Agricultural Marketing Service
National Agricultural Library
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Maritime Administration
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.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Direct final rule; confirmation of effective and compliance dates; technical correction.
The U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) published a direct final rule to establish new energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers in the
The technical correction in this document is effective June 13, 2024.
The effective date of May 16, 2024, for the direct final rule published January 17, 2024 (89 FR 3026) is confirmed. Compliance with the standards established in the direct final rule will be required on either January 31, 2029, or January 31, 2030, depending on product class.
The docket for this rulemaking, which includes
The docket web page can be found at
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
Mr. Lucas Adin, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-5904. Email:
Mr. Matthew Schneider, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4798. Email:
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as amended (“EPCA”),
The direct final rule must be published simultaneously with a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) that proposes an energy or water conservation standard that is identical to the standard established in the direct final rule, and DOE must provide a public comment period of at least 110 days on this proposal. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) Not later than 120 days after issuance of the direct final rule, DOE shall withdraw the direct final rule if (1) DOE receives one or more adverse public comments relating to the direct final rule or any alternative joint recommendation; and (2) based on the rulemaking record relating to the direct final rule, DOE determines that such adverse public comments or alternative joint recommendation may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) If DOE makes such a determination, DOE must proceed with the NOPR published simultaneously with the direct final rule and publish in the
After review of comments received, DOE has determined that it did receive adverse comments on the direct final rule. However, based on the rulemaking record, the comments did not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule under the provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C). As such, DOE did not withdraw this direct final rule and allowed it to become effective. Although not required under EPCA, where DOE does not withdraw a direct final rule, DOE publishes a summary of the comments received during the 110-day comment period and its responses to those comments. This document contains such a summary, as well as DOE's responses to the comments.
In a final rule published on September 15, 2011 (“September 2011 Final Rule”), DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers manufactured on and after September 15, 2014. 76 FR 57516. These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(a).
On November 15, 2019, DOE published a request for information (“RFI”) to collect data and information to help DOE determine whether any new or amended standards for consumer refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers would result in a significant amount of additional energy savings and whether those standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified. 84 FR 62470 (“November 2019 RFI”).
DOE then published a notice of public meeting and availability of the preliminary technical support document (“TSD”) on October 15, 2021 (“October 2021 Preliminary Analysis”). 86 FR 57378. DOE held a public meeting on December 1, 2021, to discuss and receive comments on the preliminary TSD. The preliminary TSD that presented the methodology and results of the preliminary analysis is available at:
On February 27, 2023, DOE published a NOPR and announced a public webinar to respond to initial comments (“February 2023 NOPR”). 88 FR 12452. In the February 2023 NOPR, DOE updated its analysis and proposed standards based on comments received following the publication of the October 2021 Preliminary Analysis. DOE held a public webinar on April 11, 2023, to discuss and receive comments on the February 2023 NOPR and February 2023 NOPR TSD. The February 2023 NOPR TSD is available at:
On September 25, 2023, DOE received a joint statement (
After carefully considering the recommended energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers in the Joint Agreement, DOE determined that these recommendations were in accordance with the statutory requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) for the issuance of a direct final rule and published a direct final rule on January 17, 2024 (“January 2024 Direct Final Rule”). 89 FR 3026. DOE evaluated whether the Joint Agreement satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), as applicable, and found that the recommended standard levels would result in significant energy savings and are technologically feasible and economically justified. 89 FR 3026, 3100-3106. Accordingly, DOE adopted the consensus-recommended efficiency levels for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers as the new and amended standard levels in the January 2024 Direct Final Rule. 89 FR 3026, 3107-3108.
These standards, which are expressed as kWh/yr, apply to product classes listed in Table II.2 and Table II.3 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on January 31, 2029 or January 31, 2030, depending on product class. The January 2024 Direct Final Rule provides a detailed discussion of DOE's analysis of the benefits and burdens of the new and amended standards pursuant to the criteria set forth in EPCA. 89 FR 3026, 3100-3106.
As required by EPCA, DOE also simultaneously published a NOPR proposing the identical standard levels contained in the January 2024 Direct Final Rule. 89 FR 2886. DOE considered whether any adverse comment received during the 110-day comment period following the publication of the January 2024 Direct Final Rule provided a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule under the provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C).
As discussed in section I of this document, not later than 120 days after publication of a direct final rule, DOE shall withdraw the direct final rule if (1) DOE receives one or more adverse public comments relating to the direct final rule or any alternative joint recommendation; and (2) based on the rulemaking record relating to the direct final rule, DOE determines that such adverse public comments or alternative joint recommendation may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)(i))
DOE received comments in response to the January 2024 Direct Final Rule from the interested parties listed in Table III.1.
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.
In comments submitted in response to the January 2024 Direct Final Rule, the Joint Commenters, consisting of the parties who submitted the Joint Agreement, supported the standard levels specified in the January 2024 Direct Final Rule as the standards align with those levels recommended in the Joint Agreement. (Joint Commenters,
DOE also received comments from numerous individual commenters who expressed support for the standards proposed in the DFR. (Anonymous, No. 117 at p. 1; Anonymous, No. 118 at p. 1; Anonymous, No. 119 at p. 1; Anonymous, No. 120 at p. 1)
The State AGs and the AG of Montana submitted comments opposing the January 2024 Direct Final Rule. (AG of Montana, No. 122, pp. 1-5; State AGs, No. 123 at pp. 2-10) However, as discussed in more detail below, DOE has determined that these comments do not provide a reasonable basis to withdraw the January 2024 Direct Final Rule.
The State AGs stated their belief that comments from AHAM and General Electric in response to the February 2023 NOPR had gone unanswered in the January 2024 Direct Final Rule, specifically those concerning DOE's supply chain analysis, component availability, and economic impacts on consumers, particularly low-income households, which leaves consumers to bear the brunt of regulatory pressure on manufacturers. (State AGs, No. 123 at pp. 2-3)
In response to the comment from the State AGs that DOE did not respond in the January 2024 Direct Final Rule to the comments submitted by signatories to the Joint Agreement and other stakeholders in response to the February 2023 NOPR, DOE notes that the commenter misunderstands DOE's direct final rule authority under EPCA. As discussed in the January 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE was conducting a rulemaking to consider amending the standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers when the Joint Agreement was submitted.
Even though DOE was not required to consider comments from the February 2023 NOPR, DOE did in fact consider comments, data and information obtained through the February 2023 NOPR. This included the issues that the State AGs asserted DOE ignored in the January 2024 Direct Final Rule. In the January 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE specifically addressed concerns related to supply chains and component availability for vacuum-insulated panels (“VIPs”) and variable-speed compressors (“VSCs”) by conducting a supply chain analysis. 89 FR 3026, 3049-3051. Based on information provided by relevant manufacturers of VSCs, DOE believes that significant increases in VSCs in the U.S. market aligned with the standard levels adopted in the January 2024 Direct Final Rule are well within the production capacity of the compressor industry. And based on the information gathered from relevant VIP manufacturers, DOE expects that VIP production lines can be quickly scaled up to meet demand of future amended standards within 1 to 2 years depending on the specific VIP design), well within lead time between publication of amended standards and the compliance date for those standards. DOE also notes that the longer 5 and 6-year lead time between publication of the January 2024 Direct Final Rule and the compliance date provides more time to build production capacity than the 3-year lead time proposed in the February 2023 NOPR.
Additionally, in the January 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE considered the impact on low-income households by performing a life-cycle-cost subgroup analysis for low-income households.
Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates), as determined by DOE, may submit a joint recommendation to the Department for new or amended energy conservation standards. The State AGs commented that the parties to the Joint Agreement are not “fairly representative of relevant points of view” as required when considering a direct final rule. (State AGs, No. 123 at pp. 4-5) The State AGs stated that many of the groups represented by AHAM, who signed the Joint Agreement, submitted comments prior to the submission of the Joint Agreement and those comments were not addressed in the Joint Agreement or the January 2024 Direct Final Rule. (
The State AGs pointed to the other signatories of the Joint Agreement, including advocacy groups such as the Alliance for Water Efficiency, Earthjustice, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Natural Resources Defense Council, and National Consumer Law Center, as either lacking the relevant expertise on consumer refrigeration products, lacking expertise or failing to consider initial consumer or manufacturer costs, or failing to conduct their own analysis. (
The State AGs commented that other groups, although not a part of the Joint Agreement, provided comments on the February 2023 NOPR with regards to the proposed standards' impact on the consumers. (
The AG of Montana agreed with the comment from the State AGs and commented that the signatories of the Joint Agreement were a skewed collection of ideological extremists. (AG of Montana, No. 122 at p. 1)
In response to the comments regarding whether the Joint Agreement was submitted by persons fairly representative of relevant points of view, DOE reiterates that 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) reads, in relevant part, “[o]n receipt of a statement that is submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates), as determined by the Secretary . . .” (42 U.S.C. 6295(p))
As stated in the January 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE determined that this requirement was met. 89 FR 3026, 3038. The Joint Agreement included a trade association, AHAM, which represents 20 manufacturers of the subject covered products—refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.
DOE has ample authority to accept a joint statement in these circumstances. EPCA does not require that the Joint Agreement be representative of
Contrary to the commenters' suggestion, EPCA does not include any requirement that “relevant points of view” must include politically opposite points of view. Rather, EPCA ensures a diversity of opinions and interests by requiring that joint agreements be submitted by relevant points of view, including representatives of manufacturers, States, and efficiency advocates. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A))
Moreover, regardless of whether amended energy conservation standards are recommended as part of a joint agreement or proposed by DOE, the standards have to satisfy the same criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Thus, once DOE has determined that a joint agreement was submitted by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view, DOE then determines whether the joint agreement satisfies the relevant statutory criteria. As a result, in evaluating whether comments provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing a direct final rule, it is the substance of the comments, not the number of stakeholders that submit statements in favor of, or opposed to, the joint agreement, that determines whether a rule should be withdrawn.
Similarly, EPCA does not require that DOE reject a joint statement merely because non-signatories have differing opinions and interests than the signatories. Nor does EPCA require that every manufacturer, industry association, or state who submitted comments on the separate February 2023 NOPR be party to the Joint Agreement. (State AGs, No. 123 at pp. 6). Finally, there is nothing in this provision of EPCA to support the interpretation from the State AGs and the AG of Montana that interested persons who did not raise concerns about a separate rulemaking or who opposed a separate rulemaking should be excluded from submitting a joint statement.
DOE also finds meritless the contention that the Joint Agreement parties are not competent to present a statement for purposes of section 6295(p). Contrary to the characterizations by the State AGs and Montana AG, the parties to the Joint Agreement have an established historical record of participation in DOE rulemakings and have submitted detailed comments in the past that demonstrate a thorough understanding of technical, legal, and economic aspects of appliance standards rulemakings, including factors affecting specific groups such as low-income households.
In a follow-up letter from the parties to the Joint Agreement, each organization provided a brief description of its background. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy is a nonprofit research organization and its independent analysis advances investments, programs, and behaviors that use energy more effectively and help build an equitable clean energy future. Alliance for Water Efficiency is a nonprofit dedicated to efficiency and sustainable use of water that provides a forum for collaboration around policy, information sharing, research, education, and stakeholder engagement. Appliance Standards Awareness Project organizes and leads a broad-based coalition effort that works to advance new appliance, equipment, and lighting standards that cut emissions that contribute to climate change and other environmental and public health harms, save water, and reduce economic and environmental burdens for low- and moderate-income households. AHAM represents more than 150 member companies that manufacture 90% of the major, portable and floor care appliances shipped for sale in the U.S. The Consumer Federation of America is an association of more than 250 non-profit consumer and cooperative groups that advances the consumer interest through research, advocacy, and education. Consumer Reports is a mission-driven, independent, nonprofit member organization that empowers and informs consumers, incentivize corporations to act responsibly, and helps policymakers prioritize the rights and interests of consumers in order to shape a truly consumer-driven marketplace. Earthjustice is a nonprofit public interest environmental law organization advocating to advance clean energy and combat climate change. National Consumer Law Center supports consumer justice and economic security for low-income and other disadvantaged people in the U.S. through its expertise in policy analysis and advocacy, publications, litigation, expert witness services, and training. National Resources Defense Council is an international nonprofit environmental organization with expertise from lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists. The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance is a collaboration of 140 utilities and efficiency organizations working together to advance energy efficiency in the Northwest on behalf of more than 13 million consumers. PG&E represents one of the largest combined gas and electric utilities in the Western U.S., serving over 16 million customers across northern and central California.
Finally, DOE notes that it had no role in requesting that the parties to the Joint Agreement submit the Joint Agreement or in negotiating the terms of the Joint Agreement. As noted in the Joint Agreement itself, the parties accepted the Agreement based on the totality of the agreement. DOE's participation was limited to evaluating the joint submission under the criteria set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p).
Therefore, DOE reaffirms its determination that the Joint Agreement was submitted by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view.
The State AGs commented that, given the previous comments submitted in response to February 2023 NOPR, DOE should use its direct final rule authority with caution and must return to a formal rulemaking in order to ensure the representation of diverse viewpoints and address all concerns raised during the rulemaking process. (State AGs, No. 123 at pp. 7-10)
In response, DOE notes that there is nothing in EPCA that limits DOE's direct final rule authority other than that the statement containing recommended standards must be submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view and that DOE must evaluate whether the recommended standards are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)) In the January 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE determined that Joint Agreement was submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view and the adopted energy conservation standards as recommended in the Joint Agreement would result in significant energy savings and are technologically feasible and economically justified as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and provided supporting analysis. 89 FR 3026, 3038, 3078-3109.
Additionally, DOE notes it followed the procedures in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) to publish a direct final rule in the
The AG of Montana stated that DOE acknowledges consumer preference but disregards it in the January 2024 Direct Final Rule. (AG of Montana, No. 122, p. 2)
With respect to the comment from the AG of Montana, DOE did not disregard consumer preference but rather noted in the January 2024 Direct Final Rule that the economics literature provides a wide-ranging discussion of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy savings in the absence of government intervention. 89 FR 3026, 3101. Much of this literature attempts to explain why consumers appear to undervalue energy efficiency improvements, as the AG of Montana alleged in his comment. There is evidence that consumers undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of information; (2) a lack of sufficient salience of the long-term or aggregate benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient savings to warrant delaying or altering purchases; (4) excessive focus on the short term, in the form of inconsistent weighting of future energy cost savings relative to available returns on other investments; (5) computational or other difficulties associated with the evaluation of relevant tradeoffs; and (6) a divergence in incentives (for example, between renters and owners, or builders and purchasers).
Potential changes in the benefits and costs associated with a standard due to changes in consumer purchase decisions were included in the analysis for the January 2024 Direct Final Rule in two ways.
Therefore, the January 2024 Direct Final Rule did take into account consumer purchase decisions in its analysis, and DOE has determined that the comment provided by the AG of Montana does not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the January 2024 Direct Final Rule.
The AG of Montana stated his belief that greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts should not be part of EPCA rulemakings, but given their inclusion, DOE must consider them throughout the entire lifecycle of the product, including manufacturing and potential reductions in lifespan due to increased complexity. (AG of Montana, No. 122 at p. 3) The AG of Montana commented that the January 2024 Direct Final Rule failed to adequately address these full lifecycle impacts. (
In response and as stated in the January 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE notes that it would have reached the same conclusion that the adopted standard levels were economically justified without considering the social cost of greenhouse gases. 89 FR 3026, 3072.
Nevertheless, DOE notes also that the comment from the AG of Montana points to a statement made to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Energy to indicate that 40 to 60 percent of the carbon footprint for many consumer products can be attributed to the supply chain.
As a result, DOE has determined that the comment provided by the AG of Montana does not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the January 2024 Direct Final Rule.
The AG of Montana commented that DOE has dismissed comments regarding the increase in appliance complexity and its impact on reliability when considering the implementation of higher efficiency standards in the January 2024 Direct Final Rule. (AG of Montana, No. 122 at p. 4) The AG of Montana noted that increased energy efficiency in appliances during the use phase often leads to increased complexity, decreased robustness of components, and reduced engineering margins, as outlined in reliability engineering principles. (
Review of refrigerator reliability information and the most reliable brands provides no indication that higher efficiency products are less reliable. The most common refrigerator reliability issues are cited as icemakers and dispensers,
The State AGs commented that DOE should reevaluate the benefits and burdens of its rules under the factors listed in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I), (II), and (IV) (State AGs, No. 123 at pp. 7-8)
In response, in the January 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE evaluated the benefits and burden of the standard level it ultimately adopted. 89 FR 3078-3109 DOE estimated that the adopted standards would save an estimated 5.61 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. DOE estimated that the cumulative net present value (“NPV”) of consumer benefit of the adopted standard would be $9.04 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $26.98 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
DOE estimated that the cumulative emissions reductions at the adopted standard are 101 Mt of carbon dioxide (“CO
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, health benefits from reduced SO
For the largest product classes, which are 3 (top-mount refrigerator-freezers), 5 (bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers), 5A (bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers with through-the-door-ice service), and 7 (side-by-side refrigerator-freezers with through the door ice service), DOE estimated that the adopted standards would result in a life-cycle cost savings of $50.91, $55.23, $133.27, and $142.56 and a payback period of 4.8 years, 5.6 years, 4.1 years and 1.6 years, respectively. For these product classes, DOE estimated the fraction of customers experiencing a net LCC cost would be 28.3 percent, 33.6 percent, 19.8 percent and 0.5 percent with increases in first cost of $47.67, $62.72, $81.32, and $24.39, respectively. Overall, DOE estimated that 24.4 percent of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers consumers would experience a net cost and the average LCC savings are positive for all product classes.
As a result of the adopted standard, DOE estimated that 9 percent of low-income households with a top-mount or single-door refrigerator-freezer (represented by PC 3 and used by 72 percent of low-income households) and 0.6 percent of low-income households with a side-by-side refrigerator-freezer (represented by PC 7 and used by 19 percent of low-income households) would experience a net cost. Additionally, DOE noted that the incremental increase in purchase price is $24.39 for low-income PC 7 homeowners at the adopted standard level, substantially lower than the incremental increase in purchase price of $121.58 at higher considered standard levels.
As a result of the adopted standard, DOE estimated that the projected change in industry net present value (“INPV”) ranges from a decrease of $504.4 million to a decrease of $383.5 million, which correspond to decreases of 10.3 percent and 7.8 percent, respectively. DOE estimated that industry must invest $830.3 million comply with standards set at the Recommended TSL. DOE estimated that approximately 14 percent of refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer annual shipments meet the Recommended TSL efficiencies.
Compared to higher considered standard levels, DOE noted that more
DOE's analysis of the benefits and burden of the adopted standard level utilized the January 31, 2029 (or January 31, 2030, for some product classes) compliance dates specified in the Joint Agreement as they were an integral part of the multi-product joint recommendation. These compliance dates provide manufacturers the flexibility to spread capital requirements, engineering resources, and other conversion activities over a longer period of time depending on the individual needs of each manufacturer. Furthermore, these delayed compliance dates provide additional lead time and certainty for suppliers of components that improve efficiency. The adopted standard mitigates risks raised by AHAM and multiple manufacturers in response to the February 2023 NOPR regarding the ability for VSC and VIP component suppliers to increase supply of these key components in the 3-year lead time required by EPCA.
After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and burdens, the Secretary concluded that the adopted standard for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers was economically justified. At this standard level, DOE estimated that the average LCC savings were positive for all product classes for which an amended standard was considered. An estimated 24.4 percent of all refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer consumers would experience a net cost. An estimated 9 percent of low-income households with a top-mount or single-door refrigerator-freezer (represented by PC 3 and used by 72 percent of low-income households) and 0.6 percent of low-income households with a side-by-side refrigerator-freezer (represented by PC 7 and used by 19 percent of low-income households), would experience a net cost, which is a significantly lower percentage than under higher considered standard levels. DOE noted that for low-income PC 7 consumers, as well as across all PC 7 consumers, the adopted standard level represents the largest average LCC savings of any considered standard level. The full-fuel cycle (“FFC”) national energy savings are significant and the NPV of consumer benefits is positive at the adopted standard level using both a 3-percent and 7-percent discount rate. Notably, DOE found that the benefits to consumers would vastly outweigh the cost to manufacturers. At the adopted standard level, DOE estimated the NPV of consumer benefits, even measured at the more conservative discount rate of 7 percent is over 17 times higher than the maximum estimated manufacturers' loss in INPV. DOE found the adopted standard levels were economically justified even without weighing the estimated monetary value of emissions reductions. When those emissions reductions were included—representing $5.02 billion in climate benefits (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate), and $9.80 billion (using a 3-percent discount rate) or $3.45 billion (using a 7-percent discount rate) in health benefits—the rationale became stronger still.
In summary, DOE determined that the adopted energy conservation standards as recommended in the Joint Agreement would result in significant energy savings and are technologically feasible and economically justified as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and provided supporting analysis. 89 FR 3026, 3078-3109. DOE notes that the State AGs did not provide any specific comments on the benefits and burdens of the adopted standards beyond emissions, and as noted previously, DOE would have reached the same conclusion that the adopted standard levels were economically justified without considering the social cost of greenhouse gases. DOE has determined that the comment provided by the State AGs does not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the January 2024 Direct Final Rule.
In response to the January 2024 Direct Final Rule, Joint Commenters pointed out that the description of product class 7-BI as listed in Table 2 to Paragraph (a)(2) of the January 2024 Direct Final Rule (pg. 3315) and the subsequent updates to the regulatory text in 10 CFR 430.32 include a typographical error. (Joint Commenters, No. 121 at p. 4) This original description of product class 7-BI from the DFR as well as the corrected version as amended in this confirmation document are shown in Table III.2.
DOE acknowledges that the description as currently found in the January 2024 Direct Final Rule inadvertently left off part of the definition for product class 7-BI. In correcting the description of product class 7-BI in this confirmation document, DOE is aligning the product class description with the intent of the January 2024 Direct Final Rule as well as the description found in previous rulemakings. Specifically, DOE notes that Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(1) of the January 2024 Direct Final Rule (pg. 3314), which lists the standards adopted in 2014, lists the correct description for product class 7-BI. Because this amendment is a clarifying correction and makes no substantive changes to the January 2024 Direct Final Rule, the changes addressed in this document are technical in nature.
DOE has concluded that the determinations made pursuant to the various procedural requirements applicable to the January 2024 Direct Final Rule remain unchanged for this final rule technical correction. These determinations are set forth in the
Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), DOE finds that there is good cause to not issue a separate notice to solicit public comment on the changes contained in this document. Issuing a separate notice to solicit public comment would be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. Neither the errors nor the corrections in this document affect the substance of the January 2024 Direct Final Rule or any of the conclusions reached in support of the direct final rule. Providing prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on correcting objective, typographical errors that do not change the substance of the test procedure serves no useful purpose.
Further, this rule correcting a regulatory text error makes non-substantive changes to the test procedure. As such, this rule is not subject to the 30-day delay in effective date requirement of 5 U.S.C. 553(d) otherwise applicable to rules that make substantive changes.
EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is likely to result from new or amended standards. (42 U.S.C. 629(p)(4)(A)(i) and (C)(i)(II); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General of the United States (“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. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) To assist the Attorney General in making this determination, DOE provided the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) with copies of the January 2024 Direct Final Rule, the corresponding NOPR, and the January 2024 Direct Final Rule TSD for review. DOE has published DOJ's comments at the end of this document.
In its letter responding to DOE, DOJ concluded that, based on its review, the proposed energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on competition.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”), DOE had analyzed the direct final rule in accordance with NEPA and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE has determined that this rule qualifies for categorical exclusion under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix B5.1 because it is a rulemaking that establishes energy conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment, none of the exceptions identified in B5.1(b) apply, no extraordinary circumstances exist that require further environmental analysis, and it meets the requirements for application of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. Therefore, DOE has determined that promulgation of this direct final rule is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of NEPA and does not require an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.
In summary, based on the previous discussion, DOE has determined that the comments received in response to the direct final rule for new energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule. As a result, the energy conservation standards set forth in the direct final rule became effective on May 16, 2024. Compliance with these standards is required on and after January 31, 2029, or January 31, 2030, depending on product class.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on June 7, 2024, 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 amends part 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, by making the following technical correction:
42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
(a)
(1) The following standards apply to products manufactured on or before September 15, 2014, and before the 2029/2030 compliance dates depending on product class (see paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this section).
(2) The following standards apply to products manufactured on or after January 31, 2029.
(3) The following standards apply to products manufactured on or after January 31, 2030.
The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
I am responding to your January 18, 2024 letter seeking the views of the Attorney General about the potential impact on competition of proposed energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.
Your request was submitted under Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V), which requires the Attorney General to make a determination of the impact of any lessening of competition likely to result from the imposition of proposed energy conservation standards. The Attorney General's responsibility for responding to requests from other departments about the effect of a program on competition has been delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division in 28 CFR 0.40(g). The Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division has authorized me, as the Policy Director for the Antitrust Division, to provide the Antitrust Division's views regarding the potential impact on competition of proposed energy conservation standards on his behalf.
In conducting its analysis, the Antitrust Division examines whether a proposed standard may lessen competition, for example, by substantially limiting consumer choice, by placing certain manufacturers at an unjustified competitive disadvantage, or by inducing avoidable inefficiencies in production or distribution of particular products. A lessening of competition could result in higher prices to manufacturers and consumers.
We have reviewed the proposed standard contained in the Notice of proposed rulemaking and the related Technical Support Document. We have also reviewed public comments and information provided by industry participants.
Based on this review, our conclusion is that the proposed energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on competition.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action revokes Colored Federal Airway Amber 15 (A-15) within United States (U.S.) airspace due to the pending decommissioning of the Nabesna, Sumner Strait, Haines, and Nichols Nondirectional Radio Beacons (NDB) in Alaska. Additionally, this action amends Alaskan Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal Airway V-428 due to the pending decommissioning of the Haines NDB.
Effective date 0901 UTC, September 5, 2024. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Steven Roff, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the Air Traffic Service (ATS) route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.
The FAA published a NPRM for Docket No. FAA 2023-2363 in the
Colored Federal airways are published in paragraph 6009 and Alaskan VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the
FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.
The FAA is amending to 14 CFR part 71 to revoke Colored Federal Airway A-15 in its entirety and amend Alaskan VOR Federal Airway V-428 due to the pending decommissioning of supporting Navigational Aids (NAVAID).
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this airspace action of revoking A-15 and amending V-428 in Alaska qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From Biorka Island, AK; to Sisters Island, AK.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; technical amendment.
This action amends Class E surface area airspace for the Pitt-Greenville Airport, NC, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for the Greenville, NC, area in support of an instrument approach procedure designed for the ECU Health Medical Center Heliport. This action reissues the Class E airspace amendment information contained in the rule published for Docket No. FAA-2023-1004. It includes the legal authority information which provides the regulatory basis for the Class E airspace amendment actions that was inadvertently omitted in that rule.
Effective 0901 UTC on June 13, 2024. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
This final rule may be viewed online at
FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations, and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Justin T. Rhodes, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; telephone: (404) 305-5478.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends and establishes Class E airspace in the Greenville, NC, area to support Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations.
The FAA published a final rule for Docket No. FAA-2023-1004 in the
The FAA is resissuing the final rule for the Class E airspace amendment actions previously published in the rule for Docket No. FAA-2023-1004 to include the legal authority information inadvertently omitted in that rule and provide the regulatory basis for the Class E airspace amendment actions in the Greenville, NC, area.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6002 and 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the
FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.
This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending the Class E surface area airspace for the Pitt-Greenville Airport, Greenville, NC, by increasing the radius to 4.6 miles (previously 4.4 miles) and replacing the outdated term Notice to Airmen with Notice to Air Missions. Additionally, this action amends the Greenville, NC, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface by increasing the radius to 7.1 miles (previously 6.4 miles) of the Pitt-Greenville Airport, establishing an extension 1.1 miles each side of the Pitt-Greenville Airport 008° bearing extending from the 7.1-mile radius to 13.4 miles northeast of the airport and establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.2-mile radius of the ECU Health Medical Center.
This rule is an administrative action that reissues the Class E airspace amendment information contained in the rule for Docket No. FAA-2023-1004, published previously, and includes the legal authority information inadvertently omitted in that rule which provides the regulatory basis for the Class E airspace amendment actions;
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant the preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.6-mile radius of Pitt-Greenville Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Air Missions. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.1-mile radius of the Pitt-Greenville Airport and 1.1 miles on each side of the Pitt-Greenville Airport 008° bearing extending from the 7.1-mile radius of the airport to 13.4 miles northeast of the airport, and that airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.2-mile radius of the ECU Health Medical Center Heliport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Alaskan Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal Airway V-508 in the vicinity of Aniak, AK. The FAA is taking this action due to the pending decommissioning of the Aniak, AK, Nondirectional Radio Beacon (NDB).
Effective date 0901 UTC, September 5, 2024. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Steven Roff, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the Air Traffic Service (ATS) route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.
The FAA published a NPRM for Docket No. FAA 2023-2006 in the
Alaskan VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(b) of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the
FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.
This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending Alaskan Federal Airway V-508. The airspace action is described below.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this airspace action of amending Alaskan VOR Federal Airway V-508 in the vicinity of Aniak, AK qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From Middleton Island, AK; Kenai, AK; to Sparrevohn, AK.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action revokes Colored Federal airway B-28 in the vicinity of Sitka, AK due to the pending decommissioning of the Sitka and Nichols Nondirectional Radio Beacons (NDB) in Alaska.
Effective date 0901 UTC, September 5, 2024. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Steven Roff, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code.
The FAA published a NPRM for Docket No. FAA 2023-2200 in the
Colored Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6009 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the
FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.
This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by revoking Colored Federal Airway B-28, in its entirety in Alaska. The FAA is taking this action due to the pending decommissioning the Sitka and Nichols NDBs in Alaska.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this airspace action of revoking Colored Federal Airway B-28 in Alaska qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 §§
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
National Labor Relations Board.
Final rule.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is issuing a final rule amending its rules and regulations to reflect the closure of the New York, New York office of the Division of Judges.
The effective date is July 15, 2024.
Roxanne L. Rothschild, Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half St. SE, Washington, DC 20570-0001, (202) 273-1940 (this is not a toll-free number), 1-866-315-6572 (TTY/TDD).
The NLRB Division of Judges (DOJ) currently has 36 administrative law judges, including the chief judge, deputy chief judge, and one associate chief judge, who hear, decide, and settle unfair labor practice cases nationwide. The judges are formally assigned to one of three offices in Washington, DC, New York, NY, and San Francisco, CA, and receive their case assignments through those offices.
The NLRB has decided to close the New York DOJ office and reassign the
The remaining New York administrative law judges, and an eventual successor to Associate Chief Judge Chu, will be reassigned to the Washington, DC DOJ office. They will continue to telework and perform their duties as before, but will receive their case assignments from the Chief Administrative Law Judge or the Deputy Chief Judge until a new Associate Chief Judge is selected, and be assisted by the administrative professionals in the DC office.
Accordingly, consistent with the foregoing, the NLRB is revising § 102.24(a) of its rules and regulations to delete the references to the New York DOJ office and reflect the current structure of the Agency's field organization. Furthermore, consistent with former procedural revisions of its rules and regulations, the NLRB is eliminating redundant invocations of specific place names in § 102.24(a).
This action is not subject to the advance notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), or the requirements of Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Administrative practice and procedure, Labor management relations.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the National Labor Relations Board amends 29 CFR part 102 as follows:
29 U.S.C. 151, 156. Section 102.117 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A), and § 102.119 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k). Sections 102.143 through 102.155 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 504(c)(1).
(a) All motions under §§ 102.22 and 102.29 made prior to the hearing must be filed in writing with the Regional Director issuing the complaint. All motions for default judgment, summary judgment, or dismissal made prior to the hearing must be filed in writing with the Board pursuant to the provisions of § 102.50. All other motions made prior to the hearing, including motions to reschedule the hearing under circumstances other than those set forth in § 102.16(a), must be filed in writing with the Chief Administrative Law Judge, the Deputy Chief Administrative Law Judge, or an Associate Chief Administrative Law Judge, as the case may be. All motions made at the hearing must be made in writing to the Administrative Law Judge or stated orally on the record. All motions filed subsequent to the hearing, but before the transfer of the case to the Board pursuant to § 102.45, must be filed with the Administrative Law Judge, care of the Chief Administrative Law Judge, the Deputy Chief Administrative Law Judge, or an Associate Chief Administrative Law Judge, as the case may be. Motions must briefly state the order or relief applied for and the grounds therefor. All motions filed with a Regional Director or an Administrative Law Judge as set forth in this paragraph (a) must be filed together with an affidavit of service on the parties. All motions filed with the Board, including motions for default judgment, summary judgment, or dismissal, must be filed with the Executive Secretary of the Board in Washington, DC, together with an affidavit of service on the parties. Unless otherwise provided in this part, motions, oppositions, and replies must be filed promptly and within such time as not to delay the proceeding.
For the Board:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary regulation for waters of the Elizabeth River, in Norfolk, Virginia to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by a boat parade that is scheduled for the afternoon of June 15, 2024. Parade participants operating within the regulated area must comply with all instructions given by the on-scene Patrol Commander (PATCOM). Vessels or persons entering the regulated area during the enforcement period are subject to the direction and control of the on-scene PATCOM as designated and specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Virginia.
This rule is effective on June 15, 2024, from noon to 6 p.m.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email LCDR Ashley Holm, Sector Virginia Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 757-668-5581, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) because it would be impracticable to publish an NPRM, consider comments, and publish a final rule before this rule needs to be in place to serve its purpose. The Coast Guard only recently learned that the number of participants in this event will be significantly larger than originally anticipated, and that an existing rule to address this event will be inadequate to regulate vessel traffic.
The marine event sponsor of a boat parade is expecting to draw a high concentration of vessels to the Norfolk Harbor area along the proposed parade route. Traditionally, the Norfolk Harbor area serves as a major thoroughfare for commercial traffic, naval operations, ferry routes, and several other recreational uses through the connecting waters of the James River, Elizabeth River, and Lower Chesapeake Bay. The Coast Guard is establishing a Special Local Regulation (SLR) to monitor the parade before, during, and after the event to minimize impacts on this congested waterway. We must promulgate this rule by June 15, 2024, to ensure the safety of individuals, property, and the marine environment.
Also, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041. Captains of the Port are authorized by 33 CFR 100.35 to issue SLRs. The Captain of the Port (COTP), Sector Virginia has determined that potential hazards associated with the proposed parade starting June 15, 2024, will be a safety concern for anyone within the vicinity of the parade route. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the SLR during the enforcement period of this rule.
This rule establishes an SLR from noon until 6 p.m. on June 15, 2024. The SLR will cover all navigable waters within the Elizabeth River from shoreline to shoreline beginning in the vicinity of the Craney Island Flats proceeding south through the Norfolk Harbor Reaches and ending at the Waterside District in Norfolk, Virginia, to promote safety along the “Mid-Atlantic Trump Boat Parade” route. The southern boundaries of the SLR are bound by the following fixed structures; all waters north of the I-264 Norfolk/Portsmouth (Downtown Tunnel), east of the West Norfolk Bridge and west of the Berkley Bridge. This SLR will also temporarily establishes the southern area of Anchorage N (Hospital Point) as a First Amendment area, where people may lawfully assemble and convey their message in a safe manner to their intended audience, to be used at the discretion of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM) as a spectator area. All waters from surface to bottom within the southern area of Anchorage N (Hospital Point), as specified in 33 CFR 110.168 and bound by a northern boundary line drawn easterly from Hospital Point.
The duration of the SLR has been tailored to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters when the parade is scheduled to occur, while minimizing the burden on routine vessel traffic. Vessels or persons entering the SLR during the enforcement period are subject to the direction and control of the on-scene PATCOM, as designated and specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Virginia.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on two considerations. The special local regulation will be enforced for only six hours on one day. Also, persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area or anchor in the spectator area, during the enforcement period if authorized by the COTP Virginia or a designated representative, who will be onsite to direct the movement of vessels such that unsafe conditions are avoided but will otherwise not interfere with commercial vessels or normal traffic in the area.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed 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
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves an SLR lasting only 6 hours that will monitor entry to the SLR for the duration of the enforcement period to cover before, during and after the parade has concluded. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Memorandum For Record supporting this determination is available. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
(a)
(1) All navigable waters of Hampton Roads Harbor, from surface to bottom, encompassed by a line connecting the following northern boundary points beginning from a position on the north coast of the Craney Island Disposal Area at 36°55.49′ N, 076°22.40′ W; leading north to position 36°56.64′ N, 076°22.40′ W; then east to the coast of Norfolk at 36°56.64′ N, 076°19.73′ W following all waters of the Elizabeth River from shoreline to shoreline; Craney Island Flats, Craney Island Reach, Lamberts Bend to Town Point Reach from surface to bottom, encompassed by the following southern boundary points; all waters west of the Berkely Bridge, north of the I-264 Norfolk/Portsmouth (Downtown Tunnel) and east of the West Norfolk Bridge. Any waters that are covered by a Department of Defense Restricted Area or Danger Zone are excluded from this regulated area.
(2) All navigable waters from surface to bottom within the southern area of Anchorage N (Hospital Point), as specified in 33 CFR 110.168, and bound by a northern boundary line drawn easterly from Hospital Point.
(b)
Designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local law enforcement officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Sector Virginia (COTP) in the enforcement of the regulations in this section.
Participant means all persons and vessels directly engaged in the parade present within the established SLR during the enforcement period of the parade.
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP by calling the Sector Virginia Command Center at 757-638-6635 or contact the COTP's designated representative on Marine band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Those in the regulated area must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the designated representative.
(3) All non-participants, including those engaged in protest activity, may be directed by a designated representative to enforcement area described in section (a)(2) of this section, where they must remain during the effective period unless otherwise authorized or directed.
(4) The COTP will provide notice of the regulated area via broadcast notice to mariners and by on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), Division of Air Quality, on December 19, 2022. The revision updates the 2026 on-road and nonroad emissions inventories and safety margins and allocates a portion of the newly available 2026 safety margins in the 2008 8-hour Ozone Maintenance Plan to the 2026 nitrogen oxides (NO
This rule is effective July 15, 2024.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2023-0057. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Dianna Myers, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9207. Ms. Dianna Myers can also be reached via electronic mail at
EPA is approving NCDEQ's December 19, 2022, SIP revision which updates the 2026 on-road and nonroad emissions inventories with the latest (at the time of NCDEQ's submission) approved EPA mobile emissions model, MOVES3, allocates a portion of the newly available safety margin, revises the 2026 NO
The revised 2026 NO
This action revises the 2026 on-road and nonroad emissions inventories and the NO
Effective July 20, 2012, EPA designated the Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC Area as Marginal nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (hereinafter referred to as NAAQS or standard). The North Carolina portion of the Charlotte 2008 Maintenance Area includes Mecklenburg in its entirety and portions of Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Rowan, and Union Counties. The Charlotte Maintenance Area also includes a portion of York County located in Rock Hill, South Carolina.
EPA originally approved NCDEQ's 2008 8-hour ozone redesignation request and maintenance SIP for the North Carolina portion of the Charlotte Maintenance Area on July 28, 2015 (80 FR 44873), with base year NO
On September 11, 2019 (84 FR 47889), EPA approved NCDEQ's July 25, 2018, SIP revision related to North Carolina's I/M Program. The September 11, 2019, SIP approval updated the on-road mobile source inventory and revised the 2026 sub-area VOC and NO
On August 25, 2021, EPA approved NCDEQ's July 16, 2020, SIP revision which allocated a portion of the available safety margin to the 2026 sub-area NO
EPA's analysis of North Carolina's December 19, 2022, SIP submittal indicates that maintenance will continue to be demonstrated for the Charlotte Maintenance Area with the revised MOVES3 on-road and nonroad emissions inventories, revised safety margins and new allocations of the available safety margins to the 2026 budgets because the total level of emissions from all source categories remains equal to or less than the attainment level of emissions.
In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on April 12, 2024 (89 FR 25849), EPA proposed to approve the December 19, 2022, SIP revision. The details of North Carolina's submittal and the rationale for EPA's action are explained further in the April 12, 2024, NPRM. Comments on the NPRM were due on or before May 13, 2024. EPA did not receive any comments on the April 12, 2024, NPRM.
Tables 1 through 3, below, provide the Revised NO
Table 4 provides the Revised On-road NO
Based on the on-road emissions inventory revisions in Table 4, the following tables provide the NO
The remaining new safety margins after the allocation to the 2026 budgets are 51.41 tons/day and 9.33 tons/day for NO
EPA has evaluated North Carolina's submittal and has determined that it meets the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations and is consistent with EPA policy. Therefore, EPA is approving NCDEQ's December 19, 2022, SIP revision to revise the Charlotte 2008 8-hour Ozone Maintenance Plan that updates the 2026 on-road and nonroad emissions inventories and safety margins with MOVES3 and allocates a portion of the newly available 2026 safety margins to the budgets. The SIP revision also updates the current 2026 budgets with MOVES3 and recalculates new available safety margins. The revised budgets ensure continued attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS through the maintenance year 2026. In addition, EPA is deeming the budgets adequate for transportation conformity purposes because the budgets meet the adequacy criteria in the conformity rule at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Once this action is effective, the newly revised MOVES3 2026 budgets for NO
Within 24 months from the effective date of this approval, the transportation partners are required to demonstrate conformity to the revised NO
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
• 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,
NCDEQ did not evaluate EJ 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. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 12, 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. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
Environmental Protection, Air Pollution Control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Ozone, Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42.U.S.C. 7401
The addition reads as follows:
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of West Virginia through the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP). The revisions pertain to second 10-year limited maintenance plans (LMPs) for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM
This final rule is effective on July 15, 2024.
EPA has established dockets for these actions under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2023-0381 (Charleston Area) and EPA-R03-OAR-2023-0380 (West Virginia portion of the Steubenville-Weirton Area). All documents in the dockets are listed on the
Ellen Schmitt, Planning & Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Philadelphia,
On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), EPA designated the Charleston (West Virginia) Area and the Steubenville-Weirton (Ohio-West Virginia) Area as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM
WVDEP submitted to EPA a redesignation request for the Charleston Area on December 6, 2012 and for the West Virginia portion of the Steubenville-Weirton Area on June 8, 2012. EPA redesignated the Charleston Area and the West Virginia portion of the Steubenville-Weirton Area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM
On March 29, 2022, WVDEP, on behalf of the State of West Virginia, submitted two LMPs to fulfill the second 10-year planning requirement of CAA section 175A(b) to ensure PM
Additionally, in the March 27, 2024, action, EPA proposed that the LMPs demonstrated that it is unreasonable to expect that these areas would experience enough motor vehicle emissions growth for a violation of the NAAQS to occur, per EPA's transportation conformity regulations.
Further explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the revisions, and EPA's reasons for proposing approval were provided in the NPRM. The public comment period for the proposed rulemaking ended on April 26, 2024. EPA received no comments on the proposal and is finalizing our action as proposed.
In accordance with sections 110(k) and 175A of the CAA, and for the reasons set forth in the NPRM, EPA is finalizing approval of West Virginia's second 10-year LMPs for the Charleston Area and the West Virginia portion of the Steubenville-Weirton Area for the 2006 24-hour PM
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 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
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.”
