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD.
As part of the analysis for this rulemaking, DOE estimated monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO
As discussed in section IV.L.2, DOE estimated the climate benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of methane and N
DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge continues to evolve rapidly about the contribution of CO
DOE also estimated the monetary value of the health benefits associated with NO
Not all the public health and environmental benefits from the reduction of greenhouse gases, NO
The Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is economically justified, may consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C 6216(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) No other factors were considered in this analysis.
Table V-62 and Table V-63 presents the NPV values that result from adding the estimates of the potential economic benefits resulting from reduced GHG and NO
When considering new or amended energy conservation standards, the standards that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered equipment must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by, to the greatest extent practicable, considering the seven statutory factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or amended standard must also result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
For this NOPR, DOE considered the impacts of new standards for GFBs and ACFs at each TSL, beginning with the max-tech feasible level, to determine whether that level was economically justified. Where the max-tech level was not justified, DOE then considered the next most efficient level and undertook the same evaluation until it reached the highest efficiency level that is both technologically feasible and economically justified and saves a significant amount of energy.
To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL, tables in this section present a summary of the results of DOE's quantitative analysis for each TSL. In addition to the quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. These include the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be disproportionately affected by a national standard and impacts on employment.
Table V-64 and Table V-65 summarize the quantitative impacts estimated for each TSL for GFBs. The national impacts are measured over the lifetime of GFBs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated first full year of compliance with new standards (2030-2059). The energy savings, emissions reductions, and value of emissions reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle results. The efficiency levels contained in each TSL are described in section V.A of this document.
DOE first considered TSL 6, which represents the max-tech efficiency levels. At TSL 6, DOE expects all equipment classes would require the highest tier aerodynamic redesign.
TSL 6 would save an estimated 25.3 quads of full-fuel cycle energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 6, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $15.8 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $49.3 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 6 are 439.4 Mt of CO
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, health benefits from reduced SO
At TSL 6, for the largest equipment classes, which are represented by axial panel fans, centrifugal housed fans, and centrifugal unhoused fans—which together represent approximately 85 percent of annual shipments—there is a life-cycle cost savings of $1,902, $2,398, and $2,004 and a payback period of 2.5 years, 3.1 years, and 1.0 years, respectively. For these equipment classes, the fraction of customers experiencing a net LCC cost is 29.9 percent, 41.5 percent, and 13.7 percent due to increases in total installed cost of $618, $1,090 and $215, respectively. The life-cycle costs savings are negative for axial inline fans, axial PRV, and centrifugal PRV exhaust, and equal to −$2,169, −$9,470, and −$1,992. For these equipment classes the payback is 17.9, 32.9 and 22.8 years and the fraction of customers experiencing a net LCC cost is 79.4 percent, 89.0 percent, and 84.7 percent. The life-cycle costs savings for centrifugal inline, centrifugal PRV supply, and radial housed fans are positive and equal to $335, $1,126, and $5,391, respectively. For these equipment classes the payback is 9.1, 2.8, and 2.2 years and the fraction of customers experiencing a net LCC cost is 66.7 percent, 32.3 percent, and 24.4 percent. At TSL 6, the shipments-weighted average LCC is equal to $1,751, the payback period is equal to 3.8 and the fraction of customers experiencing a net LCC cost is 32.8 percent.
At TSL 6, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $2,287 million to an increase of $40 million, which corresponds to a decrease of 46.4 percent and an increase of 0.8 percent, respectively. DOE estimates that
In the no-new-standards case, free cash flow is estimated to be $480 million in 2029, the year before the modeled compliance date. At TSL 6, the estimated free cash flow is −$1,132 million in 2029. This represents a decrease in free cash flow of 336 percent, or a decrease of $1,612 million, in 2029. A negative free cash flow implies that most, if not all, manufacturers will need to borrow substantial funds to be able to make investments necessary to comply with energy conservation standards at TSL 6. The extremely large drop in free cash flows could cause some GFB manufacturers to discontinue certain products offerings and shift their resources to other business units not impacted by this rule, even though recovery may be possible over the 30-year analysis period. DOE is concerned about the uncertainty of the market that may exists at TSL 6 if manufacturers choose not to maintain their full product offerings in response to the investments needed to support TSL 6. Additionally, most small businesses will struggle to secure this funding, due to their size and the uncertainty of recovering their investments. At TSL 6, models representing 4 percent of all GFB shipments are estimated to meet the efficiency requirements at this TSL in the no-new-standards case by 2030, the modeled compliance year. Therefore, models representing 96 percent of all GFB shipments will need be remodeled in the 5-year compliance period.
Manufacturers are unlikely to have the engineering capacity to conduct this massive redesign effort in 5 years. Instead, they will likely prioritize redesigns based on sales volume, which could leave market gaps in equipment offered by manufacturers and even the entire industry. The resulting market gaps in equipment offerings could result in sub-optimal selection of fan duty points (airflow, pressure, speed combination) for some applications, potentially leading to a reduction in the estimated energy savings, and estimated consumer benefits, at this TSL. Most small businesses will be at a competitive disadvantage at this TSL because they have less technical and financial resources and the capital investments required will be spread over fewer units.
The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 6 for GFBs, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the emissions reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden on many consumers, and the impacts on manufacturers, including the extremely large conversion costs (representing approximately 1.3 times the sum of the annual free cash flows during the time period that these conversion costs will be incurred and are approximately equal to 75 percent of the entire no-new-standards case INPV), profitability impacts that could result in a large reduction in INPV (up to a decrease of 46.4 percent), the large negative free cash flows in the years leading up to the compliance date (annual free cash flow is estimated to be −$1,132 million in the year before the compliance date), the lack of manufacturers currently offering equipment meeting the efficiency levels required at this TSL (models representing 96 percent of shipments will need to be redesigned to meet this TSL), including most small businesses, and the likelihood of the significant disruption in the GFB market. Due to the limited amount of engineering resources each manufacturer has, it is unclear if most manufacturers will be able to redesign models representing on average 96 percent of their GFB shipments covered by this rulemaking in the 5-year compliance period. Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 6 is not economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 5, which represents a combination of the highest efficiency levels resulting in positive life-cycle costs savings. At TSL 5, DOE expects all equipment classes, except for axial PRVs, would require an aerodynamic redesign. Axial panel, centrifugal housed, centrifugal inline, centrifugal unhoused, centrifugal PRV supply, and radial housed fans would all require the highest tier aerodynamic redesign. Axial inline and centrifugal PRV exhaust fans would require the second to highest tier aerodynamic redesign. Axial PRV fans would require two size increases in diameter.
TSL 5 would save an estimated 23.7 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 5, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $19.2 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $54.8 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 5 are 411.5 Mt of CO
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, health benefits from reduced SO
At TSL 5, for the largest equipment classes (which are represented by axial panel fans, centrifugal housed fans, and centrifugal unhoused fans) the standards are set at the max-tech EL as with TSL 6. There is a life-cycle cost savings of $1,902, $2,398, and $2,004 and a payback period of 2.5 years, 3.1 years, and 1.0 years, respectively. For these equipment classes, the fraction of customers experiencing a net LCC cost is 29.9 percent, 41.5 percent, and 13.7 percent due to increases in total installed cost of $618, $1,090 and $215, respectively. The life-cycle costs savings for axial inline, centrifugal inline, and radial housed fans are positive and equal to $670, $335, and $5,391, respectively. For these equipment classes the payback is 9.8, 9.1, and 2.2 years and the fraction of customers experiencing a net LCC cost is 51.3 percent, 66.7 percent, and 24.4 percent. The life-cycle costs savings for axial PRVs, centrifugal PRV exhaust, and centrifugal PRV supply fans are positive and equal to $945, $154, and $1,126, respectively. For these equipment classes the payback is 7.0, 8.9, and 2.8 years and the fraction of customers
At TSL 5, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $1,263 million to an increase of $11 million, which corresponds to a decrease of 25.6 percent and an increase of 0.2 percent, respectively. DOE estimates that industry must invest $2,075 million to conduct aerodynamic redesigns on all equipment classes except axial PRVs and to increase the diameter by two sizes for axial PRVs to comply with standards set at TSL 5. An investment of $2,075 million in conversion costs represents approximately 90 percent of the sum of the annual free cash flows over the years between the estimated final rule announcement date and the estimated standards year (
In the no-new-standards case, free cash flow is estimated to be $480 million in 2029, the year before the modeled compliance date. At TSL 5, the estimated free cash flow is -$407 million in 2029. This represents a decrease in free cash flow of 185 percent, or a decrease of $887 million, in 2029. A negative free cash flow implies that most, if not all, manufacturers will need to borrow substantial funds to be able to make investments necessary to comply with energy conservation standards at TSL 5. The large drop in free cash flows could cause some GFB manufacturers to exit the GFB market entirely, even though recovery may be possible over the 30-year analysis period. Additionally, most small businesses will struggle to secure this funding due to their size and the uncertainty of recovering their investments. At TSL 5, models representing 7 percent of all GFB shipments are estimated to meet or exceed the efficiency requirements at this TSL in the no-new-standards case by 2030, the modeled compliance year. Therefore, models representing 93 percent of all GFB shipments will need to be remodeled in the 5-year compliance period.
Manufacturers are unlikely to have the engineering capacity to conduct this massive redesign effort in 5 years. Instead, they will likely prioritize redesigns based on sales volume, which could leave market gaps in equipment offered by manufacturers and even the entire industry. The resulting market gaps in equipment offerings could result in sub-optimal selection of fan duty points (airflow, pressure, speed combination) for some applications, potentially leading to a reduction in the estimated energy savings, and estimated consumer benefits, at this TSL. Most small businesses will be at a competitive disadvantage at this TSL because they have less technical and financial resources and the capital investments required will be spread over fewer units.
The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 5 for GFBs, the benefits of energy savings, the economic benefits on many consumers, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the emissions reductions would be outweighed by the impacts on manufacturers, including the extremely large conversion costs (representing approximately 90 percent of the sum of the annual free cash flows during the time period these conversion costs will be incurred and are approximately equal to 42 percent of the entire no-new-standards case INPV), profitability margin impacts that could result in a large reduction in INPV (up to a decrease of 25.6 percent), the large negative free cash flows in the years leading up to the compliance date (annual free cash flow is estimated to be −$407 million in the year before the compliance date), the lack of manufacturers currently offering equipment meeting the efficiency levels required at this TSL (models representing 93 percent of all GFB shipments will need to be redesigned to meet this TSL), including most small businesses, and the likelihood of the significant disruption in the GFB market. Due to the limited amount of engineering resources each manufacturer has, it is unclear if most manufacturers will be able to redesign models representing on average 93 percent of their GFB shipments covered by this rulemaking in the 5-year compliance period. Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 5 is not economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 4, which represents an intermediate level that is one efficiency level below TSL 5 for each equipment class. At TSL 4, DOE expects all equipment classes, except for axial PRVs, would require an aerodynamic redesign. Axial panel, centrifugal housed, centrifugal inline, centrifugal unhoused, centrifugal PRV supply, and radial housed fans would all require the second highest tier aerodynamic redesign. Axial inline fans would require the lowest tier aerodynamic redesign. Centrifugal PRV exhaust fans would require the second to lowest tier aerodynamic redesign. Axial PRV fans would require one size increase in diameter.
TSL 4 would save an estimated 13.8 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $13.7 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $36.9 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 239.4 Mt of CO
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, health benefits from reduced SO
At TSL 4, for the largest equipment classes which are represented by axial panel fans, centrifugal housed fans, and centrifugal unhoused fans; there is a life-cycle cost savings of $1,702, $2,423, and $1,170; and a payback period of 1.7 years, 0.6 years, and 1.2 years, respectively. For these equipment classes, the fraction of customers experiencing a net LCC cost is 19.5 percent, 12.9 percent, and 10.5 percent due to increases in total installed cost of $293, $134 and $135, respectively. The life-cycle costs savings for axial inline, centrifugal inline, and radial housed fans are positive and equal to $550, $955, and $3,714, respectively. For these equipment classes the payback is 9.6, 6.1, and 1.7 years and the fraction of customers experiencing a net LCC cost is 23.6 percent, 49.2 percent, and
At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $455 million to an increase of $1 million, which corresponds to a decrease of 9.2 percent and an increase of less than 0.1 percent, respectively. DOE estimates that industry must invest $770 million to comply with standards set at TSL 4. An investment of $770 million in conversion costs represents approximately 33 percent of the sum of the annual free cash flows over the years between the estimated final rule announcement date and the estimated standards year (
In the no-new-standards case, free cash flow is estimated to be $480 million in 2029, the year before the modeled compliance date. At TSL 4, the estimated free cash flow is $161 million in 2029. This represents a decrease in free cash flow of 66.4 percent, or a decrease of $319 million, in 2029. Annual cash flows remain positive for all years leading up to the modeled compliance date. At TSL 4, models representing 25 percent of all GFB shipments are estimated to meet or exceed the efficiency requirements at this TSL in the no-new-standards case by 2030, the modeled compliance year. Therefore, models representing 75 percent of all GFB shipments will need to be remodeled in the 5-year compliance period. DOE estimates that while this represents a significant redesign effort, most GFB manufacturers will have the engineering capacity to complete these redesigns in a 5-year compliance period.
After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and burdens, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that a standard set at TSL 4 for GFBs would be economically justified. At this TSL, the average LCC savings for all GFB equipment class consumers is positive. An estimated 15.7 percent of consumers experience a net cost. The FFC national energy savings are significant and the NPV of consumer benefits is positive using both a 3-percent and 7-percent discount rate. Notably, the benefits to consumers vastly outweigh the cost to manufacturers. At TSL 4, the NPV of consumer benefits, even measured at the more conservative discount rate of 7 percent is over 30 times higher than the maximum estimated manufacturers' loss in INPV. The standard levels at TSL 4 are economically justified even without weighing the estimated monetary value of emissions reductions. When those emissions reductions are included—representing $11.9 billion in climate benefits (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate), and $23.4 billion (using a 3-percent discount rate) or $8.2 billion (using a 7-percent discount rate) in health benefits—the rationale for setting standards at TSL 4 for GFBs is further strengthened. Additionally, the impact to manufacturers is significantly reduced at TSL 4. While manufacturers have to invest $770 million to comply with standards at TSL 4, annual free cash flows remain positive for all years leading up to the compliance date. Lastly, DOE estimates that most GFB manufacturers will have the engineering capacity to complete these redesigns in a 5-year compliance period.
As stated, DOE conducts the walk-down analysis to determine the TSL that represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified as required under EPCA. The walk-down is not a comparative analysis, as a comparative analysis would result in the maximization of net benefits instead of energy savings that are technologically feasible and economically justified, which would be contrary to the statute. 86 FR 70892, 70908. While DOE recognizes that TSL 4 is not the TSL that maximizes net monetized benefits, DOE has weighed other non-quantified and non-monetized factors in accordance with EPCA in reaching this determination. DOE notes that as compared to TSL 5 and TSL 6, TSL 4 has significantly smaller percentages of GFBs consumers experiencing a net cost, a lower simple payback period, a lower maximum decrease in INPV, lower manufacturer conversion costs, and significantly less likelihood of a major disruption to the GFB market, as DOE does not anticipate gaps in GFB equipment offerings at TSL 4.
Although DOE considered proposed new standard levels for GFBs by grouping the efficiency levels for each equipment class into TSLs, DOE evaluates all analyzed efficiency levels in its analysis. For all equipment classes, TSL 4 represents the maximum energy savings that does not result in significant negative economic impacts to GFB manufacturers. At TSL 4 conversion costs are estimated to be $770 million, significantly less than at TSL 5 ($2,075 million) and at TSL 6 ($3,750 million). At TSL 4 conversion costs represent a significantly smaller size of the sum of GFB manufacturers' annual free cash flows for 2025 to 2029 (33 percent), than at TSL 5 (90 percent) and at TSL 6 (130 percent) and a significantly smaller portion of GFB manufacturers' no-new-standards case INPV (15 percent), than at TSL 5 (42 percent) and at TSL 6 (75 percent). At TSL 4, GFB manufacturers will have to redesign a significantly smaller portion of their GFB models to meet the ELs set at TSL 4 (models representing 75 percent of all GFB shipments), than at TSL 5 (93 percent) and at TSL 6 (96 percent). Lastly, GFB manufacturers' free cash flow remains positive at TSL 4 for all years leading up to the compliance date. Whereas at TSL 5 annual free cash flow is estimated to be −$407 million and at TSL 6 annual free cash flow is estimated to be −$1,132 million in 2029, the year before the modeled compliance year. The ELs at the proposed TSL result in average positive LCC savings for all equipment classes, significantly reduce the number of consumers experiencing a net cost, and reduce the decrease in INPV and conversion costs to the point where DOE has concluded they are economically justified, as discussed for TSL 4 in the preceding paragraphs.