WVDEP did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submissions; 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 final rule. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this rule is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 12, 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. This action approving the Charleston Area LMP and the West Virginia portion of the Steubenville-Weirton Area LMP may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2) of the CAA.)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; correction.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is correcting a final rule published in the
This correction is effective June 17, 2024.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0829. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at
Alan Stout, Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4805; email address:
EPA is making the following corrections for inadvertent errors in the regulatory text for the final rule:
• Revising 40 CFR 85.2103(c) to remove references to a nonexistent paragraph (e).
• Revising 40 CFR 86.1 to remove references to nonexistent sections 86.1823-01, 86.1824-01, and 86.1825-01.
• Revising 40 CFR 86.1806-27(a)(7) by referring to California's LEV standards in general instead of specifically to the LEV III standards.
• Restoring the content of 40 CFR 86.1818-12(c)(4), which was inadvertently over-written by re-organizing the section content. The paragraph is moved to 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a)(4). The restored paragraph describes an option for waiving greenhouse gas standards for emergency vehicles.
• Eliminating the specific paragraph reference for battery-related testing in 40 CFR 86.1829-15(a)(2)(ii). The intended reference was to all of 40 CFR 86.1815-27, where we discuss the range of battery-related testing requirements that apply. We note especially that battery-related testing requirements apply differently for vehicles certified based on California procedures as specified in 40 CFR 86.1815-27(h).
Section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that public notice and comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this technical correction final without prior proposal. Such notice and opportunity for comment is unnecessary as the technical corrections are for minor typographical and other nonsubstantive errors made in the final rule.
This final rule is effective June 17, 2024. Section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. 553(d), provides that final rules shall not become effective until 30 days after publication in the
For these reasons, the agency finds that good cause exists under APA section 553(d)(3) to make this rule effective June 17, 2024.
In FR Doc. 2024-06214 beginning on page 27842 in the
(c) * * *
(1) For light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, the warranty period for the emission performance warranty is 24 months or 24,000 miles, except that the warranty period is 8 years or 80,000 miles for any nonconformity resulting from a failed specified major emission control component identified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) For medium-duty vehicles, the warranty period for the emission performance warranty is 5 years or 50,000 miles, except that the warranty period is 8 years or 80,000 miles for any nonconformity resulting from a failed specified major emission control component identified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(a) * * *
(21) ASTM E29-93a, Standard Practice for Using Significant Digits in Test Data to Determine Conformance with Specifications, approved March 15, 1993 (“ASTM E29”); IBR approved for §§ 86.004-15(c); 86.007-11(a); 86.007- 15(m); 86.1803-01.
(a) * * *
(7) Apply thresholds for exhaust emission malfunctions from Tier 4
(a) * * *
(4) Emergency vehicles may be excluded from the emission standards described in this section. The manufacturer must notify the Administrator that they are making such an election in the model year reports required under 40 CFR 600.512-12. Exclude such vehicles from both the calculation of the fleet average standard for a manufacturer under paragraph (c) of this section and from the calculation of the fleet average carbon-related exhaust emissions in 40 CFR 600.510-12.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Manufacturers must perform battery durability testing as described in § 86.1815-27.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
This document amends the Table of FM Allotments, of the Federal Communications Commission's (Commission) rules, by substituting Channel 245B1 for vacant Channel 245B at Mattoon, Illinois to resolve the distance spacing conflict with Station WHMS-FM and maintain a second local FM service. A staff engineering analysis determines that Channel 245B1 can be allotted to Mattoon, Illinois consistent with the minimum distance separation requirements of the Commission's rules with a site restriction of 12.2 kilometers (7.6 miles) southeast of the community at reference coordinates 39-23-17 NL and 88-17-21 WL.
Effective July 22, 2024.
Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2054,
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 24-83, adopted June 6, 2024, and released June 6, 2024. The full text of this Commission decision is available online at
Channel 245B at Mattoon, Illinois is not currently listed in the Table of FM Allotments. Channel 245B is considered a vacant allotment resulting from the cancellation of the license for Station DWLBH-FM. The vacant Channel 245B at Mattoon is short-spaced to Station WHMS-FM, Channel 248B, Champaign, Illinois by ten kilometers. The minimum distance spacing requirement of section 73.207(b) of the Commission's rules is 74 kilometers.
The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339.
(b)
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
FMCSA amends the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to incorporate by reference
Effective July 15, 2024. The incorporation by reference of the material described in the rule is approved by the Director of the
Ms. Rebecca Rehberg, CDL Division, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; (850) 728-2034,
To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to
In this final rule, FMCSA incorporates by reference version c.0 of the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) State Procedures Manual (SPM), which the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, Inc. (AAMVA) released in September 2023. In 2014, FMCSA incorporated by reference version 5.3.2.1 of the CDLIS SPM, which AAMVA released in August 2013 (79 FR 59450 (Oct. 2, 2014)). Version c.0 of the CDLIS SPM has replaced the 2013 version. The CDLIS SPM (version c.0) provides user instructions on the information system processes and procedures of the CDL program. This change reflects a routine update of the referenced SPM (version c.0) to include changes introduced in connection with the exclusively electronic exchange of driver history record information (EEE, 86 FR 38937) procedures and the second drug and alcohol clearinghouse final rule (DACH II or Clearinghouse, 86 FR 55718) information.
The material is available, and will continue to be available, for inspection at the Department of Transportation Library. Copies of the SPM (version c.0) may also be obtained through AAMVA. Further details, including contact addresses and telephone numbers, for both the Department of Transportation Library and AAMVA are provided in § 384.107 in the amendatory text of this final rule. AAMVA plans to update this SPM as needed to reflect changing legal requirements and best practices in the operations of CDLIS. Incorporating version c.0 by reference, however, should ensure that each State complies with the specific version required by FMCSA.
Twenty-six updates distinguish the September 2023 edition of the SPM (version c.0) from the August 2013 edition. The updates are all described in detail in the February 20, 2023, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this rule (89 FR 12800). The incorporation by reference of the September 2023 edition does not impose new regulatory requirements and consequently will neither impose costs nor result in quantifiable benefits.
Section 206 of the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-554, title II, 98 Stat. 2832, 2834, codified at 49 U.S.C. 31136) directed the Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary) to regulate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) and the drivers and motor carriers that operate them. The Secretary was also directed to issue regulations governing the physical condition of drivers.
The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA) (Pub. L. 99-570, title XII, 100 Stat. 3207-170, codified at 49 U.S.C. chapter 313) required the Secretary, after consultation with the States, to prescribe regulations on minimum uniform standards for State issuance of CDLs. CMVSA also specified information States must include on each
FMCSA, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31308, has authority to prescribe procedures and requirements the States must adhere to in issuing CDLs and commercial learner's permits (CLPs). To avoid loss of Federal-aid highway funds, 49 U.S.C. 31314 requires each State to comply substantially with 49 U.S.C. 31311(a), which prescribes the requirements for State participation in the CDL program. To ensure that the States are able to exchange information about CDL holders efficiently and effectively through CDLIS, as required by 49 U.S.C. 31311(a)(5) through (9), (15), (18), (19), and (21), this final rule will require States to follow all the procedures described in version c.0 of the CDLIS SPM when posting, transmitting, and receiving all information on a CDL driver's CDLIS driver record.
FMCSA is further required by statute to maintain an information system that serves as the clearinghouse and depository of information about the licensing, identification, and disqualification of operators of CMVs (49 U.S.C. 31309). CDLIS is the information system that serves that function.
The purpose of this final rule is to incorporate by reference version c.0 of the AAMVA SPM outlining user instructions on the use of CDLIS. The provisions within the SPM (version c.0) are intended to operate holistically in addressing a range of issues necessary to ensure compliance with the information system procedures of the commercial driver's license program. However, FMCSA recognizes that most provisions focus on unique topics. FMCSA finds that the various provisions within the SPM (version c.0) will be severable and able to operate functionally if one or more provisions were rendered null or otherwise eliminated. The remaining provision or provisions within the SPM (version c.0) will continue to operate functionally if any one or more provisions were invalidated and any other provision(s) remained. In the event a court were to invalidate one or more of the SPM's unique provisions, the remaining provisions should stand.
To carry out its obligation to maintain a system for information about CMV operators, in 1988, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) entered into a designation agreement with AAMVA's affiliate AAMVAnet,
In August 2005, section 4123 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users authorized FMCSA to establish a modernization plan for CDLIS (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1734, codified in part at 49 U.S.C. 31309(e)
On May 2, 2006, FMCSA published the CDLIS Modernization Plan in the
On June 9, 2008, FMCSA and AAMVA entered into a new cooperative agreement regarding the operation, maintenance, and modernization of CDLIS. While FMCSA authorizes AAMVA to maintain and operate CDLIS, FMCSA does not own CDLIS, and it is not a Federal system of records. FMCSA and AAMVA work closely together to monitor State compliance with the CDLIS specifications, as set forth in the 2006 CDLIS Modernization Plan, and States' annual grant agreements. FMCSA has awarded Federal financial assistance grants to AAMVA to maintain an active Help Desk for the jurisdictions, conduct regularly occurring CDLIS training courses for the jurisdictions, and provide States with regular CDLIS transaction and error reports to improve their compliance efforts.
The goals of the 2008 agreement, to which any amendments must be made in writing and signed by all parties,
FMCSA published an NPRM on February 20, 2024 (89 FR 12800). Because the incorporation by reference found at 49 CFR 384.107(b)(1) references the outdated August 2013, edition of AAMVA's “Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) State Procedures Manual,” the NPRM proposed to incorporate by reference the current 2023 edition.
Twenty-six updates distinguish the September 2023 edition from the August 2013 edition. Each of the changes was described and discussed in detail in the NPRM. Generally, the changes serve to outline the standard administrative practices required of the fifty States and the District of Columbia, known as “the jurisdictions,” when participating in CDLIS. The thirteen Canadian provinces and territories and the Mexican General Directorship of Federal Motor Carrier Transportation (DGAF) will also adopt version c.0 of the CDLIS SPM. Version c.0 of the SPM supersedes previous versions of the CDLIS SPM.
The SPM (version c.0) contains background information about the laws mandating CDLIS and discusses types of CDLIS users. The SPM (version c.0) also
The CDLIS SPM (version c.0) addresses changes that were made as part of the modernization effort to make CDLIS more efficient in handling the increasing number of driver records and data transactions. These changes provide users with instructions on the processes and procedures for using the CDL information system. In addition, version c.0 includes updates to support changes made to CDLIS as a result of the DACH II rule, published in October 2021, and revises procedures to support changes made to CDLIS as a result of the EEE rule, published in July 2021. Any references in the SPM (version c.0) to the U.S. Code or CFR should be confirmed by users.
FMCSA contacted AAMVA December 19, 2023, to confirm that the Canadian provinces and territories, as well as Mexico's DGAF would also adopt version c.0 of the CDLIS SPM. On January 10, 2024, FMCSA notified AAMVA that it had inadvertently included incorrect CFR citations in version c.0 of the SPM. Additionally, FMCSA contacted AAMVA on April 8, 2024, to confirm the latest existing release of the SPEXS Specifications System. FMCSA placed a memorandum in the docket for this rulemaking to document the communications between the Agency and AAMVA.
FMCSA solicited comments concerning the NPRM for 30 days ending March 21, 2024. By that date, two comments were received. AAMVA requested both substantive and technical edits be applied in the final rule, which are discussed in detail. The second comment was submitted by an individual who raised issues involving car accidents.
FMCSA finalizes the incorporation by reference of the most recent edition of AAMVA's version c.0 of the CDLIS SPM without changes to the updates described in the NPRM. Per AAMVA's request, FMCSA has included two clarifying edits in this final rule. The first edit, which FMCSA adopted in part, is a correction of the citation included in Section III (Abbreviations) to include the SPEX System Specifications B.0.0, instead of version c.0 f the CDLIS SPM. The second edit is the addition of a footnote attached to the “S2S” acronym in sub-section A (Proposed Rulemaking) under Section VI (Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking
Section 384.107. The Agency will revise paragraph (b) to incorporate by reference version c.0 of the CDLIS SPM.
Section 384.301. The Agency will add, as a conforming amendment, a new paragraph (p) specifying that the State must comply with the requirements of this rule by August 22, 2024.
FMCSA has considered the impact of this final rule under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and E.O. 14094 (88 FR 21879, Apr. 11, 2023) Modernizing Regulatory Review. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this final rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 and amended by E.O. 14094 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under that E.O.
This rule will update the reference at § 384.107 to the CDLIS State Procedures Manual, version c.0 manual. Specifically, it includes changes introduced to the FMCSRs as a result of the EEE and DACH II final rules. The rule solely defines processes and procedures which ensure that other regulations are uniformly implemented and imposes no new regulatory requirements. The rule will impose no new costs, and any benefits that will result from it are expected to be de minimis.
This rule is not a
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
When an Agency issues a proposed rule, the RFA requires the Agency to “prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis” that will describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 604(a)). Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, instead of preparing an analysis, if the rule is not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule incorporates by reference the September 2023 edition of the AAMVA CDLIS SPM (version c.0). The changes to the 2023 edition of the AAMVA CDLIS SPM (version c.0) from the 2013 edition are intended to ensure clarity in the presentation of the SDLA conditions and are generally editorial or ministerial. As noted above, FMCSA does not expect the changes made in the September 2023 edition of the AAMVA CDLIS SPM (version c.0) to impose new costs or to result in quantifiable benefits, as it imposes no new regulatory requirements. The editorial and ministerial changes that result from this rule will apply to SDLA processes and procedures; SDLAs are not small entities. Consequently, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), 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 this 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
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman (Office of the National Ombudsman, see
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. 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, and the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply as a result.
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.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005,
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.
The E-Government Act of 2002,
In addition, the Agency submitted a Privacy Threshold Assessment (PTA) to evaluate the risks and effects the proposed rulemaking might have on collecting, storing, and sharing personally identifiable information. The PTA was adjudicated by DOT's Chief Privacy Officer on January 10, 2024.
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,
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug Abuse, Highway safety, Incorporation by reference, and Motor carriers.
In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA amends part 384 of title 49, CFR as follows:
49 U.S.C. 31136, 31301
(a)
(b) The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 4401 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700, Arlington, VA 22203, (703) 522-1300,
(1) CDLIS State Procedures Manual c.0, SPEXS—State Pointer Exchange Services: CDLIS State Procedures Manual, Document Version c.0, released September 11, 2023; approved for §§ 384.225(f) and 384.231(d).
(2) [Reserved]
(p) A State must come into substantial compliance with the requirements of subpart B of this part, which is effective as of July 15, 2024, as soon as practicable, but not later than August 22, 2024.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notification of availability; request for comments.
The FAA invites public comment on the agency's draft policy statement that establishes a safety continuum for the certification of powered-lift.
Comments must be received on or before August 12, 2024.
Send comments identified with “Safety Continuum for Powered-lift” and docket number FAA-2024-1656, using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
James Blyn, Product Policy Management: Airplanes, GA, Emerging Aircraft, and Rotorcraft AIR-62B, Policy and Standards Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas 76177; telephone (817) 222-5762; email
Powered-lift are heavier-than-air aircraft capable of vertical takeoff, vertical landing, and low speed flight that depends principally on engine-driven lift devices or engine thrust for lift during these flight regimes and on nonrotating airfoil(s) for lift during horizontal flight. Powered-lift designs vary in size, capability, and performance. These aircraft are intended to perform a wide variety of operations such as urban air mobility, flight training, air ambulance, search and rescue, external-load/utility, firefighting, electronic newsgathering, air tours, and private use.
Recognizing that advancements in technology have the potential to enhance safety and recognizing the broad variations in the population of normal category aircraft, the FAA reviewed the safety continuum policies for both normal category airplanes and normal category rotorcraft and developed this proposed policy statement, which applies the FAA's safety continuum concept to the certification of powered-lift. This proposed policy would provide a balanced approach between the risk and safety benefits for certificating such aircraft. This policy establishes certification levels for powered-lift and establishes a graduated scale of compliance standards for the certification of these aircraft. These certification levels are based on aircraft maximum gross weight, maximum passenger seating configuration, and type of operation (general aviation vs. passenger transportation for compensation or hire) and are used to establish the safety objectives for system safety and aircraft performance.
The FAA invites the public to submit comments on the draft policy statement as specified in the
You may examine the draft policy statement on the agency's public website and in the docket as follows:
• At
• At
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2023-02-08, which applies to certain ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-500 airplanes. AD 2023-02-08 requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. Since the FAA issued AD 2023-02-08, the FAA has determined that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. This proposed AD would continue to require certain
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 29, 2024.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For EASA material, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available at
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 206-231-3220; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Shahram Daneshmandi, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 206-231-3220; email
The FAA issued AD 2023-02-08, Amendment 39-22315 (88 FR 7867, February 7, 2023) (AD 2023-02-08), for certain ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-500 airplanes. AD 2023-02-08 was prompted by an MCAI originated by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued AD 2022-0200, dated September 26, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0200) (which corresponds to FAA AD 2023-02-08), to correct an unsafe condition.
AD 2023-02-08 requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA issued AD 2023-02-08 to prevent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Since the FAA issued AD 2023-02-08, EASA superseded AD 2022-0200 and issued EASA AD 2024-0052, dated February 23, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0052) (referred to after this as the MCAI), for all ATR-400 and ATR-500 airplanes. Model ATR-400 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this proposed AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability. The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.
Airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued after October 16, 2023, must comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the approved type design and referenced on the type certificate data sheet; this proposed AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address among other things, fatigue cracking and damage in principal structural elements. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2024-0052 that revises the ATR42-400/-500 Time Limits Document and incorporates EASA AD 2020-0249R1, which required a repetitive operational test for discrepancies of the stall warning system and stick pusher in the flight configuration for ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-500 and ATR72 airplanes. This service information specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits. EASA AD 2020-0249R1 revises EASA AD 2020-0249, which corresponds to FAA AD 2020-26-17, Amendment 39-21372 (85 FR 81795, December 17, 2020) (AD 2020-26-17).
This proposed AD would also require EASA AD 2022-0200, which the Director of the
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2023-02-08. This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate additional new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, which are specified in EASA AD 2024-0052 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to retain the IBR of EASA AD 2022-0200 and incorporate EASA AD 2024-0052 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2022-0200 and EASA AD 2024-0052 through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2022-0200 and EASA AD 2024-0052 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2022-0200 and EASA AD 2024-0052. Service information required by EASA AD 2022-0200 and EASA AD 2024-0052 for compliance will be available at
The FAA's process of incorporating by reference MCAI ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with corresponding FAA ADs has been limited to certain MCAI ADs (primarily those with service bulletins as the primary source of information for accomplishing the actions required by the FAA AD). However, the FAA is now expanding the process to include MCAI ADs that require a change to airworthiness limitation documents, such as airworthiness limitation sections.
For these ADs that incorporate by reference an MCAI AD that changes airworthiness limitations, the FAA requirements are unchanged. Operators must revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in the new airworthiness limitation document. The airworthiness limitations must be followed according to 14 CFR 91.403(c) and 91.409(e).
The previous format of the airworthiness limitation ADs included a paragraph that specified that no alternative actions (
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 17 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained actions from AD 2023-02-08 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).
The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.
The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new proposed actions to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by July 29, 2024.
This AD replaces AD 2023-02-08, Amendment 39-22315 (88 FR 7867, February 7, 2023) (AD 2023-02-08).
This AD affects AD 2020-26-17, Amendment 39-21372 (85 FR 81795, December 17, 2020) (AD 2020-26-17).
This AD applies to ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-500 airplanes, certificated in any category, with an original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before October 16, 2023.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address among other things, fatigue cracking and damage in principal structural elements. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2023-02-08, with a new terminating action. For airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness dated on or before July 29, 2022: Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0200, dated September 26, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0200). Accomplishing the revision of the existing maintenance or inspection program required by paragraph (j) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.
This paragraph restates the exceptions specified in paragraph (k) of AD 2023-02-08, with no changes.
(1) The requirements specified in paragraph (1) and (2) of EASA AD 2022-0200 do not apply to this AD.
(2) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0200 specifies revising “the approved AMP” within 12 months after its effective date, but this AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, within 90 days after March 14, 2023 (the effective date of AD 2023-02-08).
(3) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0200 is at the applicable “limitations” and “associated thresholds” as incorporated by the requirements of paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0200, or within 90 days after March 14, 2023 (the effective date of AD 2023-02-08), whichever occurs later.
(4) The provisions specified in paragraphs (4) and (5) of EASA AD 2022-0200 do not apply to this AD.
(5) The “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2022-0200 does not apply to this AD.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (l) of AD 2023-02-08, with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph (j) of this AD, after the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
Except as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, EASA AD 2024-0052, dated February 23, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0052). Accomplishing the revision of the existing maintenance or inspection program required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) This AD does not adopt the requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA AD 2024-0052.
(2) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2024-0052 specifies revising “the approved AMP,” within 12 months after its effective date, but this AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
(3) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2024-0052 is at the applicable “limitations” and “associated thresholds” as incorporated by the requirements of paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2024-0052, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(4) This AD does not adopt the provisions specified in paragraphs (4) and (5) of EASA AD 2024-0052.
(5) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2024-0052.
After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (j) of this AD, no alternative actions (
For Model ATR42-500 airplanes only: Accomplishing the actions required by this AD terminates the corresponding requirements of AD 2020-26-17 for the tasks identified in the service information referenced in EASA AD 2024-0052 only.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
For more information about this AD, contact Shahram Daneshmandi, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 206-231-3220; email
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on [DATE 35 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE].
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2024-0052, dated February 23, 2024.
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on March 14, 2023 (88 FR 7867, February 7, 2023).
(i) EASA AD 2022-0200, dated September 26, 2022.
(ii) [Reserved]
(5) For EASA AD 2024-0052 and EASA AD 2022-0200, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
(6) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(7) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove a revision to the Arizona state implementation plan (SIP) as meeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 2012 fine particulate matter (PM
Any comments must arrive by July 15, 2024.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2023-0539 at
Michael Dorantes, Geographic Strategies and Modeling Section (AIR-2-2), EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3934,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
The EPA has historically referred to SIP submittals made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submittals. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, the EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submittal from submittals that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment SIP” submittals to address the nonattainment planning requirements of CAA title I part D, “regional haze SIP” submittals required by EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of section 169A, and nonattainment new source review (NSR) permit program submittals to address the permit requirements of CAA title I part D.
Section 110(a)(1) of the Act requires that each State adopt and submit an infrastructure SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA, and that the
Herein, the EPA is acting on SIP submittals from Arizona that address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with respect to the primary and secondary 2012 PM
CAA section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for infrastructure SIP submittals, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these submittals. The list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive program provisions.
The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for the EPA to interpret some CAA section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP submittals for a given new or revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) requires that “each” SIP submittal must meet the list of requirements therein, while the EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a conflict with the nonattainment provisions in CAA title I part D, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.
Ambiguities within CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise with respect to infrastructure SIP submittal requirements for different NAAQS. Thus, the EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The States' attendant infrastructure SIP submittals for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a State might need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submittal for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants, because the content and scope of a State's infrastructure SIP submittal to meet this element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.
The EPA notes that interpretation of CAA section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when the EPA reviews other types of SIP submittals required under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submittals, the EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submittals. For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP submittals required by part D have to meet the “applicable requirements” of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP submittals must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emissions limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submittals required by part D would not need to meet the
Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), the EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP submittal. In other words, the EPA assumes that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP submittal, regardless of the NAAQS in question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same way. Therefore, the EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews infrastructure SIP submittals against the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that particular NAAQS.
Historically, the EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make recommendations to States for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and applied to individual SIP submittals for particular elements.
As an example, CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submittals. Under this element, a State must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, which pertain to State boards that approve permits or enforcement orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, the EPA reviews infrastructure SIP submittals to ensure that the State's SIP appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance explains the EPA's interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which States can appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the structure of an individual State's permitting or enforcement program (
As another example, the EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submittals with respect to the PSD program requirements in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 110(a)(2)(J) focuses on the structural PSD program requirements contained in CAA title I part C and the EPA's PSD regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and regulated NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHG). By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are not required under the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the State, such as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the 2012 PM
For other CAA section 110(a)(2) elements, however, the EPA's review of a State's infrastructure SIP submittal focuses on assuring that the State's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that States have a program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, the EPA evaluates whether the State has a SIP-approved minor NSR program and whether the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submittal, however, the EPA does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every provision of a State's existing minor source program (
With respect to certain other issues, the EPA does not believe that an action on a State's infrastructure SIP submittal is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a State's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) existing provisions related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA policies addressing such excess emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not requiring further approval by the EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of the EPA's “Final NSR
The EPA's approach to reviewing infrastructure SIP submittals is to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that submittal. The EPA believes that this approach to the review of a particular infrastructure SIP submittal is appropriate because it would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of each and every provision of a State's existing SIP against all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of assuring that the State in question has the basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the purposes of “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of a new or revised NAAQS when the EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP submittal. The EPA believes that a better approach is for States and the EPA to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
For example, the 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance gives simpler recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) because carbon monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP submittal for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
Finally, the EPA believes that its approach with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow the EPA to take appropriately tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes the EPA to issue a “SIP call” whenever the Agency determines that a State's SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.
As described in the previous section, CAA section 110(a)(1) requires States to make a SIP submittal within three years after the promulgation of a new or revised primary NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that each infrastructure SIP submittal must include. These infrastructure SIP elements required by section 110(a)(2) are as follows:
• Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
• Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
• Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.
• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate pollution transport.
• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate and international pollution abatement.
• Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, conflict of interest, and oversight of local and regional government agencies.
• Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.
• Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
• Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
• Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials, public notification, PSD, and visibility protection.
• Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submittal of modeling data.
• Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
• Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local entities.
Two elements identified in CAA section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three-year submittal deadline of section 110(a)(1) and are therefore not addressed in this action. These two elements are section 110(a)(2)(C), to the extent that it refers to permit programs required under part D (nonattainment NSR), and section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D. As a result, this action does not address infrastructure requirements for the nonattainment NSR portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) or the entirety of section 110(a)(2)(I). Additionally, this action does not address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) pertaining to contributions to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other States, referred to as “prongs 1 and 2”
In January 2013, the EPA promulgated a revised primary NAAQS for annual PM
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted two SIP revisions to address the infrastructure SIP requirements in CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2012 PM
We find that Arizona's 2012 PM
In a February 10, 2022 letter transmitting the 2022 I-SIP supplement, ADEQ included revised rules and regulations for incorporation by reference into the Arizona SIP. These submittals include: Arizona Administrative Code (AAC) R18-2-220 “Air Pollution Emergency Episodes,” and the “Procedures for the Prevention of Emergency Episodes;” the Arizona Revised Statute (ARS) 49-432(C), dealing with public availability of emissions records, Pinal County Code (PCC) 17.24.010 “Confidentiality of trade secrets, sales data, and proprietary information,” and Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations, “Regulation VI—Emergency Episodes Rule 600,” (“Rule 600”).
The revised AAC R18-2-220 is intended to satisfy outstanding CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) requirements by adding details of averaging time with alert, warning, emergency, and significant harm levels for PM
We have evaluated Arizona's 2012 PM
Based on the evaluation presented in this notice and in the accompanying TSD, the EPA proposes to approve Arizona's 2012 PM
• 110(a)(2)(A)—Emission limits and other control measures.
• 110(a)(2)(B)—Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
• 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for enforcement of control measures and regulation of new stationary sources (in part).
• 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—Interference with PSD, or “prong 3” (in part).
• 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—Interstate pollution abatement, CAA section 126 (in part).
• 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—International pollution abatement, CAA section 115.
• 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate resources and authority, conflict of interest, and oversight of local governments and regional agencies.
• 110(a)(2)(F)—Stationary source monitoring and reporting.
• 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency episodes.
• 110(a)(2)(H)—Consultation with government officials.
• 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation with government officials, public notification, PSD, and visibility protection (in part).
• 110(a)(2)(K)—Air quality modeling and submission of modeling data.
• 110(a)(2)(L)—Permitting fees.
• 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/participation by affected local entities.
Details about the partial approvals noted in this section are provided in Section IV.B of this notice regarding proposed partial disapprovals. The EPA is taking no action on prongs 1, 2, and 4 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in this rulemaking.
The EPA proposes to partially disapprove Arizona's 2012 PM
• 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for enforcement of control measures and regulation of new stationary sources (in part).
• 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—Interference with PSD, or “prong 3” (in part).
• 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—Interstate pollution abatement, CAA section 126 (in part).
• 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation with government officials, public notification, PSD and visibility protection (in part).
The EPA is proposing to partially disapprove Arizona's 2012 PM
Arizona's SIP does not fully satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements for PSD permit programs under CAA title I, part C. Thus, Pima County currently implements the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 for all regulated NSR pollutants pursuant to a delegation agreement with the EPA, and all Arizona jurisdictions implement the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 for GHG because Arizona is prohibited by State law from regulating emissions of GHG. Although the Arizona SIP remains deficient with respect to PSD permitting for certain pollutants in certain areas of Arizona as described, these deficiencies are adequately addressed in both areas by existing Federal implementation plans (FIPs). If finalized, these partial disapprovals of Arizona's SIP would not create any new consequences for Arizona, the relevant county agencies, or the EPA, as Arizona and the county agencies already implement the EPA's Federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21, pursuant to delegation agreements, for all regulated NSR pollutants. These partial disapprovals, if finalized, would also not result in any offset or highway sanctions, which are not triggered by disapprovals of infrastructure SIPs under CAA section 110(a)(2).
As part of our proposed approval of the Arizona infrastructure SIP submittal elements listed in Section IV.A, we are also proposing to approve two rules and one plan included with the 2022 I-SIP supplement for incorporation into the Arizona State SIP: the revised AAC R18-2-220 “Air Pollution Emergency Episodes,” submitted December 17, 2021, and the “Procedures for the Prevention of Emergency Episodes” submitted February 10, 2022, with the 2022 I-SIP supplement.
As a general matter, rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193). We have evaluated the ADEQ and MCAQD revised rules for compliance with CAA requirements for SIPs set forth in CAA section 110(a)(2) and for compliance with CAA requirements for SIP revisions in CAA sections 110(l) and 193. In general, the rules strengthen the SIP for the reasons discussed in Section III.B.2 of this document and in our TSD. Based upon our analysis, we propose to find that AAC R18-2-220 “Air Pollution Emergency Episodes,” the “Procedures for the Prevention of Emergency Episodes,” and Maricopa County Rule 600 meet the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2), 110(l), and 193. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve the submitted revisions to AAC R18-2-220 “Air Pollution Emergency Episodes,” the “Procedures for the Prevention of Emergency Episodes,” and Maricopa County Rule 600 into the Arizona SIP.
The EPA will address the following Clean Air Act Requirements in separate rulemakings:
• 110(a)(2)(D) (in part): Interstate Pollution Transport.
○ 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—significant contribution to a nonattainment area (prong 1).
○ 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—significant contribution to a maintenance area (prong 2).
○ 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—interference with visibility protection in Class I areas (prong 4).
We note that the EPA intends to act on Prongs 1 and 2 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in a separate rulemaking. We intend to act on Prong 4 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) when we act on Arizona's plan addressing Regional Haze requirements for the second planning period.
Section 51.150 provides criteria for the classification of areas for emergency episode planning purposes based on measured concentrations of ambient air pollutants, specifically sulfur oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone. The priority thresholds for classification of air quality control regions (AQCR) are listed at 40 CFR 51.150, and the specific classifications of AQCR in Arizona are listed at 40 CFR 52.121. Consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 51.153, reclassification of an AQCR must rely on the most recent three years of air quality data. Under 40 CFR 51.151 and 51.152, regions classified under the more stringent classifications of Priority I, IA, or II are required to have SIP-approved emergency episode contingency plans, while those classified Priority III are not required to have plans. We also interpret 40 CFR 51.153 as establishing the means for
Arizona has six AQCRs: Maricopa Intrastate, which includes Maricopa County; Pima Intrastate, which includes Pima County; Northern Arizona Intrastate, which includes Apache, Coconino, Navajo, and Yavapai Counties; Mohave-Yuma Intrastate, which includes Mohave and Yuma Counties; Central Arizona Intrastate, which includes Gila and Pinal Counties; and Southeast Arizona Intrastate, which includes Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, and Santa Cruz Counties.
La Paz County is not listed within any of Arizona's AQCRs. This county composed the northern portion of Yuma County prior to its establishment in 1983. The constituent counties of Arizona's AQCRs in 40 CFR 52.121 and the delimited boundaries listed in 40 CFR 81.268 predate the incorporation of La Paz County.
The EPA's emergency episode regulations were promulgated before the agency's regulation of PM
The air quality data from 2020-2022 indicate the maximum 24-hour PM
The EPA is soliciting public comments on this proposed rulemaking. We will accept comments from the public for the next 30 days. We will consider any comments received before taking final action.
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the ADEQ and MCAQD rules and plan listed and discussed in Section IV.C of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically in the docket for this rulemaking at
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to review State choices, and approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to partially approve and partially disapprove a revision to the Arizona SIP as meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 2012 PM
• 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, 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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it proposes to approve a State program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Adress Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should
The air agency did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of the action described in this proposed rulemaking, this action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this proposed action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen Dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for an extension of a currently approved information collection associated with qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback on service delivery by the AMS.
Comments on this notice must be received by August 12, 2024 to be assured of consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments concerning this notice online using the electronic process available at
Joell Gilham, Legislative & Regulatory Review Staff, AMS, USDA; Telephone (202) 720-2986, or Email
By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences, and expectations; provide an early warning of issues with service; or focus attention on areas where communication, training, or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. This collection will allow for ongoing, collaborative, and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.
The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the Agency's services will be unavailable.
AMS will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
• The collection is voluntary;
• The collection is low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and is low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collection is non-controversial and does not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• The collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered is intended to be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of AMS (if released, AMS must indicate the qualitative nature of the information);
• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
• Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collection will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information, but it does not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: the target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential nonresponse bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding this study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
As a general matter, this information collection will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual
AMS currently has approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for this information collection. This approval is for 60,000 burden hours, based on our initial request to OMB in April 2011. We are requesting that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for 3 years.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by July 15, 2024. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted, identified by docket number 0535-0264, within 30 days of the publication of this notice by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
To assist producers with this data need, the Oklahoma State University, Department of Agricultural Economics (OSU-DAE), has been collecting and publishing statistical estimates biennially for more than 30 years—before USDA-NASS was tasked with the Cash Rents County Estimates. The OSU-DAE obtained statistics to assist producers in making sound rental agreements. Due to the diverse nature of the state, OSU-DAE felt it necessary to provide more descriptive land breakouts such as pasture estimates into native pasture and improved pasture due to large price differences and input costs associated with each type of pasture.
The NASS Oklahoma Field Office routinely receives data requests from data users specific to land leasing rates. While NASS does typically have county and state level cash rents data available for data users, many times they are looking for more detail on the breakout of pastureland or cropland. In Oklahoma, improved grasses for pastureland tend to bring above average rates due to the delivered output, and the same applies to some cropland.
National Agricultural Library, Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, this notice announces the National Agricultural Library's (NAL) intent to request an extension of approval for the current information collection form related to the Animal Welfare Information Center's (AWIC) workshop,
Comments on this notice must be received by August 12, 2024 to be assured of consideration.
Address all comments concerning this notice to Jessie Carder, Supervisory Technical Information Specialist, USDA, ARS, NAL Animal Welfare Information Center, 10301 Baltimore Avenue, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-2351. Submit electronic comments to:
Jessie Carder, Supervisory Technical Information Specialist. Phone: 301-504-5755 or
Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and the assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technology. Comments should be sent to the address in the preamble. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
On April 11, 2024, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the City of San Antonio, grantee of FTZ 80, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 80, on behalf of Vitesco Technologies USA, LLC, in Seguin, Texas.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
On April 11, 2024, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Northern Mississippi FTZ, Inc., grantee of FTZ 262, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 262, on behalf of Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc., in Byhalia, Mississippi.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board Executive Secretary (15
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that small and large garlic chunks produced in the People's Republic of China (China) and exported to the United States constitute merchandise altered in form or appearance in such minor respects that they should be included within the scope of the antidumping duty (AD) order on fresh garlic from China. As a result, small and large garlic chunks will be subject to suspension of liquidation effective June 8, 2023.
Applicable June 13, 2024.
Thomas Cloyd, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1246.
On November 14, 2023, Commerce published the
For a complete description of events that followed the
The merchandise covered by the
This circumvention inquiry covers small and large garlic chunks produced in China and exported to the United States. A complete description of the merchandise subject to the circumvention inquiry is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Commerce is conducting this circumvention inquiry pursuant to section 781(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.226(j). For a complete description of the methodology underlying the final determination,
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in these inquiries are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Based on our analysis of the comments received from interested parties, we made no change to the
As detailed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we determine that small and large garlic chunks produced in China and exported to the United States constitute merchandise altered in form or appearance in such minor respects that they should be included within the scope of the
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.226(l)(3), based on this affirmative final determination, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue the suspension of liquidation of previously suspended entries and to suspend liquidation and require a cash deposit of estimated duties on unliquidated entries of small and large garlic chunks produced in and exported from China that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after June 8, 2023 (
Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an AD or countervailing duty (CVD) order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Act, may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that Commerce conduct an administrative review of that AD or CVD order, finding, or suspended investigation. An interested party who would like Commerce to conduct an administrative review should wait until Commerce announces via the
This notice will serve as the only reminder to all parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with section 781(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.226(g)(2).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), Commerce is issuing antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on certain non-refillable steel cylinders (steel cylinders) from India.
Applicable June 13, 2024.
Shane Subler (CVD), Rachel Accorsi (CVD), Benito Ballesteros (AD), or Samuel Evans (AD), AD/CVD Operations, Offices VIII and IX, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6241, (202) 482-3149, (202) 482-7425, or (202) 482-2420, respectively.
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on April 22, 2024, Commerce published its affirmative final determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of steel cylinders from India.
On June 6, 2024, pursuant to sections 705(d) and 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final affirmative determinations that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of steel cylinders from India within the meaning of section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and LTFV imports of steel cylinders from India within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act.
The products covered by these orders are steel cylinders from India. For a complete description of the scope of the orders,
On June 6, 2024, in accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of imports of steel cylinders from India that are sold in the United States at LTFV.
Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, ADs equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise on all relevant entries of steel cylinders from India. ADs will be assessed on unliquidated entries of steel cylinders entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 1, 2023, the date of publication of the
Except as noted in the “Provisional Measures—AD” section of this notice, in accordance with section 736 of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of steel cylinders from India. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.
Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins indicated in the table below, adjusted by the relevant subsidy offsets. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication in the
The estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
Section 733(d) of the Act states that suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request that Commerce extend the four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that accounted for a significant proportion of exports of steel cylinders from India, Commerce extended the four-month period to no more than six months.
As stated above, based on the above-referenced affirmative final determination by the ITC that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of subsidized imports of steel cylinders from India,
Therefore, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, Commerce intends to direct CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, CVDs on all relevant entries of steel cylinders from India, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after September 29, 2023, the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 706 of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation of steel cylinders from India, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination in the
Commerce also intends, pursuant to section 706(a)(1) of the Act, to instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the amounts as indicated below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination in the
Section 703(d) of the Act states that the suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months. Commerce published the
Therefore, in accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to CVDs, unliquidated entries of steel cylinders from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after January 27, 2024, the date on which the provisional measures expired, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the
On September 20, 2021, Commerce published the
In accordance with the
Interested parties who wish to be added to the annual inquiry service list for an order must submit an entry of appearance to the annual inquiry service list segment for the order in ACCESS within 30 days after the date of publication of the order. For ease of administration, Commerce requests that law firms with more than one attorney representing interested parties in an order designate a lead attorney to be included on the annual inquiry service list. Commerce will finalize the annual inquiry service list within five business days thereafter. As mentioned in the
Commerce may update an annual inquiry service list at any time as needed based on interested parties' amendments to their entries of appearance to remove or otherwise modify their list of members and representatives, or to update contact information. Any changes or announcements pertaining to these procedures will be posted to the ACCESS website at
In the
This notice constitutes the AD and CVD orders with respect to steel cylinders from India, pursuant to sections 706(a) and 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of AD and CVD orders currently in effect at
These AD and CVD orders are issued and published in accordance with sections 706(a) and 736(a) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
The merchandise covered by these orders is certain seamed (welded or brazed), non-refillable steel cylinders meeting the requirements of, or produced to meet the requirements of, U.S. Department of Transportation specification 39, TransportCanada specification 39M, or United Nations pressure receptacle standard ISO 11118 and otherwise meeting the description provided below (non-refillable steel cylinders). The subject non-refillable steel cylinders are portable and range from 100-cubic inch (1.6 liter) water capacity to 1,526-cubic inch (25 liter) water capacity. Subject non-refillable steel cylinders may be imported with or without a valve and/or pressure release device and are unfilled at the time of importation. Non-refillable steel cylinders filled with pressurized air otherwise meeting the physical description above are covered by these orders.
Specifically excluded are seamless non-refillable steel cylinders.
The merchandise subject to these orders is properly classified under statistical reporting numbers 7311.00.0060 and 7311.00.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The merchandise may also enter under HTSUS statistical reporting numbers 7310.29.0030 and 7310.29.0065. Although the HTSUS statistical reporting numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On May 16, 2024, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued its final judgment in
Applicable May 26, 2024.
Preston Cox, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5041.
On March 25, 2021, Commerce published its final determination in the LTFV investigation of mattresses from Cambodia.
Best Mattresses/Rose Lion
In its final results of redetermination pursuant to the
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending the
Because Best Mattresses/Rose Lion does not have a superseding cash deposit rate (
At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from liquidating entries that were produced and/or exported by Best Mattresses/Rose Lion, and were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on and after November 3, 2020, excluding any merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on May 2, 2021, through May 13, 2021. Liquidation of these entries will remain enjoined pursuant to the terms of the injunction during the pendency of any appeals process. In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or, if appealed, upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by Best Mattresses/Rose Lion in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries when the importer-specific
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Companhia Brasileira de Alumínio and CBA Itapissuma (collectively, CBA) made sales of subject merchandise at prices below normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR) May 4, 2021, through October 31, 2022.
Applicable June 13, 2024.
George McMahon, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1167.
On December 12, 2023, Commerce published in the
The product covered by this
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum and are listed as an appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Following the
For these final results, we determine that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period May 4, 2021, through October 31, 2022:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties for these final results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. For CBA, we calculated
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements for estimated antidumping duties will be effective upon publication of this notice for all shipments of certain aluminum foil from Brazil entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the companies subject to this review will be equal to the company-specific weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of the review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior completed segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the completed segment for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the producer has been covered in a prior completed segment of this proceeding, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the completed segment for the most recent period for the producer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 13.93 percent, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation of this proceeding.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction or return of proprietary information disclosed under APO in
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), Commerce is issuing the antidumping duty (AD) orders on brass rod from Brazil, India, Mexico, the Republic of Korea (Korea), and South Africa and a countervailing duty (CVD) order on brass rod from Korea. In addition, Commerce is amending its final determination of sales at less than fair value (LTFV) with respect to brass rod from Korea to correct a ministerial error.
Applicable June 13, 2024.
Claudia Cott or Thomas Schauer (Brazil), AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4270 and (202) 482-0410, respectively; Allison Hollander or Christopher Williams (India), Office I; telephone: (202) 482-2805 or (202) 482-5166; Frank Schmitt or Jacob Waddell (Mexico), Office VI; telephone: (202) 482-4880 or (202) 482-1369, respectively; Krisha Hill or Drew Jackson (AD Korea), Office IV; telephone: (202) 482-4037 or (202) 482-4406, respectively; Dmitry Vladimirov (South Africa), Office I; telephone: (202) 482-0665; or Toni Page or Lingjun Wang (CVD Korea), Office VII; telephone: (202) 482-1398, or (202) 482-2316, respectively.