Therefore, based on the previous considerations, DOE proposes to adopt the energy conservation standards for GFBs at TSL 4. The proposed energy conservation standards for GFBs, which are expressed as FEI values, are shown in Table V-66.
DOE is proposing an FEI level of 0.85 (EL4) for axial PRVs. In section IV.C.1.b, DOE developed the MSP-efficiency relationship based on data from the AMCA sales database as well as performance data from manufacturer fan selection software and performance data provided from confidential manufacturer interviews. From its analysis, DOE estimated that EL4 for axial PRVs would be achieved by implementing two impeller diameter increases. Based on the MSP-efficiency results, EL4 for axial PRVs is the highest level with positive life-cycle costs savings. Furthermore, as discussed in section IV.C.1.b, ASHRAE 90.1-2022 set an FEI target of 1.00 for all fans within the scope of that standard, which includes axial PRVs. CEC requires manufacturers to report fan operating boundaries that result in operation at a FEI of greater than or equal to 1.00 for all fans within the scope of that rulemaking, which includes axial PRVs. DOE also notes that, based on its shipments analysis, 50-percent of axial PRVs have an FEI of at least 1.00. Additionally, based on its review of the market, DOE has found that most manufacturers offer models of APRVs that have an FEI of at least 1.00 at a range of diameters. Based on this, DOE expects that the market is already shifting towards an FEI of 1.00 for axial PRVs and that this level may not be unduly burdensome for manufacturers to achieve.
DOE requests comment on the proposed standard level for axial PRVs, including the design options and costs, as well as the burdens and benefits associated with this level and the industry standards/California regulations FEI level of 1.00.
Table V-68 and Table V-69 summarize the quantitative impacts estimated for each TSL for ACFs. The national impacts are measured over the lifetime of ACFs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated first full year of compliance with new standards (2030-2059). The energy savings, emissions reductions, and value of emissions reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle results. The efficiency levels contained in each TSL are described in section V.A of this document.
DOE first considered TSL 6, which represents the max-tech efficiency levels. At TSL 6, DOE expects all equipment classes would require an
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 6 are 125.8 Mt of CO
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, health benefits from reduced SO
At TSL 6, for the largest equipment classes, which are represented by ACF1, ACF2, and ACF3—which together represent approximately 99 percent of annual shipments—there is a life-cycle cost savings of $126, $346, and $630 and a payback period of 3.1 years, 1.9 years, and 1.4 years, respectively. For these equipment classes, the fraction of customers experiencing a net LCC cost is 45.1 percent, 23.6 percent, and 11.3 percent due to increases in total installed cost of $187, $201 and $222, respectively. For the remaining equipment class (ACF4), the average LCC savings are −$1,210, a majority of consumers (99.7 percent) would experience a net cost and the payback period is 25.0 years.
At TSL 6, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $734 million to an increase of $3 million, which corresponds to decreases of 113.1 percent and an increase of 0.5 percent, respectively. DOE estimates that industry must invest $1,167 million to conduct aerodynamic redesigns on all equipment classes and to implement ECMs for all equipment classes to comply with standards set at TSL 6. An investment of $1,167 million in conversion costs represents over 5 times the sum of the annual free cash flows over the years between the estimated final rule announcement date and the estimated standards year (
In the no-new-standards case, free cash flow is estimated to be $51 million in 2029, the year before the modeled compliance date. At TSL 6, the estimated free cash flow is −$456 million in 2029. This represents a decrease in free cash flow of 999 percent, or a decrease of $507 million, in 2029. A negative free cash flow implies that most, if not all, manufacturers will need to borrow substantial funds to be able to make investments necessary to comply with energy conservation standards at TSL 6. The extremely large drop in free cash flows could cause some ACF manufacturers to exit the ACF market entirely, even though recovery may be possible over the 30-year analysis period. Additionally, most small businesses will struggle to secure this funding, due to their size and the uncertainty of recovering their investments. At TSL 6, models representing 1 percent of all ACF shipments are estimated to meet the efficiency requirements at this TSL in the no-new-standards case by 2030, the modeled compliance year. Therefore, models representing 99 percent of all ACF shipments will need to be remodeled in the 5-year compliance period.
Manufacturers are unlikely to have the engineering capacity to conduct this massive redesign effort in 5 years. Instead, they will likely prioritize redesigns based on sales volume, which could leave market gaps in equipment offered by manufacturers and even the entire industry. The resulting market gaps in equipment offerings could result in sub-optimal selection of fan duty points (airflow, pressure, speed combination) for some applications, potentially leading to a reduction in the estimated energy savings, and estimated consumer benefits, at this TSL. Most small businesses will be at a competitive disadvantage at this TSL because they have less technical and financial resources and the capital investments required will be spread over fewer units.
The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 6 for ACFs, the benefits of energy savings, the economic benefits on many consumers, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the emissions reductions would be outweighed by the impacts on manufacturers, including the extremely large conversion costs (representing approximately 5 times the sum of the annual free cash flows during the time period that these conversion costs will be incurred and are approximately equal to 1.8 times the entire no-new-standards case INPV), profitability impacts that could result in a large reduction in INPV (up to a decrease of 113.1 percent), the large negative free cash flows in the years leading up to the compliance date (annual free cash flow is estimated to be −$456 million in the year before the compliance date), the lack of manufacturers currently offering equipment meeting the efficiency levels required at TSL 6 (models representing 99 percent of all ACF shipments will need to be redesigned to meet this TSL), including most small businesses, and the likelihood of the significant disruption in the ACF market. Due to the limited amount of engineering resources each manufacturer has, it is unclear if most manufacturers will be able to redesign models representing on average 99 percent of their ACF shipments covered by this rulemaking in the 5-year compliance period. Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 6 is not economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 5, which represents the highest EL below max-tech with positive LCC savings and is a combination of efficiency level 5 for axial ACFs and efficiency level 3 for housed centrifugal ACFs. At TSL 5, DOE expects that axial ACFs would require the highest tier of aerodynamic redesign and housed centrifugal ACFs would require the lowest tier of aerodynamic redesign. TSL 5 would save an estimated 6.5 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 5, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $5.2 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $13.1 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 5 are 112.6 Mt of CO
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, health benefits from reduced SO
At TSL 5, for the largest equipment classes, which are represented by ACF1, ACF2, and ACF3—which together represent approximately 99 percent of annual shipments—there is a life-cycle cost savings of $141, $341, and $613 and a payback period of 2.8 years, 1.6 years, and 1.1 years, respectively. For these equipment classes, the fraction of customers experiencing a net LCC cost is 40.4 percent, 22.7 percent, and 9.3 percent due to increases in total installed cost of $148, $156 and $155, respectively. For the remaining equipment class (ACF4), the average LCC savings are $18 and 14.1 percent of consumers would experience a net cost and the payback period is 4.8 years.
At TSL 5, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $633 million to an increase of $3 million, which corresponds to a decrease of 97.5 percent and an increase of 0.5 percent, respectively. DOE estimates that industry must invest $1,043 million to conduct significant aerodynamic redesigns for non-compliant axial ACFs and minor aerodynamic redesign for non-compliant housed centrifugal ACFs to comply with standards set at TSL 5. An investment of $1,043 million in conversion costs represents over 4.5 times the sum of the annual free cash flows over the years between the estimated final rule announcement date and the estimated standards year (
In the no-new-standards case, free cash flow is estimated to be $51 million in 2029, the year before the modeled compliance date. At TSL 5, the estimated free cash flow is −$400 million in 2029. This represents a decrease in free cash flow of 889 percent, or a decrease of $451 million, in 2029. A negative free cash flow implies that most, if not all, manufacturers will need to borrow substantial funds to be able to make investments necessary to comply with energy conservation standards at TSL 5. The large drop in free cash flows could cause some ACF manufacturers to exit the ACF market entirely, even though recovery may be possible over the 30-year analysis period. Additionally, most small businesses will struggle to secure this funding, due to their size and the uncertainty of recovering their investments. At TSL 5, models representing 4 percent of all ACF shipments are estimated to meet or exceed the efficiency requirements at this TSL in the no-new-standards case by 2030, the modeled compliance year. Therefore, models representing 96 percent of all ACF shipments will need to be remodeled in the 5-year compliance period.
Manufacturers are unlikely to have the engineering capacity to conduct this massive redesign effort in 5 years. Instead, they will likely prioritize redesigns based on sales volume, which could leave market gaps in equipment offered by manufacturers and even the entire industry. The resulting market gaps in equipment offerings could result in sub-optimal selection of fan duty points (airflow, pressure, speed combination) for some applications, potentially leading to a reduction in the estimated energy savings, and estimated consumer benefits, at this TSL. Most small businesses will be at a competitive disadvantage at this TSL because they have less technical and financial resources and the capital investments required will be spread over fewer units.
The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 5 for ACFs, the benefits of energy savings, the economic benefits on many consumers, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the emissions reductions would be outweighed by the impacts on manufacturers, including the extremely large conversion costs (representing approximately 4.5 times the sum of the annual free cash flows during the time period that these conversion costs will be incurred and are approximately equal to 1.6 times the entire no-new-standards case INPV), profitability impacts that could result in a large reduction in INPV (up to a decrease of 97.5 percent), the large negative free cash flows in the years leading up to the compliance date (annual free cash flow is estimated to be −$400 million in the year before the compliance date), the lack of manufacturers currently offering equipment meeting the efficiency levels required at TSL 5 (models representing 96 percent of all ACF shipments will need to be redesigned to meet this TSL), including most small businesses, and the likelihood of the significant disruption in the ACF market. Due to the limited amount of engineering resources each manufacturer has, it is unclear if most manufacturers will be able to redesign models representing on average 96 percent of their ACF shipments covered by this rulemaking in the 5-year compliance period. Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 5 is not economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 4, which represents efficiency level 4 for axial ACFs and efficiency level 0 for housed centrifugal ACFs (no new standards for housed centrifugal ACFs). DOE expects that the second highest tier of aerodynamic redesign would be required for axial ACFs at TSL 4 would save an estimated 4.5 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $5.3 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $12.6 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 78.5 Mt of CO
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, health benefits from reduced SO
At TSL 4, for the largest equipment classes, which are represented by ACF1, ACF2, and ACF3—which together represent approximately 99 percent of annual shipments—there is a life-cycle cost savings of $327, $478, and $668 and a payback period of 0.5 years, 0.2 years, and 0.1 years, respectively. For these equipment classes, the fraction of customers experiencing a net LCC cost is 0.2 percent, 0 percent, and 0 percent due to increases in total installed cost of $16, $14, and $15, respectively. For the remaining equipment class (ACF4), the considered TSL would not set any energy conservation standards.
At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $71 million to an increase of less than $0.1 million, which correspond to a decrease of 10.9 percent and an increase of less than 0.1 percent, respectively. DOE estimates that industry must invest $118.1 million to implement the second highest tier of aerodynamic redesign for axial ACFs to comply with standards set at TSL 4. An investment of $118.1 million in conversion costs represents approximately 50 percent of the sum of the annual free cash flows over the years between the estimated final rule announcement date and the estimated standards year (
In the no-new-standards case, free cash flow is estimated to be $51 million in 2029, the year before the modeled compliance date. At TSL 4, the estimated free cash flow is $1 million in 2029. This represents a decrease in free cash flow of 99.0 percent, or a decrease of $50.2 million, in 2029. Annual cash flows remain positive for all years leading up to the modeled compliance date. At TSL 4, models representing 36 percent of all ACF shipments are estimated to meet or exceed the efficiency requirements at this TSL in the no-new-standards case by 2030, the modeled compliance year. Therefore, models representing 64 percent of all ACF shipments will need to be remodeled in the 5-year compliance period. DOE estimates that while this represents a significant redesign effort, most ACF manufacturers will have the engineering capacity to complete these redesigns in a 5-year compliance period.
After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and burdens, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that at a standard set at TSL 4 for ACFs would be economically justified. While DOE recognizes that TSL 4 is not the TSL that maximizes net monetized benefits, DOE has weighed other non-quantified and non-monetized factors in accordance with EPCA in reaching this determination. At this TSL, the average LCC savings for all ACF consumers are positive. An estimated 0.1 percent of consumers experience a net cost. The FFC national energy savings are significant and the NPV of consumer benefits is positive using both a 3-percent and 7-percent discount rate. Notably, the benefits to consumers vastly outweigh the cost to manufacturers. At TSL 4, the NPV of consumer benefits, even measured at the more conservative discount rate of 7 percent is over 74 times higher than the maximum estimated manufacturers' loss in INPV. The standard levels at TSL 4 are economically justified even without weighing the estimated monetary value of emissions reductions. When those emissions reductions are included—representing $4.4 billion in climate benefits (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate), and $8.2 billion (using a 3-percent discount rate) or $3.1 billion (using a 7-percent discount rate) in health benefits—the rationale for setting standards at TSL 4 for ACFs is further strengthened. Additionally, the impact to manufacturers is significantly reduced at TSL 4. While manufacturers have to invest $118.1 million to comply with standards at TSL 4, annual free cash flows remain positive for all years leading up to the compliance date. Lastly, DOE estimates that most ACF manufacturers will have the engineering capacity to complete these redesigns in a 5-year compliance period.
As stated, DOE conducts the walk-down analysis to determine the TSL that represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified as required under EPCA. The walk-down is not a comparative analysis, as a comparative analysis would result in the maximization of net benefits instead of energy savings that are technologically feasible and economically justified, which would be contrary to the statute. 86 FR 70892, 70908. Although DOE has not conducted a comparative analysis to select the proposed energy conservation standards, DOE notes that as compared to TSL 5 and TSL 6, TSL 4 has higher average LCC savings, significantly smaller percentages of GFBs consumers experiencing a net cost, a lower simple payback period, a lower maximum decrease in INPV, lower manufacturer conversion costs, and significantly less likelihood of a major disruption to the ACF market, as DOE does not anticipate gaps in ACF equipment offerings at TSL 4.
Although DOE considered proposed new standard levels for ACFs by grouping the efficiency levels for each equipment class into TSLs, DOE evaluates all analyzed efficiency levels in its analysis. For all equipment classes, TSL 4 represents the maximum energy savings that does not result in significant negative economic impacts to ACF manufacturers. At TSL 4 conversion costs are estimated to be $118.1 million, significantly less than at TSL 5 ($1,043 million) and at TSL 6 ($1,167 million). At TSL 4 conversion costs represent a significantly smaller size of the sum of ACF manufacturers' annual free cash flows for 2025 to 2029 (50 percent), than at TSL 5 (450 percent) and at TSL 6 (500 percent) and a significantly smaller portion of ACF manufacturers' no-new-standards case INPV (18 percent), than at TSL 5 (161 percent) and at TSL 6 (180 percent). At TSL 4, ACF manufacturers will have to redesign a significantly smaller portion of their ACF models to meet the ELs set at TSL 4 (models representing 64 percent of all ACF shipments), than at TSL 5 (96 percent) and at TSL 6 (99 percent). Lastly, ACF manufacturers' free cash flow remains positive at TSL 4 for all years leading up to the compliance date. Whereas at TSL 5 annual free cash flow is estimated to be −$400 million and at TSL 6 annual free cash flow is estimated to be −$456 million in 2029, the year before the modeled compliance year. The ELs at the proposed TSL result in average positive LCC savings for all equipment classes, significantly reduce the number of consumers experiencing a net cost, and reduce the decrease in INPV and conversion costs to the point where DOE has concluded they are economically justified, as discussed for TSL 4 in the preceding paragraphs.