In accordance with sections 705(d) and 735(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on April 22, 2024, Commerce published its affirmative final determinations of sales at LTFV of brass rod from Brazil, India, Mexico, Korea, and South Africa,
On June 5, 2024, pursuant to sections 705(d) and 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final affirmative determinations that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of dumped imports of brass rod from Brazil, India, Mexico, the Korea, and South Africa, and subsidized imports of brass rod from Korea, within the meaning of sections 705(b)(1)(A)(i) and 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act.
The product covered by these orders is brass rod from Brazil, India, Mexico, Korea, and South Africa. For a complete description of the scope of the orders,
We determine that we made certain ministerial errors in the final LTFV and CVD determinations on brass rod from Korea. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(e), and as explained further in the Korea AD Ministerial Error Memorandum
On June 5, 2024, in accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determinations that an industry in the
Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise on all relevant entries of brass rod from Brazil, India, Mexico, Korea, and South Africa. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of brass rod entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 1, 2023, the date of publication of the
Except as noted in the “Provisional Measures—AD” section of this notice, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of brass rod from Brazil, India, Mexico, Korea, and South Africa, in accordance with section 736 of the Act. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.
Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins indicated in the tables below, adjusted by the relevant subsidy offsets. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication in the
The estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
Section 733(d) of the Act states that suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request that Commerce extend the four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that accounted for a significant proportion of exports of brass rod from Brazil, India, Mexico, Korea, and South Africa, Commerce extended the four-month period to no more than six-months.
As stated above, based on the above-referenced affirmative final determination by the ITC that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of subsidized imports of brass rod from Korea,
Therefore, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, Commerce intends to direct CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties on all relevant entries of brass rod from Korea, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after September 29, 2023, the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 706 of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation of brass rod from Korea, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination in the
The estimated countervailing duty subsidy rates are as follows:
Section 703(d) of the Act states that the suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months. Commerce published the
For Booyoung Industry, Commerce determined a
For all other companies, in accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to countervailing duties, unliquidated entries of brass rod from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after January 27, 2024, the date on which the provisional measures expired, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the
On September 20, 2021, Commerce published the
In accordance with the
Interested parties who wish to be added to the annual inquiry service list for an order must submit an entry of appearance to the annual inquiry service list segment for the order in ACCESS within 30 days after the date of publication of the order. For ease of administration, Commerce requests that law firms with more than one attorney representing interested parties in an order designate a lead attorney to be included on the annual inquiry service list. Commerce will finalize the annual inquiry service list within five business days thereafter. As mentioned in the
Commerce may update an annual inquiry service list at any time as needed based on interested parties' amendments to their entries of appearance to remove or otherwise modify their list of members and representatives, or to update contact information. Any changes or announcements pertaining to these procedures will be posted to the ACCESS website.
In the
This notice constitutes the AD orders with respect to brass rod from Brazil, India, Mexico, Korea, and South Africa and the CVD order with respect to brass rod from Korea, pursuant to sections 706(a) and 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of AD and CVD orders currently in effect at
These orders are issued and published in accordance with sections 706(a) and 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
The products within the scope of these orders are brass rod and bar (brass rod), which is defined as leaded, low-lead, and no-lead solid brass made from alloys such as, but not limited to the following alloys classified under the Unified Numbering System (UNS) as C27450, C27451, C27460, C34500, C35000, C35300, C35330, C36000, C36300, C37000, C37700, C48500, C67300, C67600, and C69300, and their international equivalents.
The brass rod subject to these orders has an actual cross-section or outside diameter greater than 0.25 inches but less than or equal to 12 inches. Brass rod cross-sections may be round, hexagonal, square, or octagonal shapes as well as special profiles (
Standard leaded brass rod covered by the scope contains, by weight, 57.0-65.0 percent copper; 0.5-3.0 percent lead; no more than 1.3 percent iron; and at least 15 percent zinc. No-lead or low-lead brass rod covered by the scope contains by weight 59.0-76.0 percent copper; 0-1.5 percent lead; no more than 0.35 percent iron; and at least 15 percent zinc. Brass rod may also include other chemical elements (
Brass rod may be in straight lengths or coils. Brass rod covered by these orders may be finished or unfinished, and may or may not be heated, extruded, pickled, or cold-drawn. Brass rod may be produced in accordance with ASTM B16, ASTM B124, ASTM B981, ASTM B371, ASTM B453, ASTM B21, ASTM B138, and ASTM B927, but such conformity to an ASTM standard is not required for the merchandise to be included within the scope.
Excluded from the scope of these orders is brass ingot, which is a casting of unwrought metal unsuitable for conversion into brass rod without remelting, that contains, by weight, at least 57.0 percent copper and 15.0 percent zinc.
The merchandise covered by these orders is currently classifiable under subheadings 7407.21.9000, 7407.21.7000, and 7407.21.1500 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Products subject to the scope may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 7403.21.0000, 7407.21.3000, and 7407.21.5000. The HTSUS subheadings and UNS alloy designations are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive.
Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of public meeting and opportunity to comment.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management, will hold an in-person public meeting to solicit input on the performance evaluation of the Hawaii Coastal Management Program. NOAA also invites the public to submit written comments.
NOAA will hold an in-person public meeting on Tuesday, August 20, 2024 at 6 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time (HST) at Washington Middle School Cafeteria, 1633 S King Street, Honolulu, Hawaii. NOAA may close the meeting 15 minutes after the conclusion of public testimony and after responding to any clarifying questions from participants. NOAA will consider all relevant written comments received by Friday, August 30, 2024.
Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
NOAA will accept anonymous comments, however, the written comments NOAA receives are considered part of the public record, and the entirety of the comment, including the name of the commenter, email address, attachments, and other supporting materials, will be publicly accessible. Sensitive personally identifiable information, such as account numbers and Social Security numbers, should not be included with the comment. Comments that are not related to the performance evaluation of the Hawaii Coastal Management Program or that contain profanity, vulgarity, threats, or other inappropriate language will not be considered.
Susie Holst Rice, Evaluator, NOAA Office for Coastal Management, by email at
Section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires NOAA to conduct periodic evaluations of federally approved coastal management programs. The evaluation process includes holding one or more public meetings, considering public comments, and consulting with interested Federal, State, and local agencies and members of the public. During the evaluation, NOAA will consider the extent to which the State of Hawaii has met the national objectives, adhered to the management program approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance under the CZMA. When the evaluation is complete, NOAA's Office for Coastal Management will place a notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of renewal incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued a renewal incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) to harass marine mammals incidental to construction activities associated with the debris dock replacement project in Sausalito, California.
This authorization is effective from July 15, 2024, through July 14, 2025.
Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
Summer Owens, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the original application, renewal request, and supporting documents (including
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe
NMFS' regulations implementing the MMPA at 50 CFR 216.107(e) indicate that IHAs may be renewed for additional periods of time not to exceed 1 year for each reauthorization. In the notice of proposed IHA for the initial IHA, NMFS described the circumstances under which we would consider issuing a renewal for this activity, and requested public comment on a potential renewal under those circumstances. Specifically, on a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time 1-year renewal of an IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical, or nearly identical, activities as described in the Detailed Description of Specified Activities section of the initial IHA issuance notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Description of the Specified Activities and Anticipated Impacts section of the initial IHA issuance notice would not be completed by the time the initial IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the
(1) A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond 1 year from expiration of the initial IHA);
(2) The request for renewal must include the following:
• An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor (
• A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized;
(3) Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
An additional public comment period of 15 days (for a total of 45 days), with direct notice by email, phone, or postal service to commenters on the initial IHA, is provided to allow for any additional comments on the proposed renewal. A description of the renewal process may be found on our website at:
On July 14, 2021, NMFS issued an IHA to the U.S. ACOE to take marine mammals incidental to the Debris Dock Replacement Project in Sausalito, California (86 FR 37124, July 14, 2021) effective September 1, 2021-August 31, 2022. As the planned work was never begun, NMFS reissued this IHA three times on request from the ACOE, effective January 5, 2022-January 4, 2023 (86 FR 73261, December 21, 2021), January 1, 2024-December 31, 2024 (88 FR 16412, March 17, 2023), and most recently, effective July 15, 2023-July 14, 2024 (88 FR 38035, June 12, 2023). On April 4, 2024, NMFS received an application for the renewal of the most recent reissued IHA, referred to herein as the initial IHA. As described in the application for renewal IHA, the activities for which incidental take is requested are identical to those covered in the initial authorization. The notice of the proposed renewal IHA was published on May 13, 2024 (89 FR 41381). There are no changes from the proposed authorization in this final authorization.
The proposed activities (including mitigation, monitoring, and reporting) authorized incidental take, and anticipated impacts on the affected stocks are the same as those analyzed and authorized through the previously issued IHA. No work has yet occurred under the IHA, but the ACOE has informed us that they plan to begin the planned work but not finish it prior to expiration of the currently issued IHA.
The purpose of the ACOE's construction project is to replace the existing decaying dock and other onshore infrastructure used to move marine debris collected from San Francisco Bay onto land for disposal. The location, timing, and nature of the activities, including the types of equipment planned for use, are identical to those described in the initial IHA. The mitigation and monitoring are also as prescribed in the initial IHA.
Species that are expected to be taken by the planned activity include harbor porpoise (
We refer to the documents related to the original IHA, which include the
A detailed description of the demolition and construction activities
A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities for which authorization of take is proposed here, including information on abundance, status, distribution, and hearing, may be found in the notices of the proposed and final IHAs for the 2021 authorization. NMFS has reviewed recent SARs, including the draft 2023 SARs, information on relevant UMEs, and other scientific literature, and determined there is no new information that affects which species or stocks have the potential to be affected or the pertinent information in the Description of the Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities contained in the supporting documents for the initial IHA. Two of the authorized stocks have increased slightly in abundance according to the draft 2023 SARs. The San Francisco/Russian River stock of harbor porpoise has increased from 7,524 to 7,777 and the California breeding stock of northern elephant seal has increased from 179,000 to 187,386. However, these new population abundance estimates do not change estimated take numbers, or influence the findings made in support of the initial IHA.
A description of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat for the activities for which an authorization of incidental take is proposed here may be found in the notices of the proposed and final IHAs for the 2021 authorization. NMFS has reviewed recent draft SARs, information on relevant UMEs, and other scientific literature, and determined that there is no new information that affects our initial analysis of impacts on marine mammals and their habitat.
A detailed description of the methods and inputs used to estimate take for the specified activity are found in the Notices of the Proposed and Final IHA for the 2021 authorization. Specifically, the source levels, days of operation, and marine mammal density and occurrence data applicable to this authorization remain unchanged from the previously issued IHAs. Similarly, the stocks taken, methods and types of takes, and numbers of takes remain unchanged from the previously issued IHA, as do the number of takes, which are indicated below in table 1.
The mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures included as requirements in the authorization are identical to those included in the
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to ACOE was published in the
NMFS has concluded that there is no new information suggesting that our analysis or findings should change from those reached for the initial IHA. Based on the information and analysis contained here and in the referenced documents, NMFS has determined the following: (1) the required mitigation measures will affect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the authorized takes will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks; (3) the authorized takes represent small numbers of marine mammals relative to the affected stock abundances; (4) U.S. ACOE activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on taking for subsistence purposes as no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals are implicated by this action; and (5) appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements are included.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for authorization or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental take authorizations with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS determined that the issuance of the initial IHA qualified to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review. NMFS has determined that the application of this categorical exclusion remains appropriate for this renewal IHA.
NMFS has issued a renewal IHA to ACOE for the take of small numbers of seven marine mammal species incidental to the Debris Dock Replacement Project in Sausalito, CA, valid from July 15, 2024 through July 14, 2025.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 84 Assessment Webinar VI for U.S. Caribbean Yellowtail Snapper and Stoplight Parrotfish.
The SEDAR 84 assessment process of U.S. Caribbean yellowtail snapper and stoplight parrotfish will consist of a Data Workshop, and a series of assessment webinars, and a Review Workshop. See
The SEDAR 84 Assessment Webinar VI will be held Tuesday, July 2, 2024, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (see
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop, (2) a series of assessment webinars, and (3) A Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The assessment webinars produce a report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The product of the Review Workshop is an Assessment Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion during the Assessment Webinar VI are as follows:
Panelists will review and discuss and finalize the assessment modeling for stoplight parrotfish in St. Croix.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The NMFS is issuing permits to authorize the incidental, but not intentional, take of specific Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed marine mammal species or stocks under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), in certain U.S. commercial fisheries.
These permits are effective for a 3-year period beginning June 13, 2024.
Reference materials for the permits are available on the internet at:
Elena Duke, NMFS Pacific Islands Region, 808-725-5085,
The MMPA requires NMFS to authorize the incidental take of ESA-listed marine mammals in commercial fisheries provided it can make the following determinations: (1) the incidental mortality and serious injury (M/SI) from commercial fisheries will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks; (2) a recovery plan for all affected species or stocks of threatened or endangered marine mammals has been developed or is being developed pursuant to the ESA; and (3) where required under MMPA section 118, a take reduction plan (TRP) has been developed or is being developed, a monitoring program is established, and vessels participating in the fishery are registered. NMFS has determined that certain commercial fisheries meet these three requirements and are issuing permits to these fisheries to authorize the incidental take of ESA-listed marine mammal species or stocks under the MMPA for a period of 3 years.
The MMPA LOF classifies each commercial fishery as a Category I, II, or III fishery based on the level of mortality and injury of marine mammals occurring incidental to each fishery as defined in 50 CFR 229.2. Section 118(c)(2) of the MMPA requires fishing vessels that operate in Category I and II fisheries to register with NMFS and are subsequently authorized to incidentally take marine mammals during commercial fishing operations. However, that authorization is limited to those marine mammals that are not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Section 118(a)(2) of the MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1387(a)(2), also requires an additional authorization at section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1371, for incidental taking of ESA-listed marine mammals. Section 101(a)(5)(E) of the MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1371, states that NMFS, as delegated by the Secretary of Commerce, for a period of up to 3 consecutive years shall allow the incidental, but not intentional, taking of marine mammal species or stocks designated as depleted because of their listing as an endangered species or threatened species under the ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1531
The LOF includes a list of marine mammal species or stocks incidentally killed or injured in each commercial fishery. We evaluated ESA-listed stocks or species included on the final 2024 MMPA LOF (89 FR 12257, February 16, 2024) as killed or seriously injured following NMFS' Procedural Directive 02-238 “Process for Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals.” Based on this evaluation, we proposed to issue permits under MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E) to vessels registered in four Category I or Category II commercial fisheries, as classified on the final 2024 MMPA LOF, to incidentally kill or seriously injure individuals from specific ESA-listed marine mammal stocks, as listed in table 1 below (89 FR 15843, March 5, 2024).
Category III fisheries are those commercial fisheries that have a remote likelihood of or no known incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals (MMPA section 118(c)(1)(A)(iii)). All commercial fisheries classified as Category III on the most current LOF do not require MMPA 101(a)(5)(E) authorization so long as any mortality or injury of marine mammals incidental to their operations is reported pursuant to MMPA section 118(e).
Thus, we incorporate by reference all Category III fisheries included in the 2024 MMPA LOF (89 FR 12257, February 16, 2024) as not subject to the ESA prohibition against incidentally taking marine mammals from endangered or threatened species and not subject to any penalties, provided any mortalities or injures are reported as required under MMPA section 118(e).
In addition, specifically for the purposes of MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E), commercial fisheries classified as Category I or II on the LOF solely because of incidental M/SI of non-ESA-listed marine mammals meet the definition of a Category III commercial fishery with respect to ESA-listed stocks or species because the fishery has a remote likelihood of or no known incidental M/SI of ESA-listed marine mammals (NMFS 2020). In other words, if the commercial fishery is a Category I or II fishery because of incidental take of non-ESA listed marine mammals, we consider it a Category III fishery here. We have determined that the following Category I and II commercial fisheries meet this criteria:
• Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico large pelagics longline; and
• AK Southeast salmon drift gillnet;
• AK Bristol Bay salmon drift gillnet;
• AK Kodiak salmon set gillnet;
• AK Peninsula/Aleutian Islands salmon set gillnet;
• AK Yakutat salmon set gillnet; and
• HI shallow-set longline/Western Pacific pelagic longline (HI shallow-set component).
These fisheries do not require 101(a)(5)(E) authorization and are not subject to the ESA prohibition against incidentally taking marine mammals from endangered or threatened stocks and not subject to any penalties, provided any marine mammal mortalities or injuries are reported as required under MMPA section 118(e).
NMFS regularly evaluates other commercial fisheries for purposes of making a negligible impact determination (NID) and issuing section 101(a)(5)(E) authorizations with the annual LOF as new information becomes available. More information about the fisheries in table 1 is available in the 2024 MMPA LOF (89 FR 12257, February 16, 2024) and on the internet at:
For each commercial fishery listed in table 1, we reviewed the best available scientific information to determine if the fishery met the three requirements of MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E) for issuing a permit. This information is included in the 2024 MMPA LOF (89 FR 12257, February 16, 2024), the SARs for these species (available at:
Prior to issuing a MMPA 101(a)(5)(E) permit to take ESA-listed marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing, NMFS must determine if the M/SI incidental to commercial fisheries will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks. NMFS satisfies this requirement by making a NID. Although the MMPA does not define “negligible impact,” NMFS has issued regulations providing a qualitative definition of “negligible impact,” defined in 50 CFR 216.103, as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
NMFS uses a quantitative approach for determining negligible impact detailed in NMFS Procedural Directive 02-204-02 (directive), “Criteria for Determining Negligible Impact under MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E),” which became effective on June 17, 2020 (NMFS 2020). The procedural directive is available online at:
The directive first describes the derivation of two Negligible Impact Thresholds (NIT), which represent levels of removal from a marine mammal species or stock. The first, Total Negligible Impact Threshold (NIT
The directive describes a detailed process for using these NIT values to conduct a NID analysis for each fishery classified as a Category I or II fishery on the MMPA LOF. The NID process uses a two-tiered analysis. The Tier 1 analysis first compares the total human-caused M/SI for a particular stock to NIT
These NID criteria rely on the best available scientific information, including estimates of a stock's minimum population size and human-caused M/SI levels, as published in the most recent SARs and other supporting documents, as appropriate. Using these inputs, the quantitative NITs allow for straightforward calculations that lead to clear negligible or non-NIDs for each
NMFS evaluated the impact of each commercial fishery (listed in table 1 above) following the directive and based on the best available scientific information, made NIDs. These NID analyses are presented in accompanying MMPA 101(a)(5)(E) evaluation documents that provide summaries of the information used to evaluate each ESA-listed stock documented on the 2024 MMPA LOF as killed or injured incidental to the fishery (available at:
The following stocks listed in table 1 are transboundary stocks: Western North Pacific stock of humpback whale, Mexico-North Pacific stock of humpback whale, North Pacific stock of sperm whale, Western U.S. stock of Steller sea lion, Beringia stock of bearded seal, and Arctic stock of ringed seal. As noted above, because of the uncertainty regarding M/SI that occurs outside of U.S. waters for transboundary stocks, we assumed that total M/SI exceeds NIT
The most recent SARs for several stocks listed in table 1 include fishery-related M/SI not assigned to a specific commercial fishery (information provided in NID analyses summaries where applicable below). This unattributed fishery-related M/SI could be from any number of commercial, recreational, or subsistence fisheries, including fisheries listed in table 1. Because data are not currently available to assign the unattributed fishery-related M/SI to a specific commercial fishery, we did not include unattributed mortality in the calculations for NID Tier 2 analyses (described below). NMFS is actively monitoring the fisheries in table 1 through fishery observer programs. If additional fishery-related M/SI is documented through the observer programs that indicate additional M/SI of the stocks listed in table 1, then NMFS will re-evaluate the appropriate NID and the permit.
Based on the criteria outlined in the directive, the most recent SAR, and the best available scientific information, NMFS has determined that the M/SI incidental to the four Category I and II fisheries listed in table 1 will have a negligible impact on the associated ESA-listed marine mammal stocks. Accordingly, this MMPA 101(a)(5)(E) requirement is satisfied for these commercial fisheries (see MMPA 101(a)(5)(E) determination document is available at:
The Category I HI deep-set longline/Western Pacific pelagic longline (HI deep-set component) fishery has documented incidental M/SI of the main HI Islands (MHI) insular stock of false killer whale in the 2023 draft SAR (Carretta
The Category II AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands flatfish trawl fishery has documented incidental M/SI of the Western U.S. stock of Steller sea lion in the 2023 draft SAR (Young
The estimated M/SI of Steller sea lions (Western U.S. stock) in the AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands flatfish trawl fishery is 13, based on observer data. Since this M/SI (13) is less than NIT
The Category II AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands flatfish trawl fishery has documented M/SI of the Western North Pacific stock of humpback whale in the 2022 final SAR (Young
The estimated M/SI of humpback whales (Western North Pacific stock) in the AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands flatfish trawl fishery is 0, based on observer data. Since this M/SI (0) is less than NIT
The Category II AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands flatfish trawl fishery has documented incidental M/SI of the Beringia stock of bearded seal in the 2020 final SAR (Muto
The Category II AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands flatfish trawl fishery has documented incidental M/SI of the Arctic stock of ringed seal in the 2020 final SAR (Muto
The Category II AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands pollock trawl fishery has documented incidental M/SI of the Western U.S. stock of Steller sea lion in the 2023 draft SAR (Young
The estimated M/SI of Steller sea lions (Western U.S. stock) in the AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands pollock trawl fishery is 6.8, based on observer data. Since this M/SI (6.8) is less than NIT
The Category II AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands pollock trawl fishery has documented incidental M/SI of the Arctic stock of ringed seal in the 2020 final SAR (Muto
The Category II AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands pollock trawl fishery has documented M/SI of the Western North Pacific stock of humpback whale in the 2022 final SAR (Young
The estimated M/SI of humpback whales (Western North Pacific stock) in the AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands pollock trawl fishery is 0.008, based on observer data. Since this M/SI (0.008) is less than NIT
The Category II AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands pollock trawl fishery has documented M/SI of the Mexico-North Pacific stock of humpback whale in the 2022 final SAR (Young
The estimated M/SI of humpback whales (Mexico-North Pacific stock) in the AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands pollock trawl fishery is 0.03, based on observer data. As described in the 2022 final SAR, the minimum population estimate (N
The Category II AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands pollock trawl fishery has documented incidental M/SI of the Beringia stock of bearded seal in the 2020 final SAR (Muto
The Category II AK Gulf of Alaska sablefish longline fishery has documented M/SI of North Pacific stock of sperm whale in the 2020 final SAR (Muto
As noted in the SAR, current and historical abundance estimates of sperm whales in the North Pacific are based on limited data and are considered unreliable; caution should be exercised in interpreting published estimates. Further, sperm whales are far-ranging and exhibit sex segregation and stock overlap that together make population size estimation difficult (Muto
The Category II AK Gulf of Alaska sablefish longline fishery has documented incidental M/SI of the Western U.S. stock of Steller sea lion in the 2023 draft SAR (Young
The estimated M/SI of Steller sea lions (Western U.S. stock) in the AK Gulf of Alaska sablefish longline fishery is 1.9, based on observer data. Since this M/SI (1.9) is less than NIT
Recovery plans for Steller sea lions, sperm whales, and false killer whales (MHI insular) have been completed (see
A new recovery plan for humpback whales is being developed. In 2016, NMFS revised the listing status of the humpback whale under the ESA. The globally listed endangered species was divided into 14 distinct population segments (DPSs), the species-level listing was removed, and NMFS listed four DPSs as endangered and one DPS as threatened (81 FR 62260, September 8, 2016). In June 2022, NMFS published a recovery outline for the Central America, Mexico, and Western North Pacific DPSs of humpback whales (
Recovery plans for bearded and ringed seals are also being developed.
Accordingly, the requirement that a recovery plan has been developed or is being developed pursuant to the ESA is satisfied.
The MMPA section 118 requires the development and implementation of a TRP for each strategic stock that interacts with a Category I or II fishery. Subject to available funding, the Secretary shall give highest priority to the development of TRPs for species or stocks whose M/SI exceeds potential biological removal (PBR) level, have a small population size, and which are declining most rapidly. The stocks considered for these permits are designated as strategic stocks under the MMPA because the stocks or a component of the stocks are listed as threatened species or endangered species under the ESA (MMPA section 3(19)(C)).
The MMPA establishes short- and long-term goals of a TRP. The short-term goal of a TRP is to reduce M/SI of marine mammals incidentally taken in commercial fisheries to levels below the PBR for stocks. The long-term goal is to reduce M/SI of marine mammals incidentally taken in commercial fisheries to levels below the insignificant threshold, defined by NMFS as 10 percent of a stock's PBR level (50 CFR 229.2). The obligations to develop and implement a TRP are subject to the availability of funding. MMPA section 118(f)(3) (16 U.S.C. 1387(f)(3)) contains specific priorities for developing TRPs when funding is insufficient. NMFS has insufficient funding available to simultaneously develop and implement TRPs for all strategic stocks that interact with Category I or Category II fisheries. As provided in MMPA section 118(f)(6)(A) and (f)(7), NMFS uses the SAR and LOF as the basis to determine its priorities for establishing TRT and developing TRPs. Information about NMFS' marine mammal TRTs and TRPs may be found at:
The HI deep-set longline fishery, for the affected marine mammal species or stocks (table 1), has a TRP in place.
Both the AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands flatfish trawl and AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands pollock trawl fisheries, for the affected marine mammals species or stocks (table 1) have met the long-term goals of a TRP (
PBR and incidental M/SI for each stock listed in table 1 in the AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands flatfish trawl fishery are as follows:
• Bearded seal, Beringia—PBR = 8,210, M/SI = 1.2, M/SI as percent of the stock's PBR = 0.01 percent;
• Humpback whale, Western North Pacific—PBR = 0.2, M/SI = 0, M/SI as percent of stock's PBR = 0 percent;
• Ringed seal, Arctic—PBR = 4,755, M/SI = 4.6, M/SI as percent of the stock's PBR = 0.097 percent; and
• Steller sea lion, Western U.S—PBR = 299, M/SI = 13, M/S as percent of the stock's PBR = 4.3 percent.
PBR and incidental M/SI for each stock listed in table 1 in the AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands pollock trawl fishery are as follows:
• Bearded seal, Beringia—PBR = 8,210, M/SI = 0.6, M/SI as percent of the stock's PBR = 0.007 percent;
• Humpback whale, Mexico-North Pacific—PBR is undetermined, M/SI = 0.03;
• Humpback whale, Western North Pacific—PBR = 0.2, M/SI = 0.008, M/SI as percent of stock's PBR = 4 percent;
• Ringed seal, Arctic—PBR = 4,755, M/SI = 0.2, M/SI as percent of the stock's PBR = 0.004 percent; and
• Steller sea lion, Western U.S—PBR = 299, M/SI = 6.8, M/SI as percent of the stock's PBR = 2.2 percent.
Marine mammal M/SI incidental to each commercial fishery (AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands flatfish trawl, and AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands pollock trawl) is below 10 percent of each stock's PBR; thus it is already below the insignificance threshold and approaching a zero M/SI rate (
As noted above and in the SAR, the N
In addition, the AK Gulf of Alaska sablefish longline fishery has met the long-term goal of a TRP for the Western U.S. stock of Steller sea lion (
All of the evaluated fisheries listed in table 1, for the affected marine mammal species or stocks, have a TRP in place, achieved the long-term goal of MMPA section 118(f), or based on NMFS' priorities, implementation of a TRP is currently deferred under section 118 as other stocks/fisheries are a higher priority for any available funding for establishing new TRPs. Accordingly, the requirement under MMPA section 118 to have TRPs in place or in development is satisfied (see determinations supporting the permits available on the internet at
Under MMPA section 118(d), NMFS is to establish a program for monitoring incidental M/SI of marine mammals from commercial fishing operations. Each of the fisheries listed in table 1 is monitored by NMFS fishery observer programs. Accordingly, the requirement under MMPA section 118 to have a monitoring program in place is satisfied.
MMPA section 118(c) requires that vessels participating in Category I and II fisheries register to obtain an authorization to take marine mammals incidental to fishing activities. NMFS has integrated the MMPA registration process, implemented through the Marine Mammal Authorization Program, with existing state and Federal fishery license, registration, or permit systems for Category I and II fisheries on the LOF. Therefore, the requirement for vessel registration is satisfied.
Based on the above evaluation for each commercial fishery listed in table 1 as it relates to the three requirements of MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E), we are issuing MMPA 101(a)(5)(E) permits to the commercial fisheries in table 1 to authorize the incidental take of ESA-listed species or stocks during commercial fishing operations. If, during the 3-year authorization, there is a significant change in the information or conditions used to support any of these determinations, NMFS will re-evaluate whether to amend or modify the authorization, after notice and opportunity for public comment. If the authorization for an individual fishery in table 1 becomes amended, modified, or invalidated for any reason during the 3-year period, the authorizations for the other commercial fisheries in table 1 will continue unchanged and effective until the end of the 3-year period.
ESA section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species listed under the ESA, or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat of any ESA-listed species. The effects of these four commercial fisheries on ESA-listed marine mammals in table 1, were analyzed in the appropriate ESA section 7 Biological Opinions on the commercial fishery, and incidental take was exempted under the ESA for those ESA-listed marine mammals for each of these fisheries in accordance with the Biological Opinions' incidental take statement. Under section 7 of the ESA, Biological Opinions quantify the effects of the proposed action on ESA-listed species and their critical habitat and, where appropriate, exempt take of ESA-listed species that is reasonably certain to occur, as specified in the incidental take statement.
Under MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E), NMFS analyzes previously documented M/SI incidental to commercial fisheries through the NID process, and when the necessary findings can be made, issues a MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E) permit that allows for an unspecified amount of incidental taking of specific ESA-listed marine mammal stocks while engaging in commercial fishing operations. Thus, the applicable standards and resulting analyses under the MMPA and ESA differ, and as such, do not always align.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to evaluate the impacts of alternatives for their actions on the human environment. Because these permits would not modify any fishery operation and the effects of the fishery operations have been evaluated in accordance with NEPA, no additional NEPA analysis beyond that conducted for the associated Fishery Management Plans is required for these permits. Issuing the permits would have no additional impact on the human environment or effects on threatened or endangered species beyond those analyzed in these documents.
On March 5, 2024, NMFS published a notice and request for comments in the
Before convening a TRT, it is critical to have a sufficient level of data on abundance and mortality available to inform TRT discussions and support successful TRP development (16 U.S.C. 1387(f)(4)). At a minimum, abundance and observer data are needed to estimate
There are key technical uncertainties in the current North Pacific sperm whale SAR that must be addressed. In general, sperm whales' unusual hierarchical social and population structure present difficulties in modeling population dynamics and estimating abundance given their deep diving behavior. There is little current information about the broad-scale distribution of sperm whales in Alaska waters, and a “reliable” abundance estimate for the entire stock is considered unavailable because the abundance data is more than 8 years old (see Muto
Most recently, in April 2024 at the 69th Scientific Committee (SC69B) meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), NMFS scientists on the U.S. delegation to the IWC Scientific Committee proposed a workshop to conduct an assessment of sperm whale populations in the Eastern North Pacific. The Scientific Committee recognized that it has been almost 20 years since the last effort to assess the status of North Pacific sperm whale population and agreed to establish an intersessional correspondence group to help assess available data for a North Pacific sperm whale assessment and develop a workshop proposal. This work is necessary to prepare for a future in-depth assessment of North Pacific sperm whales under the auspices of the IWC, which would inform the work of a TRT. Following the process described in NMFS Procedural Directive 02-204-03
Therefore, and as described in the Take Reduction Plan sections of the proposed permits (89 FR 15843, March 5, 2024), and this
As noted above, the most recent SAR for the Western North Pacific stock of humpback whale includes fishery-related M/SI not assigned to a specific commercial fishery. This unattributed fishery-related M/SI could be from any number of commercial, recreational, or subsistence fisheries, including fisheries listed in table 1. Because data are not currently available to assign the unattributed fishery-related M/SI to a specific commercial fishery, we did not include unattributed mortality in the calculations for NID Tier 2 analysis. NMFS is actively monitoring the fisheries in table 1 through fishery observer programs. If additional fishery-related M/SI is documented through the observer programs that indicate additional M/SI of the Western North Pacific stock of humpback whale, then NMFS will re-evaluate the appropriate NID and the permit.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) Tilefish Advisory Panel will hold a public meeting.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, June 27, 2024, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., EST. For agenda details, see
The meeting will be held via webinar. Webinar connection, agenda items, and any additional information will be available at
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The purpose of this meeting is to discuss recent performance of the blueline and golden tilefish commercial and recreational fisheries and develop Fishery Performance Reports. These reports will be considered by the Scientific and Statistical Committee, the Monitoring Committee, and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council when setting 2025 blueline and 2025-2027 golden tilefish catch and landings limits as well as commercial or recreational management measures.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shelley Spedden at the Council Office, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 95 Atlantic Migratory Cobia Life History Webinar I.
The SEDAR 95 assessment of the Atlantic stock of cobia will consist of a series of data and assessment webinars. See
The SEDAR 95 Atlantic Migratory Cobia Life History Webinar I has been scheduled for Monday, July 1, 2024, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., Eastern. The established times may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the assessment process. Such adjustments may result in the meeting being extended from or completed prior to the time established by this notice.
The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (see
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a three-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion at the SEDAR 95 Atlantic Migratory Cobia Life History Webinar I are as follows:
Discuss and review available life history data and provide recommendations for use in the assessment.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice of availability.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of CFTC's Fiscal Year 2022 Service Contract Inventory.
Questions regarding the service contract inventory should be directed to Livia Bykov, Procurement Analyst, at 202-418-5103 or
In accordance with section 743 of division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010, Public Law 111-117, 123 Stat. 3034, CFTC is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 Service Contract Inventory. CFTC has posted its inventory documents on the agency website at the following link:
This inventory provides information on service contracts above the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000), as determined by the base and all options value, that were awarded in FY 2022. CFTC's service contract inventory data is included in the government-wide inventory, which can be filtered to display the CFTC-specific data. A link to the government-wide inventory is included in the posting on the CFTC website, or it can be accessed directly at
The inventory documents posted on the CFTC website also include the CFTC FY 2021 Service Contract Inventory Analysis (dated February 17, 2023). This report provides information about the Product Service Codes that the CFTC analyzed from the 2021 inventory.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Department of the Army, Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 15, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Lucas at
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Neil Hedlund at
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 22-48 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of the United Kingdom has requested to buy five hundred thirteen (513) Javelin LWCLUs. Also included are Javelin LWCLU BSTs; JOTs; JVL-Es; Javelin LWCLU Train the Trainer Package; Lifecycle Support; SICO; Javelin Operator Manual; Technical Assistance (TAGM); and other related elements of logistical and program support. The total estimated program cost is $300 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a NATO ally that is a force for political stability and economic progress in Europe.
The proposed sale will improve the United Kingdom's capability to meet current and future threats. The United Kingdom will use the enhanced capability to strengthen its homeland defense and deter regional threats. The United Kingdom will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be the Javelin Joint Venture. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the United Kingdom.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The Javelin Weapon System is a medium-range, man portable, shoulder-launched, fire and forget, anti-tank system for infantry, scouts, and combat engineers. It may also be mounted on a variety of platforms including vehicles, aircraft and watercraft. The system weighs ~43.5 pounds and has a maximum range in excess of 4,500 meters. The system is highly lethal against tanks and other systems with conventional and reactive armors. The system possesses a secondary capability against bunkers.
2. Javelin's key technical feature is the use of fire-and-forget technology which allows the gunner to fire and immediately relocate or take cover. Additional special features are the top attack and/or direct fire modes, an advanced tandem warhead and imaging infrared seeker, target lock-on before launch, and soft launch from enclosures or covered fighting positions. The Javelin missile also has a minimum smoke motor thus decreasing its detection on the battlefield.
3. The Javelin Weapon System is comprised of two major tactical components, which are a reusable LWCLU and a round contained in a disposable launch tube assembly. The LWCLU incorporates an integrated day-night sight that provides a target engagement capability in adverse weather and countermeasure environments. The LWCLU may also be used in a stand-alone mode for battlefield surveillance and target detection. The LWCLU's thermal sight is a 3rd generation Forward Looking Infrared sensor. To facilitate initial loading and subsequent updating of software, all on-board missile software is uploaded via the LWCLU after mating and prior to launch.
4. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is UNCLASSIFIED.
5. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
6. A determination has been made that the United Kingdom can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
7. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of the United Kingdom.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Neil Hedlund at
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 22-37 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Singapore has requested to buy ninety (90) MXU-651 AFGs for 2000LB Paveway II (PWII), GBU-10; ninety (90) MAU-169 or MAU-209 CCGs for 2000LB PWII, GBU-10; one hundred forty (140) MXU-650 AFGs for 500LB PW-II, GBU-12; one hundred forty (140) MAU-169 or MAU-209 CCGs for 500LB PWII, GBU-12; twenty (20) JDAM KMU-556 tail kits for GBU-31; twenty-two (22) JDAM KMU-572 tail kits for Laser JDAM, GBU-54; two hundred (200) FMU-152 fuzes; fifty (50) MK-84 2000LB GP bombs; fifty (50) MK-82 500LB GP bombs; and six hundred twenty-five (625) Mk-82 500LB inert bombs. Also included are DSU-38 and -40 PLGS for Laser JDAM, GBU-54; KGV-135A cryptographic devices; impulse cartridges, chaff, and flares; training rounds and practice bombs; classified and unclassified software delivery and support; classified and unclassified publications and technical documentation; integration support and test equipment; aircraft and munitions support and support equipment; telemetry kits; military exercise participation and support; transportation, airlift, and aircraft ferry support; jet fuel; aerial refueling support; personnel training, and training equipment and maintenance; medical and other exercise- and training-related services and support; personnel clothing and equipment; facilities and construction support; and U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, maintenance, and logistics support services, as well as other related elements of logistical and program support. The total estimated program cost is $630 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a strategic partner that is an important force for political stability and economic progress in Asia.
The proposed sale will enable the Singapore Air Force to continue its flight training program to develop mission-ready and experienced pilots to safely and effectively fly its F-15 aircraft, as part of the Peace Carvin V Detachment Training Program. The well-established pilot proficiency training program at Mountain Home Air Force Base will support professional interaction and enhance operational interoperability with U.S. Forces. Singapore will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment and support into its armed forces.
This proposed sale will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
There is no prime contractor involved in this proposed sale. Manpower support will be determined through competition with defense articles anticipated to come from U.S. inventory, as needed. Sources of supply may award contracts when necessary to provide the defense articles if items are not available from U.S. inventory or are considered long lead-time away. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Singapore.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii) Sensitivity of Technology:
1. The Paveway II (PWII) is a maneuverable, free-fall Laser Guided Bomb (LGB) that guides to a spot of laser energy reflected off the target. The LGB is delivered like a normal GP warhead and the semi-active guidance corrects for many of the normal errors inherent in any delivery system. Laser designation can be provided by a variety of laser target markers or designators. A LGB consists of a non-warhead specific MAU-209 or MAU-169 CCG and a warhead specific AFG that attaches to the nose and tail of the GP bomb body respectively.
• The GBU-12 is a 500LB GP bomb body fitted with the MXU-650 AFG to guide to its laser designated target.
• The GBU-10 is a 2000LB GP bomb body fitted with the MXU-651 AFG to guide to its laser designated target. The inert GBU-12 uses a BDU-50 inert bomb body and MAU-169 CCG for training purposes.
2. The Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) is a guidance set which converts unguided bombs into an accurate, adverse weather “smart” munition. The Guidance Set consists of a Tail Kit, which contains the Inertial Navigation System (INS) and a Global Positioning System (GPS), a set of Aerosurfaces and an umbilical cover, which allows the JDAM to improve the accuracy of unguided, general purpose bombs. The JDAM weapon can be delivered from modest standoff ranges at high or low altitudes against a variety of land and surface targets during the day or night. The JDAM is capable of receiving target coordinates via preplanned mission data from the delivery aircraft, by onboard aircraft sensors (
• The GBU-38 is a 500LB bomb body fitted with a KMU-572 guidance kit.
• The GBU-31 is a 2000LB bomb body fitted with a KMU-556 guidance kit.
3. The Laser Joint Direct Attack Munition (LJDAM) is a JDAM that incorporates all the capabilities of the JDAM guidance tail kit and adds a precision laser guidance set (DSU-38 or DSU-40). The LJDAM gives the weapon
4. The KGV-135A is a high-speed, general purpose encryptor/decryptor module used for wide-band data encryption.
5. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
6. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
7. A determination has been made that Singapore can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
8. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Singapore.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Neil Hedlund at
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 22-49 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Australia has requested to buy eighty (80) JASSM-ER (AGM-158B with telemetry kits and/or AGM-158B-2 configurations). Also included are missile containers and support equipment; JASSM training missiles; weapon system support; spare parts, consumables, accessories, and repair/return support; integration and test support and equipment; personnel training; software delivery and support; classified and unclassified publications and technical documentation; transportation; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, studies and surveys; and other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated total cost is $235 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States. Australia is one of our most important allies in the Western Pacific. The strategic location of this political and economic power contributes significantly to ensuring peace and economic stability in the region. It is vital to the U.S. national interest to assist our ally in developing and maintaining a strong and ready self-defense capability.
The proposed sale will improve Australia's capability to meet current and future threats by providing advanced, long-range strike systems for employment from Royal Australian Air Force air platforms including, but not limited to, the F/A-18F Super Hornet and F-35A Lightning II. Australia will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin, Orlando, FL. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Australia.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The AGM-158B/B-2 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM) with Extended Range (ER) are low-observable, highly-survivable, subsonic cruise missiles designed to penetrate next-generation air defense systems en-route to target. The JASSM-ER is designed to kill hard, medium-hardened, soft and area-type targets. A turbo-fan engine and reconfigured fuel tanks provide added capacity.
a. The AGM-158B-2 system capabilities include all the capabilities of the AGM-158B. The AGM-158B-2 configuration will have different internal components to address multiple obsolescence issues as well as subcomponent updates to position for M-Code and other potential upgrades.
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that Australia can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Australia.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 15, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
DSPO has contracted with the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) to assist the Services in meeting the requirements set forth in DoD Instruction 6490.16 that all suicide prevention activities are developed from a relevant evidence-base and have an evaluation capability prior to implementation. CNA, in conjunction with the participating Services (
This
The Navy will use the results of the KI interviews and the results of the survey to tailor their LMS activities, materials, messaging, training, and outreach efforts to maximize their effectiveness with their Servicemembers and communities.
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Lucas at
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Neil Hedlund at
This 36(b)(5)(C) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 22-0J.
(i)
(ii)
Date: October 21, 2020
Military Department: Navy
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
This transmittal reports increases in MDE value by $147 million to $755 million and non-MDE value by $145 million to $545 million. This will result in an overall total case value increase of $292 million to $1.3 billion.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is CONFIDENTIAL.
(vii)
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 15, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
DSPO has contracted with the center for Naval Analyses (CNA) to assist the Services in meeting the requirements set forth in DoD Instruction 6490.16 that all suicide prevention activities are developed from a relevant evidence-base and have an evaluation capability prior to implementation. CNA, in conjunction with the participating Services (
This
The Air Force will use the results of the KI interviews to tailor their TBP LMS activities, materials, messaging, training, and outreach efforts to maximize their effectiveness with their Servicemembers and communities.
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Lucas at
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Neil Hedlund at
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 22-40 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Japan has requested to buy one hundred fifty (150) AIM-120C-7/C-8 AMRAAMs; and three (3) AIM-120 AMRAAM Guidance Sections. Also included are AIM-120 missile containers and control sections; weapon support and support equipment; classified software delivery and support; spare and repair parts, consumables, and accessories; classified publications and technical documentation; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistical support services; and other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated total program cost is $293 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a major ally that is a force for political stability and economic progress in the Asia-Pacific region.
The proposed sale will improve Japan's capability to meet current and future threats by defending the Japanese homeland and U.S. personnel stationed there. Japan already has AMRAAMs in its inventory and will have no difficulty absorbing these missiles into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, AZ. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Japan.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The AIM-120C-7/C-8 AMRAAM is a supersonic, air launched, aerial intercept, guided missile featuring digital technology and micro-miniature solid-state electronics. This potential sale will include AMRAAM Guidance Section. AMRAAM capabilities include look-down/shootdown, multiple launches against multiple targets, resistance to electronic countermeasures, and interception of high and low-flying and maneuvering targets. The AIM-120C-8 is a form, fit, and function refresh of the AIM-120C-7 and is the next generation to be produced.
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that Japan can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Japan.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Neil Hedlund at
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 22-01 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Kuwait has requested to buy sixty (60) AIM-120 C-7/8 AMRAAMs; two hundred fifty (250) MK-84 General Purpose 2000LB bombs; five hundred one (501) MK-83 General Purpose 1000LB bombs; three hundred fifty (350) KMU-556 JDAM tail kits for GBU-31V1 2000LB bombs; seven hundred two (702) MXU-667 AFG for GBU-48 EPW-II 1000LB bombs; and seven hundred two (702) MAU-210 ECCG for GBU-48 EPW-II 1000LB bombs. Also included are FMU-139 Joint Programmable Fuze Systems; AMRAAM containers; weapons support and software; inert munitions, trainers, and training equipment; bomb components; spare, repair parts; personnel training and training equipment; publications and technical documentation; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated total cost is $397 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the infrastructure of a Major Non-NATO ally that has been an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.
The proposed sale will improve Kuwait's ability to meet current and future regional threats. Kuwait intends to use these missiles and munitions with the Eurofighter Typhoon fleet it is acquiring. Kuwait has shown a commitment to modernizing its military and will have no difficulty absorbing these weapons into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractors will be Raytheon Missiles and Defense, Tucson, AZ; and Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, Archbald, PA. Multiple end items will be procured from U.S. Government stock. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreements will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor(s).
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Kuwait.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The AIM-120C-7/8 AMRAAM is a supersonic, air launched, aerial intercept, guided missile featuring digital technology and micro-miniature solid-state electronics. AMRAAM capabilities include look-down/shoot-down, multiple launches against multiple targets, resistance to electronic countermeasures, and interception of high and low-flying and maneuvering targets. The AIM-120C-8 is a form, fit, function refresh of the AIM-120C-7 and is the next generation to be produced.
2. The JDAM is a guidance kit that converts existing unguided free-fall bombs into an accurate, adverse weather “smart” munition. The Guidance Set consists of a Tail Kit, which contains the Inertial Navigation System (INS) and a Global Positioning System (GPS), a set of Aerosurfaces and an umbilical cover, which allows the JDAM to improve the accuracy of unguided, General Purpose (GP) bombs. The Guidance Set, when combined with a warhead and appropriate fuze, forms a JDAM Guided Bomb Unit (GBU) and gives the bomb an adverse weather capability. The JDAM weapon can be delivered from modest standoff ranges at high or low altitudes against a variety of land and surface targets during the day or night. The JDAM is capable of receiving target coordinates via preplanned mission data from the delivery aircraft, by onboard aircraft sensors (
The KMU-556 is the tail kit for a GBU-31 fitted with a 2,000LB (Mk-84 GP) bomb body.
3. GBU-48 Enhanced Paveway II (EP-II) is a maneuverable, free-fall, laser-guided bombs (LGBs) that guide to reflected laser energy from the desired target. The “enhanced” component adds GPS guidance to the laser seeker. This dual-mode capability allows the weapon to operate in all weather conditions. The LGB is delivered the same way as a normal GP warhead, except the semi-active guidance corrects for employment errors inherent in any delivery system. Laser designation for the weapon can be provided by a variety of laser target markers or designators from the air or ground. The Enhanced Paveway system consists of a non-warhead-specific Enhanced Computer Control Group (ECCG), a warhead-specific Air Foil Group (AFG) that attaches to the nose and tail of GP bomb, and a fuze. The weapon is primarily used for precision bombing against non-hardened targets.
The GBU-48 is a 1,000LB (MK-83 GP) bomb body fitted with the MXU-667 AFG and MAU-210 ECCG to guide to its laser-designated target.
4. The FMU-139 Joint Programmable Fuze (JPF) is a multi-delay, multi-arm and proximity sensor compatible with General Purpose blast, frag, and hardened-target penetrator weapons. The FMU-139 settings are cockpit selectable in flight when used with numerous precision-guided weapons. It can interface with numerous weapons, including GBU-31 and GBU-48.
5. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
6. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
7. A determination has been made that Kuwait can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
8. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Neil Hedlund at
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 22-53 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Germany has requested to buy thirty-five (35) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft; thirty-seven (37) Pratt & Whitney F135-PW-100 engines (35 installed, 2 spares); one hundred five (105) AIM-120C-8 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM); four (4) AIM-120C-8 AMRAAM Guidance Sections; seventy-five (75) AGM-158B/B2 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles-Extended Range (JASSM-ER); two (2) AGM-158 Inert JASSMs with Test Instrumentation Kits (TIK); two (2) AGM-158 JASSM Separation Test Vehicles (STV); three hundred forty-four (344) GBU-53 Small Diameter Bombs (SDB-II); three (3) GBU-53 SDB-II Guided Test Vehicles (GTV); eight (8) GBU-53 SDB-II Captive Carry Reliability Trainers (CCRT); one hundred sixty-two (162) BLU-109 2000LB Hardened Penetrator Bombs for GBU-31; two hundred sixty-four (264) MK-82 500LB General Purpose (GP) Bombs for GBU-54; six (6) MK-82 Inert Filled GP Bombs; thirty (30) BLU-109 Inert 2000LB Hardened Penetrator Bombs; one hundred eighty (180) KMU-557 Joint Direct-Attack Munition (JDAM) Tail Kits for GBU-31; two hundred forty-six (246) KMU-572 JDAM Tail Kits for GBU-54; seventy-five (75) AIM-9X Block II+ Tactical Sidewinder Missiles; thirty (30) AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM); fifteen (15) Tactical AIM-9X Block II+ Sidewinder Guidance Control Units; and five (5) AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder CATM Guidance Units. Also included are AIM-120 control sections, propulsion sections, telemetry systems, warheads, and containers; AIM-120 CATMs; AIM-9 Active Optical Target Detectors and containers; FMU-139 joint programmable fuzes; DSU-38 Laser-Illuminated Target Detectors for GBU-54; AN/PYQ-10 Simple Key Loaders; Common Munitions Built-in-Test Reprogramming Equipment (CMBRE) and ADU-891/E Adapter Group Computer Test Sets; KGV-135A embedded secure communications devices; Cartridge Actuated Devices/Propellant Actuated Devices (CAD/PAD); impulse cartridges, chaff, and flares; Full Mission Simulators and system trainers; training missiles and components; electronic warfare systems and Reprogramming Lab support; logistics management and support systems; threat detection, tracking, and targeting systems; Contractor Logistics Support (CLS); classified software and
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the security of a NATO ally that is an important force for political and economic stability in Europe.
The proposed sale will improve Germany's capability to meet current and future threats by providing a suitable replacement for Germany's retiring Tornado aircraft fleet in support of NATO's nuclear sharing mission, the centerpiece for deterrence in Europe. Germany will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractors will be Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Fort Worth, TX; Pratt & Whitney Military Engines, East Hartford, CT; The Boeing Company, St. Charles, MO; and Raytheon Missiles and Defense, Tucson, AZ. The purchaser typically requests offsets. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Germany.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The F-35A Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft is a single seat, single engine, all-weather, stealth, fifth-generation, multirole aircraft. It contains sensitive technology including the low observable airframe/outer mold line, the Pratt and Whitney F135 engine, AN/APG-81 radar, an integrated core processor central computer, a mission systems/electronic warfare suite, a multiple sensor suite, technical data/documentation and associated software. Sensitive elements of the F-35A are also included in operational flight and maintenance trainers. Sensitive and classified elements of the F-35A CTOL aircraft include hardware, accessories, components, and associated software for the following major subsystems:
a. The Pratt and Whitney F135 engine is a single 40,000-lb thrust class engine designed for the F-35 and assures highly reliable, affordable performance. The engine is designed to be utilized in all F-35 variants, providing unmatched commonality and supportability throughout the worldwide base of F-35 users.
b. The AN/APG-81 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) is a high processing power/high transmission power electronic array capable of detecting air and ground targets from a greater distance than mechanically scanned array radars. It also contains a Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), which creates high-resolution ground maps and provides weather data to the pilot, and provides air and ground tracks to the mission system, which uses it as a component to fuse sensor data.
c. The Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) provides long-range detection and tracking as well as an Infrared Search and Track (IRST) and Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR) capability for precision tracking, weapons delivery and Bomb Damage Assessment (BDA). The EOTS replaces multiple separate internal or podded systems typically found on legacy aircraft.
d. The Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (EODAS) provides the pilot with full spherical coverage for air-to- air and air-to-ground threat awareness, day/night vision enhancements, a fire control capability and precision tracking of wingmen/friendly aircraft. The EODAS provides data directly to the pilot's helmet as well as the mission system.
e. The F-35 Electronic Warfare (EW) system is a reprogrammable, integrated system that provides radar warning and electronic support measures (ESM) along with a fully integrated countermeasures (CM) system. The EW system is the primary subsystem used to enhance situational awareness, targeting support and self-defense through the search, intercept, location and identification of in-band emitters and to automatically counter IR and RF threats.
f. The F-35 Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence/Communications, Navigation, and Identification (C4I/CNI) system provides the pilot with unmatched connectivity to flight members, coalition forces and the battlefield. It is an integrated subsystem designed to provide a broad spectrum of secure, anti-jam voice and data communications, precision radio navigation and landing capability, self-identification, beyond visual range target identification and connectivity to off-board sources of information. It also includes an inertial navigation and Global Positioning System (GPS) for precise location information. The functionality is tightly integrated within the mission system to enhance efficiency.
g. The F-35 C4I/CNI system includes two data links: the Multi-Function Advanced Data Link (MADL) and Link 16. The MADL is designed specifically for the F-35 and allows for stealthy communications between F-35s. Link 16 is an advanced Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C3I) system incorporating jam-resistant, digital communication links for exchange of near real-time tactical information, including both data and voice, among air, ground, and sea elements. It provides the warfighter key theater functions such as surveillance, identification, air control, weapons engagement coordination, and direction for all services and allied forces. Link-16 equipment allows the F-35 to communicate with legacy aircraft using widely-distributed J-series message protocols.
h. The F-35 Autonomic Logistics Global Sustainment (ALGS) provides a fully integrated logistics management solution. ALGS integrates a number of functional areas, including supply chain management, repair, support equipment, engine support and training. The ALGS infrastructure employs a state-of-the-art information system that provides real-time, decision-worthy information for sustainment decisions
i. The F-35 Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) provides an intelligent information infrastructure that binds all the key concepts of ALGS into an effective support system. ALIS establishes the appropriate interfaces among the F-35 Air Vehicle, the warfighter, the training system, government Information Technology (IT) systems, and supporting commercial enterprise systems. Additionally, ALIS provides a comprehensive tool for data collection and analysis, decision support and action tracking.
j. The F-35 Training System includes several training devices to provide integrated training for pilots and maintainers. The pilot training devices include a Full Mission Simulator (FMS) and Deployable Mission Rehearsal Trainer (DMRT). The maintenance training devices include an Aircraft Systems Maintenance Trainer (ASMT), Ejection System Maintenance Trainer (ESMT), Outer Mold Line (OML) Lab, Flexible Linear Shaped Charge (FLSC) Trainer, F135 Engine Module Trainer and Weapons Loading Trainer (WLT). The F-35 Training System can be integrated, where both pilots and maintainers learn in the same Integrated Training Center (ITC). Alternatively, the pilots and maintainers can train in separate facilities (Pilot Training Center and Maintenance Training Center).
k. Other subsystems, features, and capabilities include the F-35's low observable air frame, Integrated Core Processor (ICP) Central Computer, Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS), Pilot Life Support System (PLSS), Off-Board Mission Support (OMS) System, and publications/maintenance manuals. The HMDS provides a fully sunlight readable, biocular display presentation of aircraft information projected onto the pilot's helmet visor. The use of a night vision camera integrated into the helmet eliminates the need for separate Night Vision Goggles. The PLSS provides a measure of Pilot Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Protection through use of an On-Board Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS); and an escape system that provides additional protection to the pilot. OBOGS takes the Power and Thermal Management System (PTMS) air and enriches it by removing gases (mainly nitrogen) by adsorption, thereby increasing the concentration of oxygen in the product gas and supplying breathable air to the pilot. The OMS provides a mission planning, mission briefing, and a maintenance/intelligence/tactical debriefing platform for the F-35.
2. The Electronic Warfare Reprogramming Lab is used by U.S. Government engineers in the reprogramming and creation of shareable Mission Data Files for foreign F-35 customers.
3. The AIM-120C-8 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) is a supersonic, air-launched, aerial intercept, guided missile featuring digital technology and micro-miniature solid-state electronics. AMRAAM capabilities include look-down/shoot-down, multiple launches against multiple targets, resistance to electronic countermeasures, and interception of high- and low-flying and maneuvering targets. State-of-the-art technology is used in the missile to provide it with beyond-visual-range capability. This potential sale will include Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM) as well as AMRAAM guidance section, propulsion section, control section, telemetry system, and warhead spares.
4. The AGM-158B/B-2 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) with Extended Range (ER) is a low-observable, highly-survivable, subsonic cruise missile designed to penetrate next-generation air defense systems en-route to target. The JASSM-ER is designed to kill hard, medium-hardened, soft, and area-type targets. A turbo-fan engine and reconfigured fuel tanks provide added capacity. The extended range over the baseline was obtained by going from a turbo jet to a turbo-fan engine and by reconfiguring the fuel tanks for added capacity. This potential sale will include inert missiles with test instrumentation kits, separation test vehicles, and training missiles.
The AGM-158B-2 system capabilities include all the capabilities of the AGM-158B. The AGM-158B-2 configuration will have different internal components to address multiple obsolescence issues as well as subcomponent updates to position for M-Code and other potential upgrades.
5. The GBU-53 Small Diameter Bomb-Increment II (SDB-II) is a 250-lb class precision-guided, semiautonomous, conventional, air-to-ground munition used to defeat moving targets through adverse weather from standoff range. The SDB-II has deployable wings and fins and uses GPS/INS guidance, network-enabled datalink (Link-16 and UHF), and a multi-mode seeker (millimeter wave radar, imaging infrared, semi-active laser) to autonomously search, acquire, track, and defeat targets a variety of moving or stationary targets, at standoff range or close in, in a variety of attack modes. The SDB-II employs a multi-effects warhead (blast, fragmentation, and shaped-charge) for maximum lethality against armored and soft targets. The SDB II weapon system consists of the tactical all-up round (AUR) weapon, a 4-place common carriage system, and mission planning system munitions application program (MAP).
a. SDB-II Guided Test Vehicles (GTV) is a live or inert SDB-II configuration used for land- or sea-range-based testing of the SDB-II weapon system.
b. SDB-II Captive Carry Reliability Test (CCRT) vehicles are an inert SDB-II configuration used for any purpose where an inert round without telemetry or termination capability would be useful, but primarily for reliability data collection during carriage.
6. The Joint Direct-Attack Munition (JDAM) is a guidance set which converts existing unguided bombs (MK-82, MK-83, MK-84, BLU-109, BLU-110, BLU-111, BLU-117, BLU-126 (Navy) or BLU-129 warhead) into an accurate, adverse weather “smart” munition. The Guidance Set consists of a Tail Kit, which contains the Inertial Navigation System (INS) and a GPS, a set of Aerosurfaces and an umbilical cover, which allows the JDAM to improve the accuracy of unguided, General Purpose (GP) bombs. The JDAM weapon can be delivered from modest standoff ranges at high or low altitudes against a variety of land and surface targets during the day or night. The JDAM is capable of receiving target coordinates via preplanned mission data from the delivery aircraft, by onboard aircraft sensors (
a. GBU-31 is a 2,000 pound JDAM. The GBU-31 consists of the KMU-557 tail kit and the BLU-109 bomb body to make the GBU-31v3.
b. The GBU-54 Laser Joint Direct Attack Munition (LJDAM) is a 500 pound JDAM which incorporates all the capabilities of the JDAM guidance tail kit and adds a precision laser guidance set. The LJDAM gives the weapon system an optional semi-active laser guidance in addition to the INS/GPS guidance. This provides the optional capability to strike moving targets. The GBU-54 consists of a DSU-38 laser guidance set, KMU-572 bomb body-specific tail kit, and MK-82 bomb body.
7. The MK-82 GP bomb is a 500 pound, free-fall, unguided, low-drag weapon. The MK-82 is designed for
8. The BLU-109/B is a 2,000 pound hard target penetration warhead designed to penetrate hardened structures before detonating. This potential sale will include BLU-109(D-1)/B inerts.
9. The FMU-139 Joint Programmable Fuze (JPF) is a multi-delay multi-arm and proximity sensor compatible with general purpose blast, frag and hardened-target penetrator weapons. The JPF settings are cockpit selectable in flight when used with numerous precision-guided weapons. It can interface with the GBU-31, GBU-32, GBU-38, and GBU-54.
10. The AIM-9X Block II and Block II+ (Plus) SIDEWINDER Missiles represent a substantial increase in missile acquisition and kinematics performance over the AIM-9M and replace the AIM- 9X Block I Missile configuration. The missiles include a high off-boresight seeker, enhanced countermeasure rejection capability, low drag/high angle of attack airframe and the ability to integrate with a helmet mounted cueing system. The software algorithms are the most sensitive portion of the AIM-9X missile. The software continues to be modified via a pre-planned product improvement (P3I) program to improve counter-countermeasure capabilities. This potential sale will include AIM-9X guidance section spares and Active Optical Target Detectors.
11. The AN/PYQ-10 Simple Key Loader is a portable, hand-held device used for securely receiving, storing, and transferring data between compatible cryptographic and communications equipment.
12. The KGV-135A is a high-speed, general purpose encryptor/decryptor module used for wide-band data encryption.
13. The Common Munitions Built-In-Test (BIT)/Reprogramming Equipment (CMBRE) is support equipment used to interface with weapon systems to initiate and report BIT results, and upload/download flight software. CMBRE supports multiple munitions platforms with a range of applications that perform preflight checks, periodic maintenance checks, loading of Operational Flight Program (OFP) data, loading of munitions mission planning data, loading of Global Positioning System (GPS) cryptographic keys, and declassification of munitions memory.
14. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
15. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
16. A determination has been made that Germany can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
17. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Germany.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 15, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
DSPO has contracted with the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) to assist the Services in meeting the requirements set forth in DoD Instruction 6490.16 that all suicide prevention activities are developed from a relevant evidence-base and have an evaluation capability prior to implementation. CNA, in conjunction with the participating Services (
This
SOCOM will use the results of the KI interviews to tailor their LMS activities, materials, messaging, training, and outreach efforts to maximize their effectiveness with their Servicemembers and communities.
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Lucas at
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Neil Hedlund at
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 22-32 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has requested to buy ninety-six (96) Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile rounds; two (2) THAAD Launch Control Stations (LCS); and two (2) THAAD Tactical Operations Stations (TOS). Also included are repair and return, system integration and checkout, and spare and repair parts; support and testing equipment; publications and technical documentation; construction activities; encryption devices; secure communication equipment; other required COMSEC equipment; and other related elements of logistical and program support. The total estimated program cost is $2.245 billion.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of an important regional partner. The UAE is a vital U.S. partner for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.
The proposed sale will improve the UAE's ability to meet current and future ballistic missile threats in the region, and reduce dependence on U.S. forces. The UAE will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces, as it currently employs the THAAD system.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin Space Systems Corporation, Sunnyvale, CA. It is anticipated the purchaser will request offsets. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the UAE.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system is the first weapons system with both endo- and exo-atmospheric capability specifically developed to defend against ballistic missiles. The higher altitude and theater-wide protection offered by THAAD provides more protection of larger areas than lower-tier systems alone. THAAD is designed to defend against short, medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles. The THAAD system consists of four major components: Fire Control/Communications System (comprised of the Tactical Operations Station, Launch Control Station, and System Support Group), Radar, Launchers and Interceptors.
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent systems, which might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that the UAE can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of the United Arab Emirates.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (OUSD(R&E)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 12, 2024.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to DoD Loan Program Office (LPO), Office of Strategic Capital, 3030 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3030, ATTN: David Vidal, Office of Strategic Capital Director of Credit Programs, Tel. No.: 703-545-1903, Email:
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Neil Hedlund at
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 22-39 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Belgium has requested to buy additional F-16 sustainment support that will be added to a previously implemented case. The original FMS case, valued at $98.4 million, included F-16 sustainment, consisting of AN/ARC-210 radios; classified software, CPINs, and software integration support; EW database support; test support and equipment; aircraft and munitions support and support equipment; flight simulator support; additional hardware and software delivery and support; spare and repair parts, consumables and accessories; maintenance and maintenance support; mission planning system sustainment; facilities, utilities, and information technology support at U.S. Air Force bases; classified and unclassified publications and technical documentation; and U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, studies and surveys; and other related elements of logistical and program support. This notification will include more of the same items and services. The estimated total cost is $127 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a NATO ally which is an important force for political stability and economic progress in Europe.
The proposed sale will improve Belgium's capability to meet current and future threats by maintaining its F-16 fleet in combat-ready status and providing rotational forces to NATO's Eastern flank. Belgium will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin, Bethesda, MD. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Belgium.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The AN/ARC-210 is a voice communications radio system equipped with HAVE QUICK II, which employs cryptographic technology. Other waveforms may be included as needed.
2. The Electronic Warfare Integrated Reprogramming Database (EWIRDB) is used by USG engineers in the reprogramming and creation of shareable Mission Data Files for the AN/ALQ-131 electronic countermeasures pod on the F-16 aircraft.
3. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
4. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
5. A determination has been made that Belgium can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
6. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Belgium.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 15, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
DSPO has contracted with the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) to assist the Services in meeting the requirements set forth in DOD Instruction 6490.16 that all suicide prevention activities are developed from a relevant evidence-base and have an evaluation capability prior to implementation. CNA, in conjunction with the participating Services (
This FRN covers the evaluation activity specific to the Army. The intent of voluntary Army LMS Toolkit Key Personnel Baseline and Follow-up Interviews is to consult with key Army personnel to gain a better understanding of the implementation and utility of the Army's new LMS Toolkit.
The Army will use the results of the KI interviews to tailor their LMS activities, materials, messaging, training, and outreach efforts to maximize their effectiveness with their Servicemembers and communities.
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Lucas at
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Neil Hedlund at
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 22-50 with attached Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Greece has requested to buy follow-on support and sustainment of S-70 helicopters including: aircraft spares; consumables, repair parts, components and accessories to support S-70B/S-70B6 aircraft; repair of S-70 type aircraft and procurement of parts to include aircraft mission system upgrades; existing radar and sonar obsolescence management; gun mount procurement; unclassified publications required for aircraft operation and maintenance (in the English language); U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance and services; expedited contractual award efforts; evaluation and tailoring solutions of technical issues; provide inputs to planning documents; integration, engineering, testing requirements, obsolescence remediation, equipment upgrades, planned product improvements, Integrated Logistic Support (ILS) management services, and Return, Repair and Reshipment of unserviceable repairable items/equipment; spare parts; Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) technical services; technical assistance and travel; OEM program management in the Continental U.S. (CONUS) and Greece; obsolescence driven upgrades; OEM/contractor upgrade program management; engineering analyses, studies and development/validation/test of upgrade solutions; retrofit kit procurement and subsequent installation; publications and Repair of Repairable efforts; Contractor Logistics Support to include Field Service Representative and/or Contractor provided in-service training; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $162.07 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the security of a NATO ally, which is an important partner for political stability and economic progress in Europe.
The proposed sale will improve Greece's capability to meet current and future threats by providing an effective combatant deterrent capability to protect maritime interests and infrastructure in support of its strategic location on NATO's southern flank. Follow-on support and sustainment of Greece's existing fleet of S-70 helicopters enhances stability and maritime security in the Eastern Mediterranean region and contribute to security and strategic objectives of NATO and the United States. Greece contributes to NATO operations, as well as to counterterrorism and counter-piracy maritime efforts and performs invaluable Search and Rescue (SAR) functions in the region. Greece will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin, Bethesda, MD. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this sale will not require the assignment of any U.S. Government personnel but will require one (1) contractor representative, Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) position to Greece to continue follow-on support and sustainment to Greece's S-70B/S-70B6 helicopters.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Neil Hedlund at
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 22-47 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of the Netherlands has requested to buy ninety-six (96) PATRIOT MIM-104E GEM-T ballistic missiles. Also included are tools and test equipment; range and test programs; support equipment to include associated publications and technical documentation; training equipment; spare and repair parts; new equipment training; transportation; Quality Assurance Team support; U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, engineering, and logistics support services; SICO; field office support; International Engineering Services Program Field Surveillance Program; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $1.219 billion.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the security of a NATO ally that is an important force for political stability and economic progress in Europe.
The proposed sale will improve the Netherlands' capability to meet current and future threats. The proposed sale will increase the defensive capabilities of the Netherlands' military and supports its goal of improving national and territorial defense as well as interoperability with U.S. and NATO forces. The Netherlands will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractor will be Raytheon Corporation, Tewksbury, MA. The purchaser normally requests offsets. At this time, offset agreements are undetermined and will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and contractors.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the Netherlands.
There is no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The PATRIOT MIM-104E GEM-T Ballistic Missile is the latest in-production series of the highly successful Raytheon Patriot missile variants available to both U.S. forces and international customers. GEM-T adds a low-noise oscillator for improved acquisition and tracking performance in clutter and provides an upgraded capability to defeat tactical ballistic missile TBM, aircraft and cruise missile threats in complement to the PAC-3 missile.
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is CONFIDENTIAL.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that the Netherlands can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of the Netherlands.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Neil Hedlund at
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 22-26 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has requested to buy three hundred (300) PATRIOT MIM-104E Guidance Enhanced Missile-Tactical Ballistic missiles (GEM-T). Also included are tools and test equipment; range and test programs; support equipment to include associated publications and technical documentation; training equipment; spare and repair parts; New Equipment Training; Transportation; Quality Assurance Team support; U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance; engineering, and logistics support services; Systems Integration and Checkout (SICO); field office support; International Engineering Services Program Field Surveillance Program; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The total estimated cost is $3.05 billion.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a partner country that is a force for political stability and economic progress in the Gulf region.
The proposed sale will improve the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's capability to meet current and future threats by replenishing its dwindling stock of PATRIOT GEM-T missiles. These missiles are used to defend the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's borders against persistent Houthi cross-border unmanned aerial system and ballistic missile attacks on civilian sites and critical infrastructure in Saudi Arabia. These attacks threaten the well-being of Saudi, International, and U.S. citizens (approximately 70,000) residing in the Kingdom. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will have no difficulty absorbing these missiles into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Raytheon Corporation, Tewksbury, MA. The purchaser normally requests offsets. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The PATRIOT MIM-104E Guidance Enhanced Missile-Tactical Ballistic Missile (GEM-T) is the latest in-production series of the highly successful Raytheon Patriot missile variants available to both U.S. forces and international customers. GEM-T deliveries to the U.S. Army began in 2006. This capability adds a low-noise oscillator for improved acquisition and tracking performance in clutter. The GEM-T missile provides an upgraded capability to defeat tactical ballistic missile (TBM), aircraft and cruise missile threats in complement to the PAC-3 missile.
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is CONFIDENTIAL.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent systems which might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Neil Hedlund at
This 36(b)(5)(C) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 22-0K.
(i)
(ii)
Date: October 29, 2019
Implementing Agency: Air Force
(iii)
This transmittal reports the addition of the following MDE items: one hundred three (103) AN/ALQ-250 Eagle Passive Active Warning Survivability System (EPAWSS) Electronic Warfare (EW) suites. The total cost of new MDE articles is $956 million. This does not
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is UNCLASSIFIED.
(vii)
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Neil Hedlund at
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 21-68 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Brazil has requested to buy two hundred twenty-two (222) Javelin missiles, FGM-148; and thirty-three (33) Javelin Command Launch Units (CLU). Also included are Enhanced Producibility Basic Skills Trainers; missile simulation rounds; Security Assistance Management Directorate technical assistance; Tactical Aviation and Ground Munitions Project Office technical assistance; other associated equipment and services; and other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated total cost is $74 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of an important regional partner that is an important force for political stability and economic progress in South America.
The proposed sale will improve the Brazilian Army's capability to meet current and future threats by increasing their anti-armor capacity. Brazil will have no difficulty absorbing these weapons into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractors will be Raytheon/Lockheed Martin Javelin Joint Venture, Orlando, FL, and Tucson, AZ. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Brazil.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The Javelin Weapon System is a medium-range, man portable, shoulder-launched, fire and forget, anti-tank system for infantry, scouts, and combat engineers. It may also be mounted on a variety of platforms including vehicles, aircraft and watercraft. The system weighs 49.5 pounds and has a maximum range in excess of 2,500 meters. The system is highly lethal against tanks and other systems with conventional and reactive armors. The system possesses a secondary capability against bunkers.
2. Javelin's key technical feature is the use of fire-and-forget technology, which allows the gunner to fire and immediately relocate or take cover. Additional special features are the top attack and/or direct fire modes, an advanced tandem warhead and imaging infrared seeker, target lock-on before launch, and soft launch from enclosures or covered fighting positions. The Javelin missile also has a minimum smoke motor, thus decreasing its detection on the battlefield.
3. The Javelin Weapon System is comprised of two major tactical components, which are a reusable Command Launch Unit (CLU) and a round contained in a disposable launch tube assembly. The CLU incorporates an integrated day-night sight that provides a target engagement capability in adverse weather and countermeasure environments. The CLU may also be used in a stand-alone mode for battlefield surveillance and target detection. The CLU's thermal sight is a second generation Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) sensor. To facilitate initial loading and subsequent updating of software, all on-board missile software is uploaded via the CLU after mating and prior to launch.
4. The missile is autonomously guided to the target using an imaging infrared seeker and adaptive correlation tracking algorithms. This allows the gunner to take cover or reload and engage another target after firing a missile. The missile has an advanced tandem warhead and can be used in either the top attack or direct fire modes (for target undercover). An onboard flight computer guides the missile to the selected target.
5. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
6. If a technologically advanced adversary obtains knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent systems that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
7. A determination has been made that Brazil can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This proposed sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
8. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Brazil.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Neil Hedlund at
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 20-49 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has requested to buy an Oceanographic Observation Equipment System that includes multi-site sensors; multiple remote data collection facilities; support for centralized data analysis center eight (8) data analysis workstations; fiber optic communications suites; power supplies; uninterruptable power supplies; power and data distribution; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated total cost is $206 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the security of an important regional partner. The UAE has been, and continues to be, a vital U.S. partner for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.
The proposed sale will provide UAE with real-time oceanographic data in defense of the UAE maritime boundary, natural resources and ports. The United Arab Emirates will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor(s) will be Lockheed Martin Rotary and Mission System, Manassas, VA. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of two (2) contractor representatives to the UAE to provide technical reviews, support, and oversight for two and a half (2.5) years following initial operating capability.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The Oceanographic Environmental Observation Equipment (OEOE) System is an underwater fixed surveillance system that consists of twelve (12) sensors connected to shore processing which allows the tracking of marine platforms. The system provides acoustic detection and tracking of contacts of interest. The performance will depend on the contact's acoustic properties and local environmental conditions. The following capabilities will be provided:
a. Operator Workstation/Displays: Eight (8) operator workstations. This capability will provide three flat-panel displays, a keyboard and mouse per operator station to support the presentation of acoustic information to the operators, and the monitoring and maintenance of the system health and status by the maintainer.
b. Data Storage: This capability will provide for the collection, aggregation and storage of information in a central contact database.
c. Maintenance Displays: Two (2) maintenance displays. This capability will provide a maintenance operator system a view of the health of the system and tools to trouble and correct issues.
d. Audio Playback: This capability will allow operators to listen to acoustic data processed by the system.
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET//REL TO USA, ARE.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent systems which might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that the United Arab Emirates can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the United Arab Emirates.
Department of the Navy, Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 15, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
DSPO has contracted with the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) to conduct a
This
Marine Corps suicide attempt rates are among the highest in the DoD, with most attempts occurring via firearm, there is a perception that existing LMS messaging and training are not resonating with Marines. In order to examine this trend within the Marine Corps and gather relevant baseline data for the larger DSPO initiative, CNA, in conjunction with the Marine Corps Marine and Family Programs Division (MFP), propose the information collection, “Marine Corps Safety Needs Assessment” survey. This voluntary survey examines current LMS program awareness, preferences for safety devices and locations, and the place of safety in Marine Corps culture.
This survey will assist MFP in identifying, from the perspective of Marines, the reach of current LMS efforts and the acceptability of potential LMS activities. The results of the survey will be used by MFP and DSPO to better understand which LMS activities and messages resonate with Marines, as well as serve as a baseline data for future LMS activity effectiveness evaluations in accordance with the standards of practice framework prescribed by DoD Instruction 6490.16.
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Lucas at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file scoping comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
k.
The Narrows Project operates as a run-of-river facility primarily through remote control using a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition system. YCWA coordinates operations of the Narrows 1 powerhouse, which is a facility of the Narrows Project and the Narrows 2 powerhouse, which is a facility of YCWA's Yuba River Development Project No. 2246 located on the north bank of the river at the base of Englebright, to meet downstream flow
l. Copies of the application can be viewed on the Commission's website at
You may also register online 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 at
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Commission staff intends to prepare either an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS) (collectively referred to as the “NEPA document”) that describes and evaluates the probable effects, including an assessment of the site-specific and cumulative effects, if any, of the proposed action and alternatives. The Commission's scoping process will help determine the required level of analysis and satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of whether the Commission issues an EA or an EIS.
Commission staff will hold two public scoping meetings to receive input on the scope of the NEPA document. An evening meeting will focus on receiving input from the public and a daytime meeting will focus on the concerns of resource agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and Indian Tribes. We invite all interested agencies, Indian Tribes, NGOs, and individuals to attend one or both meetings. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:
Copies of the Scoping Document (SD1) outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the NEPA document were distributed to the parties on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of the SD1 will be available at the scoping meeting or may be viewed on the web at
The applicant and Commission staff will conduct an environmental site review of the project. All interested individuals, agencies, tribes, and NGOs are invited to attend. All participants are responsible for their own transportation to/from the project and during the site visit. Participants must wear sturdy, closed-toe shoes, or boots. Please RSVP to John James via email to
Participants must meet at the Yuba Water Agency parking lot to begin promptly at 9:00 a.m. where participants will drive in personal vehicles together to the project.
At the scoping meetings, Commission staff will: (1) summarize the environmental issues tentatively identified for analysis in the NEPA document; (2) solicit from the meeting participants all available information, especially quantifiable data, on the resources at issue; (3) encourage statements from experts and the public on issues that should be analyzed in the NEPA document, including viewpoints in opposition to, or in support of, the staff's preliminary views; (4) determine the resource issues to be addressed in the NEPA document; and (5) identify those issues that require a detailed analysis, as well as those issues that do not require a detailed analysis.
Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues and/or concerns. Please review SD1 in preparation for the scoping meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of SD1 are included in item n of this document.
The meetings are recorded by a stenographer and become part of the formal record of the Commission proceeding on the project. Individuals, NGOs, Indian tribes, and agencies with environmental expertise and concerns are encouraged to attend the meeting and to assist the staff in defining and clarifying the issues to be addressed in the NEPA document.
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 the following hydroelectric application has been filed
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
p. The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
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.
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
On January 11, 2024, Gravity Storage, LLC (Gravity Storage), filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Escondido Canyon Pumped Storage Project.
The proposed project would consist of the following new facilities: (1) a 15,340-foot-long, 75-foot-high rolled concrete dam that would impound a 176-acre upper reservoir with a storage capacity of 11,300 acre-feet at a water surface elevation of 7,560 feet above mean sea level (msl); (2) a 3,793-foot-long, 80-foot-high rockfill/concrete dam that would impound a 147-acre lower reservoir with a storage capacity of 11,300 acre-feet at a water surface elevation of 4,300 feet msl; (3) a 6,800-foot-long, 42-foot-diameter concrete penstock from the upper reservoir to eight 330-foot-long, 15-foot-diameter turbine penstocks; (4) a 1,600-foot-long, 150-foot-wide, 60-foot-high underground concrete powerhouse containing eight 250-MW pump-turbine generators; (5) a 2,750-foot-long, 42-foot-diameter concrete tailrace; (6) a 1-mile-long steel well water supply pipeline connecting to existing wells for initial fill water; (7) an 11.7-mile-long, 345-kilovolt transmission line; and (8) appurtenant facilities. Additionally, Gravity Storage proposes to install Solar Power plants on the surface of the upper and lower reservoirs to minimize evaporation due to the arid desert climate. The proposed project would have an estimated annual generation of 8,000 gigawatt-hours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's website at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the availability of Acute Freshwater Aquatic Life Screening Values for 6PPD (N-(1,3-Dimethylbutyl)-N′-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine) and its transformation product 6PPD-quinone (6PPD-q; N-(1,3-Dimethylbutyl)-N′-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine quinone). The EPA developed these screening values as information under Clean Water Act (CWA) section 304(a)(2)(B) on factors for the protection of aquatic life. States and authorized Tribes may consider these screening values in their water quality protection programs. The screening values for acute exposures to 6PPD and 6PPD-q in freshwater are 8,900 nanograms per liter (ng/L) and 11 ng/L, respectively. Consistent with CWA section 304(a)(2), the EPA expects to update these screening values from time to time as new information becomes available. This announcement is in accordance with CWA section 304(a)(3), which directs the EPA to publish information developed under 304(a)(2) in the
Amanda Jarvis, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Office of Water (Mail Code 4304T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-1163; email address:
6PPD-quinone (6PPD-q) is a breakdown product of the rubber-tire antioxidant compound 6PPD (N-(1,3-Dimethylbutyl)-N′-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine). Detections of 6PPD and 6PPD-q in waterways across the United States and elsewhere indicate that they are present in aquatic systems and may present a potential risk to aquatic organisms. Although “urban stream syndrome” or “urban runoff mortality syndrome” (URMS) was first reported in Puget Sound during monitoring of urban streams between 1999 and 2001, URMS was not linked to 6PPD-q until 2021 by Tian et al. (2021). URMS describes the death of adult salmon fish (particularly coho salmon) returning from the ocean to urban waterways and was first reported in Puget Sound (Washington, USA) during monitoring of urban streams between 1999 and 2001.
The EPA derived these screening values in accordance with section 304(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to provide States, authorized Tribes, and stakeholders with the best available information on the toxicity of 6PPD and 6PPD-q to aquatic organisms. They are distinct from national recommended ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) issued in accordance with the provisions of section 304(a)(1) of the CWA for protection of aquatic life from toxic chemicals. Empirical data are very limited for 6PPD and 6PPD-q and do not fulfill the EPA's data requirements for deriving national recommended AWQC. Further, much of the available data were developed using aquatic toxicity testing approaches that do not fully conform with EPA's 850 Ecological Effects Test Guidelines or other standard test guidelines, such as those of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). These deviations from standard testing methods made the derived toxicity values and the derived screening values more uncertain than national recommended AWQC. These screening values are based solely on data and scientific judgments about the relationship between 6PPD and 6PPD-q concentrations and potential effects to aquatic organisms.
The EPA's 6PPD and 6PPD-q aquatic life screening value documents provide a critical review of 6PPD and 6PPD-q toxicity data, quantify the toxicity of these chemicals to aquatic life based on available data, and provide separate acute screening values for 6PPD and 6PPD-q.
Under CWA section 304(a)(2)(B), the EPA develops, from time to time, information “on the factors necessary for the protection and propagation of shellfish, fish, and wildlife.” The EPA developed the 6PPD and 6PPD-q acute screening values (Table 1 of this document) to support protection of most freshwater aquatic communities. The EPA's acute screening values are the maximum concentrations of 6PPD and 6PPD-q (individually, not in mixtures), with associated frequency and duration specifications, that are expected to support protection of aquatic life from acute effects in freshwaters based on currently available science (see Table 1 of this document). There were insufficient data for 6PPD and 6PPD-q to derive chronic screening values in freshwaters, and acute and chronic values in estuarine/marine waters.
In accordance with CWA section 304(a)(2)(B), the acute freshwater screening values for 6PPD and 6PPD-q are provided only as information for States and authorized Tribes that they may consider for the protection of aquatic life as part of their water quality protection programs. The development of aquatic life screening values as information under CWA section 304(a)(2) does not impose legally binding requirements on the EPA or the regulated community. Further, the aquatic life screening values are not regulations and do not substitute for the CWA or the EPA's regulations.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the “Agency”) is announcing the change in the peer review mechanism from the letter peer review to a Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) peer review; the addition of the draft human health hazard assessment for 1,2-dichloroethane for peer review; the availability of and solicitation of comment on the list of candidates under consideration for selection as
Submit your comments on or before June 28, 2024.
Submit comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2024-0114, through the
The Designated Federal Official (DFO) is Alie Muneer, Mission Support Division (7602M), Office of Program Support, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency; telephone number: (202) 564-6369; email address:
The Agency is seeking public comments on scientific and technical experts that EPA is considering for service as
EPA established the SACC in 2016 in accordance with TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2625(o), to provide independent advice and expert consultation with respect to the scientific and technical aspects of issues relating to the implementation of TSCA. The SACC operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. 10, and supports activities under TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601
This action is directed to the public in general and may be of particular interest to those involved in the manufacture, processing, distribution, and disposal of the subject chemical substance, and/or those interested in the assessment of risks involving chemical substances and mixtures regulated under TSCA.
Do not electronically submit any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Copyrighted material will not be posted without explicit permission of the copyright holder. Members of the public should also be aware that personal contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted on the internet at
You may subscribe to the following listserv for alerts regarding this and other SACC-related activities:
EPA is planning this SACC peer review of the Agency's draft risk evaluation of 1,1-dichloroethane and human health hazard assessment of 1,2-dichloroethane. As part of the TSCA risk evaluation for 1,1-dichloroethane, EPA is assessing 1,1-dichloroethane conditions of use (COUs) (
Recommendations from the SACC peer review of the draft documents will be considered in the development of the TSCA risk evaluations for both chemical substances and may inform other EPA efforts related to the assessment and regulation of 1,1-dichloroethane and 1,2-dichloroethane. The Agency will be seeking SACC review of its data analyses and methodologies relevant to human health hazard and exposure analyses that have not been previously peer reviewed.