Therefore, based on the previous considerations, DOE proposes to adopt the energy conservation standards for ACFs at TSL 4. The proposed new energy conservation standards for ACFs,
Table V-71 summarizes the quantitative impacts estimated at the proposed TSLs for GFBs and ACFs. The quantitative impacts estimated for each TSL for GFBs and ACFs are discussed in sections V.C.1.a and V.C.1.b and of this document.
This section presents the combined results for GFBs and ACFs. Specific results for GFBs and ACFs are also discussed in section V.C.2.a and V.C.2.b, respectively.
The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is (1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2022 dollars) of the benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the annualized monetary value of the climate and health benefits from emission reductions.
Table V-72 shows the annualized values for GFBs and ACFs under TSL 4, expressed in 2022 dollars. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7 percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from reduced NO
Using a 3 percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards is $374 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $3,302 million in reduced operating costs, $963 million in monetized climate benefits, and $1,869 million in monetized health benefits. In this case, the monetized net benefit would amount to $5,760 million per year.
The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is (1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2022 dollars) of the benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the annualized monetary value of the climate and health benefits from emission reductions.
Table V-73 shows the annualized values for GFBs under TSL 4, expressed in 2022 dollars. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and NO
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards for GFBs is $340 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $2,524 million in reduced operating costs, $703 million in monetized climate benefits, and $1,384 million from in monetized health benefits. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $4,271 million per year.
The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is (1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2022 dollars) of the benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the annualized monetary value of the climate and health benefits from emission reductions.
Table V-74 shows the annualized values for ACFs under TSL 4, expressed in 2022 dollars. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and NO
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards for ACFs is $34 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $778 million in reduced operating costs, $261 million in monetized climate benefits, and $485 million in monetized health benefits. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $1,489 million per year.
Manufacturers, including importers, must use equipment-specific certification templates to certify compliance to DOE. For fans and blowers, the certification template reflects the general certification requirements specified at 10 CFR 429.12 and the product-specific requirements specified at 10 CFR 429.69. DOE is not proposing to amend the product-specific certification requirements for this equipment. DOE may consider certification reporting requirements for GFBs in a separate rulemaking.
In the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE summarized stakeholder comments related to FEI representations at compliant and non-compliant duty points. DOE stated that it was not establishing energy conservation standards for fans and blowers and therefore, the May 2023 TP final rule would not result in any compliant or non-compliant operating points. DOE further stated that it would consider representations and any issues related to compliance with any potential energy conservation standard in a separate energy conservation standards rulemaking. 88 FR 27312, 27369.
In response to the October 2022 NODA, the CA IOUs recommended that DOE consider allowing representations at all duty points for fans designed for low-pressure, space-constrained applications. (CA IOUs, No. 127 at pp. 6-7) The CA IOUs stated that for a low-pressure application fan to meet an energy conservation standard, a consumer would have to either increase the diameter of the fan, which would result in a costly redesign of the system, or the consumer would have to replace the non-compliant fan with a compliant fan of the same diameter running at a higher pressure, which could result in greater power consumption of the system.
Damas and Boldt commented that they disagree with DOE's proposal to restrict the publication of fan and blower performance data at duty points that do not comply with a proposed energy conservation standard and recommended that DOE instead require that any non-compliant duty points be highlighted. (Damas and Boldt, No. 131 at pp. 1, 5) They provided several example scenarios where a fan may be selected for use that is outside its compliant range: space-constrained low-flow high-pressure applications, space-constrained low-pressure applications, retrofitted systems, VAV systems that require operation over a wide range of duty points, systems with pressure consuming elements that may vary in their pressure consumption such that a fan must be selected for a worst case scenario instead of an average use scenario, and situations where the system that a fan is operating in changes. (Damas and Boldt, No. 131 at pp. 2-4) Furthermore, Damas and Boldt commented that they are concerned that designers may artificially increase the pressure consumption of a system by closing dampers to allow the fan to operate at a compliant duty point, which could ultimately increase energy consumption. (Damas and Boldt, No. 131 at pp. 3-4) Additionally, Damas and Boldt stated that there may be safety issues when a fan operates near its highest efficiency duty point, which is often near the unstable region of a fan. (Damas and Boldt, No. 131 at p. 4) Damas and Boldt commented that system engineers need full fan
As discussed in detail in section IV.C.1, DOE evaluated improved efficiency options while maintaining constant diameter and duty point (
As discussed in section III.C.1 of this document, the FEI metric is evaluated at each duty point as specified by the manufacturer as required by the DOE test procedure. If adopted, the proposed energy conservation standards would have to be met at each duty point at which the fan is sold.
Consistent with stakeholder feedback from the CA IOUs and Damas and Boldt, DOE recognizes that not allowing representations of a fan's entire performance map could result in increased energy consumption or potential unintended consequences. Therefore, DOE proposes that a manufacturer could make representations at non-compliant duty points provided representations include a disclaimer; however, the manufacturer would be responsible for ensuring that the fan is not sold and selected at the non-compliant duty points. To ensure this, a manufacturer could, for example: (1) choose to make representations of non-compliant duty points and identify those duty points as non-compliant, but would need to know the duty point(s) for which the fan was selected and sold; or (2) choose to only make representations at compliant duty points in the case where the manufacturer does not know the duty point(s) for which the fan is selected and sold.
In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(r), energy conservation standards may include any requirement which the Secretary determines is necessary to assure that each covered product to which such standard applies meets the required minimum level of energy efficiency. As such, to assure that each GFB to which the proposed standard would apply meets the required FEI specified in such standard, and in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(r), DOE proposes to additionally require that all representations at non-compliant duty points would be (1) identified by the following disclaimer: “Sale at these duty points violates Department of Energy Regulations under EPCA” in all capital letters, red, and bold font; and (2) grayed out in any graphs or tables in which they are included.
Subpart C of 10 CFR part 429 establishes enforcement provisions applicable to covered products and covered equipment, including fans and blowers. General enforcement provisions are established in 10 CFR 429.110. Various provisions in 10 CFR 429.110 specify when DOE may test for enforcement, how DOE will obtain units for enforcement testing, where selected units will be tested, and how DOE will determine basic model compliance, both in general and for specific products and equipment. DOE is proposing to add specific enforcement testing provisions for GFBs at 10 CFR 429.110(e).
As previously stated, the FEI metric would be evaluated at each duty point as specified by the manufacturer and, if adopted, the proposed energy conservation standards would have to be met at each duty point at which the fan is sold. Therefore, while DOE requires GFBs to follow the basic model structure outlined in the May 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE proposes that GFB compliance will be determined by duty point offered for sale. In other words, if DOE finds that one or more duty point(s) certified as compliant by a manufacturer is not compliant with proposed energy conservation standards, if adopted, the basic model would be considered non-compliant.
Pursuant to 10.CFR 429.104, DOE may, at any time, test a basic model to assess whether the basic model is in compliance with the applicable energy conservation standard(s). If DOE has reason to believe that a basic model is not in compliance it may test for enforcement pursuant to 10 CFR 429.110. To verify compliance of GFBs, DOE proposes to add the following enforcement testing approach at 10 CFR 429.110(e).
When conducting assessment and enforcement testing, DOE proposes to test each basic model according to the DOE test procedure, using the test method specified by the manufacturer submitted in their certification report (
When testing a single fan at multiple duty points, DOE proposes to first determine either bhp or FEP, dependent on the test method specified by the manufacturer, for the range of certified airflow, pressure, and speed (duty points) according to appendix A of subpart J to 10 CFR part 431. DOE acknowledges that it may not be feasible to exactly replicate the measurements at the certified duty points, or within the certified range of duty points; therefore, DOE will verify that, at a given speed, the airflow at which the test is being conducted is within 5-percent of the certified airflow and the pressure is within between
For fan shaft power:
For fan electrical power:
DOE proposes that if the FEI calculated at the certified or measured duty point is greater than or equal to the minimum required FEI, then testing would be complete and DOE would consider the certified duty point to be compliant. If the FEI calculated at a certified or measured duty point is less than the minimum required FEI, DOE may make a determination of noncompliance based on that single test or may select no more than three additional identical model numbers and evaluate (a) specific duty point(s) according to the procedure just described to further determine whether (a) specific duty point(s) is/are compliant based on the average FEI of all units tested when multiple units are tested.
DOE also proposes to add the provisions related to the verification of duty points at 10 CFR 429.134.
If the FEI calculated at a certified or measured duty point is less than the minimum required FEI, DOE may make a determination of noncompliance based on that single test or may select no more than three additional units of a certified basic model for testing. For each of the units tested, if the duty point can be verified, DOE proposes to then follow the approach described in the preceding paragraph, to determine the converted FEP or bhp and the associated FEI at certified duty point(s). Similarly, DOE proposes to determine compliance at each duty point using the average FEI for each certified duty point. If the duty point(s) cannot be verified, DOE proposes to use the same approach as in the sampling provisions (see 10 CFR 429.69) to determine the average FEP or bhp and the associated average FEI at measured duty point(s).
For air circulating fans, DOE proposes to follow the general enforcement testing provisions at 10 CFR 429.110.
Executive Order (“E.O.”) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011) and amended by E.O. 14094, “Modernizing Regulatory Review,” 88 FR 21879 (April 11, 2023), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) in the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, this proposed regulatory action is consistent with these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to OIRA for review. OIRA has determined that this proposed regulatory action constitutes a “significant regulatory action” within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, pursuant to section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866, DOE has provided to OIRA an assessment, including the underlying analysis, of benefits and costs anticipated from the proposed regulatory action, together with, to the extent feasible, a quantification of those costs; and an assessment, including the underlying analysis, of costs and benefits of potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives to the planned regulation, and an explanation why the planned regulatory action is preferable to the identified potential alternatives. These assessments are summarized in this preamble and further detail can be found in the technical support document for this proposed rulemaking. Finally, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this proposed rule may be found at
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. EPCA specifies the types of industrial equipment that can be classified as covered in addition to the equipment enumerated in 42 U.S.C. 6311(1). This industrial equipment includes fans and blowers. (42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(B)(ii) and (iii)) DOE is undertaking this NOPR pursuant to its obligations under EPCA to propose standards for covered industrial equipment.
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered equipment, including fans and blowers. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
For manufacturers of fans and blowers, the SBA has set a size threshold, which defines those entities classified as “small businesses” for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. (
DOE conducted a focused inquiry of the companies that could be small businesses that manufacture fans and blowers covered by this rulemaking. DOE used data from the AMCA sales database; from the BESS Labs database; and from ENERGY STAR's certified product database to create a list of companies that potentially sell fans and blowers covered by this rulemaking. Additionally, DOE received feedback from interested parties in response to previous stages of this rulemaking. DOE contacted select companies on its list, as necessary, to determine whether they met the SBA's definition of a fan and blower small business. DOE screened out companies that did not offer equipment covered by this rulemaking, did not meet the definition of a “small business,” or are foreign owned and operated.
Using these data sources, DOE identified 91 manufacturers of fans and blowers. DOE then referenced D&B Hoovers reports,
From these sources, DOE identified 46 unique businesses manufacturing at least one covered fan or blower product family and that also fall under SBA's employee threshold for this rulemaking. Of the 46 small businesses, 41 manufacture at least one model of a covered GFB and 15 of these small businesses additionally manufacture at least one model of a covered ACF. Lastly, there are five small businesses that only manufacture ACF models (and do not manufacture any GFB models).
DOE requests comment on the number of small business OEMs identified that manufacture fans and blowers covered by this rulemaking.
In section IV.J.2.c of this NOPR, DOE reviews the methodology used to calculate conversion costs, this is further elaborated in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. DOE used the same methodology to estimate per small business conversion costs as with the broader industry—developing estimates of the number of product families for each small business using their websites and product catalogs. DOE was also able to find revenue estimates for each small business identified.
Across the identified small businesses, DOE identified 457 covered GFB product families and 97 ACF product families. DOE evaluated how many of each type for each small business would be compliant with TSL 4 based on the shipments analysis efficiency level estimates. Then, DOE assumed that all non-compliant product families would be redesigned and calculated the appropriate conversion costs. DOE estimates that the total cost to all small businesses to redesign GFB product families would be approximately $233.0 million and to redesign ACF would be an additional $29.1 million. DOE provides estimates of conversion costs for each small business in the following tables for small businesses that manufacture both GFBs and ACFs, GFBs only, and ACFs only.
Costs as a percentage of revenue vary significantly across the small businesses. For small manufacturers that make both GFBs and ACFs, median costs as a percentage of revenue are 10.8 percent. For small manufacturers that only make GFBs, median costs as a percentage of revenue are 5.3 percent. For small businesses that only make ACFs, most small businesses are expected to incur zero redesign costs, the highest cost estimated represents 6.9 percent of the affected small business' compliance period revenue. Small businesses that experience high conversion costs as a percentage of revenue will likely need to seek outside capital to finance redesign efforts and or prioritize redesigning product families based on sales volume.
DOE requests comment on the estimated small business costs and how those may differ from the costs incurred by larger manufacturers.
DOE is not aware of any other rules or regulations that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the rule being considered today.
The discussion in the previous section analyzes impacts on small businesses that would result from DOE's proposed rule, represented by TSL 4. In reviewing alternatives to the proposed rule, DOE examined energy conservation standards set at lower efficiency levels. While selecting TSLs 1, 2, or 3 would reduce the possible impacts on small businesses, it would come at the expense of a significant
For GFBs, TSL 1 achieves 88 percent lower energy savings and 90 percent lower consumer net benefits compared to the energy savings and consumer net benefits at TSL 4. TSL 2 achieves 78 percent lower energy savings and 80 percent lower consumer net benefits compared to the energy savings and consumer net benefits at TSL 4. TSL 3 achieves 44 percent lower energy savings and 49 percent lower consumer net benefits compared to the energy savings and consumer net benefits at TSL 4.
For ACFs, TSL 1 achieves 98 percent lower energy savings and 96 percent lower consumer net benefits compared to the energy savings and consumer net benefits at TSL 4. TSL 2 achieves 96 percent lower energy savings and 94 percent lower consumer net benefits compared to the energy savings and consumer net benefits at TSL 4. TSL 3 achieves 73 percent lower energy savings and 71 percent lower consumer net benefits compared to the energy savings and consumer net benefits at TSL 4.
Based on the presented discussion, establishing standards at TSL 4 for GFBs and for ACFs balances the benefits of the energy savings and consumer benefits with the potential burdens placed on manufacturers and small businesses better than alternate standard levels. Accordingly, DOE does not propose one of the other TSLs considered in the analysis, or the other policy alternatives examined as part of the regulatory impact analysis and included in chapter 17 of the NOPR TSD.
Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
OMB Control Number 1910-1400, Compliance Statement Energy/Water Conservation Standards for Appliances, is currently valid and assigned to the certification reporting requirements applicable to covered equipment, including fans and blowers.
DOE's certification and compliance activities ensure accurate and comprehensive information about the energy and water use characteristics of covered products and covered equipment sold in the United States. Manufacturers of all covered products and covered equipment must submit a certification report before a basic model is distributed in commerce, annually thereafter, and if the basic model is redesigned in such a manner to increase the consumption or decrease the efficiency of the basic model such that the certified rating is no longer supported by the test data. Additionally, manufacturers must report when production of a basic model has ceased and is no longer offered for sale as part of the next annual certification report following such cessation. DOE requires the manufacturer of any covered product or covered equipment to establish, maintain, and retain the records of certification reports, of the underlying test data for all certification testing, and of any other testing conducted to satisfy the requirements of part 429, part 430, and/or part 431. Certification reports provide DOE and consumers with comprehensive, up-to-date efficiency information and support effective enforcement.
Certification data would be required for fans and blowers were this NOPR to be finalized as proposed; however, DOE is not proposing certification or reporting requirements for fans and blowers in this NOPR. Instead, DOE may consider proposals to establish certification requirements and reporting for fans and blowers under a separate rulemaking regarding appliance and equipment certification. DOE will address changes to OMB Control Number 1910-1400 at that time, as necessary.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
DOE is analyzing this proposed regulation in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”) and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include a categorical exclusion for rulemakings that establish energy conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix B5.1. DOE anticipates that this rulemaking qualifies for categorical exclusion B5.1 because it is a rulemaking that establishes energy conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment, none of the exceptions identified in categorical exclusion B5.1(b) apply, no extraordinary circumstances exist that require further environmental analysis, and it otherwise meets the requirements for application of a categorical exclusion.