For additional information about the existing chemicals that have either undergone or are currently undergoing risk evaluation under TSCA, as well as information about the related process under TSCA, please see
EPA is currently seeking public comments on all interested and available candidates, without prescreening for ethics concerns. However, SACC members and
The selection of scientists to serve as
Numerous qualified candidates are often identified for SACC reviews. Therefore, selection decisions involve carefully weighing a number of factors including the candidates' areas of expertise and professional qualifications and achieving an overall balance of different scientific perspectives across reviewers.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before August 12, 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, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
47 CFR 64.1200(k)(1), originally adopted in the
The TRACED Act expressly directs the Commission to ensure that both consumers and callers are provided with transparency. In the
The following item has been deleted from the list of items scheduled for consideration at the Thursday, June 6, 2024, Open Meeting. Item No. 4 was released by the Commission on June 6, 2024. The item was previously listed in the Commission's Sunshine Notice on Thursday, May 30, 2024.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document, the Commission announces the second meeting of the twelfth term of its Consumer Advisory Committee (CAC or Committee).
Wednesday, June 26, 2024. The meeting will come to order at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time.
The CAC meeting will be held remotely, with video and audio coverage at:
Cara Grayer, Designated Federal Officer, Federal Communications Commission, (202) 418-2960, or email:
This meeting is open to members of the general public. The meeting will be webcast with sign language interpreters and open captioning at:
Requests for other reasonable accommodations or for materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities should be submitted via email to:
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
This notice advises interested persons that Informal Working Group 1 (IWG-1), Informal Working Group 2 (IWG-2,) Informal Working Group 3 (IWG-3,) and Informal Working Group 4 (IWG-4) of the 2027 World Radiocommunication Conference Advisory Committee (WRC-27 Advisory Committee) have scheduled meetings as set forth below. The meetings are open to the public.
The meetings will be held virtually.
Gregory Baker, Designated Federal Official, World Radiocommunication Conference Advisory Committee, FCC Office of International Affairs, Global Strategy and Negotiation Division, at
The FCC established the Advisory Committee to provide advice, technical support and recommendations relating to the preparation of United States proposals and positions for the 2027 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-27).
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, this notice advises interested persons of the IWG-1, IWG-2, IWG-3 and IWG-4 of the WRC-27 Advisory Committee scheduled meetings. The Commission's WRC-27 website (
Below is additional IWG meeting information:
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than June 28, 2024.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
June 25, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. EDT.
Telephonic. Dial-in (listen only) information: Number: 1-202-599-1426, Code: 137 118 470 #; or via web:
Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.
Board Meeting Agenda.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice with request for comment.
This notice acknowledges the receipt of an application from the American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities, dba QUAD A, for continued recognition as a national accrediting organization for Ambulatory Surgical Centers that wish to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs.
To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on July 15, 2024.
In commenting, refer to file code CMS-3459-PN. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission. Comments, including mass comment submissions, must be submitted in one of the following three 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.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the
Erin Imhoff, (410) 786-2337. Joy Webb, (410) 786-1667.
Ambulatory Surgical Centers (ASCs) are distinct entities that operate exclusively for the purpose of furnishing outpatient surgical services to patients. Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services from an ASC provided certain requirements are met. Section 1832(a)(2)(F)(i) of the Social Security Act (the Act) establishes distinct criteria for a facility seeking designation as an ASC. Regulations concerning provider agreements are at 42 CFR part 489 and those pertaining to
Generally, to enter into an agreement, an ASC must first be certified by a state survey agency (SA) as complying with the conditions or requirements set forth in part 416 of our Medicare regulations. Thereafter, the ASC is subject to regular surveys by an SA to determine whether it continues to meet these requirements.
Section 1865(a)(1) of the Act provides that, if a provider entity demonstrates through accreditation by a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) approved national accrediting organization (AO) that all applicable Medicare conditions are met or exceeded, we may deem that provider entity as having met the requirements. Accreditation by an AO is voluntary and is not required for Medicare participation.
If an AO is recognized by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services as having standards for accreditation that meet or exceed Medicare requirements, any provider entity accredited by the national accrediting body's approved program may be deemed to meet the Medicare conditions. The AO applying for approval of its accreditation program under part 488, subpart A, must provide CMS with reasonable assurance that the AO requires the accredited provider entities to meet requirements that are at least as stringent as the Medicare conditions. Our regulations concerning the approval of AOs are set forth at § 488.5.
Quad A's current term of approval for its ASC program expires November 27, 2024.
Section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 488.5 require that our findings concerning review and approval of an AO's requirements consider, among other factors, the applying AO's requirements for accreditation; survey procedures; resources for conducting required surveys; capacity to furnish information for use in enforcement activities; monitoring procedures for provider entities found not in compliance with the conditions or requirements; and ability to provide CMS with the necessary data for validation.
Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act further requires that we publish, within 60 days of receipt of an organization's complete application, a notice that identifies the national accrediting body making the request, describes the nature of the request, and provides at least a 30-day public comment period. We have 210 days from the receipt of a complete application to publish notice of approval or denial of the application.
The purpose of this proposed notice is to inform the public of Quad A's request for continued CMS-approval of its ASC accreditation program. This notice also solicits public comment on whether Quad A's requirements meet or exceed the Medicare conditions for coverage (CfCs) for ASCs.
Quad A submitted all the necessary materials to enable us to make a determination concerning its request for continued CMS approval of its ASC accreditation program. This application was determined to be complete on May 1, 2024. Under section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and § 488.5, our review and evaluation of QUAD A will be conducted in accordance with, but not necessarily limited to, the following factors:
• The equivalency of QUAD A's standards for ASCs as compared with Medicare's CfCs for ASCs.
• QUAD A's survey process to determine the following:
++ The composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and the ability of the organization to provide continuing surveyor training.
++ The comparability of QUAD A's processes to those of State agencies, including survey frequency, and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited facilities.
++ QUAD A's processes and procedures for monitoring an ASC found out of compliance with QUAD A's program requirements. These monitoring procedures are used only when QUAD A identifies noncompliance. If noncompliance is identified through validation reviews or complaint surveys, the State survey agency monitors corrections as specified at § 488.9(c)(1).
++ QUAD A's capacity to report deficiencies to the surveyed facilities and respond to the facility's plan of correction in a timely manner.
++ QUAD A's capacity to provide CMS with electronic data and reports necessary for the effective validation and assessment of the organization's survey process.
++ The adequacy of QUAD A's staff and other resources, and its financial viability.
++ QUAD A's capacity to adequately fund required surveys.
++ QUAD A's policies with respect to whether surveys are announced or unannounced, to ensure that surveys are unannounced.
++ QUAD A's policies and procedures to avoid conflicts of interest, including the appearance of conflicts of interest, involving individuals who conduct surveys or participate in accreditation decisions.
++ QUAD A's agreement to provide CMS with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as CMS may require (including corrective action plans).
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Because of the large number of public comments, we normally receive on
The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Vanessa Garcia, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice with request for comment.
This notice acknowledges the receipt of an application from the DNV Healthcare USA, Inc. for continued recognition as a national accrediting organization for critical access hospitals that wish to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs.
To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on July 15, 2024.
In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-3460-PN.
Comments, including mass comment submissions, must be submitted in one of the following three 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.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the
Caecilia Andrews, (410) 786-2190.
Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services in a critical access hospital (CAH), provided that certain requirements are met by the CAH. Section 1861(mm) of the Social Security Act (the Act), establishes distinct criteria for facilities seeking designation as a CAH. Regulations concerning provider agreements are at 42 CFR part 489 and those pertaining to activities relating to the survey and certification of facilities are at 42 CFR part 488. The regulations at 42 CFR part 485, subpart F specify the conditions that a CAH must meet to participate in the Medicare program.
Generally, to enter into an agreement, a CAH must first be certified by a state survey agency as complying with the conditions or requirements set forth in part 485 of our regulations. Thereafter, the CAH is subject to regular surveys by a state survey agency to determine whether it continues to meet these requirements.
However, there is an alternative to surveys by state agencies. Section 1865(a)(1) of the Act states, if a provider entity demonstrates through accreditation by an approved national accrediting organization (AO) that all applicable Medicare conditions are met or exceeded, we will deem those provider entities as having met the requirements. Accreditation by an AO is voluntary and is not required for Medicare participation.
If an AO is recognized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) as having standards for accreditation that meet or exceed Medicare requirements, any provider entity accredited by the national accrediting body's approved program would be deemed to meet the Medicare conditions. A national AO applying for approval of its accreditation program under part 488, subpart A, must provide us with reasonable assurance that the AO requires the accredited provider entities to meet requirements that are at least as stringent as the Medicare conditions. Our regulations concerning the approval of AOs are set forth at § 488.5. The regulations at § 488.5(e)(2)(i) require an AO to reapply for continued approval of its accreditation program every 6 years or as determined by CMS.
The DNV Healthcare USA, Inc.'s (DNV's) current term of approval for their critical access hospital accreditation program expires December 23, 2024.
Section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 488.5 require that our findings concerning review and approval of a national AO's requirements consider, among other factors, the applying AO's requirements for accreditation; survey procedures; resources for conducting required surveys; capacity to furnish information for use in enforcement activities; monitoring procedures for provider entities found not in compliance with the conditions or requirements; and ability to provide CMS with the necessary data for validation.
Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act further requires that we publish, within 60 days of receipt of an organization's complete application, a notice identifying the national accrediting body making the request, describing the nature of the request, and providing at least a 30-day public comment period. We have 210 days from the receipt of a complete application to publish notice of approval or denial of the application.
The purpose of this proposed notice is to inform the public of DNV's request for continued approval of its CAH accreditation program. This notice also solicits public comment on whether the DNV requirements meet or exceed the Medicare conditions of participation (CoPs) for CAHs.
DNV submitted all the necessary materials to enable us to make a determination concerning its request for continued approval of its CAH accreditation program. This application was determined to be complete on March 1, 2024. Under 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 488.5 (Application and re-application procedures for national AO), our review and evaluation of the DNV CAH accreditation program will be conducted in accordance with, but not necessarily limited to, the following factors:
• The equivalency of DNV's standards for hospitals as compared with CMS' CAH CoPs.
• DNV's survey process to determine the following:
++ The composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and the
++ The comparability of DNV's processes to those of state agencies, including survey frequency, and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited facilities.
++ DNV's processes and procedures for monitoring a CAH found out of compliance with DNV's program requirements. These monitoring procedures are used only when DNV identifies noncompliance. If noncompliance is identified through validation reviews or complaint surveys, the state survey agency monitors corrections as specified at § 488.9.
++ DNV's capacity to report deficiencies to the surveyed facilities and respond to the facility's plan of correction in a timely manner.
++ DNV's capacity to provide CMS with electronic data and reports necessary for effective validation and assessment of the organization's survey process.
++ The adequacy of DNV's staff and other resources, and its financial viability.
++ DNV's capacity to adequately fund required surveys.
++ DNV's policies with respect to whether surveys are announced or unannounced, to assure that surveys are unannounced.
++ DNV's policies and procedures to avoid conflicts of interest, including the appearance of conflicts of interest, involving individuals who conduct surveys or participate in accreditation decisions.
++ DNV's agreement to provide CMS with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as we may require (including corrective action plans).
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 3501
Because of the large number of public comments, we normally receive on
The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Vanessa Garcia, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of request for reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.
On May 28, 2010, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) guidance related to the “generic” clearance process. Generally, this is an expedited clearance process by which agencies may obtain OMB's approval of collection of information requests that are “usually voluntary, low-burden, and uncontroversial,” do not raise any substantive or policy issues, and do not require policy or methodological review. The process requires the submission of an overarching plan that defines the scope of the individual collections that may be submitted under that umbrella. This notice is intended to advise the public of our intent to reinstate OMB's approval of our generic umbrella (CMS-10398, OMB control number 0938-1148) and all of the individual generic collection of information requests that fall under that umbrella. This notice also provides the public with general instructions for obtaining documents that are associated with such collections and for submitting comments.
Comments must be received by August 12, 2024.
1.
2.
For general information contact William N. Parham at 410-786-4669. For policy related questions contact the individual listed below under the
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information that they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c). Generally, it applies to voluntary and mandatory requirements that are related to any one or more of the following activities: the collection of information, the reporting of information, the disclose of information to a third-party, and/or recordkeeping.
While there are some exceptions (such as collections having non-substantive changes and collections requesting emergency approval) section
Interested parties are invited to submit comments regarding our burden estimates or any other aspect of the collection, including: the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of our agency's functions; the accuracy of burden estimates; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden. See
While we will review all comments received, we may choose not to post off-topic or inappropriate comments. Otherwise, all comments will be posted without edit under the applicable docket number, including any personal information that the commenter provides. Our response to such comments will be posted at
At this time, our collection is made up of the main umbrella (see collection number 1 in the following list) and fifty individual generic collections of information (see collection numbers 2 through 51 in the following list). Details such as the collection's requirements and burden estimates can be found in the collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by August 12, 2024.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William N. Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
The relationship of the HO/CO is that of a related organization to a provider (see 42 CFR 413.17). A HO/CO usually furnishes central management and administrative services,
CMS requires the form to determine a HO/CO's reasonable cost incurred in furnishing management and administrative services to Medicare providers, each of which includes the costs in their cost report for reimbursement. A Medicare-certified provider includes costs allocated from the home office cost statement in the provider's costs used by CMS for rate setting; payment refinement activities, including developing a market basket; and Medicare Trust Fund projections; and to support program operations. Additionally, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) uses the cost report data to calculate Medicare margins (a measure of the relationship between Medicare's payments and providers' Medicare costs) and analyze data to formulate Medicare Program recommendations to Congress.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is requesting that any consumer organizations interested in participating in the selection of voting and/or nonvoting consumer representatives to serve on its advisory committees or panels notify FDA in writing. FDA is
Any consumer organization interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate voting or nonvoting member to represent consumer interests on an FDA advisory committee or panel may send a letter or email stating that interest to FDA (see
All statements of interest from consumer organizations interested in participating in the selection process should be submitted electronically to
Consumer representative nominations should be submitted electronically by logging into the FDA Advisory Committee Membership Nomination Portal:
For questions relating to specific advisory committees or panels, contact the appropriate contact person listed in table 1.
FDA is requesting nominations for voting and/or nonvoting consumer representatives for the vacancies listed in table 2:
The Science Board Advisory Committee (Science Board) provides advice to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (Commissioner) and other appropriate officials on specific complex scientific and technical issues important to FDA and its mission, including emerging issues within the scientific community. Additionally, the Science Board provides advice that supports the Agency in keeping pace with technical and scientific developments, including in regulatory science, and input into the Agency's research agenda and on upgrading its scientific and research facilities and training opportunities. It also provides, where requested, expert review of Agency-sponsored intramural and extramural scientific research programs.
Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products including analgesics,
Reviews and evaluates information on risk management, risk communication, and quantitative evaluation of spontaneous reports for drugs for human use and for any other product for which FDA has regulatory responsibility. Advises on the scientific and medical evaluation of all information gathered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Justice regarding safety, efficacy, and abuse potential of drugs or other substances, and recommends actions to be taken by HHS regarding the marketing, investigation, and control of such drugs or other substances.
Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of over-the-counter (nonprescription) human drug products, or any other FDA-regulated product, for use in the treatment of a broad spectrum of human symptoms and diseases and advises the Commissioner either on the promulgation of monographs establishing conditions under which these drugs are generally recognized as safe and effective and not misbranded or on the approval of new drug applications for such drugs. The Committee serves as a forum for the exchange of views regarding the prescription and nonprescription status, including switches from one status to another, of these various drug products and combinations thereof. The Committee may also conduct peer review of Agency-sponsored intramural and extramural scientific biomedical programs in support of FDA's mission and regulatory responsibilities.
Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of infectious diseases and disorders.
Reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of cancer.
Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of cardiovascular and renal disorders.
Reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of endocrine and metabolic disorders.
Reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness
Provides advice on scientific, technical, and medical issues concerning drug compounding under sections 503A and 503B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and, as required, any other product for which FDA has regulatory responsibility.
Reviews and evaluates data on the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the practice of obstetrics, gynecology, urology, and related specialties.
Reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the practice of psychiatry and related fields.
Reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of neurologic diseases.
The Medical Devices Advisory Committee has established certain panels to review and evaluate data on the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational devices and make recommendations for their regulation. With the exception of the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel, each panel, according to its specialty area: (1) advises on the classification or reclassification of devices into one of three regulatory categories and advises on any possible risks to health associated with the use of devices; (2) advises on formulation of product development protocols; (3) reviews premarket approval applications for medical devices; (4) reviews guidelines and guidance documents; (5) recommends exemption of certain devices from the application of portions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; (6) advises on the necessity to ban a device; and (7) responds to requests from the Agency to review and make recommendations on specific issues or problems concerning the safety and effectiveness of devices. With the exception of the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel, each panel, according to its specialty area, may also make appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner on issues relating to the design of clinical studies regarding the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational devices.
The Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel provides advice to the Commissioner on complex or contested scientific issues between FDA and medical device sponsors, applicants, or manufacturers relating to specific products, marketing applications, regulatory decisions and actions by FDA, and Agency guidance and policies. The Panel makes recommendations on issues that are lacking resolution, are highly complex in nature, or result from challenges to regular advisory panel proceedings or Agency decisions or actions.
Persons nominated for membership as consumer representatives on committees or panels should meet the following criteria: (1) demonstrate an affiliation with and/or active participation in consumer or community-based organizations, (2) be able to analyze technical data, (3) understand research design, (4) discuss benefits and risks, and (5) evaluate the safety and efficacy of products under review. The consumer representative should be able to represent the consumer perspective on issues and actions before the advisory committee; serve as a liaison between the committee and interested consumers, associations, coalitions, and consumer organizations; and facilitate dialogue with the advisory committees on scientific issues that affect consumers.
Selection of members representing consumer interests is conducted through procedures that include the use of organizations representing the public interest and public advocacy groups. These organizations recommend nominees for the Agency's selection. Representatives from the consumer health branches of Federal, State, and local governments also may participate in the selection process. Any consumer organization interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate voting or nonvoting member to represent consumer interests should send a letter stating that interest to FDA (see
Within the subsequent 45 days, FDA will compile a list of consumer organizations that will participate in the selection process and will forward to each such organization a ballot listing at least two qualified nominees selected by the Agency based on the nominations received, together with each nominee's current curriculum vitae or résumé. Ballots are to be filled out and returned to FDA within 30 days. The nominee receiving the highest number of votes ordinarily will be selected to serve as the member representing consumer interests for that particular advisory committee or panel.
Any interested person or organization may nominate one or more qualified persons to represent consumer interests on the Agency's advisory committees or panels. Self-nominations are also accepted. Nominations must include a current, complete résumé or curriculum vitae for each nominee and a signed copy of the “Acknowledgement and Consent” form available at the FDA Advisory Nomination Portal (see
Nominations must also specify the advisory committee(s) or panel(s) for which the nominee is recommended. In addition, nominations must also acknowledge that the nominee is aware of the nomination unless self-nominated. FDA will ask potential candidates to provide detailed information concerning such matters as financial holdings, employment, and research grants and/or contracts to permit evaluation of possible sources of conflicts of interest. Members will be invited to serve for terms of up to 4 years.
FDA will review all nominations received within the specified timeframes and prepare a ballot containing the names of qualified nominees. Names of qualified nominees not selected will remain on a list of eligible nominees and be reviewed periodically by FDA to determine continued interest. After preparing the ballot, FDA will provide those consumer organizations that are participating in the selection process with the opportunity to vote on the listed nominees. Only organizations vote in the selection process. Persons who nominate themselves to serve as voting or nonvoting consumer representatives will not participate in the selection process.
This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing an order under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) permanently debarring Jonathan R. Shaver from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application. FDA bases this order on a finding that Mr. Shaver was convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct that relates to the regulation of a drug product under the FD&C Act. Mr. Shaver was given notice of the proposed debarment and an opportunity to request a hearing within the timeframe prescribed by regulation. As of February 16, 2024 (30 days after receipt of the notice), Mr. Shaver has not responded. Mr. Shaver's failure to respond and request a hearing constitutes a waiver of Mr. Shaver's right to a hearing concerning this matter.
This order is applicable June 13, 2024.
Any application by Mr. Shaver for special termination of debarment under section 306(d)(4) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(d)(4)) may be submitted at any time as follows:
•
• If you want to submit an application with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the application as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
•
• For a written/paper application submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your application, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit an application with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your application only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of your application. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Jaime Espinosa, Division of Compliance and Enforcement, Office of Policy, Compliance, and Enforcement, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, 240-402-8743,
Section 306(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act requires debarment of an individual from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application if FDA finds that the individual has been convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of any drug product under the FD&C Act. On September 19, 2023, Mr. Shaver was convicted as defined in section 306(l)(1) of the FD&C Act in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas-Beaumont Division when the court accepted his plea of guilty and entered judgment against him for the offense of Conspiracy to Traffick in Drugs with Counterfeit Mark in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 and 18 U.S.C. 2320(a)(4). The underlying facts supporting the conviction are as follows:
As contained in the Second Superseding Indictment, and as contained in Factual Basis and Stipulation memorandum, between April 2015 and January 2019, Mr. Shaver conspired to distribute misbranded and counterfeit cough syrup. Mr. Shaver worked for Woodfield Pharmaceutical LLC, within its manufacturing and operations division and then later as Production Manager. Woodfield Pharmaceutical LLC was a part of a group of pharmaceutical companies which included Woodfield Pharmaceutical LLC, a contract manufacturing company, and Woodfield Distribution LLC, a third-party logistics company (collectively, Woodfield). On April 25, 2014, Woodfield acquired Pernix Manufacturing LLC (Pernix). In January 2014, Pernix entered into an agreement with Byron A. Marshall and his Drug Trafficking Organization (DTO) to copy and manufacture cough syrup according to the directions of Marshall and his associates. Marshall was not
In his position within Woodfield, Mr. Shaver assisted in the production of the syrup. In his role with Woodfield, Mr. Shaver knew that the Marshall DTO was adding active ingredients to the syrup Woodfield sold to the Marshall DTO. From approximately April 2015 until January 2019, Mr. Shaver along with Woodfield's Director of Technical Operations were principally responsible for the large-scale production of syrup base for the Marshall DTO. When Marshall and his DTO had difficulty dissolving promethazine into the syrup base, Mr. Shaver, along with others, worked to resolve that issue. Later, Mr. Shaver agreed with other Woodfield employees to create additional syrup base supply not authorized by Woodfield in order to sell that additional supply to the Marshall DTO at a reduced price in order to split the fee from the sale with other Woodfield employees, a practice Mr. Shaver and other employees called “double batching.” No records of the “double batching” were created by Mr. Shaver or any of the other participants. Later in the conspiracy, upon request from Marshall and his DTO, Woodfield employees reformulated other cough syrup for use by Marshall and his DTO in their drug trafficking scheme to include Hi-Tech Promethazine Hydrocholoride and Codeine Phosphate Oral Solution and Wockhardt Promethazine Syrup Plain. From 2014 through February 2021, the conspiracy between the Marshall DTO produced and distributed, or attempted to produce and distribute, approximately 65,920 gallons of counterfeit cough syrup.
As a result of this conviction, FDA sent Mr. Shaver, by certified mail, on January 5, 2024, a notice proposing to permanently debar him from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application. The proposal was based on a finding, under section 306(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act, that Mr. Shaver was convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of a drug product under the FD&C Act. The proposal informed Mr. Shaver of the proposed debarment and offered him an opportunity to request a hearing, providing him 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter in which to file the request, and advised him that failure to request a hearing constituted a waiver of the opportunity for a hearing and of any contentions concerning this action. Mr. Shaver received the proposal and notice of opportunity for a hearing on January 17, 2024. Mr. Shaver failed to request a hearing within the timeframe prescribed by regulation and has, therefore, waived his opportunity for a hearing and waived any contentions concerning his debarment (21 CFR part 12).
Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Office of Human and Animal Food Operations, under section 306(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act, under authority delegated to the Assistant Commissioner, finds that Mr. Jonathan R. Shaver has been convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of a drug product under the FD&C Act.
As a result of the foregoing finding, Mr. Shaver is permanently debarred from providing services in any capacity to a person with an approved or pending drug product application, effective (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing an order under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) debarring Richard B. Smith III for a period of 5 years from importing or offering for import any drug into the United States. FDA bases this order on a finding that Mr. Smith was convicted of two felony counts under Federal law, only one of which serves as the basis of this debarment: receiving misbranded drugs in interstate commerce and delivering for pay. The factual basis supporting Mr. Smith's conviction, as described below, is conduct relating to the importation into the United States of a drug or controlled substance. Mr. Smith was given notice of the proposed debarment and was given an opportunity to request a hearing to show why he should not be debarred. As of November 29, 2023 (30 days after receipt of the notice), Mr. Smith had not responded. Mr. Smith's failure to respond and request a hearing constitutes a waiver of his right to a hearing concerning this matter.
This order is effective June 13, 2024.
Any application by Mr. Smith for termination of debarment under section 306(d)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(d)(1)) may be submitted as follows:
•
• If you want to submit an application with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the application as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
•
• For a written/paper application submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your application, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked, and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit an application with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your application only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of your application. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Jaime Espinosa, Division of Compliance and Enforcement, Office of Policy, Compliance, and Enforcement, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, at 240-402-8743, or
Section 306(b)(1)(D) of the FD&C Act permits debarment of an individual from importing or offering for import any drug into the United States if FDA finds, as required by section 306(b)(3)(C) of the FD&C Act, that the individual has been convicted of a felony for conduct relating to the importation into the United States of any drug or controlled substance.
On July 13, 2023, Mr. Smith was convicted, as defined in section 306(l)(1) of the FD&C Act, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri-Kansas City Division, when the court entered judgment against him for two offenses, only one of which served as the basis for Mr. Smith's debarment, receiving misbranded drugs in interstate commerce and delivering for pay in violation of sections 301(c) and 303(a)(2) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(c) and 333(a)(2)). FDA's finding that debarment is appropriate is based on the felony conviction referenced herein. The factual basis for this conviction is as follows:
As contained in the Information, filed on July 27, 2022, and in the Plea Agreement from Mr. Smith's case, filed on July 27, 2022, Mr. Smith operated Tap and Blade, a medical spa, located in Kansas City, MO. Tap and Blade was engaged in medical practices such as injections of prescription drugs to enhance facial features, and aesthetics such as microblading and permanent makeup tattooing, among other services. FDA's Office of Criminal Investigations (OCI) began investigating Tap and Blade in December 2020 based on information that multiple patients of Tap and Blade suffered injuries after receiving treatment. On April 7, 2021, OCI agents executed a search warrant at Tap and Blade and interviewed Mr. Smith. During that interview, he admitted that he purchased BOTOX from the website
As a result of this conviction, FDA sent Mr. Smith, by certified mail, on October 25, 2023, a notice proposing to debar him for a 5-year period from importing or offering for import any drug into the United States. The proposal was based on a finding under section 306(b)(3)(C) of the FD&C Act that Mr. Smith's felony conviction under Federal law for Receiving Misbranded Drugs in Interstate Commerce and Delivering for Pay in violation of 21 U.S.C. 331(c) and 333(a)(2), was for conduct relating to the importation into the United States of any drug or controlled substance because he imported misbranded drugs and introduced those misbranded drugs into interstate.
In proposing a debarment period, FDA weighed the considerations set forth in section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act that it considered applicable to Mr. Smith's offense and concluded that the offense warranted the imposition of a 5-year period of debarment.
The proposal informed Mr. Smith of the proposed debarment and offered him an opportunity to request a hearing, providing him 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter in which to file the request, and advised him that failure to request a hearing constituted a waiver of the opportunity for a hearing and of any contentions concerning this action. Mr. Smith received the proposal and notice of opportunity for a hearing at his residence on October 30, 2023. Mr. Smith failed to request a hearing within the timeframe prescribed by regulation and has, therefore, waived his opportunity for a hearing and waived any contentions concerning his debarment (21 CFR part 12).
Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Office of Human and Animal Food Operations, under section 306(b)(3)(C) of the FD&C Act, under authority delegated to the Assistant Commissioner, finds that Richard B. Smith III has been convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the importation into the United States of any drug or controlled substance. FDA finds that the offense should be accorded a debarment period of 5 years as provided by section 306(c)(2)(A)(iii) of the FD&C Act.
As a result of the foregoing finding, Mr. Smith is debarred for a period of 5 years from importing or offering for import any drug into the United States, effective (see
Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice; correction.
The Health Resources and Services Administration published a document in the
Joella Roland, HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer, at
In the
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, contract proposals, 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 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
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 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 a meeting of the Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee.
The meeting will be held as a virtual meeting and will be open to the public as indicated below. Individuals who plan to view the virtual meeting and need special assistance or other reasonable accommodations to view the meeting, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting can be accessed from the NIH Videocast at the following link:
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person 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.
Visit the IPRCC website for more information:
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.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
Notice of issuance of the Department of the Army Program Comment for the Preservation of Pre-1919 Historic Army Housing, Associated Buildings and Structures, and Landscape Features.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has issued a program comment for the U.S. Department of the Army that sets forth the way in which the Army complies with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for its inventory of housing constructed prior to 1919. Management actions covered by the Program Comment include maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, abatement of hazardous materials, mothballing, lease, transfer, and conveyance.
The Program Comment went into effect on May 17, 2024.
Address any questions concerning the Program Comment to Lauren Cooper, Office of Federal Agency Programs, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 401 F Street NW, Suite 308, Washington, DC 20001.
Lauren Cooper, ACHP Army Liaison, (202) 517-0213,
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. 306108 (section 106), requires federal agencies to consider the effects of projects they carry out, license, or assist (undertakings) on historic properties and to provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertakings. The ACHP has issued the regulations that set forth the process through which federal agencies comply with these duties. Those regulations are codified under 36 CFR part 800 (section 106 regulations).
Under Section 800.14(e) of those regulations, agencies can request the ACHP to provide a “program comment” on a particular category of undertakings in lieu of conducting individual reviews on a case-by-case basis, as set forth in 36 CFR 800.4 through 800.7. An agency can meet its section 106 responsibilities with regard to the effects of those undertakings by taking into account an applicable program comment and following the steps set forth in that comment. The U.S. Department of the Army (Army) sought a program comment for undertakings related to its inventory of approximately 865 housing units constructed prior to 1919, many of which are National Historic Landmarks. Management actions covered by the Program Comment include maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, abatement of hazardous materials, mothballing, lease, transfer, and conveyance, and the Program Comment allows the use of modern readily available industry standard building materials and methods in the implementation of management actions.
The ACHP issued the Program Comment for the Preservation of Pre-1919 Historic Army Housing, Associated Buildings and Structures, and Landscape Features on May 17, 2024. The section 106 regulations require that such program comments be published in the
The need for this Program Comment is based on the Army's obligation to provide safe, healthy, quality housing to Soldiers and their families, and the unique challenges the Army has in managing NHPA section 106 compliance for its large and growing inventory of historic housing. Housing and associated living conditions are critical factors for military families. A direct connection exists between poor housing conditions and military readiness. In 2019, the Secretary of the Army declared an Army Housing Crisis due primarily to widespread deficiencies and significant quality of life, health, and safety issues affecting military families living in historic Army housing.
To address the Army Housing Crisis and meet its housing obligations to military families, the Army must quickly and efficiently implement management actions to improve conditions in housing constructed before 1919. The section 106 project-by-project review process under existing installation-level Programmatic Agreements (PAs) contributes to delays in completing historic housing maintenance, repairs, and improvements needed for the transition in occupancy. Those delays directly impact the ability of reassigned military families to move into and occupy historic housing.
The compliance process efficiencies created by the Program Comment allows the Army to quickly and efficiently address the health and safety risks from certain hazardous historic building materials, ensure cost efficient, effective, and consistent management of the overall inventory, and implement climate adaptations and use modern resilient materials.
The Army owns, operates, and manages the largest inventory of historic housing in the federal government with over 30,000 historic homes currently over 50 years old and subject to NHPA section 106 compliance. Approximately 867 of these historic units were constructed prior to 1919, and over 70% of these pre-1919 units have been designated as National Historic Landmarks. The Army's inventory of pre-1919 housing is located at 19 installations in 13 states and the District of Columbia.
The design and construction of the vast majority of Army pre-1919 housing follows standardized plans developed by the Army Quartermaster Corps. These standardized plans reflected prevailing civilian architectural designs, construction techniques, and community planning trends of the time, with certain regional style variations and use of locally available materials. The resulting architectural styles of pre-1919 Army homes include Federal, Gothic Revival, Greek Revival, Italianate, Romanesque, Queen Anne, Colonial Revival, Spanish Revival, and Craftsman. These houses have been continuously occupied by Army families for 100 to 200 years and are actively used military assets.
The intent of the Program Comment is to provide the Army with NHPA section 106 compliance for repetitive, recurring property management actions on all privatized and non-privatized Army housing, associated buildings and structures, and landscape features constructed before 1919. The property
This Program Comment implements the
The Army formally submitted this Program Comment to the ACHP on March 4, 2024. During the Army's consultation period, they sought participation from the public, State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs), and other interested parties. The Army incorporated these into the Program Comment prior to formally submitting its request for a Program Comment to the ACHP.
In accordance with 36 CFR 800.14(e)(2)(3)(4), the ACHP conducted consultation with State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, Indian Tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations and provided for public participation.
ACHP outreach consisted of broadcast emails, social media posts, and a dedicated website for the Program Comment. The ACHP conducted one virtual government-to-government consultation with Indian Tribes with a total of two participants. The ACHP conducted one virtual SHPO meeting with a total of 18 participants. Eight written comments were received. The ACHP also hosted a special Membership meeting. During consultation, the ACHP received substantive comments regarding the use of qualified historic preservation professionals in the implementation of the Program Comment, the definition of lease, transfer, and conveyance, the annual reporting requirements, new construction, and the inclusion of National Historic Landmarks.
Several consulting parties questioned how and when Secretary of the Interior (SOI) qualified professionals will be used in the implementation of the PC. ACHP staff revised the PC to use consistent language when referencing qualified historic preservation professionals, and to more clearly define their role when implementing the PC.
The definition of lease, transfer and conveyance was perceived as too broad and raised questions about how it could be misunderstood. ACHP staff worked with the Army to revise the definition of lease, transfer, and conveyance to clarify which specific actions are covered by the PC.
Consulting parties had concerns regarding the PC's duration and limited reporting requirements. ACHP staff and the Army revised the PC to require summary data in each ACHP Section 3 report until 2055, which is published every three years and is accessible by the public. The summary data will include items similar to the annual report, including any issues that arose when implementing the Program Comment, and how those problems were addressed, and an assessment of the overall effectiveness of the Program Comment.
The Guidelines for new construction as originally written were broad and could potentially have resulted in adverse effects. ACHP staff added parameters to limit new construction to landscape features and associated buildings such as garages and sheds, rather than new housing where none currently exists.
Consulting parties had concerns about the inclusion of National Historic Landmarks (NHL) in the PC and feel that it does not provide the higher standard of care as required in section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act. However, if the management actions are completed following the procedures and guidelines in the PC, the results will not be adverse and will maintain the integrity of all properties, including NHLs. The ACHP has no reason to believe that the rehabilitation activities allowed under this PC will not be completed following the SOI Standards. Accordingly, use of the PC does not conflict with section 110(f).
ACHP Staff worked with the Army to address these comments and concerns. And all changes are reflected in the final text of the Program Comment.
For further information on the Program Comment and the Army's Pre-1919 historic housing see:
The ACHP interprets the Program Comment to allow the Army to ensure compliance with its terms regarding privatized housing by imposing such requirements on its housing partners.
Due to their length, the appendices of the issued Program Comment are not reproduced here. A copy of the full Program Comment with its appendices, and related information, can be found at:
What follows is the text of the issued Program Comment, minus its appendices:
The Department of the Army (Army) is a large, complex Federal agency with a national defense mission to provide combat-ready military forces to deter war and protect the security of the United States. The Army's real property is a vital component of its national defense mission. As the largest military department in the Department of Defense (DoD), the Army manages the largest portfolio of historic buildings in the DoD and among all federal agencies.
Many of the buildings constructed by the Army over its 248-year history are now historic properties. Among Army historic properties, historic housing is a significant concern; it is a large part of the Army's total housing inventory, it is critical to the readiness mission and well-being of thousands of Soldiers and their families, and it requires substantial financial resources and process time for compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The Army also has a unique
The Army's 867 pre-1919 homes are located on 19 installations in 13 states and the District of Columbia.
The management of the vast majority of pre-1919 Army homes was privatized at Army installations beginning in 2004. NHPA compliance activities on installations with privatized housing have occurred following NHPA section 106 programmatic agreements (PA) executed between each installation and their respective State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) at the time of privatization. The installation specific privatized housing PAs require project-by-project SHPO review and application of the
In 2019, the Army Inspector General
The installation-level privatized housing PAs and the
The Army Inspector General recommended that the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment (ASA IE&E) evaluate the feasibility of continuing the installation specific PAs for historic housing. That evaluation led to consideration of the programmatic alternatives available in 36 CFR 800.14. The Army determined that a standardized nation-wide programmatic approach was the best course of action to ensure more consistent, efficient, and effective approach to NHPA compliance, rather than to continue to operate under the installation specific PAs. This approach was defined in the ASA IE&E's
Installation-level privatized housing PAs and the
This Program Comment is the Army's nationwide programmatic NHPA compliance solution to longstanding pre-1919 housing issues. It is responsive to the Army Inspector General's findings and recommendation, ensures that the economic and technical feasibility of each project is assessed as required by the
This Program Comment in its entirety minimizes harm and manages pre-1919 NHL housing to a higher standard of care than has occurred under installation level PAs over the past 20 years. This Program Comment is consistent with and implements the
NHPA section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of projects they carry out, license, or assist (
Under 36 CFR 800.14(e), federal agencies can request the ACHP provide program comments on a category of undertakings, in lieu of conducting individual reviews of those undertakings under 36 CFR 800.4-800.7. An agency can meet its NHPA section 106 responsibilities regarding the effects of a category of undertakings on historic properties by following an ACHP-approved program comment.
ACHP's program comment guidance
The need for this Program Comment is driven by the Army's obligation to provide safe, healthy, quality housing to Soldiers and their families, and the unique challenges the Army has in managing NHPA section 106 compliance for its large inventory of historic housing. In 2019, the Secretary of the Army declared an
To meet its obligations to military families, the Army must implement specific
Housing and associated material living conditions are critical factors for military families in the context of the challenges and stressors Soldiers and their families must cope with in their daily lives. The Government Accountability Office
For pre-1919 housing, the Army must abate the historic building materials used in housing from this period that present lead-based paint, asbestos, and other hazards to housing occupants; implement improvements and additions that address the need for modernization of living spaces; provide kitchen and bathroom improvements; implement climate change adaptations through the use of climate resilient and energy efficient building materials; implement other energy efficiency measures; modernize heating, cooling and ventilation systems; modernize plumbing and electrical systems; install modern life safety and protective elements such as fire suppression systems and force protection features; and address the project-by-project PA compliance review process that affects the rapid turnaround and occupancy of housing by military families.
The Army also has the need to lease, transfer, or convey pre-1919 housing to facilitate housing operations by its privatized housing partners under the Army's Residential Communities Initiative (RCI). RCI operates under Army authority on Army installations nationwide through legal partnerships between the Army and private sector real property managers. Lease, transfer, and conveyance under this Program Comment is only for the purposes of transfer of pre-1919 housing to and between RCI partners, and between RCI partners and the Army solely for the purposes of and use as military housing and for associated purposes that support military housing operations.
Addressing NHPA section 106 compliance requirements for the thousands of repetitive
The Army's three prior ACHP-approved program comments for historic housing (Program Comment for Army Inter-War era housing (1919-1940), Program Comment for Army Capehart-Wherry Housing (1949-1962), and the Program Comment for Army Vietnam War Era housing (1963-1975)) provide the Army the ability to implement
Issues related to implementation of installation privatized housing PAs were identified by the Army Inspector General, Army housing managers, and Army privatized housing partners.
To implement the strategic agenda for pre-1919 housing, the Army's leadership began discussions in June 2023 with the ACHP Chair and other key stakeholders. On 15 June 2023, the ASA IE&E held a forum at Fort McNair, Washington, DC with senior leaders in historic preservation to discuss pre-1919 Army housing NHPA compliance issues. Stakeholders present at the 15 June 2023 forum included the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment; Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior; Chairman, ACHP; Chairman, National Capital Planning Commission; Associate Director, Cultural Resources, Partnerships, and Science, National Park Service (NPS); Executive Director, ACHP; and the Executive Director, National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO). There was general agreement among attendees that a nationwide programmatic NHPA section 106 compliance approach to pre-1919 Army housing was needed.
On 20 July 2023, as a follow-up to the Fort McNair meeting, the Army FPO held a consultation meeting with the ACHP Executive Director, NCSHPO Executive Director, and the NPS Associate Director to obtain their views on specific programmatic NHPA section 106 compliance approaches for pre-1919 housing. On 24 August 2023, the Army FPO again met with the representatives from ACHP, NPS, and NCSHPO to further discuss a program alternative for pre-1919 Army housing. Also on 24 August, the Army FPO had a separate follow-on discussion with the ACHP Executive Director. On 19 September 2023, the Army FPO officially notified the ACHP Executive Director of the Army's decision to seek a program comment for its inventory of pre-1919 housing.
On October 23, 2023, the Army published a notice of availability in the
The Army's goal for the Program Comment is to obtain programmatic compliance with NHPA section 106 for the repetitive
The objective of the Program Comment is to achieve the goal in a manner that provides the appropriate balance between preservation of the housing and the efficient, consistent, and cost-effective management of the housing in order to improve of the quality of life, health, and safety of the Army families. The goal and objective are met by the ACHP's adoption of the Program Comment and the Army's implementation of it for its
This Program Comment recognizes that among federal agencies, the Army faces a unique and significant NHPA section 106 compliance challenge due to the magnitude of its inventory of historic housing.
This Program Comment recognizes that the Army's pre-1919 homes are actively used military assets with restricted access and are in general not open to the public.
The Army recognizes that its pre-1919 housing is eligible for and listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and that many pre-1919 Army homes are contributing properties in designated NHL districts.
This Program Comment meets the requirements of NHPA section 110(f) by
This Program Comment is consistent with the
This Program Comment covers a category of undertakings termed
This Program Comment implements the
This Program Comment recognizes that the
This Program Comment recognizes that the
This Program Comment recognizes that the appended
This Program Comment provides a systematic, standardized building materials selection procedure with guidelines that ensure the balanced consideration of repair of
This Program Comment ensures that qualified historic preservation professionals support its implementation.
This Program Comment recognizes that intensifying climate risks and the ACHP's
This Program Comment recognizes that
This Program Comment recognizes that the compilation and analysis of original Army Quartermaster Corps housing design plans, extensive historic context documentation, and the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) architectural documentation of pre-1919 Army housing are suitable and appropriate mitigation measures. These Program Comment mitigation documents are located in a single centralized public site at
The Program Comment applies to
Standardized plans developed by the Army Quartermaster Corps were followed for the design and construction of the vast majority of Army pre-1919 housing. Army Quartermaster Corps standardized plans reflected prevailing civilian architectural designs, construction techniques, and community planning trends of the time, with certain regional style variations and use of locally available materials. The Army has documented mitigation measures for pre-1919 housing.
The mitigation documentation
Historic context information is extensive and includes social, economic, and military factors influencing pre-1919 home design. Army Quartermaster Corps housing standardization began in earnest after the close of the Civil War. From 1866 on the Army began its evolution into a modern military force as it abandoned its small temporary frontier posts and consolidated troops into larger regional installations. The need for new, larger, permanent installations required a higher degree of planning and design for buildings as well as post-wide site plans.
When the Army began to contract this work to civilian architects, mid-nineteenth century American architectural designs began to influence both Army building and Army installation designs. The Army Quartermaster Corps standardization of house plans incorporated versions of nationally popular architectural styles. Civilian builder's handbooks, also known as pattern books, were used as source books by the Quartermaster Corps housing design staff.
Of the Army's 867 historic pre-1919 homes, 74% (638) of these homes at ten installations are contributing properties in designated NHL districts. The ten installations with NHL districts are: Fort Leavenworth, KS 269 homes; Fort Sam Houston, TX 91; West Point, NY 84; Fort Sill, OK 73; Fort Huachuca, AZ 38; Fort Myer, VA 34; Carlisle Barracks, PA 18; US Army Garrison HI/Fort Shafter, 17; Watervliet Arsenal, NY 8; Rock Island Arsenal, IL 6. These ten NHL designations by the Department of the Interior/National Park Service are consolidated and published on the Program Comment website at
NHLs are designated by the Secretary of the Interior under the authority of the Historic Sites Act of 1935. The Historic Sites Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to identify historic buildings, and other sites and objects that possess exceptional value in commemorating or illustrating the history of the United States. NHPA section 110(f)
The
The regulations implementing NHPA section 106 include specific procedural provisions for NHLs at 36 CFR 800.10. The regulation requires federal agencies to request the ACHP participate in any consultation regarding
This Program Comment confirms that the effects of its
Further, the standard set of
Due to the special considerations required by NHPA section 110 for NHLs and properties with national level significance, the Army is holding this Program Comment for pre-1919 housing to a higher standard of care than has occurred under installation level PAs and under prior Program Comment procedures for historic Army housing.
The category of undertaking for this Program Comment is
The regulation at 36 CFR 800.5 cites criteria for adverse effect. “An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association.” The adverse effect example in 36 CFR 800.5 relevant to this Program Comment is alteration of a property that is not consistent with the
This Program Comment implements a systematic approach and standardized methodology with specific procedures for selection of appropriate building materials that consider the economic and technical feasibility of each project. It utilizes detailed
In carrying out the
(1) A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships;
(2) The historic character will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided;
(3) Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken;
(4) Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved;
(5) Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved;
(6) Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence;
(7) Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used;
(8) Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken;
(9) New additions, exterior alterations or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment; and
(10) New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
As stated in National Park Service Preservation Brief 16
The
In order to ensure consistency with the
The Army or RCI partner where housing is privatized will plan for the selection and use of appropriate building materials in the repair and rehabilitation of pre-1919 Army housing. Specific building material selection procedures are established in section 8 of this Program Comment that consider the need to maintain the historic and architectural character of pre-1919 housing in a balanced priority with cost, climate resiliency, materials durability, and the health, safety, and quality of life considerations for military families living in pre-1919 housing. To further ensure that proper planning for and use of appropriate building materials occurs, this Program Comment also provides for support from qualified historic preservation professionals (see section 11) and includes two preservation planning documents:
The
The
The
As stated in National Park Service Preservation Brief 16, when a
The Army has extensive documentation and recordation of the interiors of pre-1919 housing. The original floorplans designed by the Army Quartermaster Corps for pre-1919 housing have been collected, categorized, reproduced, and analyzed in
The Army's pre-1919 homes have been continuously occupied by Army families for 100 to 200 years and the original interior floorplans have all been modified. Current floorplans include rooms that were not features of the original Quartermaster Corps design, new walls and partitions have been added to expand kitchens and to create bathrooms and closets that were not features of original construction. Additions have been made, floors, walls, and ceilings have been cut through and modified to add plumbing, electrical service, and heating and ventilation ductwork, plaster walls have been replaced with drywall, paint and plaster have been removed to create a new appearance. Some of the homes have had complete renovations prior to enactment of the NHPA; for example, Quarters 1 is a pre-1919 home at Fort Myer, Virginia documented to have been “completely renovated” in 1953.
The
The
The Army or RCI partner where housing is privatized, will implement the following building materials selection procedure in support of
Prior to execution of a project under an applicable
(1) Characterize the
(2) Determine if
(3) If replacement is required, determine if there are material characteristics of the
(4) Identify potential
(5) Determine the technical feasibility of the potential
(6) Determine the financial feasibility of the potential
(7) Select the appropriate
To ensure
(1) Ensure installations and Army privatized housing partners with pre-1919 housing have access to the building materials selection procedure in this Program Comment, the
(2) Ensure that qualified historic preservation professionals are available to support the building materials selection process and application of the
(3) Maintain oversight of the
(4) Make the Program Comment,
The Army FPO will advise its RCI privatized housing partners that pre-1919 housing rehabilitation may be eligible for Federal and State historic preservation tax credits. Additional information may be found at the National Park Service Historic Preservation Tax Incentives page
The Army FPO will provide an annual report to the ACHP for the previous reporting year regarding activities under this Program Comment. The annual report will identify any significant issues that may have arisen while implementing the Program Comment, how those were addressed, and how they may be avoided in the future. The annual report will also include an assessment of the overall effectiveness of the Program Comment in meeting its intent, and a summary of professional assistance and compliance monitoring activities. Annual reporting will occur for five years beginning from the date of the ACHP
Following submission of an annual report, or upon the ACHP's request, the Army will schedule a meeting with the ACHP and any other ACHP identified invitees to discuss implementation of the Program Comment. The meeting provides an opportunity for attendees to provide their views on the overall effectiveness of the Program Comment in meeting its intent and purpose. Annual meetings may take place in-person, by phone, virtually using electronic meeting platforms, or any combination of such means.
After the first five years of annual reporting and for the remaining duration of this program comment, information on implementation of this program comment will be reported every three years through the Army's submission to the ACHP Section 3 Report to the President under Executive Order (E.O.) 13287
The Army FPO will provide for professional assistance and monitoring of activities under this Program Comment by qualified historic preservation experts. Professional assistance will be available to the Army's RCI partners by experts that meet qualification standards published in 36 CFR part 61 for architectural history, architecture, historic architecture, or history. Professional assistance will include on-site technical support, on-call technical support, and on-site assistance visits and monitoring.
The Army FPO will provide the contact information of the qualified historic preservation professionals to the RCI privatized housing partners. The technical expert support includes review of the requirements under this Program Comment, support for implementation of the
The Program Comment applies to all privatized and non-privatized pre-1919 Army housing, associated buildings and structures, and landscape features. Where pre-1919 housing has been privatized, Army privatized housing partners are responsible for implementing this Program Comment and all
The Army, or RCI partner where housing is privatized will implement the
The Program Comment is a stand-alone NHPA section 106 compliance document approved by the ACHP. PAs, MOAs, and AAPs shall not be developed or amended to “implement” the Program Comment. The terms of the Program Comment are not subject to any change, amendment, or further consultation through PAs, MOAs, AAPs, or other NHPA-related actions. Changes to the terms of the Program Comment can only be made following the amendment procedures in section 14 this program comment.
The Army or RCI partner where housing is privatized will also implement the Program Comment in lieu of any procedures, environmental management plans, guidelines, reporting requirements, Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plans, and all other installation documents, standards, procedures, or guidelines pertaining to pre-1919 housing, associated buildings and structures, and landscape features.
The Army or RCI partner where housing is privatized will not implement any further historic property identification, evaluation, or documentation in connection with pre-1919 housing and the
Army pre-1919 housing and historic districts are the equivalent of similar historic housing developments in the civilian sector. As such, there is significant prior ground disturbance in pre-1919 housing areas resulting from the original construction the housing and subsequent improvements over the past 100 to 200 years including overall grading for the original construction, housing construction, construction of associated buildings and structures, road and sidewalk construction, installation of above and below ground utilities, landscaping, construction of recreational structures, and other ground disturbing actions that have occurred after original construction. Such areas of extensive ground disturbance associated with housing development are generally considered to have a low probability for the presence of NRHP eligible archeological properties. No further efforts to identify archeological properties or other historic properties will be conducted in connection with the implementation of Program Comment
The Army, or RCI partner where housing is privatized will protect known archeological resources and preserve them in place whenever possible. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken by the Army. If implementation of any
The Program Comment is not applicable to pre-1919 housing, associated buildings and structures, and landscape features that have previously been determined to be not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4(c)(2), an applicable NHPA agreement document, or by a determination of eligibility pursuant to 36 CFR 63. If at a future date pre-1919 housing, associated buildings and structures, and landscape features previously determined not eligible for
This Program Comment will remain in effect from the date of adoption by the ACHP through December 31, 2055, unless prior to that time the Army determines that such comments are no longer needed and notifies the ACHP in writing, or the ACHP withdraws the Program Comment in accordance with 36 CFR 800.14(e)(6). Following such withdrawal, the Army will be required to comply with section 106 through the process in 36 CFR 800.4-800.7, or an applicable program alternative under 36 CFR 800.14, for each individual undertaking formerly covered by this Program Comment.
The effective period for the Program Comment coincides with the term of the ground leases that have been executed with the Army's privatized housing partners under the RCI program. Upon termination of the ground lease, ownership of all RCI partnership owned improvements including all housing that is located within the boundaries of the ground lease is automatically conveyed back to the Army. On or prior to December 31, 2055, the Army and the ACHP will meet to determine whether to consider an extension to the term of this Program Comment.
The ACHP may formally amend this Program Comment after consulting with the Army and other parties as it deems appropriate.
The Chair of the ACHP, after notice to the rest of the ACHP membership and the Army may amend this Program Comment to extend its duration. The ACHP will notify the Army and will publish notice in the
The Executive Director of the ACHP, after notice to the ACHP membership and the Army may amend this Program Comment to adjust due dates and make corrections of grammatical and typographical errors. The ACHP will notify the Army and will publish notice in the
Amendments to this Program Comment not covered by sections 14.1 or 14.2, above, will be subject to ACHP membership approval.
If the ACHP determines that treatment of Army pre-1919 housing is not being carried out in a manner consistent with this Program Comment, the ACHP may withdraw the Program Comment. The Chair will then notify the Army and will publish notice in the
The following definitions apply for the purposes of the Program Comment:
The Design Guidelines in Appendix A and the Building Materials Catalog in Appendix B, along with the building materials selection procedure in section 8 are the means whereby the Army implements the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0085, Streamlined Inspection Program; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
You may submit comments to the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before July 15, 2024.
Comments to the Coast Guard should be submitted using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function.
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy Management, telephone 202-475-3528, fax 202-372-8405, or email
This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) the practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, USCG-2024-0044, and must be received by July 15, 2024.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal
We accept anonymous comments. All comments to the Coast Guard will be posted without change to
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (89 FR 12851, February 20, 2024) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0127, Marine Transportation System Recovery; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
You may submit comments to the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before July 15, 2024.
Comments to the Coast Guard should be submitted using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function.
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy Management, telephone 202-475-3528, fax 202-372-8405, or email
This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) the practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments to the Coast Guard will be posted without change to
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (89 FR 12852, February 20, 2024) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.
• CG-11410, Marine Transportation System Recovery Essential Elements of Information.
• CG-11410A, Marine Transportation System Recovery Facility Status.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security will submit the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until August 12, 2024. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1
You may submit comments, identified by docket number Docket # DHS-2024-0019, at:
○
This information collection is associated with the forms listed below and is necessary to implement applicable parts of the Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR) (48 CFR chapter 30). There are four forms under this collection of information request that are used by offerors, contractors, and the general public to comply with requirements in contracts awarded by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The information collected is used by contracting officers to ensure compliance with terms and conditions of DHS contracts.
The forms are as follows:
These forms will be prepared by individuals, contractors or contract employees during contract administration. The information collected includes the following:
• DHS Forms 700-1, 700-2 and 700-3: Prepared by individuals, contractors or contractor employees prior to contract closure to determine whether there are excess funds that are available for deobligation versus remaining (payable) funds on contracts; assignment or transfer of rights, title, and interest to the Government; and release from liability. The contracting officer obtains the forms from the contractor for closeout, as applicable. Forms 700-1 and 02 are mainly used for calculating costs related to the closeout of cost-reimbursement, time-and-materials, and labor-hour contracts; and Form 700-3 is mainly used for calculating costs related to the closeout of cost-reimbursement, time-and-materials, and labor-hour contracts but can be used for all contract types.
• DHS Form 700-4 is prepared by contractor employees making claims for unpaid wages. Contracting officers must obtain this form from employees seeking restitution under contracts to provide to the Comptroller General. This form is applicable to all contract types, both opened and closed.
The prior information collection request for OMB No. 1600-0002 was approved through May 31, 2025, by OMB in a Notice of OMB Action. This justification supports a request for an extension of the approval.
The purpose of the information collected is to ensure proper closing of physically complete contracts. The information will be used by DHS contracting officers to ensure compliance with terms and conditions of DHS contracts and to complete reports required by other Federal agencies such as the General Services Administration and the Department of Labor (DOL). If this information is not collected, DHS could inadvertently violate statutory or regulatory requirements and DHS's interests concerning inventions and contractors' claims would not be protected.
The four DHS forms are available on the DHS Homepage (
Information collection may or may not involve small business contractors. The burden applied to small business is the minimum consistent with the goals of ensuring responsiveness to Government requirements. To reduce burden on small businesses and other small entities, the HSAR is continuously reviewed to determine whether the requirements remain valid.
DHS Form 700-1, Cumulative Claim and Reconciliation Statement: Less frequent incidence of collecting such information would result in inadequate closeout data. The office administering the contract would not have the necessary information to (1) determine settlement of indirect costs; and (2) adequately closeout cost-reimbursement, time-and-materials, and labor-hour contracts.
DHS Form 700-2, Contractor's Assignment of Refunds, Rebates, Credits and Other Amounts. DHS would not be allowed to collect funds to which it may be rightfully entitled.
DHS Form 700-3 Contractor's Release: DHS would not have legal protection from a contractor asserting later claims against a contract.
DHS Form 700-4 Employee Claim for Wage Restitution: DOL requires this form be completed by Contractor employees claiming restitution under contracts. If the form is not completed and submitted, payment may not be made to the employee.
Disclosure/non-disclosure of information is handled in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, other disclosure statutes, and Federal and agency acquisition regulations.
The burden estimates provided in response to Item 12 above are based upon contracts reported by DHS and its Components to the FPDS for fiscal year 2022. No program changes occurred and there were no changes to the information being collected. However, the burden was adjusted to reflect an agency adjustment decrease of 12,634 in the number of respondents within DHS for fiscal year 2022, and an increase in the average hourly wage rate.
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments which:
Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until August 12, 2024.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0053 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0016. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, telephone number (240) 721-3000 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to institute modification and rescission proceedings based on a second corrected joint petition to modify a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) and rescind in full cease and desist orders (“CDOs”) issued in the underlying investigation based on a settlement agreement and grant petitioners' motion for limited service of confidential exhibits. The LEO is modified and the CDOs are rescinded. The modification and rescission proceedings are terminated.
Richard P. Hadorn, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3179. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
The Commission instituted this investigation on June 7, 2022, based on a complaint filed by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. of Santa Clara, California and ATI Technologies ULC of Ontario, Canada (together, “AMD”). 87 FR 34718-19 (June 7, 2022). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), based on certain graphics systems, components thereof, and digital televisions containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,742,053; 8,760,454; 11,184,628; 8,468,547; and 8,854,381 (“the '381 patent”).
On September 26, 2022, the Commission allowed TTE Technology, Inc. of Corona, California to intervene in this investigation as an additional respondent (collectively, with all named respondents except for Realtek, “TCL”).
On January 24, 2024, the Commission issued a final determination finding a violation of section 337 by TCL and Realtek with respect to claims 19 and 20 of the '381 patent. 89 FR 5934-35 (Jan. 30, 2024);
On March 28, 2024, Realtek filed an appeal from the Commission's final determination with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
On April 1, 2024, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(k) and Commission Rule 210.76(a) (19 CFR 210.76(a)), AMD and TCL (together, “Petitioners”) filed a joint petition (“Original Petition”) to modify the LEO as to TCL and rescind in full the CDOs against TCL based on a settlement agreement between Petitioners. On April 11, 2024, Realtek filed a response to the Original Petition. Realtek states that it “takes no position” on whether the Original Petition should be granted because Petitioners failed to disclose certain information required by Commission Rules 210.76(a)(1) and (a)(3). Realtek also states that, in assessing the Original Petition, the Commission and Realtek would “benefit from” receiving certain additional information from Petitioners.
On April 12, 2024, Petitioners filed a corrected joint petition (“Corrected Petition” or “CPet.”) and a joint motion to limit service to only the Commission and its staff of the confidential versions of the exhibits attached thereto. Attached to the Corrected Petition are redacted copies of a license and settlement agreement between the Petitioners (Ex. D), as well as “two documents referenced therein” (Exs. E and F). CPet. at 4. The unredacted versions of Exhibits D, E, and F correspond to confidential Exhibits G, H, and I, respectively.
On April 30, 2024, the Commission determined not to institute the requested modification and rescission proceedings due to the Corrected Petition's failure to comply with Commission rules.
On May 2, 2024, TCL filed a separate correspondence to the Secretary requesting confidential treatment of business information contained in Exhibit I attached thereto. On May 7, 2024, AMD and TCL filed a second corrected joint petition (“Second Corrected Petition” or “SCPet.”) to modify and rescind the remedial orders as to TCL based on settlement and a joint motion to limit service to only the Commission and its staff of the confidential versions of the exhibits attached thereto. The petition states that there are “no other agreements, written or oral, express or implied between the AMD and TCL [
On May 17, 2024, Realtek filed a response to the Second Corrected Petition and motion to limit service stating that it “takes no position” on whether the Second Corrected Petition should be granted because Petitioners again failed to disclose certain information required by Commission Rules 210.76(a)(1) and (a)(3). Realtek also stated that Petitioners failed to show good cause to support their request for limited service of the confidential versions of the exhibits attached to the Second Corrected Petition.
The Commission, having reviewed the record in this investigation, including Petitioners' Second Corrected Petition and motion for limited service, Realtek's response thereto, as well as AMD's and TCL's separate correspondence to the Secretary requesting confidential treatment of the business information contained in Exhibits G, H, and I, has determined that the Second Corrected Petition satisfies the requirements of Commission Rule 210.76(a)(3), 19 CFR 210.76(a)(3). The Commission has further determined that the conditions justifying the remedial orders against TCL no longer exist, and, therefore, granting the Second Corrected Petition is warranted under section 337(k), 19 U.S.C. 1337(k), and Commission Rule 210.76(a)(3). Accordingly, the Commission has determined to institute modification and rescission proceedings and to modify the LEO to remove reference to TCL and rescind in full the CDOs against TCL based on the settlement agreement between Petitioners. The Commission also finds that Petitioners have shown the requisite good cause under Commission Rule 210.76(a)(3) to grant their motion for limited service of confidential Exhibits G, H, and I. The Commission issues a modified LEO and an order herewith setting forth its determinations.
The modification and rescission proceedings are terminated.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on June 7, 2024.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on April 23, 2024, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of SharkNinja Operating LLC of Needham, Massachusetts, Omachron Alpha Inc. of Canada, and Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. of Canada. A supplement to the complaint was filed on May 9, 2024. An amended complaint was filed on May 16, 2024, and supplemented on May 23, 2024. The amended complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain surface cleaning devices and components thereof by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,776,120 (“the '120 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 10,219,661 (“the '661 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 11,903,546 (“the '546 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 11,910,983 (“the '983 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 11,910,984 (“the '984 patent”). The amended complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by the applicable Federal Statute. The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The amended complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Heidi Yoo, The Office of the Secretary, Docket Services Division, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 7-9, 12, 14, and 15 of the '120 patent; claims 1-5, 8-12, 15, and 16 of the '661 patent; claims 10 and 15 of the '546 patent; claims 1, 4, 6-8, 12, and 17-19 of the '983 patent; and claims 1-18 of the '984 patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “stick and handheld vacuum cleaners, along with wands, cleaner heads, tool kits, and attachments”;
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainants are:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the amended complaint is to be served:
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation.
Responses to the amended complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the complainant of the amended complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the amended complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the amended complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the amended complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the amended complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 33) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting a motion for summary determination of violation of section 337. The Commission requests written submissions from the parties, interested government agencies, and interested persons on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding, under the schedule set forth below.
Robert J. Needham, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5468. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
The Commission instituted this investigation on February 27, 2023, based on a complaint, as supplemented and amended, filed by Extang Corporation of Ann Arbor, Michigan (“Extang”); Laurmark Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a BAK Industries (“BAK”) of Ann Arbor, Michigan; and UnderCover, Inc. of Rogersville, Missouri (together, “Complainants”). 88 FR 12422-23 (Feb. 27, 2023). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain pick-up truck folding bed cover systems and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,188,888; 7,484,788 (“the '788 patent”); 8,061,758 (“the '758 patent”); 7,537,264; 8,182,021; 8,690,224; and 9,815,358.
The Commission subsequently granted leave to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to change the names of several respondents. Order No. 9 (May 4, 2023),
The Commission also terminated two respondents based on settlement, one respondent based on the entry of a consent order, and 14 respondents based on both settlement and the entry of a consent order. Order No. 15 (Jun. 13, 2023),
On August 22, 2023, the Commission found RDJ and Trek in default. Order No. 19 (Jul. 21, 2023),
On April 23, 2024, the ALJ issued the subject ID granting the Movants' motion and included a recommended determination on remedy and bond (“RD”) recommending issuance of a GEO, the issuance of CDOs against RDJ and Trek, and the imposition of a bond in the amount of 100 percent of the entered value of infringing products during the period of Presidential review. Specifically, the ID finds that: (1) the Commission has statutory authority in the present investigation,
The Commission has determined not to review the ID.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the statute authorizes issuance of, inter alia, (1) an exclusion order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States and/or (2) cease and desist orders that could result in the respondents being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background, see
The statute requires the Commission to consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The public interest factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order would have on: (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve, disapprove, or take no action on the Commission's determination.
In their initial submission, Complainants are also requested to identify the remedy sought and Complainants and OUII are requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainant is further requested to state the dates that the Asserted Patents expire, the HTSUS subheadings under which the accused products are imported, and to supply the identification information for all known importers of the products at issue in this investigation. The initial written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than close
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. The Commission's paper filing requirements in 19 CFR 210.4(f) are currently waived. 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (Inv. No. 337-TA-1353) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment by marking each document with a header indicating that the document contains confidential information. This marking will be deemed to satisfy the request procedure set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) & 210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. A redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed simultaneously with any confidential filing. All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) by 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) by U.S. Government employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes. All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection on EDIS.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on June 7, 2024.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
On September 8, 2022, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registration (OSC/ISO) to Coconut Grove Pharmacy (Respondent) of Florida. Administrative Law Judge Exhibit (ALJX) 1 (OSC/ISO), at 1. The OSC/ISO informed Respondent of the immediate suspension of its DEA Certificate of Registration (registration), Control No. FC1162382, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(d), alleging that Respondent's continued registration constitutes “ `an imminent danger to the public health or safety.' ”
A hearing was held before DEA Administrative Law Judge Paul E. Soeffing (the ALJ), who, on March 2, 2023, issued his Recommended Rulings, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision (RD or Recommended Decision). The RD recommended that Respondent's revocation be revoked. RD, at 86. Following the issuance of the RD, Respondent filed exceptions.
Thomas E. Hamilton, Pharm.D., testified as the Government's expert regarding pharmacy practice and standards in the state of Florida. RD, at 12-13; Tr. 182-83. Dr. Hamilton testified that he has over twenty years of experience as a Florida pharmacist and is currently employed as a pharmacist in Northern Miami. RD, at 12; Tr. 176-78, 181.
Dr. Hamilton testified that the standard of care for pharmacists in Florida is informed by the regulations
Florida Administrative Code section 64B16-27.810 requires that, prior to dispensing, a pharmacist “review the patient record and each new and refill prescription . . . to promote therapeutic appropriateness by identifying: (a) Over-utilization or under-utilization; (b) Therapeutic duplication; (c) Drug-disease contraindications; (d) Drug-drug interactions; (e) Incorrect drug dosage or duration of drug treatment; (f) Drug-allergy interactions; [and] (g) Clinical abuse/misuse.” Fla. Admin. Code section 64B16-27.810. The regulation further states that “[u]pon recognizing any of the above, the pharmacist shall take appropriate steps to avoid or resolve the potential problems which shall, if necessary, include consultation with the prescriber.”
Lastly, Florida Administrative Code section 64B16-27.831 states that “in filling valid prescriptions for controlled substances,” pharmacists should “exercise[e] sound professional judgment,” and “dispens[e] controlled substances for a legitimate medical purpose in the usual course of professional practice” considering “each patient's unique situation.” Fla. Admin. Code section 64B16-27.831. Dr. Hamilton testified that this regulation sets forth the standards for validating prescriptions for controlled substances as well as addresses how Florida pharmacists are to assess whether a prescription is written for a “legitimate medical purpose,” which Dr. Hamilton defines as the pharmacist's “corresponding responsibility.” RD, at 15; Tr. 185.
As mentioned above, Dr. Hamilton testified that any red flags present in a controlled substance prescription must be resolved before dispensing the prescription and such resolution must be documented. RD, at 25; Tr. 192. Dr. Hamilton testified that red flag resolution should appear on a prescription or in an electronic patient profile as “some kind of note” or documentation that references resolution of the red flag. RD, at 14; Tr. 228. Further, Dr. Hamilton testified that the need to document red flag resolution is for patient safety purposes so that information relating to the red flag resolution is “readily retrievable.” RD, at 14, 25; Tr. 192-93, 228. Ultimately, Dr. Hamilton asserted that “if there [is] no documentation, nothing happened.” RD, at 14, 25; Tr. 193.
Upon reviewing the documentation for the seven patients at issue in the current matter who filled their prescriptions at Respondent over a span of nearly two years, Dr. Hamilton found that there were no notations resolving the red flags present in the prescriptions. RD, at 25; Tr. 197-276;
As for Respondent's argument, Mr. Parrado opined—based almost exclusively on the representations of Respondent's Pharmacist-in-Charge (PIC) about Respondent's process for
The Agency credits Dr. Hamilton's testimony and finds that the Florida standard of care requires that any red flags present in a prescription must be resolved before dispensing and such resolution must be documented.
The ALJ found, and the Agency agrees, that the standard of care in Florida requires that any red flags present for a prescription or patient must be resolved before dispensing and that resolution must be documented. RD, at 81 (citing Tr. 192-93, 228-29). The ALJ found, and the Agency agrees, that Respondent failed to do this, rendering Respondent's dispensing practices outside the usual course of professional practice and in violation of the Florida standard of care.
According to Dr. Hamilton, a combined prescription of drugs in different classes or drugs that have synergistic effects is a drug-drug interaction red flag that must be resolved before dispensing the prescription. RD, at 16; Tr. 203, 238. Regarding combinations of opioids and benzodiazepines, Dr. Hamilton testified that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a Black Box Warning—FDA's highest warning—advising prescribers and pharmacists to avoid the combination because both drugs classes affect the central nervous system, cause respiratory depression, increase the risk of overdose, and when taken together, have an “exponentially higher effect on the body.” RD, at 16, 59; Tr. 203-05, 238, 294. Dr. Hamilton testified that an additional red flag combination is the combination of drugs that have opposite effects on the brain, such as a stimulant (an “upper”) combined with a depressant (a “downer”). RD, at 16; Tr. 238, 240.
Regarding combinations of opioids and benzodiazepines, Dr. Hamilton found that Patient A.R. was simultaneously filling prescriptions for immediate-release opioids (oxycodone-acetaminophen 10-325 and tramadol) and a benzodiazepine (alprazolam). RD, at 3-4 (Stip. 6), 17, 61; Tr. 205; GX 2a, at 1-2; GX 2d. Dr. Hamilton also found that Patient J.C. was filling prescriptions for a benzodiazepine (temazepam) at Respondent while PDMP data showed that Patient J.C. was filling prescriptions for an opioid (oxycodone) at a different pharmacy; similarly, Patient M.W. was filling prescriptions for an opioid (oxycodone) at Respondent while PDMP data show that Patient M.W. was filling prescriptions for a benzodiazepine (alprazolam) at a different pharmacy. RD, at 4-5 (Stip. 8), 7 (Stip. 12), 17, 61-62; Tr. 235-38, 268-69; GX 4a, at 2-3; GX 8a, at 1-2. Dr. Hamilton opined that Respondent should have recognized that the prescriptions for these three patients presented red flags and these red flags needed to be properly resolved before dispensing. RD, at 17, 61-62; Tr. 203, 208, 237-38, 268-69.
Regarding other dangerous combinations, Dr. Hamilton found that Patient J.C. was simultaneously filling prescriptions for a stimulant (methylphenidate) and a depressant benzodiazepine (temazepam). RD, at 4-5 (Stip. 8); Tr. 240; GX 4a; GX 4d. Again, Dr. Hamilton opined that these prescriptions presented red flags and Respondent needed to properly resolve these red flags before dispensing. RD, at 18; Tr. 240.
As for Respondent's argument, Mr. Parrado testified that after he reviewed prescriber and patient affidavits, he was of the opinion that the drug combinations presented in this case did not raise a red flag because the red flag was resolved “originally and over time in [the PIC's] continuing conversations with the patients and the doctors.” RD, at 41; Tr. 574-75. As discussed
The ALJ found, and the Agency agrees, that the standard of care in Florida requires that prior to dispensing, a pharmacist document resolution of the drug cocktail or drug-drug interaction red flags that were present here due to simultaneous dispensing of opioids with benzodiazepines and benzodiazepines with stimulants. RD, at 64 (citing Tr. 185-86, 192, 203, 238, 273, 275-76). The ALJ found, and the Agency agrees, that Respondent failed to do this, rendering Respondent's dispensing practices outside the usual course of professional practice and in violation of the Florida standard of care.
According to Dr. Hamilton, prescriptions of opiates alone can create red flags that have to be resolved before dispensing when: two separate immediate-release opioids are prescribed (“therapeutic duplication”); when opioids are prescribed in their highest strength version; or when immediate-release opioids intended to treat acute pain (as opposed to those intended to treat chronic pain) are prescribed for extended periods of time (“incorrect drug dosage or duration of drug treatment”). RD, at 18, 66; Tr. 198-200, 206, 216, 243; Fla. Admin. Code section 64B16-27.810(b), (e). Regarding high dosages of opioids, Dr. Hamilton testified that a dosage of 90 MMEs
In reviewing Respondent's dispensing, Dr. Hamilton found that Patients A.R. and J.K. were both filling prescriptions for a combination of two immediate-release opioids (oxycodone-acetaminophen 10-325 with tramadol and oxycodone-acetaminophen 10-325 with oxycodone, respectively). RD, at 3-4 (Stip. 6), 6-7 (Stip. 10), 19-20, 68; Tr. 199-200, 243-45; GX 2a, 2d. Dr. Hamilton opined that these instances of therapeutic duplication constituted red flags that had to be resolved before dispensing. RD, at 19-20, 68; Tr. 200, 208, 243, 245. Mr. Parrado testified that for at least one of the patients prescribed two simultaneous immediate-release opioids, Respondent originally had a therapeutic duplication concern and “spoke with a doctor” who resolved the concern, so there was “no longer a concern” and there was “no reason [for the Respondent] to continue doing anything else.” RD, at 41; Tr. 571. However, when testifying on behalf of the Government in
As for immediate-release opioids prescribed for extended durations, Dr. Hamilton found the following: Patient A.R was filling prescriptions for immediate-release opioids (oxycodone-acetaminophen and tramadol) over a span of approximately two years; Patient J.K. was filling prescriptions for immediate-release opioids (oxycodone and oxycodone-acetaminophen 10-325) over a span of approximately one-and-a-half-years; Patient C.S. was filling prescriptions for an immediate-release opioid (hydromorphone, at the highest strength,
Concerning high dosage opioid prescriptions, Dr. Hamilton found the following: Patient A.R. was filling prescriptions for oxycodone-acetaminophen 10-325 and tramadol that together totaled 120 MMEs per day; Patient C.S. was filling prescriptions for hydromorphone at the highest strength (8 mg) totaling as much as 260 MMEs per day; Patient J.L. was filling prescriptions for oxycodone at the highest strength (30 mg) totaling approximately 135 MMEs per day; Patient M.G. was filling prescriptions for oxycodone at the highest strength (30 mg) totaling between 135 and 270 MMES per day; and Patient M.W. was filling prescriptions for oxycodone at dosages of either 15 mg or 30 mg totaling between 90 and 265 MMEs per day. RD, at 3-4 (Stips. 6-7), 5-6 (Stip. 9), 7 (Stips. 11-12), 21-22; Tr. 210-12, 218, 253-55, 258, 260, 265, 267; GX 2a; GX 2d; GX 3a; GX 3c; GX 6a; GX 6c; GX 7a; GX 7d; GX 8a; GX 8d. Once more, Dr. Hamilton opined that these prescriptions presented red flags that Respondent needed to properly resolve before dispensing. RD, at 21-22, 70-71; Tr. 210-12, 218, 253-55, 258, 267.
As for Respondent's argument, Mr. Parrado testified generally that based on his review of the records and conversations with Respondent's PIC, there were no incorrect drug dose or duration of treatment red flags because the patients had long-term pain and had developed opioid tolerance as established through the PIC's purported conversations with the patients and prescribers. RD, at 41; Tr. 575-76. As discussed
The ALJ found, and the Agency agrees, that the standard of care in Florida requires that prior to dispensing, a pharmacist document resolution of the therapeutic duplication red flags (prescribing of two immediate-release opioids) and incorrect drug dosage or duration of treatment red flags (immediate-release opioids prescribed for extended durations and opioids prescribed in their highest strength) that were present here. RD, at 73 (citing Tr. 185-86, 192, 273, 275-76). The ALJ found, and the Agency agrees, that Respondent failed to do this, rendering Respondent's dispensing practices outside the usual course of professional practice and in violation of the Florida standard of care.
According to Dr. Hamilton, a patient paying for some prescriptions with insurance while paying for others with cash is a red flag, but only for the prescriptions paid for in cash. RD, at 23; Tr. 231. Concerning this issue, Dr. Hamilton found that Patient J.C. was paying for some medications with insurance while paying for other, controlled medications with cash, which was a red flag that needed to be resolved before dispensing. RD, at 24; Tr. 240-41; GX 4d. Further, Dr. Hamilton found that Patient M.W. was using cash to pay for oxycodone at Respondent while using insurance to pay for alprazolam at a different pharmacy. RD, at 24-25; Tr. 270; GX 8a. Again, Dr. Hamilton opined that this was a red flag that needed to be resolved before dispensing. RD, at 25; Tr. 270-71. Regarding Patient J.C. paying for his methylphenidate prescription with cash, the PIC testified that he spoke with Dr. R., Patient J.C.'s physician, about Patient J.C.'s prescription and Dr. R. told the PIC that Patient J.C. had limited insurance. RD, at 29 n.37; Tr. 461-62.
Again, as discussed
The ALJ found, and the Agency agrees, that the standard of care in Florida requires that prior to dispensing, a pharmacist document resolution of the red flag of alternating between cash and insurance that was present here. RD, at 77 (citing Tr. 185-86, 192, 273, 275-76). The ALJ found, and the Agency agrees, that Respondent failed to do this, rendering Respondent's dispensing practices outside the usual course of
Under the CSA, “[a] registration . . . to . . . dispense a controlled substance . . . may be suspended or revoked by the Attorney General upon a finding that the registrant . . . has committed such acts as would render [its] registration under section 823 of this title inconsistent with the public interest as determined under such section.” 21 U.S.C. 824(a). In making the public interest determination, the CSA requires consideration of the following factors:
(A) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or professional disciplinary authority.
(B) The [registrant's] experience in dispensing, or conducting research with respect to controlled substances.
(C) The [registrant's] conviction record under Federal or State laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances.
(D) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws relating to controlled substances.
(E) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and safety.
The Agency considers these public interest factors in the disjunctive.
The Government has the burden of proof in this proceeding. 21 CFR 1301.44. While the Agency has considered all of the public interest factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), the Government's evidence in support of its
Having reviewed the record and the RD, the Agency agrees with the ALJ, adopts the ALJ's analysis, and finds that the Government's evidence satisfies its
Evidence is considered under Public Interest Factors B and D when it reflects compliance (or non-compliance) with laws related to controlled substances and experience dispensing controlled substances.
As for state law, Florida Administrative Code section 64B16-27.810 requires that, prior to dispensing, a pharmacist “review the patient record and each new and refill prescription . . . to promote therapeutic appropriateness by identifying: (a) Over-utilization or under-utilization; (b) Therapeutic duplication; (c) Drug-disease contraindications; (d) Drug-drug interactions; (e) Incorrect drug dosage or duration of drug treatment; (f) Drug-allergy interactions; [and] (g) Clinical abuse/misuse.” Fla. Admin. Code section 64B16-27.810. The regulation further states that “[u]pon recognizing any of the above, the pharmacist shall take appropriate steps to avoid or resolve the potential problems which shall, if necessary, include consultation with the prescriber.”
In addition, Florida Administrative Code section 64B16-27.800 states that pharmacies “shall” maintain a “patient record system,” that “provide[s] for the immediate retrieval of information necessary for the dispensing pharmacist to identify previously dispensed drugs,” and “shall record any known allergies, drug reactions, idiosyncrasies, and chronic conditions or disease states of the patient and the identity of any other drugs, including over-the-counter drugs, or devices currently being used by the patient which may relate to prospective drug review.” Fla. Admin. Code section 64B16-27.800(1)-(2).
Lastly, Florida Administrative Code section 64B16-27.831 states that “in filling valid prescriptions for controlled substances,” pharmacists should “exercise[e] sound professional judgment,” and “dispens[e] controlled substances for a legitimate medical purpose in the usual course of professional practice” considering “each patient's unique situation.” Fla. Admin. Code section 64B16-27.831.
In the current matter, the Agency agrees with the ALJ's analysis that Respondent's dispensing fell below the Florida standard of care—and thus was outside the usual course of professional practice—because, as detailed above, Respondent dispensed numerous controlled substance prescriptions to seven patients without properly addressing and resolving clear red flags of abuse and/or diversion including drug cocktails, immediate-release and high dosage opioids, and patients alternating between paying for prescriptions with cash and insurance.
Where, as here, the Government has established sufficient grounds to revoke Respondent's registration, the burden
Here, and as noted by the ALJ, the PIC, as Respondent's pharmacy manager, did not admit any fault or accept any responsibility for his conduct in filling the prescriptions at issue. RD, at 83.
In addition to acceptance of responsibility, the Agency considers both specific and general deterrence when determining an appropriate sanction.
Moreover, the Agency agrees with the ALJ that Respondent's actions were egregious.
In sum, Respondent has not offered any credible evidence on the record that rebuts the Government's case for revocation of its registration and Respondent has not demonstrated that it can be entrusted with the responsibility of registration.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. FC1162382 issued to Coconut Grove Pharmacy. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of Coconut Grove Pharmacy to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Coconut Grove Pharmacy for additional registration in Florida. This Order is effective July 15, 2024.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on June 6, 2024, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Department of Justice.
Notice.
In accordance with an Executive order, the Attorney General has designated Switzerland as a “qualifying state.”
June 13, 2024. The designation is to become effective on the date of entry into force of an amendment to Annex 1 to the Swiss Data Protection Ordinance listing the United States for data transferred in reliance on the Swiss-U.S. Data Privacy Framework.
Susan Hennessey, Chief Counsel Performing the Duties of the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530; telephone: (202) 514-1057. This is not a toll-free number.
Executive Order 14086 of October 7, 2022 (Enhancing Safeguards for United States Signals Intelligence Activities), establishes a two-level redress mechanism for the review of qualifying complaints by individuals filed through an appropriate public authority in a “qualifying state” and alleging certain violations of U.S. law concerning signals intelligence activities. A country or regional economic integration organization may be designated as a qualifying state by the Attorney General if he determines, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Director of National Intelligence, that it meets the requirements set forth in section 3(f) of Executive Order 14086. The Attorney General has made those determinations on the basis of the information contained in the “Memorandum in Support of Designation of Switzerland as a Qualifying State Under Executive Order 14086” prepared by the National Security Division of the Department of
Consistent with section 3(f) of Executive Order 14086, and on the basis of the information contained in the memorandum referenced above, the Attorney General has determined, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Director of National Intelligence, that:
(1) The laws of Switzerland require appropriate safeguards in the conduct of signals intelligence activities for United States persons' personal information that is transferred from the United States to the territory of Switzerland;
(2) Switzerland is anticipated, pursuant to the adoption of an amendment to Annex 1 to the Swiss Data Protection Ordinance listing the United States for data transferred in reliance on the Swiss-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, to permit the transfer of personal information for commercial purposes between the territory of Switzerland and the territory of the United States; and
(3) Designation of Switzerland would advance the national interests of the United States.
The Attorney General designated Switzerland as a qualifying state for purposes of eligibility for the redress mechanism established in section 3 of Executive Order 14086, with the designation to become effective upon the date of entry into force of an amendment to Annex 1 to the Swiss Data Protection Ordinance listing the United States for data transferred for commercial purposes in reliance on the Swiss-U.S. Data Privacy Framework.
Justice Management Division, Department of Justice.
Notice of availability.
The Justice Management Division (JMD), Department of Justice (DOJ) is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of its FY 2022 Service Contracts Inventory and Inventory Supplement.
Wendy G. Devoe, Office of Acquisition Management, Justice Management Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530; Phone: 202-285-7425; Email:
The inventory includes service contract actions over $25,000 that were awarded in Fiscal Year (FY) 2022. Additionally, the inventory supplement includes information collected from contractors on the amount invoiced and direct labor hours expended for covered service contracts. The Department of Justice analyzes this data for the purpose of determining whether its contract labor is being used in an effective and appropriate manner and if the mix of federal employees and contractors in the agency is effectively balanced. The inventory and supplement do not include contractor proprietary or sensitive information.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Aeronautics Committee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the aeronautics community and other persons, research and technical information relevant to program planning.
Wednesday, June 26, 2024, 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., central time.
Virtual meeting by dial-in teleconference and TEAMs Meeting only.
Ms. Irma Rodriguez, Designated Federal Officer, Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-0984, or
This meeting will be available to the public online. Dial-in audio teleconference and webcast details to watch the meeting remotely will be available on the NASA Advisory Council Aeronautics Committee website at
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the National Aeronautics and
Tuesday, July 9, 2024, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.; Wednesday, July 10, 2024, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., Thursday, July 11, 2024, 10 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. All times are eastern time.
Virtual meeting by dial-in teleconference and WebEx only.
Ms. KarShelia Kinard, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-2355 or
The meeting is entirely virtual and will be open to the public. The meeting will be available telephonically and via WebEx. You must use a touch-tone phone to participate in this meeting. Any interested persons may attend.
For Tuesday, July 9, 2024, the WebEx information for attendees is:
For Wednesday, July 10, 2024, the WebEx information for attendees is:
For Thursday, July 11, 2024, the WebEx information for attendees is:
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
The Members of the National Council on Disability (NCD) will hold a quarterly business meeting on Thursday, June 27, 2024, 1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
This meeting will occur via Zoom videoconference. Registration is required. Interested parties are encouraged to join the meeting in an attendee status by Zoom Desktop Client, Mobile App, or Telephone to dial-in. Updated information is available on NCD's event page at
In the event of audio disruption or failure, attendees can follow the meeting by accessing the Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) link provided. CART is text-only translation that occurs real time and is not an exact transcript.