E.O. 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has tentatively determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the equipment that are the subject of this proposed rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“UMRA”) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, section 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at
Although this proposed rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, it may require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by the private sector. Such expenditures may include: (1) investment in research and development and in capital expenditures by fans and blowers manufacturers in the years between the final rule and the compliance date for the new standards and (2) incremental additional expenditures by consumers to purchase higher-efficiency fans and blowers, starting at the compliance date for the applicable standard.
Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a Federal agency to respond to the content requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that accompanies the proposed rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c)) The content requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private sector mandate substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. This
Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule for which a written statement under section 202 is required. (2 U.S.C. 1535(a)) DOE is required to select from those alternatives the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the proposed rule unless DOE publishes an explanation for doing otherwise, or the selection of such an alternative is inconsistent with law. As required by 42 U.S.C 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), this proposed rule would establish energy conservation standards for fans and blowers that are designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE has determined to be both technologically feasible and economically justified, as required by 42 U.S.C 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and (o)(3)(B). A full discussion of the alternatives considered by DOE is presented in chapter 17 of the NOPR TSD for this proposed rule.
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 1988), DOE has determined that this proposed rule would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which are available at
E.O. 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has tentatively concluded that this regulatory action, which proposes energy conservation standards for fans and blowers, is not a significant energy action because the proposed standards are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects on this proposed rule.
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (“OSTP”), issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (“the Bulletin”). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses are “influential scientific information,” which the Bulletin defines as “scientific information the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions.” 70 FR 2664, 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses that are typically used and has prepared a report describing that peer review.
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the following test standards published by the IEC.
IEC 61800-9-2:2023 specifies test methods to determine the efficiency of motor controllers as well as the efficiency of motor and motor controller combinations. It also establishes efficiency classifications for this equipment.
IEC TS 60034-30-2:2016 establishes efficiency classifications for motors driven by motor controllers.
IEC TS 60034-31:2021 provides a guideline of technical and economical aspects for the application of energy-efficient electric AC motors and example calculations.
IEC 61800-9-2:2023, IEC TS 60034-30-2:2016, and IEC TS 60034-31:2021 are available for purchase from the International Electrotechnical Committee (IEC), Central Office, 3, rue de Varembé, P.O. Box 131, CH-1211 GENEVA 20, Switzerland; + 41 22 919 02 11;
The following standards appear in the amendatory text of this document and have already been approved for the locations in which they appear: AMCA 210-16, AMCA 214-21, and ISO 5801:2017.
The time, date, and location of the public meeting are listed in the
Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to advance security screening procedures which require advance notice prior to attendance at the public meeting. If a foreign national wishes to participate in the public meeting, please inform DOE of this fact as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Regina Washington at (202) 586-1214 or by email (
DOE requires visitors to have laptops and other devices, such as tablets, checked upon entry into the Forrestal Building. Any person wishing to bring these devices into the building will be required to obtain a property pass. Visitors should avoid bringing these devices, or allow an extra 45 minutes to check in. Please report to the visitor's desk to have devices checked before proceeding through security.
Due to the REAL ID Act implemented by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), there have been recent changes regarding ID requirements for individuals wishing to enter Federal buildings from specific States and U.S. territories. DHS maintains an updated website identifying the State and territory driver's licenses that currently are acceptable for entry into DOE facilities at
In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on DOE's website at
Any person who has plans to present a prepared general statement may request that copies of his or her statement be made available at the public meeting. Such persons may submit requests, along with an advance electronic copy of their statement in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format, to the appropriate address shown in the
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6306) A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of the public meeting. There shall not be discussion of proprietary information, costs or prices, market share, or other commercial matters regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After the public meeting, interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings, as well as on any aspect of the proposed rulemaking, until the end of the comment period.
The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE will present a general overview of the topics addressed in this proposed rulemaking, allow time for prepared general statements by participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues affecting this proposed rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will allow, as time permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit participants to clarify their statements briefly. Participants should be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the public meeting will accept additional comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or modification of the previous procedures that may be needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting.
A transcript of the public meeting will be included in the docket, which can be viewed as described in the
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the date provided in the
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to
DOE processes submissions made through
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No telefacsimiles (“faxes”) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties concerning the following issues:
(1) DOE requests comment on its proposed clarification for fans that create a vacuum. Specifically, DOE requests comment on whether fans that are manufactured and marketed exclusively to create a vacuum of 30 inches water gauge or greater could also be used in positive pressure applications. Additionally, DOE requests information on the applications in which a fan not manufactured or marketed exclusively for creating a vacuum would be used to create a vacuum of 30 inches water gauge or greater.
(2) DOE requests comments and feedback on the proposed methodology and calculation of motor and motor controller losses as well as potentially using an alternative calculation based on adjusted AMCA 214-21 equations.
(3) DOE requests comment on whether there are specific fans that meet the axial ACF definition that provide utility substantially different from the utility provided from other axial ACFs and that would impact energy use. If so, DOE requests information on how the utility of these fans differs from other axial ACFs and requests data showing the differences in energy use due to differences in utility between these fans and other axial ACFs.
(4) DOE requests comment on its understanding that the diameter increase design option could be applied to non-embedded, non-space-constrained equipment classes.
(5) DOE requests comment on whether the FEI increases associated with an impeller diameter increase for centrifugal PRVs and for axial PRVs are realistic. Specifically, DOE requests comment on whether it is realistic for axial PRVs to have a FEI increase that is 3 times greater than that for centrifugal PRVs when starting at the same initial diameter. Additionally, DOE requests comment on the factors that may impact how much an impeller diameter increase impacts a FEI increase.
(6) DOE requests comment on the ordering and implementation of design options for centrifugal PRV exhaust and supply fans and axial PRV fans.
(7) DOE requests comment on its approach for estimating the industry-wide conversion costs that may be necessary to redesign fans with forward-curved impellers to meet higher FEI values. Specifically, DOE is interested in the costs associated with any capital equipment, research and development, or additional labor that would be required to design more efficient fans with forward-curved impellers. DOE additionally requests comment and data on the percentage of forward-curved impellers that manufacturers would expect to maintain as a forward-curved impeller relative to those expected to transition to a backward-inclined or airfoil impeller.
(8) DOE requests comment on the equations developed to calculate the credit for determining the FEI standard for GFBs sold with a motor controller and with an FEPact less than 20 kW and on potentially using an alternative credit calculation based on the proposed equations in section III.C.1.b of this document. Additionally, DOE requests comment on its use of a constant value, and its proposed value, of the credit applied for determining the FEI standard for GFBs with a motor controller and an FEPact of greater than or equal for 20 kW.
(9) DOE requests comments on whether it should apply a correction factor to the analyzed efficiency levels to account for the tolerance allowed in AMCA 211-22 and if so, DOE requests comment on the appropriate correction factor. DOE requests comment on the potential revised levels as presented in Table IV-12. Additionally, DOE requests comments on whether it should continue to evaluate an FEI of 1.00 for all fan classes if it updates the databases used in its analysis to consider the tolerance allowed in AMCA 211-22.
(10) Additionally, DOE does not anticipate that the efficiency levels captured in Table IV-12 would impact the cost, energy, and economic analyses presented in this document. As such, DOE considers the results of these analyses presented throughout this document applicable to the efficiency levels with a 5% tolerance allowance. DOE seeks comment on the analyses as applied to the efficiency levels in Table IV-12.
(11) DOE requests comment on its method to use both the AMCA sales database and sales data pulled from manufacturer fan selection data to estimate MSP. DOE also requests comment on the use of the MSP approach for its cost analysis for GFBs or whether an MPC-based approach would be appropriate. If interested parties believe an MPC-based approach would be more appropriate, DOE requests MPC data for the equipment classes and efficiency levels analyzed, which may be confidentially submitted to DOE using the confidential business information label.