Following welcome remarks and introductions, the Executive Committee will provide their report; followed by the Chair's report; policy updates; a break; followed by a U.S. Department of Justice Access to Justice presentation, followed by Council member Q&A; a panel on NCD's Fetal Surgery to Germline Editing report, followed by Council member Q&A; a break; public comment on most notable disability policy achievements since Summer 2023; and Council member community report outs; concluding with adjournment.
Because of the virtual format, the Council will receive public comment by email or by video or audio over Zoom. To provide public comment during an NCD Council Meeting, NCD now requires advanced registration by either signing up to present while registering for the meeting or sending an email to
While public comment can be submitted on any topic over email, comments during the meeting should be specific to most notable disability policy
If any time remains following the conclusion of the comments of those registered, NCD may call upon those who desire to make comments but did not register.
Nicholas Sabula, Public Affairs Specialist, NCD, 1331 F Street NW, Suite 850, Washington, DC 20004; 202-272-2004 (V), or
If you require additional accommodations, please indicate on the registration form or notify Stacey Brown by sending an email to
Due to last-minute confirmations or cancellations, NCD may substitute items without advance public notice.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, “Requests to Agreement States and Non-Agreement States for Information.”
Submit comments by August 12, 2024. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0031 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? Please explain your answer.
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate? Please explain your answer.
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.”
Submit comments by August 12, 2024. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2023-0161 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the NRC is requesting
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? Please explain your answer.
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate? Please explain your answer.
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through ADAMS.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern Market Dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3030, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern Competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean 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 June 3, 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 June 6, 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 June 7, 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 May 30, 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 May 29, 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 May 28, 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 June 7, 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 June 3, 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 June 7, 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 June 3, 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 May 29, 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 May 29, 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 May 30, 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
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 June 3, 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 June 4, 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 June 3, 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 May 31, 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 May 31, 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 May 31, 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 June 6, 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 May 28, 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 June 4, 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 June 6, 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 June 4, 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 June 5, 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 May 29, 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 May 30, 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 June 7, 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 June 6, 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 May 28, 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 June 5, 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 May 31, 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 May 31, 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 June 6, 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
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 May 31, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).
Notice of availability and request for comments.
The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO), on behalf of the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the Committee on Technology, National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), is requesting comments on the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Research Strategy: 2024 Update (hereinafter “2024 Update”). Federal agencies participating in NSET's Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Working Group developed the draft 2024 Update and seek comments by the EHS research community and the public, as a final stage of public input that will inform the final strategy.
Interested persons and organizations are invited to submit comments on or before July 22, 2024.
Interested individuals and organizations should submit comments electronically via to
Information obtained from this Request for Comments may be used by the Government on a non-attribution basis for planning and strategy development. OSTP will not respond to individual submissions. A response to this Request for Comments will not be viewed as a binding commitment to develop or pursue the project or ideas discussed. This Request for Comments is not accepting applications for financial assistance or financial incentives.
Responses containing references, studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should include copies of or electronic links to the referenced materials. Responses from minors, or responses containing profanity, vulgarity, threats, or other inappropriate language or content will not be considered.
Comments submitted in response to this notice are subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Responses to this Request for Comments may be posted without change online. Please note that the United States Government will not pay for response preparation, or for the use of any information contained in a response.
For additional information, please direct questions to Rhema Bjorkland at
Nanotechnology enables us to understand and manipulate atoms and molecules—we can harness changes at the nanoscale to make new and improved materials and devices. Nanotechnology has led to advances in medical treatments, clean energy technologies, and semiconductor chips that serve as the foundation of our modern lives.
The years of research under the vision of the 2011 NNI Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Strategy
NEHI's efforts to prepare an updated EHS research strategy included a review of the 2011 research strategy. The authors also analyzed NNI supplements to the President's Budget (2019-2023)
The 2024 update of the NNI EHS research strategy represents the U.S. Government's commitment to steer future research advancements in nanotechnology, aligning with the needs of the economy and society. The document is organized into two major sections: Part A, which outlines progress toward the 2011 EHS research strategy goals, and Part B, which addresses the scope of the research strategy going forward, expands on the unmet needs from Part A, and adds specific actions to support the new needs and challenges identified in the update.
While OSTP invites all comments responsive to this request for comments, of key interest is identifying any additional information and data sources that NEHI should consider when updating the strategy. This notice serves as the follow-on to the Request for Information referenced in a
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 7620A (FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility Reporting Fees) to modify the trade reporting fees and caps applicable to non-retail participants that use the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility Carteret and the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility Chicago.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's website at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility Carteret (the “FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Carteret”) and the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility Chicago (the “FINRA/Nasdaq TRF Chicago”) (collectively, the “FINRA/Nasdaq TRF”) are facilities of FINRA that are operated by Nasdaq, Inc. (“Nasdaq”). In connection with the establishment of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF, FINRA and Nasdaq entered into a limited liability company agreement (the “LLC Agreement”). Under the LLC Agreement, FINRA, the “SRO Member,” has sole regulatory responsibility for the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF. Nasdaq, the “Business Member,” is primarily responsible for the management of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF's business affairs, including establishing pricing for use of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF, to the extent those affairs are not inconsistent with the regulatory and oversight functions of FINRA. Additionally, the Business Member is obligated to pay the cost of regulation and is entitled to the profits and losses, if any, derived from the operation of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF. The proposed rule change makes several adjustments to the schedule of fees and caps that applies to participants in the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF.
The FINRA/Nasdaq TRF comprises two of four FINRA facilities
Pursuant to the FINRA Rule 7600A Series, participants in the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF are charged fees and may qualify for fee caps (Rule 7620A) and also may qualify for revenue sharing payments for trade reporting to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF (Rule 7610A). These rules are administered by Nasdaq, in its capacity as the Business Member and operator of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF, on behalf of FINRA,
Pursuant to FINRA Rule 7620A, participants that are not Retail Participants
Nasdaq, as the Business Member, has determined to make several adjustments to the schedule of fees and caps that
Specifically, the proposed rule change would: (1) raise the threshold daily average number of Media/Executing Party trades that are necessary for a participant to qualify for a fee cap program during a month; (2) provide for new tiered discounted Media/Contra Party and Non-Media/Contra Party fees; and (3) make non-substantive clarifying changes to Rule 7620A. Each of these proposals is described in detail below.
The proposed rule change would raise the level of the daily average number of Media/Executing trades that a participant must report to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF in a given month to qualify for caps on its trade reporting fees (“Cap Qualifying Activity”). Presently, the level of Cap Qualifying Activity is 5,000 Media/Executing trade reports in each of Tapes A, B, and C. Nasdaq, as the Business Member, has determined to raise these threshold numbers to 10,000 in each Tape.
The levels of Cap Qualifying Activity have not increased since 2018,
The proposed rule change would also amend the schedule of fees for Media/Contra Party and Non-Media/Contra Party trade reports. Nasdaq, as the Business Member, has determined to establish tiered pricing on Media/Contra Party and Non-Media/Contra Party trade reports for participants that do not qualify for the cap described above. Similar to the existing fee caps based on Executing Party trade report volume, the tiered pricing will apply based on a member firm's total monthly Media/Contra Party trade report volume. To be eligible for the tiered pricing, the participant's Media/Contra Party volume must equal or exceed 35 percent of the participant's total volume of trades reported to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF in a given month. A participant that meets this threshold will qualify for discounted pricing at the following tiers:
If a participant has sufficient Media/Contra Party trade reports to meet the above thresholds, then the discounted pricing will also apply to the participant's Non-Media/Contra Party trade reports. Unlike the existing fee caps, the volume and trade report thresholds are not calculated on a per tape basis for purposes of the Contra Party tiered discounts.
The proposed tiered pricing is intended to provide for a more reasonable allocation of fees among Executing Parties and Contra Parties. The three tier levels were developed so that participants can qualify for lower fees as their Media/Contra Party trade reporting volumes increase.
As discussed above, the number of trades reported to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF has grown significantly in recent years. Currently, participants that are primarily identified as the Contra Party on trade reports and do not have sufficient Executing Party trades that would qualify for the fee cap are not eligible for any pricing discount. The proposed rule change would therefore provide tiered discounted fees to participants identified in trade reports as the Media/Contra Party and Non-Media/Contra Party to allow more participants to qualify for discounted rates and to provide for more reasonable allocation of fees among the parties to a trade.
In addition to setting forth the proposed discounted pricing, the proposed rule change would add language to Section II.A of Rule 7620A to provide an explanation and example of qualifying trade reporting activity for the Contra Party tiered discount.
It is important to note that a participant will not receive both the fee cap based on qualifying Media/Executing Party trade reporting activity and the proposed Contra Party fee discount in the same month. Nasdaq, as the Business Member, will conduct monthly reviews of a non-Retail Participant's trade reporting volume to determine what pricing applies to the participant's activity for a given month.
FINRA is also proposing non-substantive changes to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF fee schedule to provide more clarity. First, Retail Participants are not subject to any trade reporting fees under Rule 7620A. Therefore, FINRA is proposing to eliminate language that suggests that, in some
FINRA notes that the proposed rule changes do not modify the other fees assessed under Rule 7620A, including the ATS Market Maker fee caps, the fee assessed a member for submitting a clearing report to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF to transfer a transaction fee pursuant to Rule 7230A(h), and the “Comparison” fee.
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. The operative date will be June 1, 2024.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of section 15A(b) of the Act,
FINRA believes that the proposed fee schedule is reasonable and provides an equitable allocation of fees in that it will apply uniformly to all similarly situated FINRA members that use the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF. Moreover, participation in the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF is voluntary, and access to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF is offered on fair and non-discriminatory terms.
The proposed rule change would: (1) raise from 5,000 to 10,000 the Cap Qualifying Activity that a participant needs to achieve to qualify for capped reporting fees under Rule 7620A; and (2) provide a three-tiered fee discount for Media/Contra Party and Non-Media/Contra Party monthly charges for participants that may not otherwise achieve Cap Qualifying Activity.
As discussed above, the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF has experienced a significant increase in trade reporting activity over the past five years, while the monthly charges and caps have remained unchanged over the same time period. Nasdaq, as the Business Member, does not believe that the current Cap Qualifying Activity of 5,000 daily average trades per month continues to be an appropriate threshold in light of such increase. The caps and cap formulas have not kept pace with the rapid growth of trade reporting volume on the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF since they were amended in 2018 or with the corresponding increase in costs associated with operating, maintaining, and upgrading the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF. Nasdaq, as the Business Member, believes that doubling the minimum average daily volume of Media/Executing Party trade reports from 5,000 to 10,000 will better reflect the current levels of trade reporting activity on the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF. The proposed rule change will also help Nasdaq continue to accommodate the costs associated with rising trade reporting volumes while making substantial enhancements to the technology, functionality, and performance of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF. Participants are required to submit Media trade reports to FINRA, while not all Non-Media trades are required to be reported under FINRA rules. In determining pricing for the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF, the Business Member has focused on attracting Media trade reports to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF relative to other trade reporting facilities.
Additionally, as discussed above, the proposed tiered discounts will help ensure a more equitable distribution of fees and allocate costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF more equitably among Executing Parties and Contra Parties. Over time, as the number of trades reported to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF has grown significantly, the fee burden associated with the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF has shifted disproportionately to Contra Parties because participants that are primarily identified as the Contra Party and that do not have sufficient Executing Party trades to qualify for the fee cap are not currently eligible for any pricing discount. According to Nasdaq, as the Business Member, without a cap on Contra Party monthly trade report charges, the increase in Contra Party activity fees as a result of the growth in trade reporting activity over the past five years has been disproportionately higher than that of Executing Party fees. Therefore, the Business Member has advised that the proposed three-tiered fee discount for Contra Parties will help ensure that Contra Parties' fees are better calibrated relative to Executing Parties. Similar to the existing approach taken with respect to using Media/Executing Party trade reports to qualify for a fee cap, Nasdaq, as the Business Member, has determined to base the proposed fee discount for Contra Parties on Media/Contra trade reports in an effort to attract more Media reporting to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF relative to other trade reporting facilities.
Nasdaq also advises that it expects to earn a profit from the proposed rule change, but it believes that such profit represents a reasonable return on its expenditures in support of and investments in the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF, and that the extent of such profit will be subject to and constrained by competitive pressures. As the Commission has recognized, “[i]f competitive forces are operative, the self-interest of the exchanges themselves will work powerfully to constrain unreasonable or unfair behavior,”
Finally, FINRA believes that it is reasonable to make non-technical, clarifying changes to Rule 7620A. The proposed non-substantive changes to remove the reference to fees charged to Retail Participants and to clarify the Cap Qualifying Activity requirements for the fee caps are appropriate to make the rule more easily understandable. FINRA, Nasdaq, and all FINRA/Nasdaq TRF participants have an interest in FINRA maintaining rules for its trade reporting facilities that are clear.
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule changes will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Nasdaq, as the Business Member and operator of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF, collects all fees on behalf of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF. As discussed above, Nasdaq has observed an increase in off-exchange volumes and the associated cost of operating and improving the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF. Nasdaq also observed that today, participants predominantly identified as the Contra Party pay a disproportionate amount of the fees. Therefore, Nasdaq determined to make several adjustments to the schedule of fees and caps to better allocate the fees among the participants and align them with the costs of operating the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF.
As discussed above, pursuant to FINRA Rule 7620A, participants in the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF are currently subject to four categories of fees, each of which is applicable to transactions on the three tapes: (1) Media/Executing Party; (2) Non-Media/Executing Party; (3) Media/Contra Party; (4) and Non-Media/Contra Party. The rule also provides fee caps for participants for a particular tape during a given month, separately for Media/Executing Party, Non-Media/Executing Party, Media/Contra Party and Non-Media/Contra Party trades. The level of the daily average number of Media/Executing Party trades determines a participant's eligibility to qualify for fee caps on the Media/Executing Party, Non-Media/Executing Party, Media/Contra Party, and Non-Media/Contra Party trade reports. Consider, for example, a non-Retail Participant averaging 10,924 Media/Executing Party trades, 21,279 Non-Media/Executing Party trades, 1,949 Media/Contra Party trades, and 16,741 Non-Media/Contra Party trades per day in a given month and tape. This participant meets the 5,000 daily trade volume of Media/Executing Party trades that qualifies it for the fee caps. The monthly charge on its Media/Executing Party trades would be capped at $1,430 (5,000 reports × $0.013 × 22), assuming 22 trading days in the month. In this example, the charges for Non-Media/Executing Party and Non-Media/Contra Party trade reports both would be capped at $1,430 because the volumes in both categories are higher than 5,000, while the charge for Media/Contra Party trade reports would be $557.41 (1,949 reports × $0.013 × 22) because the volume has not reached the cap size of 5,000. If the number of Media/Executing Party trades were below 5,000 in this example, then the charges on all categories would be calculated at a regular rate without a cap.
FINRA analyzed data provided by Nasdaq that shows fees incurred by 584 participants in at least one month of 2023. On average, 505 participants paid a fee each month to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF either as an Executing Party or Contra Party in at least one of Tape A, B, and C securities.
The proposed rule change entails several changes to the fee and cap structure. The potential impact of each proposed change is discussed below.
Nasdaq has determined to raise the threshold for the Cap Qualifying Activity—
For the purpose of estimating the impacts of the proposed rule change, FINRA used monthly trade reporting volumes and fees data provided by Nasdaq from January through December of 2023 to calculate the projected fees assuming the reporting behavior would be the same as the 2023 data. Under the proposed rule change, 31 participants could expect an increase in costs on both Executing Party and Contra Party trade reporting activity (increase of $11,531, or 68 percent, on average monthly); seven participants could expect an increase in costs on Executing Party trade reporting activity (increase of $5,279, or 73 percent, on average monthly) and no change in costs on Contra Party activity; 11 participants could expect a decrease in costs on Contra Party trade reporting activity (decrease of $18,562, or 18 percent, on average monthly) because they would qualify for the proposed tiered
The proposed fee structure is likely to reduce the gap in trade reporting fees between participants predominantly reporting as an Executing Party and those predominantly reporting as a Contra Party. Across all participants, the effective cost per Executing Party trade report would increase by 52 percent, from 0.053 cents to 0.080 cents per report. The effective cost per Contra Party trade report would decline by one percent, from 0.415 cents to 0.412 cents per report. In 2023, a Contra Party, on average, paid approximately eight times as much ($0.00415/$0.00053) as an Executing Party for each trade report. If the proposed fee structure were in effect in 2023, the ratio would have been approximately five times ($0.00412/$0.00080).
Besides the fees that are measurable, the proposed fee structure could potentially deliver long term economic benefits for its participants that cannot easily be estimated. Specifically, the proposed fee structure would allow Nasdaq to more effectively cover the rising operating costs associated with increased volumes, as well as improve the functionality and service of the reporting facility, such as potentially better processing speed to enable quicker transmission and dissemination of trade reports.
FINRA cannot estimate whether the proposed fee structure would deliver a net benefit or cost to participants and investors in the long term, as some of the economic benefits discussed above are not quantifiable. Additionally, FINRA notes that the proposed fee and fee cap changes occur within the context of a competitive environment in which multiple trade reporting facilities vie for market share. If any existing or prospective participant in either FINRA/Nasdaq TRF determines that the new fees or fee cap thresholds are too high or are unfavorable relative to fees and fee cap programs applicable to the FINRA/NYSE TRF, such participants may choose to report to the FINRA/NYSE TRF or the ADF in lieu of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF. Firms would continue reporting to FINRA/Nasdaq TRFs to the extent that they find the net cost of reporting to FINRA/Nasdaq TRF relative to reporting to other facilities preferable.
FINRA does not know how the proposed rule change would affect competing facilities, which in part determines market competition and prices for trade reporting in the long run. Should the long-run equilibrium cost of reporting off-exchange trades to any available facility, including the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF, the FINRA/NYSE TRF or the ADF, rise in a competitive market, firms could potentially choose to pass the costs to investors.
No other alternatives were considered for the proposed rule change.
No written comments were solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Article 7, Rule 11 (Fixing and Paying Fees and Charges) to permit direct debiting of undisputed or final fees or other sums due the Exchange by Participants and Participant Firms with one or more Trading Permits and each applicant for a Trading Permit. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Article 7, Rule 11 (Fixing and Paying Fees and Charges) to permit direct debiting of undisputed or final fees or other sums due the Exchange by Participants and Participant Firms with one or more Trading Permits and each applicant for a Trading Permit.
Article 7, Rule 11 currently provides that the Exchange may fix the fees and other charges payable by a Participant in such amount as the Exchange deems necessary. Article 7, Rule 11 further provides that fees and charges shall be payable in accordance with the Exchange's schedule of fees and charges.
The Exchange proposes to require that Participants and Participant Firms that hold a Trading Permit, and each applicant for a Trading Permit, provide one or more clearing account numbers that correspond to an account(s) at the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) for purposes of permitting the Exchange to collect through direct debit any undisputed or final fees and/or other sums due to the Exchange. The Exchange would, however, permit a Participant, Participant Firm or applicant for a Trading Permit to opt-out of the requirement to provide NSCC clearing account numbers and establish alternative payment arrangements. In addition, consistent with current Article 7, Rule 12, the proposed change would not apply to disciplinary fines or monetary sanctions governed by Rule 10.8320. The proposed rule would also not apply to regulatory fees related to the Central Registration Depository (“CRD system”), which are collected by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”).
Under the proposal, the Exchange would send a monthly invoice to each Participant and Participant Firm, generally on the 5th business day of each month as is currently the practice, for the debit amount due to the Exchange for the prior month. The Exchange would also send files to NSCC each month by the 11th business day of the month in order to initiate the debit of the amount due to the Exchange as provided for in the prior month's invoice. The Exchange anticipates that NSCC will process the debits on the day it receives the file or the following business day. Because Participants and Participant Firms would be provided with an invoice approximately 1 week before the debit date, Participants and Participant Firms will have adequate time to contact the Exchange with any questions concerning the invoice. If a Participant or Participant Firm disagrees with the invoice in whole or in part, the Exchange would not commence the debit for the disputed amount until the dispute is resolved. Specifically, the Exchange would not include the disputed amount (or the entire invoice if it is not feasible to identify the disputed amounts) in the NSCC debit amount where the Participant or Participant Firm provides written notification of the dispute to the Exchange by the later of the 15th of the month, or the following business day if the 15th is not a business day, and the amount in dispute is at least $10,000 or greater.
Following receipt of the file from the Exchange, NSCC would proceed to debit the amounts indicated from the account of the Participant or Participant Firm that clears the applicable transactions (“Clearing Participant,”
The Exchange believes that the proposed debiting process would provide an efficient method of collecting undisputed or final fees and/or sums due to the Exchange consistent
To effectuate this change, the Exchange would add the following text to Article 7, Rule 11(a) (italicized):
The Exchange shall fix the fees and other charges payable by a Participant in such amount as the Exchange deems necessary. Fees and charges shall be payable in accordance with the Exchange's
The remaining provisions of the current rule would remain unchanged.
The proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposal to debit NSCC accounts directly is reasonable because it would ease the administrative burden on Participants and Participant Firms of paying monthly invoices and avoiding overdue balances, and would provide efficient collection from all Participants and Participant Firms who owe monies to the Exchange. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the minimum time frame provided to Participants and Participant Firms to dispute invoices is reasonable and adequate to enable Participants and Participant Firms to identify potentially erroneous charges. In addition, the Exchange believes that the $10,000 limitation on pre-debit billing disputes is reasonable because it would be inefficient to delay a direct debit for a de minimis amount. The same $10,000 limitation is in place on exchanges that have adopted direct debit rules.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change would apply uniformly to all Participants and Participant Firms that have one or more Trading Permits and to all applicants for Trading Permits, and will not disproportionately burden or otherwise impact any single Participant or Participant Firm.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will create an intermarket burden on competition since the Exchange will only debit fees (other than de minimis fees below $10,000) that are undisputed by the Participant or Participant Firm and Participants and Participant Firms will have a reasonable opportunity to dispute the fees both before and after the direct debit process. In addition, Participants and Participant Firms will have a reasonable opportunity to opt-out of the requirement to provide clearing account information and instead adopt alternative payment arrangements.
The Exchange also does not believe that the proposal will create an intramarket burden on competition, since the proposed direct debit process will be applied equally to all Participants and Participant Firms. Moreover, other exchanges utilize a similar process which the Exchange believes is generally familiar to Participants and Participant Firms. Consequently, the Exchange does not believe that the proposal raises any new or novel issues that have not been previously considered by the Commission in connection with direct debit and billing policies of other exchanges. Further, this proposal is expected to provide a cost savings to the Exchange in that it would alleviate administrative processes related to the collection of monies owed to the Exchange. In addition, the debiting process would mitigate against Participant and Participant Firm accounts becoming overdue.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Small Business Administration.
30-Day notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB procedures, SBA is publishing this notice to allow all interested member of the public an additional 30 days to provide comments on the proposed collection of information.
Submit comments on or before July 15, 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
This collection is essential to the Agency's mission because if SBA designates an area as a Governor-designated covered area, based on the information provided by the State Governor, additional small businesses may become eligible for certification as HUBZone small business concerns, which in turn will provide them with more contracting opportunities. These additional contracting opportunities create incentives for individuals to start small businesses and allow existing small businesses to grow. SBA has taken all
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.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Texas (FEMA-4781-DR), dated 05/23/2024.
Issued on 06/07/2024.
Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Texas, dated 05/23/2024, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 8.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-4781-DR), dated 05/17/2024.
Issued on 06/08/2024.
Vanessa Morgan, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Texas, dated 05/17/2024, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 6.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-4781-DR), dated 05/17/2024.
Issued on 06/07/2024.
Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Texas, dated 05/17/2024, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 7.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-4781-DR), dated 05/17/2024.
Issued on 06/07/2024.
Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Texas, dated 05/17/2024, is hereby amended to update the incident period for this disaster as beginning 04/26/2024 and continuing through 06/05/2024.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 2.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Texas (FEMA-4781-DR), dated 05/23/2024.
Issued on 06/07/2024.
Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Texas, dated 05/23/2024 is hereby amended to update the incident period for this disaster as beginning 04/26/2024 and continuing through 06/05/2024.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Arkansas (FEMA-4788-DR), dated 05/30/2024.
Issued on 06/05/2024.
Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Arkansas, dated 05/30/2024, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby
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,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by July 15, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Brian Konie by email at:
FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 70-1B with Change 1, Outdoor Laser Operations, provides information for those proponents planning to conduct outdoor laser operations that may affect aircraft operations in the United States (U.S.) National Airspace System (NAS).
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review and approval and invites public comment. This notice announces that FMCSA intends to use quantitative data collection techniques through a self-administered online survey to understand CMV drivers' perceptions and behaviors regarding safety belt usage and road safety.
Comments on this notice must be received on or before August 12, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-2024-0091 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
Brian Ronk, Marketing Specialist, Office of Outreach and Education, DOT, FMCSA, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
All submissions must include the Agency name and docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments, see the Public Participation heading below. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2024-0091), indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. 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 FMCSA can contact you if there are 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
Comments received after the comment closing date will be included in the docket and will be considered to the extent practicable.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Existing data on the usage of safety belts and perceptions related to road safety do not capture the diversity of different types of commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers in a post-coronavirus disease 2019 national emergency landscape. Understanding safety belt usage and perceptions of road safety among CMV drivers will assist FMCSA in gauging emerging trends among this cohort and will inform future messaging and communication efforts targeting CMV drivers.
Eligible participants are self-identified CMV drivers residing in the United States with internet access. The collection is an online voluntary survey, with a low burden for respondents and a low cost for the Federal Government. The collection is non-controversial and does not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies. The results are not intended to be disseminated to the public, and the information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions. The collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the future. Personally identifiable information is not being collected. There are no gifts or payment incentives (
Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the information collection request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review and approval and invites public comment. FMCSA requests approval to renew an ICR titled, “Safe Driver Apprenticeship Pilot Program.” This ICR was previously approved under emergency procedures on April 4, 2024, and expires on September 30, 2024. The ICR is necessary for FMCSA to continue data collection under a pilot program which seeks to determine the safety impacts of allowing 18- to 20-year-old commercial driver's license (CDL) holders to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The ICR covers data collected on drivers and carriers participating in the pilot program.
Comments on this notice must be received on or before August 12, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2024-0097 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
Nicole Michel, Mathematical Statistician, Research Division, DOT, FMCSA, West Building, 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; 202-366-4354;
All submissions must include the Agency name and docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments, see the Public Participation heading below. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2024
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
Comments received after the comment closing date will be included in the docket and will be considered to the extent practicable.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Current regulations on driver qualifications (49 CFR part 391.11(b)(1))
Section 23022 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), requires the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a commercial driver Apprenticeship Pilot Program. An
The first probationary period must include at least 120-hours of on duty time, of which at least 80 hours are driving time in a CMV. To complete this probationary period, the employer must determine competency in:
1. Interstate, city traffic, rural two-lane, and evening driving;
2. Safety awareness;
3. Speed and space management;
4. Lane control;
5. Mirror scanning;
6. Right and left turns; and
7. Logging and complying with rules relating to hours of service.
The second probationary period must include at least 280 hours of on-duty time, including not less than 160 hours driving time in a CMV. To complete this probationary period, the employer must determine competency in:
1. Backing and maneuvering in close quarters;
2. Pre-trip inspections;
3. Fueling procedures;
4. Weighing loads, weight distribution, and sliding tandems;
5. Coupling and uncoupling procedures; and
6. Trip planning, truck routes, map reading, navigation, and permits.
After completion of the second probationary period the apprentice may begin operating CMVs in interstate commerce unaccompanied by an experienced driver.
In addition to data regarding successful completion of the probationary periods, the IIJA requires collection of data relating to any incident in which a participating apprentice is involved as well as other data relating to the safety of apprentices. Additional information collected will include crash data (
The data collected will be used to report on the following items, as required by section 23022 of the IIJA:
1. The findings and conclusions on the ability of technologies or training provided to apprentices as part of the pilot program to successfully improve safety;
2. An analysis of the safety record of participating apprentices as compared to other CMV drivers;
3. The number of drivers that discontinued participation in the apprenticeship program before completion;
4. A comparison of the safety records of participating drivers before, during, and after each probationary period; and
5. A comparison of each participating driver's average on-duty time, driving time, and time spent away from home terminal before, during, and after each probationary period.
FMCSA will monitor the monthly data being reported by the motor carriers and will identify drivers or carriers that may pose a risk to public safety. While removing unsafe drivers or carriers may bias the dataset, it is a necessary feature for FMCSA to comply with 49 CFR 381.505, which requires development of a monitoring plan to ensure adequate safeguards to protect the health and safety of pilot program participants and the general public. Knowing that a driver or carrier was removed from the pilot program for safety reasons will help FMCSA minimize bias in the final data analysis.
The statutory mandate for this pilot program is contained in section 23022 of the IIJA. FMCSA's regulatory authority for initiation of a pilot program is 49 CFR 381.400. The Apprentice Pilot Program supports the DOT strategic goal of economic strength while maintaining DOT's and FMCSA's commitment to safety.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024 (Pub. L. 118-42) revised FMCSA's authority regarding the Safe Driver Apprenticeship Pilot (SDAP) Program. Section 422 of that Act states that FMCSA may not require the use of inward facing cameras or require a motor carrier to register an apprenticeship program with the Department of Labor as a condition for participation in the SDAP program. As such, the application and monthly report forms have been revised to remove those two elements as mandatory requirements. However, the Agency will continue to ask carriers whether they use inward facing cameras and whether they have a Registered Apprenticeship program approval number and will give carriers the option of providing that information. Therefore, FMCSA does not expect to see any change in the number of respondents, responses, or the overall burden of this information collection. In accordance with the PRA and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.13, this information is necessary to the mission of the Agency and is needed prior to the ordinary time periods established for revision of an approved collection of information (found within 5 CFR 1320).
Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) invites public comments on our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed collection OMB 2133-0029 (Schedule of Current Orderbook Construction) is used to collect information on the current construction orderbook at U.S. Shipyards. We are required to publish this notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before August 12, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. MARAD-2024-0076 through one of the following methods:
•
•
All comments received will be posted without change to
Elizabeth Gearhart, 202-366-1867, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, Email:
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Special Projects Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This meeting will be held via teleconference.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, July 10, 2024.
Antoinette Ross at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4110.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Special Projects Committee will be held Wednesday, July 10, 2024, at 11 a.m. eastern time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Antoinette Ross. For more information please contact Antoinette Ross at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4110, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or contact us at the website:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This meeting will be held via teleconference.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, July 9, 2024.
Matthew O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 or (510) 907-5274.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements (TAC) Project Committee will be held Tuesday, July 9, 2024, at 3 p.m. eastern time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Matthew O'Sullivan. For more information please contact Matthew O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 or (510) 907-5274, or write TAP Office, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612-5217 or contact us at the website:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Taxpayer Communications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This meeting will be held via teleconference.
The meeting will be held Thursday, July 11, 2024.
Jose Cintron-Santiago at 1-888-912-1227 or 787-522-8607.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee will be held Thursday, July 11, 2024, at 1 p.m. eastern time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Jose Cintron-Santiago. For more information, please contact Jose Cintron-Santiago at 1-888-912-1227 or 787-522-8607, or write TAP Office, 48 Carr 165 Suite 2000, Guaynabo, PR 00968-8000 or contact us at the website:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Toll-Free Phone Lines Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This meeting will be held via teleconference.
The meeting will be held Thursday, July 11, 2024.
Kelvin Johnson at 1-888-912-1227 or 504-202-9679.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Lines Project Committee will be held Thursday, July 11, 2024, at 4 p.m. eastern time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Kelvin Johnson. For more information, please contact Kelvin Johnson at 1-888-912-1227 or 504-202-9679, or write TAP Office, 1555 Poydras Street, Suite 12 New Orleans, LA 70112 or contact us at the website:
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to by clicking on the following link
VA PRA information: Maribel Aponte, (202) 461-8900,
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice by clicking on the following link
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
Pursuant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Significant New Alternatives Policy program, this action lists several substitutes as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for retail food refrigeration, commercial ice machines, industrial process refrigeration, cold storage warehouses, and ice skating rinks. Through this action, EPA is incorporating by reference standards which establish requirements for commercial refrigerating appliances and commercial ice machines, safe use of flammable refrigerants, and safe design, construction, installation, and operation of refrigeration systems. This action also exempts propane, in the refrigerated food processing and dispensing end-use, from the prohibition under the Clean Air Act (CAA) on knowingly venting, releasing, or disposing of substitute refrigerants in the course of maintaining, servicing, repairing or disposing of an appliance or industrial process refrigeration, as the Administrator is determining, on the basis of existing evidence, that such venting, release, or disposal of this substance in this end-use does not pose a threat to the environment.
This rule is effective July 15, 2024. The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 15, 2024. The incorporation by reference of certain other material listed in the rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 21, 2012 (76 FR 78832), May 11, 2015 (79 FR 19454), and January 3, 2017 (81 FR 86778).
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0043. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Perrin Krisko, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Protection (Mail Code 6205A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-2328; email address:
EPA is finalizing new and revised listings after its evaluation of human health and environmental information for these substitutes under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. The Agency is finalizing action on new and revised listings in the refrigeration and air conditioning (AC) sector based on the information that EPA has included in the docket. This final action provides new refrigerant options, thereby increasing flexibility for industry, in specific uses.
This action lists new alternatives for the refrigeration and AC sector. Specifically, EPA is:
• Listing hydrofluoroolefin (HFO)-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in new retail food refrigeration equipment (
• Listing R-454A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in new remote condensing units and supermarket systems;
• Listing R-290 (propane) as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in new refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment and revising the existing use conditions for R-290 in new stand-alone units.
• Listing HFO-1234yf, R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in new commercial ice machines;
• Listing hydrofluorocarbon (HFC)-32, R-454A, and R-454B as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in new commercial ice machines with a remote compressor, for batch-type self-contained automatic commercial ice machines with a harvest rate above 1,000 lb ice per 24 hours, and for continuous type self-contained automatic commercial ice machines with a harvest rate above 1,200 lb ice per 24 hours;
• Revising the existing use conditions for R-290 for use in new self-contained commercial ice machines;
• Listing HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in new equipment for industrial process refrigeration (IPR), including chillers and direct expansion IPR equipment;
• Listing HFC-32, R-454A, and R-454B as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in new equipment for IPR, including chillers and direct expansion IPR equipment where the temperature of the refrigerant entering the evaporator is less than or equal to −30 °C (−22 °F);
• Listing HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-454A, R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in new cold storage warehouses; and
• Listing HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in new ice skating rinks with a remote compressor.
In general, the final use conditions are consistent across the various substitutes and end-uses contained in this final
(1) These refrigerants may be used only in new equipment, designed specifically and clearly identified for use with the refrigerant. None of these listings provide for use of the substitutes in a conversion or “retrofit” refrigerant for existing equipment.
(2) These refrigerants may be used in equipment that a) is consistent with the requirements listed in the 2nd edition (dated October 27, 2021) of UL
(3) These refrigerants must be used with warning labels on the equipment and packaging that are similar to or match verbatim those required by UL 60335-2-89.
(4) Equipment must be marked with distinguishing red color-coded hoses and piping to indicate use of a flammable refrigerant and marked service ports, pipes, hoses, and other devices through which the refrigerant is serviced.
(5) Equipment must be marked with one or more flammability warning symbols—either that in Clause 7.6DV D1 of UL 60335-2-89, 2nd edition; that in Annex 1 to Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), 9th edition, for hazard category 1 flammable gases; or marked with both symbols.
Additional use conditions specific to particular end-uses may also apply and are discussed with each final listing. The regulatory text of the final listings, including the final use conditions and further information, appears in tables at the end of this document. The final listings will appear in appendix Y to 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 82, subpart G. The final revised listings for R-290 in new retail food refrigeration equipment (stand-alone units only) and in new self-contained commercial ice machines will appear, respectively, in appendices R and V to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G.
There may be other legal obligations pertaining to the manufacture, use, handling, and disposal of the listed substitutes that are not included in the information in the tables (
In addition, EPA is exempting R-290 used in the refrigerated food processing and dispensing end-use from the prohibition under CAA section 608(c)(2) on knowingly venting, releasing, or disposing of substitute refrigerants in the course of maintaining, servicing, repairing or disposing of an appliance or industrial process refrigeration, as the Administrator is determining, on the basis of current evidence described later in this preamble, that such venting, release, or disposal of this substance in this end-use does not pose a threat to the environment. This exemption is being finalized in the regulations under CAA section 608 at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1), which addresses the statutory prohibition and exemptions from it.
The SNAP program implements CAA section 612. Several major provisions of section 612 are:
Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, hydrobromofluorocarbon, and chlorobromomethane) or class II (hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC))
Section 612(c) requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes that it finds to be unacceptable for specific uses and to publish a corresponding list of acceptable substitutes for specific uses.
Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to petition EPA to add a substance to, or delete a substance from, the lists published in accordance with section 612(c).
Section 612(e) directs EPA to require any person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I substance to notify the Agency not less than 90 days before a new or existing chemical is introduced into interstate commerce for significant new use as a substitute for a class I substance. The producer must also provide the Agency with the producer's published or unpublished health and safety studies on such substitutes.
The regulations for the SNAP program are promulgated at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G, and the Agency's process for reviewing SNAP submissions is described in regulations at 40 CFR 82.180. Under these rules, the Agency has identified five types of listing decisions: acceptable; acceptable subject to use conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits; unacceptable; and pending (40 CFR 82.180(b)). Use conditions and narrowed use limits are both considered “use restrictions.” Substitutes that are deemed acceptable with no use restrictions (no use conditions or narrowed use limits) can be used for all applications within the relevant end-uses in the sector. After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may determine that a substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions in the way that the substitute is used are met to minimize risks to human health and the environment. EPA describes such substitutes as “acceptable subject to use conditions” (40 CFR 82.180(b)(2)). For some substitutes, the Agency may permit a narrowed range of use within an end-use or sector. For example, the Agency may limit the use of a substitute to certain end-uses or specific applications within an industry sector. EPA describes these substitutes as “acceptable subject to narrowed use limits.” Under the narrowed use limit, users intending to adopt these substitutes “must ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible” (40 CFR 82.180(b)(3)).
In making decisions regarding whether a substitute is acceptable or unacceptable, and whether substitutes present risks that are lower than or comparable to risks from other substitutes that are currently or potentially available in the end-uses under consideration, EPA examines the following criteria in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7): (i) atmospheric effects and related health and environmental impacts; (ii) general population risks from ambient exposure to compounds with direct toxicity and to increased ground-level ozone; (iii) ecosystem risks; (iv) occupational risks; (v) consumer risks; (vi) flammability; and (vii) cost and availability of the substitute.
Many SNAP listings include “comments” or “further information” to provide additional information on substitutes. Since this additional information is not part of the regulatory decision under SNAP, these statements are not binding for use of the substitute under the SNAP program. However, statutory and regulatory requirements so listed are binding under other authorities (
For additional information on the SNAP program, visit the SNAP website at
The statutory requirements concerning venting, release, or disposal of ODS refrigerants and substitutes for ODS used as refrigerants are under CAA section 608, and EPA's authority to promulgate the regulatory revisions in this action is based in part on CAA section 608. Section 608 of the Act, as amended, titled
Section 608(c)(2) extends the prohibition in section 608(c)(1) to knowingly venting or otherwise knowingly releasing or disposing of any refrigerant substitute for class I or class II substances by any person maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of appliances or IPR. This prohibition applies to any substitute refrigerant unless the Administrator determines that such venting, releasing, or disposing does not pose a threat to the environment. Thus, section 608(c) provides EPA authority to promulgate regulations to interpret, implement, and enforce this prohibition on venting, releasing, or disposing of class I or class II substances used as refrigerants and their substitutes, which we also refer to as the “venting prohibition” in this final
EPA has established regulations clarifying how the venting prohibition in section 608(c) applies to ODS and substitute (
EPA has exempted from the venting prohibition several hydrocarbon (HC) refrigerant substitutes, including R-290, in specific end-uses where the Agency also listed the substitutes as acceptable, subject to use conditions, under the SNAP program. See, for example, EPA's regulations issued May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29682), April 10, 2015 (80 FR 19453), and December 1, 2016 (81 FR 86778).
In establishing those exemptions, EPA determined that for the purposes of CAA section 608(c)(2), the venting, release, or disposal of such HC refrigerant substitutes in the specified end-uses does not pose a threat to the environment, considering both the inherent characteristics of these substances and the limited quantities used in the relevant applications. See,
The following list identifies regulated entities that may be affected by this rule and their respective North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes:
• Plumbing, Heating, and Air Conditioning Contractors (NAICS 238220)
• All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS 325199)
• Air Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 333415)
• Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS 423740)
• Recyclable Material Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS 423930)
• Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience) Stores (NAICS 445110)
• Convenience Stores (NAICS 445120)
• Limited-Service Restaurants (NAICS 722211)
• Appliance Repair and Maintenance (NAICS 811412)
This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. To determine whether your facility, company, business, or organization could be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the regulations at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G, and these revisions. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
The following acronyms and abbreviations are used in the preamble of this document:
This section of the preamble describes EPA's final listings for certain refrigerants in specific end-uses, including final use restrictions. In addition, this section provides responses to comments EPA received on the proposed listings during the public comment period for the proposed rule (May 24, 2023). The regulatory text for new listings is codified in appendix Y of 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. The regulatory text for two revised listings is codified in appendices R and V of 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. The final regulatory text contains listing decisions for the end-uses discussed throughout this section.
This final rule lists HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in all end-use categories under retail food refrigeration (
EPA is finalizing several use conditions for these end-use categories that are in common with those finalized for other end-uses (retail food refrigeration, commercial ice machines, IPR, cold storage warehouses, and ice skating rinks with a remote compressor) discussed elsewhere in this final rule. Because of this similarity, EPA discusses the use conditions that apply to all five end-uses in detail in section II.H of this preamble. Briefly summarized, the common use conditions that EPA is finalizing are: restricting the use of each refrigerant to new equipment that is specifically designed and clearly marked for that refrigerant; use consistent with ASHRAE 15-2022 and with UL 60335-2-89 (with certain exceptions),
For use of these substitutes in retail food refrigeration equipment, EPA is also finalizing the use condition that these refrigerants may only be used in commercial refrigeration equipment that meets the requirements listed in the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 15-2022 “Safety Standard for Refrigeration Systems” (hereafter “ASHRAE 15-2022”). In cases where the final rule includes requirements that are different than those of ASHRAE 15-2022, EPA is finalizing that the appliance needs to meet the requirements of this rule in addition to the requirements in ASHRAE 15-2022. This additional use condition is discussed further in section II.A.4 of this preamble.
For R-454A in supermarkets and remote condensing units, EPA is finalizing an additional use condition that this substitute may only be used in equipment with a refrigerant charge capacity less than 200 pounds or in the high-temperature side of a cascade system.
Retail food refrigeration, an end-use within the SNAP program, encompasses the equipment used for storing and displaying (generally for sale) food and beverages at different temperatures necessary for the different products (
Retail food refrigeration is composed of four categories of equipment: stand-alone units; refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment; remote condensing units; and supermarket systems. EPA treats each of these four end-use categories as a separate end-use for purposes of our evaluations of the overall risk to human health and the environment compared to other refrigerants that are available or potentially available for the same end-use and for purposes of listing substitute refrigerants.
Stand-alone units are refrigerators, freezers, and reach-in coolers (either open or with doors) where all refrigeration components are integrated and, for the smallest types, the refrigerant circuit is entirely brazed, welded, or uses threaded fittings. These systems are charged with refrigerant at the factory and typically require only an electricity supply to begin operation. Such systems are used to chill and temporarily store perishable items for commercial sale, such as beverages and food.
As the name suggests, refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment dispenses, typically through a nozzle, and often processes a variety of food and beverage products. For instance, such equipment will process the product by combining ingredients, mixing, and preparing it at the proper temperature, while others function mainly as a holding tank to deliver the product at the desired temperature or to deliver chilled ingredients for processing, mixing, and preparation. Some may use a refrigerant in a heat pump, or utilize waste heat from the cooling system, to provide hot beverages. Some may also provide heating functions for melting or dislodging ice, or for sanitation purposes.
Refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment can be self-contained or can be connected via piping to a dedicated condensing unit located elsewhere. Equipment within this end-use category includes but is not limited to refrigerated equipment used to process and dispense beverages and food such as: chilled and frozen beverages (carbonated and uncarbonated, alcoholic and nonalcoholic); frozen custards, gelato, ice cream, Italian ice, sorbets, and yogurts; milkshakes, “slushies” and smoothies; and whipped cream.
Remote condensing units typically have refrigerating capacities ranging from 1kW to 20kW (0.3 to 5.7 refrigeration tons). They are composed of one (and sometimes two) compressor(s), one condenser, and one receiver assembled into a single unit, which is normally located external to the sales area. This equipment is
Typical supermarket systems are also known as multiplex or centralized systems. They operate with racks of compressors installed in a machinery room; different compressors turn on to match the refrigeration load necessary to maintain temperatures. Two main design classifications are used: direct and indirect systems. In the United States, direct systems are the most widespread. The majority of supermarkets in the United States use centralized direct expansion (DX) systems to cool their display cases.
Indirect supermarket system designs include secondary loop systems and cascade refrigeration. Indirect systems use a chiller
Refrigerant choice may depend on the refrigerant charge size of the equipment, desired temperature, system performance, energy efficiency, and health, safety and environmental considerations, and cost among other things. In addition to regulations pursuant to the SNAP program and the AIM Act, other Federal or local regulations may also affect refrigerant choice. For instance, regulations from OSHA may restrict or place requirements on the use of some refrigerants, such as ammonia (R-717). Building codes from local and State agencies may also incorporate limits on the types and amounts of particular refrigerants used.
The ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2022 “Designation and Safety Classification of Refrigerants” (hereafter “ASHRAE 34-2022”) assigns a safety group classification for each refrigerant which consists of two to three alphanumeric characters (
The refrigerants are also assigned a flammability classification of 1, 2, 2L, or 3. Tests for flammability are conducted in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E681 using a spark ignition source at 140 °F (60 °C) and 14.7 psia (101.3 kPa).
For flammability classifications, refrigerant blends are designated based on the worst case of formulation for flammability and the worst case of fractionation for flammability determined for the blend.
Using these safety group classifications, ASHRAE 34-2022 categorizes HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), HFC-32 and the refrigerant blends R-454A, R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A, which are discussed in this section of this rule, as being in the A2L Safety Group, while R-290 is in the A3 Safety Group.
HFO-1234yf and HFO-1234ze(E) are lower flammability single component refrigerants, and R-454A, R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A are lower flammability refrigerant blends, all with an ASHRAE safety classification of A2L.
HFO-1234yf, also known by the trade names “Solstice® yf” and “Opteon
Redacted submissions and supporting documentation for HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-454A, R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A are provided in the docket for this rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0043) at
HFO-1234yf and HFO-1234ze(E) both have a GWP of one.
HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), and the other components of the refrigerant blends, CO
None of the exemptions to the venting prohibition under CAA 608(c)(2) listed in 82.154(a)(1) apply to HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-454A, R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, or R-516A.
OSHA has established a Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) for CO
For new refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A have GWPs ranging from 140 to 150, higher than that of CO
For new remote condensing units and supermarket systems, R-454A, R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A have GWPs ranging from 140 to 237, higher than that of ammonia and CO
For new stand-alone units R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A have GWPs ranging from 140 to 150, higher than some of the acceptable substitutes in this end-use category such as CO
Information regarding the toxicity of other available alternatives is provided in the listing decisions previously made (see
The flammability risks with HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-454A, R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A in these end-uses, determined by the likelihood of exceeding their respective LFLs, are evaluated in the risk screens referenced previously. Based on those risk screens, EPA's view is that while these refrigerants may pose greater flammability risk than other available substitutes in the same end-uses, this risk can be minimized by use consistent with UL 60335-2-89, ASHRAE 15-
In addition, the refrigerants listed through this action have lower GWPs than most other refrigerants currently in use today, though EPA notes that this is expected to shift in the future as entities begin complying with the restrictions under the 2023 Technology Transitions Rule for new equipment. These refrigerants provide additional lower-GWP options for situations where other refrigerants with lower GWPs may not be suitable. Given the wide range of applications for retail food refrigeration, not all refrigerants listed as acceptable under SNAP will be suitable for the range of equipment in the retail food refrigeration end-use or in the four end-use categories within retail food refrigeration. In this context, listing additional refrigerants as acceptable under SNAP provides additional options and increases the availability of substitutes for the full range of retail food refrigeration equipment with lower-GWP refrigerants, which is anticipated to lead to lower overall risk to human health and the environment. Accordingly, based on EPA's evaluation of the information discussed above and consideration of overall risk to human health and the environment, EPA is listing HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in all types of retail food refrigeration equipment. In addition, to account for the challenges for finding lower-GWP refrigerants with higher capacity for remote condensing units and supermarket systems with moderate charge sizes and for cascade systems, EPA is listing R-454A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in remote condensing units and supermarket systems with a charge size capacity less than 200 pounds or for use in the high-temperature side of a cascade system.
This final rule applies to end-uses covered by UL 60335-2-89. This standard applies to commercial and industrial refrigeration equipment, including the SNAP end-uses of retail food refrigeration, commercial ice machines, IPR, cold storage warehouses, and ice skating rinks. ASHRAE 15-2022 also applies to these refrigeration systems.
UL 60335-2-89, as discussed in section II.H of this preamble, indicates that refrigerant charges greater than a specific amount (called “m
EPA is incorporating by reference ASHRAE 15-2022 and UL 60335-2-89 in use conditions that apply to use of the A2L refrigerants listed through this action in new remote condensing units and supermarket systems. Where the requirements specified in this final rule and ASHRAE 15-2022 differ, the requirements of this final rule apply.
A partial summary of ASHRAE 15-2022 is provided here for information only. This is not meant to be a full explanation of the standard or how it is applied; for additional detail, please consult the standard. ASHRAE 15-2022 specifies requirements for refrigeration systems, based on the safety group classification of the refrigerant, the type of occupancy where the system is located, and whether refrigerant-containing parts of the system enter the space or ductwork such that leakage in the space is deemed “probable.” “High-probability” installations are those such that leaks or failures will result in refrigerant entering occupied space. Occupancies are divided into six classifications: institutional, public assembly, residential, commercial, large mercantile, and industrial. Examples of these include jails, theaters, apartment buildings, office buildings, shopping malls, and chemical plants, respectively.
Sections 7.2 and 7.3 of ASHRAE 15-2022 determine the maximum amount of refrigerant allowed in the system, while section 7.4 provides an option to locate equipment outdoors or in a machinery room constructed and maintained under conditions specified in the standard. Section 7.7 of ASHRAE 15-2022 addresses the A2L refrigerants listed in this action when used in “high-probability” systems that are not for human comfort, including requirements for nameplates, labels, refrigerant detectors (under certain conditions), airflow initiation or other actions (if a rise in refrigerant concentration is detected), and other restrictions.
ASHRAE 15-2022 is undergoing continuous maintenance with publication of periodic addenda and is typically updated and republished every three years. Although there were additional changes to ASHRAE 15-2022 between issuance of the proposed rule and now, EPA was not able to review and seek comment on use conditions based on those more recent changes after publication of the proposal. EPA is therefore not including addenda or other changes made to ASHRAE 15-2022 after the date of the proposed rule.
EPA is finalizing an additional use condition for R-454A in supermarkets and remote condensing units. This refrigerant may only be used either in equipment with a refrigerant charge capacity less than 200 pounds or in the high-temperature side of a cascade system. The Agency is finalizing this use condition to allow use of R-454A less broadly than for the other refrigerants being listed for use in remote condensing units and supermarket systems because its GWP is higher than those of the other listings for these end-use categories (about 237, compared to one to 150). EPA's understanding is that there are two particular situations where use of refrigerants is likely to be more constrained to minimize risks to human health and the environment, and thus, additional refrigerant options may be helpful.
The first of those situations is where ASHRAE 15-2022 identifies a refrigerating system as having a “high probability” that leaked refrigerant from a failed connection, seal, or component could enter an occupied area. ASHRAE 15-2022 and UL 60335-2-89 effectively set charge limits for A2L refrigerants to less than 260 times the LFL (approximately 200 pounds for A2L refrigerants and ranging from roughly 120 to 250 pounds for the particular refrigerants listed in this rule) for applications inside a supermarket or convenience store that are open to the general public. In contrast, larger charge sizes could be used in “low-probability” locations where the general public is unlikely to come in contact with the refrigerant, such as systems used in industrial occupancies, outdoors, or in a machinery room with access restricted to store employees. Where the general public is unlikely to come into contact with any leaked refrigerant, there would be fewer space constraints and greater flexibility in equipment design, so refrigeration system designers can accommodate a narrower set of refrigerants. Conversely, where the general public is more likely to come into contact with any leaked refrigerant in an interior space, which are not industrial occupancies, refrigerant charge capacities of a system would be
The second situation where use of refrigerants is likely to be more constrained is for use in the high-temperature side of cascade systems used for supermarket systems and remote condensing units. As discussed in section II.A.1 of this preamble, “Background on retail food refrigeration,” each side
EPA is providing additional information related to these listings. Since this additional information is not part of the regulatory decision under SNAP, these statements are not binding for use of the refrigerant under the SNAP program. However, EPA encourages users of substitutes to apply all statements in the “Further Information” column in their use of these refrigerants. The additional information applies to multiple end-uses covered in this final rule. See section II.H.2 of this preamble for discussion on what additional information EPA is including in these listings.
In response to comments supporting approval of R-454A in additional retail food end-use categories beyond supermarket systems and remote condensing units, such as stand-alone units and refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment, EPA is not taking that action in this final rule because EPA did not propose to list R-454A and has not completed our consideration or analysis needed to reach a final decision whether to list this refrigerant in these other retail food end-uses. In response to the commenters' points about energy efficiency and capacity, these factors are not ones that are considered in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7). Moreover, EPA notes that under the final Technology Transitions Rule (88 FR 73098; October 24, 2023), refrigerants containing HFCs used in retail food refrigeration—stand-alone units are limited to those with a GWP less than 150 beginning January 1, 2025; thus, even if EPA were to list R-454A
This final rule lists R-290 as acceptable, subject to use conditions, as a substitute for use in one additional end-use category under retail food refrigeration (
This revision to the use conditions incorporates by reference a newer industry standard, changing the reference from Supplement SB in the 10th edition of UL 471, “Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers,” which was required in the earlier SNAP listing for R-290, to UL 60335-2-89. EPA is providing a transition period from the effective date of this final rule through September 29, 2024, during which stand-alone units manufactured with R-290 may follow either the earlier UL 471 standard or UL 60335-2-89. After the transition period ends, new stand-alone units manufactured with R-290 must follow UL 60335-2-89 for purposes of the SNAP program, unless the new stand-alone units remain essentially unchanged from an earlier model or design that was already UL-listed to the earlier UL 471 standard. Under EPA's understanding of these standards, if no design, manufacture, or other change is made to equipment that was certified to UL 471 before the sunsetting date, then the equipment may continue to be produced and used. To comply with the use condition, once a design change of any kind is made to equipment that has already been certified under UL 471, the equipment is required to be updated to UL 60335-2-89 requirements, including labeling.
Several use conditions finalized for these end-use categories are similar to those finalized for other end-uses. Because of this similarity, EPA discusses the use conditions that apply to all five end-uses in section II.H of this preamble. In summary, the common use conditions are: restricting the use of each refrigerant to new equipment that is specifically designed and clearly marked for that refrigerant; use consistent with ASHRAE 15-2022 and with UL 60335-2-89 (with certain exceptions), including testing, charge sizes, ventilation, usage space requirements, and certain hazard warnings and markings; and requirements for warning labels and markings on equipment to inform consumers, technicians, and first responders of potential flammability hazards.
In this final action, EPA is revising the existing listing for R-290 in new stand-alone units in appendix R to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G, and adding the new listing for R-290 in refrigerated food processing and dispensing units in appendix Y to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. The regulatory text contains revised listing decisions for new stand-alone units in appendix R, as well as certain other previous listings that EPA is republishing for purposes of formatting for the
See section II.A.1 of this preamble for background on the retail food refrigeration end-use and particularly for the stand-alone units and refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment end-use categories.
ASHRAE 34-2022 categorizes R-290 as being in the A3 Safety Group. See section II.A.2 of this preamble for further discussion on ASHRAE classifications.
R-290 is propane and has the formula C
EPA evaluated potential impacts of R-290 and other HC refrigerants on local air quality. R-290 is considered a VOC and is not excluded from EPA's regulatory definition of VOC (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. As described later, EPA estimates that potential emissions of saturated HC refrigerants, such as R-290 and R-600a (isobutane), would not have a greater overall negative impact on local air quality than other acceptable substitutes in this end-use category.
EPA has conducted multiple analyses of various scenarios to consider the potential impacts on local air quality if HC refrigerants were used widely.
In a less conservative analysis of potential impacts on ambient ozone levels, EPA looked at a set of end-uses that would be more likely to use HC refrigerants between now and 2030, including end-uses where they previously have been listed as acceptable and where they are acceptable under this final rule. For example, we assumed use of R-290 in refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment
EPA also has performed more recent air quality analyses, considering additional end-uses and HC refrigerants that have been listed acceptable more recently (
Because of the relatively minimal air quality impacts of R-290 if it is released to the atmosphere from the end-uses where it is listed as acceptable subject to use conditions and from the refrigerated processing and dispensing equipment end-use category, even in a worst-case scenario, we conclude that R-290 does not have a greater overall impact on human health and the environment based on its effects on local air quality than other refrigerants listed as acceptable in the same end-uses.
OSHA has established a PEL of 1,000 ppm as an 8-hr TWA for R-290. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet OSHA's PEL and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the manufacturers' SDSs, the final use conditions (including compliance with UL 60335-2-89), adherence to ASHRAE 15-2022, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and AC industry.
R-290's GWP of three is comparable to that of other acceptable substitutes for new refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment, including CO
EPA's risk screen for R-290 in retail food refrigeration,
Although the flammability of R-290 may be greater than that of other available refrigerants with an ASHRAE 1, 2, or 2L flammability classification in the same end-use, we found its flammability risk to be comparable to those of other acceptable substitutes, even under worst-case assumptions in this end-use category when following the final use conditions.
Based on the results of these analyses, EPA is listing R-290 as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment. R-290 has a GWP of three, lower than that of most other available alternatives for the same end-use category with similarly low toxicity. R-290 provides an additional lower-GWP option for situations where other refrigerants with lower GWPs are not viable, such as where equipment using CO
For refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment, EPA is requiring adherence to UL 60335-2-89 for equipment falling under the scope of that standard. Several of the use conditions for refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment are common to those finalized for R-290 in the commercial ice machine end-use as discussed in section II.D of this preamble. Other use conditions are common to all refrigerants and all five end-uses in this final rule. Because of this similarity, EPA discusses the use conditions that apply to all five end-uses in section II.H of this preamble. In summary, the common use conditions for all five end-uses are: restricting the use of each refrigerant to new equipment that is specifically designed and clearly marked for that refrigerant; use consistent with ASHRAE 15-2022 and with UL 60335-2-89 (with certain exceptions), including testing, charge sizes, ventilation, usage space requirements, and certain hazard warnings and markings; and requirements for warning labels and markings on equipment to inform consumers, technicians, and first responders of potential flammability hazards.
In section II.I of this preamble EPA is finalizing an exemption for R-290 used as a refrigerant in refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment from the prohibition under CAA section 608(c)(2) on knowingly venting or otherwise knowingly releasing or disposing of any substitute refrigerant in the course of maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance or IPR.
EPA previously listed R-290 acceptable, subject to use conditions, in new stand-alone units in SNAP Rule 17 (76 FR 78832, December 20, 2011). Those requirements are codified in appendix R to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. EPA provided information on the potential environmental and health risks of R-290 and the various refrigerants available at that time for use in this end-use category. EPA's previous risk screen for this refrigerant in this end-use category, based on the use conditions in that rule, is available in the docket for that previous rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0286).
R-290 has an ASHRAE classification of A3, indicating that it has low toxicity and higher flammability. In the presence of an ignition source (
The use conditions established in the SNAP Rule 17 for R-290 in new stand-alone units addressed safe use of this flammable refrigerant based on information available at that time and included the following: incorporation by reference of Supplement SB to the 10th edition (November 24, 2010) of UL 471 “Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers;” refrigerant charge size limits based on cooling capacity and type of equipment; and requirements for markings and warning labels on equipment using the refrigerant to inform consumers, technicians, and first responders of potential flammability hazards. EPA explained in that rulemaking that without appropriate use
EPA is finalizing the proposed use conditions that apply to R-290 in new stand-alone units manufactured on or after the effective date of this final rule. The updated use conditions finalized for use of R-290 in stand-alone units are common to those finalized for the commercial ice machine end-use in section II.D of this preamble, and others are common to all five end-uses in this final rule. Because of this similarity, EPA discusses the use conditions that apply to all five end-uses in section II.H of this preamble. For R-290 in stand-alone units, these use conditions in sections II.D and II.H of this preamble are the only revised use conditions EPA is finalizing—
EPA is finalizing the use conditions in this action, which apply to new stand-alone units on or after the effective date of this final rule. This final rule does not apply to nor affect equipment manufactured before the effective date of this action. The final regulatory text presents these different requirements as numbered listings in separate table rows, where the end-use and the effective time period during which the equipment is manufactured are in the left-most column, with the heading “End-use”; the specific requirements are listed as use conditions in the fourth column, with the heading “Use Conditions.” Under SNAP, EPA views equipment to be manufactured at the date upon which the appliance's refrigerant circuit is complete, the appliance can function, the appliance holds a full refrigerant charge, and the appliance is ready for use for its intended purposes. For stand-alone units (and most refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment), this occurs at the factory. New stand-alone units manufactured between February 21, 2012, and the effective date of the final rule that use R-290 are required to meet the use conditions in SNAP Rule 17 (which took effect February 21, 2012) and as listed in appendix R to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G (in listing 2), including the use condition incorporating by reference Supplement SB to the 10th edition of UL 471. Such products are permitted to be warehoused and sold through normal channels, even if they are sold after the effective date of this final rule. Stand-alone units using R-290 manufactured on or after the effective date of this final rule are required to meet the use conditions finalized and listed in the revisions to appendix R. Those use conditions allow manufacturers of new stand-alone units using R-290 to follow either UL 471 or UL 60335-2-89 from the effective date of this final rule and through September 29, 2024, which is the date when UL is sunsetting UL 471. On and after September 30, 2024, new stand-alone units using R-290 for any new equipment designs or models must meet UL 60335-2-89; for an unchanged model or design that was already listed by UL—that is, certified to meet the requirements of UL 471—the equipment can continue to be manufactured according to that standard's requirements.
EPA is finalizing use conditions allowing all new stand-alone units using R-290 to be manufactured consistent with Supplement SB of UL 471, up to and including September 29, 2024. Therefore, during the time between the effective date of this final rule and September 29, 2024, manufacturers may follow either UL 471, 10th edition or UL 60335-2-89, 2nd edition, depending on which standard the equipment was designed to. This transition date was in this rule's proposal in order to align with the industry standard sunsetting date for UL 471. It is EPA's understanding that since proposal, UL has discussed updating its effective date when UL 60335-2-89 replaces UL 471 to reflect a later continuing certification date. EPA is allowing manufacturers to adhere to either standard for this limited time because the Agency recognizes that manufacturers may need time to make necessary changes including to their product labels. The period during which manufacturers may follow either standard should provide sufficient time for manufacturers to transition from UL 471 to UL 60335-2-89 while designing and testing new models and designs. Beginning September 30, 2024, for the purposes of the SNAP program, newly manufactured stand-alone units of new models and designs using R-290 must meet the requirements of UL 60335-2-89. Newly manufactured stand-alone units of existing models and designs that are certified (
EPA also notes that we are continuing to apply without revision two existing use conditions, nor did we take comment on those two existing use conditions. The use conditions finalized in this rule that restrict the use of R-290 to new equipment specifically designed for this refrigerant, and that require red-colored markings on service ports, pipes, hoses, and other devices through which the refrigerant is serviced, repeat the existing use conditions for R-290 in new stand-alone units.
The revised use conditions EPA is finalizing for R-290 in stand-alone units are the same as or similar to the ones that exist today in appendix R to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G, for R-290 in this end-use category. The final requirements that R-290 must be used in new equipment only, and that new
Warning labels are required under EPA's use restrictions for R-290 in stand-alone units, and EPA is continuing to require them, although with some specific language changes. The finalized warning labels are similar to those already established as use conditions for the use of R-290 in stand-alone units. Using a common set of labels, similar to those from UL 60335-2-89, will aid in compliance and reduce burden for the industry, especially for a manufacturer that uses more than one refrigerant. EPA is finalizing that the labels must be provided in letters no less than 6.4 millimeter (
EPA is incorporating by reference a newer industry standard in the use conditions, including use of UL 60335-2-89, 2nd edition for equipment newly designed and manufactured on or after the effective date of this final rule instead of continuing to require Supplement SB of the 10th edition of UL 471. UL 60335-2-89 was developed in an open and consensus-based approach, with the assistance of experts in the refrigeration and AC industry as well as experts involved in assessing the safety of products. The revision cycle for the 2nd edition, including final recirculation, concluded with its publication on October 27, 2021. UL 60335-2-89 replaces the previously published version of several standards, including UL 471, which had already been published as a 10th edition by that time. EPA was aware of the continuing progress of UL standards to address flammable refrigerants. In SNAP Rule 23 (86 FR 24444, May 6, 2021), which listed a number of A2L refrigerants for use in the residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps end-use, we stated, “EPA understands that the standard we relied on in [SNAP] Rule 19 might `sunset' in the future. Therefore, we will continue to evaluate the market for the equipment addressed in that rule, including R-290 in stand-alone units, and whether to establish new or revised use conditions that reference UL 60335-2-89.” Today, we are finalizing such a change knowing that the standard to which such equipment is UL-listed will transition from UL 471 to the most recent standard, UL 60335-2-89, for newly designed and manufactured equipment as of September 30, 2024.
To allow time for manufacturers of stand-alone units to transition between the existing use condition using the 10th edition of UL 471 and the new use condition using UL 60335-2-89, EPA is allowing R-290 to be used in stand-alone units manufactured either following UL 471 or UL 60335-2-89 during a transition period. That transition period begins on the effective date of this final rule, July 15, 2024, and lasts through September 29, 2024. It is EPA's understanding that UL intends to sunset UL 471 on September 29, 2024, and EPA is coordinating with that sunset date. Further, based on public comments, EPA understands that UL allows newly manufactured equipment that remains unchanged from its previous UL-listed (certified) design or model to continue to follow an earlier standard such as UL 471 because the manufacturer has made no changes. EPA intends to follow this practice, as well, in this final rule. Beginning September 30, 2024, the use condition allows R-290 to be used in new stand-alone units that follow UL 60335-2-89, or for newly manufactured stand-alone units that are unchanged from the model or design previously UL-listed as meeting UL 471 10th edition. In addition, manufacturers must follow the set of use conditions that correspond with a specific UL standard (
Another revision to the use conditions is the limit on charge sizes. The existing use conditions from SNAP Rule 17 require the charge sizes to be calculated consistent with UL 471, with a maximum charge of 150 g allowed. The final revised use conditions for equipment newly designed and manufactured on or after the effective date of this final rule allow charge sizes calculated based on UL 60335-2-89, which allows charges of up to roughly 500 g of R-290 for open stand-alone units, or roughly 300 g for those with doors and drawers. These changes allow the use of R-290 in larger equipment than previously and provide more options for industry, while mitigating flammability or exposure risk and maintaining safety within a comparative risk framework.
Because of the differences between UL 471 and UL 60335-2-89, EPA performed a new risk screen for R-290 as a refrigerant in retail food refrigeration equipment, including stand-alone units.
EPA is providing additional information related to this final listing for R-290 in new refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment and the final listing for R-290 in new stand-alone units. Since this additional information is not part of the regulatory decision under SNAP, these statements are not binding for use of the refrigerant under the SNAP program. See section II.H.2 of this preamble for further discussion on what additional information EPA is including in these listings. This additional information is similar to, but not identical with, the additional information in the listing for R-290 in stand-alone units in SNAP Rule 17, which included additional
Several commenters provided input on listing R-290 as a substitute.
This final rule lists HFC-32, HFO-1234yf, and the refrigerant blends R-454A, R-454B, R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in new commercial ice machines. The listings for refrigerants HFC-32, R-454A, and R-454B are being finalized in this rule only for larger equipment—specifically, remote commercial ice machines, self-contained batch-type commercial ice machines with a harvest rate greater than 1,000 lb ice per 24 hours, and self-contained continuous-type commercial ice machines with a harvest rate above 1,200 lb ice per 24 hours; EPA is not finalizing listings for those three refrigerants for smaller commercial ice machines at this time.
Several use conditions finalized for commercial ice machines are common to those finalized for other end-uses. Because of this similarity, EPA discusses the use conditions that apply to all five end-uses in section II.H of this preamble. For commercial ice machines, those are the only use conditions EPA is finalizing. In summary, the common use conditions are: restricting the use of each refrigerant to new equipment that is specifically designed and clearly marked for that refrigerant; use consistent with ASHRAE 15-2022 and with UL 60335-2-89 (with certain exceptions), including testing, charge sizes, ventilation, usage space requirements, and certain hazard warnings and markings; and requirements for warning labels and markings on equipment to inform consumers, technicians, and first responders of potential flammability hazards.
In this final action, EPA is revising the existing listing for R-290 in new self-contained commercial ice machines in appendix V to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. The regulatory text contains listing decisions for the commercial ice machines end-use, as well as certain other previous listings that EPA is republishing for purposes of formatting for the
Commercial ice machines are used in commercial establishments (
Commercial ice machines can also be divided between batch-type machines (
R-404A has commonly been used in remote condensing commercial ice machines, while both R-404A and R-410A have been commonly used in self-contained commercial ice machines. Recently, there has been the introduction of smaller self-contained commercial ice machines that use R-290.
ASHRAE 34-2022 categorizes the refrigerants for commercial ice machines in this section as being in the A2L Safety Group. See section II.A.2 of this preamble for further discussion on ASHRAE classifications of these refrigerants.
See section II.A.3 of this preamble for further discussion on the identity, environmental, flammability, toxicity, and exposure information for HFO-1234yf, R-454A, R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A.
HFC-32 is also known as R-32 or difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5). R-454B, also known by the trade names “Opteon
HFC-32 has a GWP of 675. If the GWPs for the components of R-454B, HFC-32 and HFO-1234yf (GWP of one), are weighted by mass percentage, then the blend R-454B has a GWP of about 465.
Both of the components of R-454B, HFC-32 and HFO-1234yf, are excluded from EPA's regulatory definition of VOC (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) for the purpose of addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
Under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA and EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1), it is unlawful for any person, in the course of maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance or IPR, to knowingly vent or otherwise knowingly release or dispose of any substitute substance for a class I or class II substance used as a refrigerant in such appliance (or IPR) in a manner which permits such substance to enter the environment. EPA has established certain limited exemptions to this venting prohibition, as listed in 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1), but none of those exemptions apply to HFC-32 or R-454B.
AIHA has established a WEEL of 1,000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-32 and a WEEL of 500 ppm as an 8-hr TWA for HFO-1234yf, the components of R-454B. The manufacturer of R-454B recommends an AEL for the workplace of 854 ppm on an 8-hr TWA for this blend, as does ASHRAE 34-2022. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the AIHA WEELs and the manufacturer's AEL and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the manufacturers' SDS, the final use conditions (including adherence to UL 60335-2-89 and ASHRAE Standard 15), and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and AC industry.
HFO-1234yf has a GWP of one, comparable to that of R-290 and ammonia with GWPs of three and zero. R-454A, R-454B, R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A have GWPs ranging from 140 to 465, higher than some of the acceptable substitutes for new commercial ice machines and lower than those of other substitutes such as R-450A and R-513A, with GWPs of about 600 and 630. HFC-32 has a GWP of 675, higher than some of the acceptable substitutes including R-290, R-450A, and R-513A; however, the GWP of HFC-32 is lower than those of R-410A and R-404A, with GWPs of approximately 2,090 to 3,920, which are refrigerants that have typically been employed in larger systems. Our evaluation is that the characteristics of HFC-32, R-454A, and R-454B meet the technical needs of larger commercial ice machines, providing larger charge sizes, greater capacity and no glide, allowing for even formation of ice, while lower-GWP alternatives do not. For instance, R-513A and R-450A have lower capacity than HFC-32, and R-290 is restricted to smaller charge sizes (see section II.D of this preamble for further information). Remote appliances using A2L refrigerants, including remote condensers, may be either self-contained or field erected and may be factory or field charged.
Information regarding the toxicity of other available alternatives is provided in the previous listing decisions for new commercial ice machines (
The flammability risks of HFC-32, HFO-1234yf, and the refrigerant blends R-454A, R-454B, R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A in the new commercial ice machine end-use, determined by the likelihood of exceeding their respective LFLs, are evaluated in the risk screens referenced previously in this section. While these refrigerants pose greater flammability risk than other available, non-flammable substitutes in the new commercial ice machines end-use, this risk can be mitigated by use consistent with ASHRAE 15-2022 and UL 60335-2-89, required as use conditions in this rule, as well as recommendations in the manufacturers' SDS and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and AC industry. EPA is requiring use conditions to reduce the potential risk associated with the flammability of these alternatives so that they will not pose greater overall risk to human health and the environment than other acceptable substitutes in the new commercial ice machines end-use.
In addition, the listed refrigerants have lower GWPs than most other available alternatives for new commercial ice machines. The listing of these refrigerants provides additional lower-GWP options for situations where other refrigerants with lower GWPs are not viable, such as for use of HCs in systems with remote compressors or equipment requiring larger charge sizes, where equipment using CO
The use conditions identified in these final listings are explained in section II.H.1 of this preamble in greater detail.
EPA is providing additional information related to these listings. Since this additional information is not part of the regulatory decision under SNAP, these statements are not binding for use of the substitute under the SNAP program. While the items listed are not legally binding under the SNAP program, EPA encourages users of substitutes to apply all statements in the “Further Information” column in their use of these refrigerants. See section II.H.2 of this preamble for further discussion on what additional information EPA is including in these listings.
In response to comments related to the Technology Transitions Rule, as noted previously in this preamble, EPA agrees that there may be circumstances where there is little practical value in finalizing an acceptable listing for an alternative where the Technology Transitions Rule would restrict its use. However, that is not the situation here for this listing for R-454A with a GWP of 237, R-454B with a GWP of 465, and HFC-32 with a GWP of 675, for use in remote condensing and larger self-contained commercial ice machines. The Agency notes that the final Technology Transitions Rule categorizes self-contained commercial ice machines differently than in the proposed Technology Transitions Rule. EPA restricted refrigerants to those with a GWP of less than 150 for self-contained commercial ice machines with a harvest rate less than or equal to 1,000 or 1,200 pounds of ice per 24 hours (depending on whether the equipment was batch-type or continuous-type). Self-contained commercial ice machines with greater harvest rates are restricted from using certain higher-GWP HFC blends under that rule, but the refrigerants being listed in this final SNAP rule are not otherwise prohibited under the final Technology Transitions Rule. EPA did not propose, and is not finalizing in this action, a use condition restricting the use of those refrigerants that have a GWP of 150 or greater (
EPA is revising use conditions in the existing listing of R-290 as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in new elf-contained commercial ice machines established in SNAP Rule 21 (81 FR 86779, December 1, 2016). In this final rule, we are updating those use conditions to be consistent with the most recent U.S. national industry safety standard for commercial refrigeration equipment, including self-contained commercial ice machines, UL 60335-2-89. Among other things, these revisions will allow safe use of larger charge sizes of R-290 than under the previous use condition requiring an earlier standard, UL 563, which will allow for broader use of R-290 as an alternative in this end-use. Similar use conditions apply to other refrigerants with lower flammability in this SNAP action in section II.C of this preamble. The final use conditions are allowed for such equipment manufactured on or after the effective date of this final rule and do not apply to nor affect equipment manufactured before that effective date.
This revision to the use conditions incorporates by reference a newer industry standard, changing the reference from Supplement SA to the 8th edition, dated July 31, 2009, of UL 563, “Ice Makers” to UL 60335-2-89. EPA is providing a transition period during which self-contained commercial ice machines manufactured with R-290 may follow either UL 563 or UL 60335-2-89. After the transition period ends, new self-contained commercial ice machines manufactured with R-290 must follow UL 60335-2-89 for purposes of the SNAP program, except as noted below for models that remain essentially unchanged from their earlier UL certification to UL 563.
Several use conditions finalized for this end-use are similar to those finalized for other end-uses. Because of this similarity, EPA discusses the use conditions that apply to all five end-uses in section II.H of this preamble. In summary, the common use conditions are: restricting the use of the refrigerant to new equipment that is specifically designed and clearly marked for that refrigerant; use consistent with ASHRAE 15-2022 and with UL 60335-2-89 including testing, charge sizes, ventilation, usage space requirements, and certain hazard warnings and markings; and requirements for warning labels and markings on equipment to
In this final action, EPA is revising the existing listing for R-290 in new self-contained commercial ice machines in appendix V to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. The revised regulatory text contains listing decisions for new self-contained commercial ice machines in appendix V. EPA is also republishing certain other previous listings for purposes of formatting for the
See section II.C.1 of this preamble for background on this end-use.
ASHRAE 34-2022 categorizes R-290 as being in the A3 Safety Group. See section II.A.2 of this preamble for further discussion on ASHRAE classifications.
See section II.B.3 of this preamble for further discussion on the identity, environmental, flammability, toxicity, and exposure information for R-290.
Redacted submissions and supporting documentation for R-290 are provided in the docket for this final rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0043) at
EPA previously listed R-290 acceptable, subject to use conditions, in new self-contained commercial ice machines in SNAP Rule 21 (81 FR 86779, December 1, 2016). Those requirements are codified in appendix V to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. EPA provided information on the environmental and health risks of R-290 and the various substitutes available at that time for use in this end-use. Additionally, EPA's previous risk screen for this refrigerant, based on the use conditions in that rule, is available in the docket for that previous rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
R-290 has an ASHRAE classification of A3, indicating that it has low toxicity and higher flammability. In the presence of an ignition source (
The use conditions established in the 2016 listing for R-290 in new self-contained commercial ice machines addressed safe use of this flammable refrigerant and included the following: incorporation by reference of Supplement SA to the 8th edition (July 31, 2009, including revisions through November 29, 2013) of UL 563, “Ice Makers;” refrigerant charge size limits based on cooling capacity and type of equipment; and requirements for markings and warning labels on equipment using the refrigerant to inform consumers, technicians, and first responders of potential flammability hazards. Our assessment and listing decisions in SNAP Rule 21 (81 FR 86779, December 1, 2016) found that with the use conditions, the overall risk of this refrigerant, including the risk due to flammability, was not greater in this end-use than other substitutes that are currently or potentially available for that same end-use.
EPA is finalizing the proposed use conditions that apply to R-290 in new self-contained commercial ice machines manufactured on or after the effective date of this final rule. Several of the updated use conditions finalized for use of R-290 in self-contained commercial ice machines are common to those finalized for the stand-alone units end-use in section II.B of this preamble. Other use conditions are common to all refrigerants and all five end-uses in this final rule. Because of this similarity, EPA discusses the use conditions that apply to all five end-uses in section II.H of this preamble. For R-290 in self-contained commercial ice machines, these are the only revised use conditions EPA is finalizing. In summary, the common use conditions for all five end-uses are: restricting the use of the refrigerant to new equipment that is specifically designed and clearly marked for that refrigerant; use consistent with ASHRAE 15-2022 and with UL 60335-2-89 (with certain exceptions), including testing, charge sizes, ventilation, usage space requirements, and certain hazard warnings and markings; and requirements for warning labels and markings on equipment to inform consumers, technicians, and first responders of potential flammability hazards.
EPA is finalizing the use conditions in this action, which apply to new self-contained commercial ice machines manufactured on or after the effective date of this final rule. This final rule does not apply to nor affect equipment manufactured before that effective date. The final regulatory text presents these different requirements as numbered listings in separate table rows, where the end-use and the effective time period during which the equipment is manufactured are in the left-most column, with the heading “End-use”; the specific requirements are listed as use conditions in the fourth column, with the heading “Use Conditions.” Under SNAP, EPA views equipment to be manufactured at the date upon which the appliance's refrigerant circuit is complete, the appliance can function, the appliance holds a full refrigerant charge, and the appliance is ready for use for its intended purposes. For new self-contained commercial ice machines, this occurs at the factory. New self-contained commercial ice machines manufactured using R-290 between January 3, 2017, and the effective date of this final rule are required to meet the use conditions in SNAP Rule 21 (which took effect January 3, 2017) and as listed in appendix V to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G (in listing 1), including the use condition incorporating by reference Supplement SA to the 8th edition of UL 563. Such products are permitted to be warehoused and sold through normal channels, even if they are sold after the effective date of this final rule. Self-contained ice machines using R-290 manufactured on or after the effective date of this final rule are required to meet the use conditions finalized and listed in the revisions to appendix V. Those use conditions allow manufacturers of new self-contained commercial ice machines using R-290 to follow either UL 563 or UL 60335-2-89, dependent upon which standard the equipment was manufactured, from the effective date of this final rule and will last through September 29, 2024, which is the date when UL is sunsetting UL 563. On and after September 30, 2024, new self-contained commercial ice machines using R-290 for any new equipment designs or models must meet
EPA is finalizing use conditions allowing all new self-contained commercial ice machines using R-290 to be manufactured consistent with Supplement SA of UL 563, up to and including September 29, 2024. Therefore, during the time between the effective date of this final rule and September 29, 2024, manufacturers may follow either UL 563, 8th edition or UL 60335-2-89, 2nd edition, depending on which standard the equipment was designed to. This transition date was in this rule's proposal in order to align with the industry standard sunsetting date for UL 563. It is EPA's understanding that since proposal, UL has discussed updating its effective date when UL 60335-2-89 replaces UL 563 to reflect a later continuing certification date. EPA is allowing manufacturers to adhere to either standard for this limited time because the Agency recognizes that manufacturers may need time to make necessary changes including to their product labels. The period during which manufacturers may follow either standard should provide sufficient time for manufacturers to transition from UL 563 to UL 60335-2-89 while designing and testing new models and designs. Beginning September 30, 2024, for the purposes of the SNAP program, newly manufactured self-contained commercial ice machines of new models and designs using R-290 must meet the requirements of UL 60335-2-89. Newly manufactured self-contained commercial ice machines of existing models and designs that are certified (
EPA also notes that we are continuing to apply without revision two existing use conditions, nor did we take comment on those two existing use conditions. The use conditions that restrict the use of R-290 to new equipment specifically designed for this refrigerant, and that require red-colored markings at service ports, pipes, hoses, and other devices through which the refrigerant is serviced, are existing use conditions for R-290 in new self-contained commercial ice machines.
The revised use conditions EPA is finalizing for self-contained commercial ice machines are similar to the ones that exist today in appendix V to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G, for R-290 in this end-use. The existing requirements that R-290 must be used in new equipment only and that new self-contained commercial ice machines must include red markings at service ports, pipes, hoses, and other devices through which the refrigerant is serviced, are repeated in this final listing. The revised use conditions concern incorporating by reference the most recent U.S. industry standard for commercial ice machines and labeling requirements consistent with that new standard. Self-contained commercial ice machines using R-290 manufactured before the effective date of this final rule are not affected by the revised use conditions.
Warning labels are required under EPA's existing regulations, and EPA is continuing to require them, although with some specific language changes. The finalized warning labels are identical to those previously required as use conditions for the use of R-290 in self-contained commercial ice machines. Using a common set of labels, like those in UL 60335-2-89, aids in compliance and could reduce burden for the industry, especially for a manufacturer that uses more than one refrigerant. EPA is finalizing that the labels must be provided in letters no less than 6.4 millimeter (
EPA is incorporating by reference a newer industry standard in the use conditions, including use of UL 60335-2-89, 2nd edition, instead of continuing to require the standard Supplement SA of the 8th edition of UL 563 for equipment manufactured on or after the effective date of this final rule. UL 60335-2-89 was developed in an open and consensus-based approach, with the assistance of experts in the refrigeration and AC industry as well as experts involved in assessing the safety of products. The revision cycle for the 2nd edition, including final recirculation, concluded with its publication on October 27, 2021. The 2021 standard UL 60335-2-89 replaces the previously published version of several standards, including UL 563, which had already been revised into an 8th edition by that time. EPA is aware of the continuing progress of UL standards to address flammable refrigerants. Today, we are finalizing such a change knowing that UL is replacing the standard to which such equipment is UL-listed from UL 563 to the newer UL 60335-2-89 as of September 30, 2024.
To allow time for manufacturers of self-contained commercial ice machines to transition between the existing use condition using the 8th edition of UL 563 and the new use condition using UL 60335-2-89, EPA is allowing R-290 to be used in self-contained commercial ice machines manufactured either following UL 563 or UL 60335-2-89 during a transition period. That transition period begins on the effective date of this final rule and lasts through September 29, 2024. It is EPA's understanding that UL intends to sunset UL 563 on September 29, 2024, and EPA is coordinating with that sunset date. Further, based on public comments, EPA understands that UL allows newly manufactured equipment that remains unchanged from its previous UL-listed (certified) design or model to continue to follow an earlier standard such as UL 563 because the manufacturer has made no changes. EPA is adopting a similar approach, as well, in this final rule. Beginning September 30, 2024, the use condition allows R-290 to be used in new self-contained commercial ice machines that follow UL 60335-2-89 or in newly manufactured stand-alone units that are unchanged from the model or design previously UL-listed as meeting UL 563, 8th edition. In addition, manufacturers must follow the set of use conditions that correspond with a specific UL standard (
Another revision to the use conditions is the limit on charge sizes. The existing use conditions from SNAP Rule 21 require charge sizes to be calculated consistent with UL 563, with a maximum charge size of 150 g allowed. The final revised use conditions for equipment manufactured on or after the effective date of this final rule allow charge sizes calculated based on UL 60335-2-89, which allows charge sizes
Because of the differences between UL 563 and UL 60335-2-89, EPA performed a new risk screen for R-290 as a refrigerant in self-contained commercial ice machines.
EPA is providing additional information related to this final listing. Since this additional information is not part of the regulatory decision under SNAP, these statements are not binding for use of the substitute under the SNAP program. While the items listed are not legally binding under the SNAP program, EPA encourages users of substitutes to apply all statements in the “Further Information” column in their use of these refrigerants. See section II.H.2 of this preamble for further discussion on what additional information EPA is including in these listings. EPA notes