(12) DOE requests feedback on whether using a more efficient motor would require an ACF redesign. Additionally, DOE requests feedback on what percentage of motor speed change would require an ACF redesign.
(13) DOE requests feedback on whether setting an ACF standard using discrete efficacy values over a defined diameter range appropriately represents the differences in efficacy between axial ACFs with different diameters, and if not, would a linear equation for efficacy as a function of diameter be appropriate.
(14) DOE seeks comment on the distribution channels identified for GFBs and ACFs and fraction of sales that go through each of these channels.
(15) DOE seeks comment on the overall methodology and inputs used to estimate GFBs and ACFs energy use. Specifically, for GFBs, DOE seeks feedback on the methodology and assumptions used to determine the operating point(s) both for constant and variable load fans. For ACFs, DOE requests feedback on the average daily operating hours, annual days of operation by sector and application, and input power assumptions. In addition, DOE requests feedback on the market share of GFBs and ACFs by sector (
(16) DOE requests feedback on the price trends developed for GFBs and ACFs.
(17) DOE requests feedback on the installation costs developed for GFBs and on whether installation costs of ACFs may increase at higher ELs.
(18) DOE requests feedback on whether the maintenance and repair costs of GFBs may increase at higher ELs. Specifically, DOE requests comments on the frequency of motor replacements for ACFs. DOE also requests comments on whether the maintenance and repair costs of ACFs may increase at higher ELs and on the repair costs developed for ACFs.
(19) DOE requests comments on the average lifetime estimates used for GFBs and ACFs.
(20) DOE requests feedback and information on the no-new-standards case efficiency distributions used to characterize the market of GFBs and ACFs. DOE requests information to support any efficiency trends over time for GFBs and ACFs.
(21) DOE requests feedback on the methodology and inputs used to project shipments of GFBs in the no-new-standards case. DOE requests comments and feedback on the potential impact of standards on GFB shipments and
(22) DOE requests feedback on the methodology and inputs used to estimate and project shipments of ACFs in the no-new-standards case. DOE requests comments and feedback on the potential impact of standards on ACF shipments and information to help quantify these impacts.
(23) DOE requests comment and data regarding the potential increase in utilization of GFBs and ACFs due to any increase in efficiency.
(24) DOE requests comment on the number of end-use product (
(25) DOE requests information regarding the impact of cumulative regulatory burden on manufacturers of fans and blowers associated with multiple DOE standards or product-specific regulatory actions of other Federal agencies.
(26) DOE requests comment on the proposed standard level for axial PRVs, including the design options and costs, as well as the burdens and benefits associated with this level and the industry standards/California regulations FEI level of 1.00.
(27) DOE requests comment on the number of small business OEMs identified that manufacture fans and blowers covered by this proposed rulemaking.
(28) DOE requests comment on the estimated small business costs and how those may differ from the costs incurred by larger manufacturers.
Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the conduct of this rulemaking that may not specifically be identified in this document.
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation test procedures, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on December 28, 2023, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend parts 429 and 431 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
(a) * * *
(3)
(e) * * *
(7) For fans and blowers other than air circulating fans, DOE will use an initial sample of one unit to determine compliance at each duty point for which the fan basic model is distributed in commerce. If one or more duty points is determined to be non-compliant, the fan basic model is determined to be non-compliant.
(i) When testing a single unit, DOE will first determine either fan shaft input power or FEP, dependent on the test method specified by the manufacturer, for the range of certified duty points according to appendix A to subpart J of part 431 of this chapter. For each point in the certified operating range (
(ii) When testing more than one unit, DOE will select no more than three additional units of a certified basic model for testing and test each one at one or several duty points within the range of certified duty points. For each unit and at each certified duty point, DOE will conduct a verification of the duty points as described in § 429.134(bb)(2) and determine the FEI at the certified duty point or at the measured duty point. In the case where the certified duty point can be verified, DOE will calculate the average FEI of all units tested for each certified duty point. If the duty point cannot be verified, DOE will follow the sampling procedures at § 429.69 to determine the average FEI of all units tested at the measured duty point. If the average FEI calculated at the certified or measured duty point is greater than or equal to the minimum required FEI, then testing is complete and the certified or measured duty point is compliant. If the average FEI calculated at a certified or measured duty point is less than the minimum required FEI, then testing is complete
(gg)
(2)
(i)(A) If the certified duty point is found to be valid, the certified duty point will be used as the basis for determining compliance. DOE will convert the measured fan shaft power or FEP at the measured airflow to the certified airflow using the following equations:
For fan shaft power:
For fan electrical power:
(B) DOE will use the converted fan shaft power or FEP to calculate the corresponding FEI at the certified duty point, in accordance with the DOE test procedure.
(ii) If the certified duty point is found to be invalid, the measured flow and pressure will be used as the basis for determining compliance. DOE will use the measured fan shaft power or FEP to calculate the corresponding FEI at the measured duty point, in accordance with the DOE test procedure.
42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
(c)
(1) IEC 61800-9-2:2023,
(2) IEC TS 60034-30-2:2016,
(3) IEC TS 60034-31:2021,
(a) Each fan and blower, other than an air circulating fan manufactured starting on [DATE FIVE YEARS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] that is subject to the test procedure in § 431.174(a), must have a FEI value at each duty point for which the fan is distributed in commerce, that is equal or greater than the value in table 1 of this section. The manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that each fan and blower, other than an air circulating fan manufactured starting on [DATE FIVE YEARS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] that is subject to the test procedure in § 431.174(a), is sold and selected at compliant duty points.
(b) Each air circulating fan manufactured starting on [DATE FIVE YEARS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] that is subject to the test procedure in § 431.174(b), must have an efficacy value in CFM/W at maximum speed that is equal or greater than the value in table 4 to this paragraph (b).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
0.
In § 431.173, DOE incorporated by reference the entire standard for AMCA 210-16, AMCA 214-21, IEC 61800-9-2:2023, IEC TS 60034-30-2:2016, IEC TS 60034-31:2021, and ISO 5801:2017; however, only enumerated provisions of those documents are applicable as follows. In cases where there is a conflict, the language of this appendix takes precedence over those documents.
0.2 * * *
(h) Section 6.4, “Fans with Polyphase Regulated Motor” as referenced in sections 2.2 and 2.6 of this appendix;
0.3 IEC 61800-9-2:2023:
(a) Section 6.2 as referenced in section 2.6.2.2 of this appendix;
(b) Table A.1 as referenced in section 2.6.2.2 of this appendix; and
(c) Table E.4 as referenced in 2.6.1.2.1. of this appendix; and
(d) Section F.2.1 as referenced in section 2.6.2.2 of this appendix.
0.4 IEC TS 60034-30-2:2016:
(a) Section 4.7 as referenced in section 2.6.1.2.2 of this appendix; and
(b) Table 4 as referenced in section 2.6.1.2.2 of this appendix.
0.5 IEC TS 60034-31:2021:
(a) Section A.3 as referenced in section 2.6.1.2.1 of this appendix; and
2. * * *
2.2.1.
Testing must be performed in accordance with the required test configuration listed in table 7.1 of AMCA 214-21. The following values must be determined in accordance with this appendix at each duty point specified by the manufacturer: fan airflow in cubic feet per minute; fan air density; fan total pressure in inches of water gauge for fans using a total pressure basis FEI in accordance with table 7.1 of AMCA 214-21; fan static pressure in inches of water gauge for fans using a static pressure basis FEI in accordance with table 7.1 of AMCA 214-21; fan speed in revolutions per minute; and fan shaft input power in horsepower for fans tested in accordance with sections 6.3 or 6.4 of AMCA 214-21.
In addition, if applying the equations in section E.2 of annex E of AMCA 214-21 for compressible flows, the compressibility coefficients must be included in the equations as applicable.
All measurements must be recorded at the resolution of the test instrumentation and calculations must be rounded to the number of significant digits present at the resolution of the test instrumentation.
In cases where there is a conflict, the provisions in AMCA 214-21 take precedence over AMCA 210-16 and ISO 5801:2017. In addition, the provisions in this appendix apply.
The calculation of
And:
2.6.2.1
The calculation of
And: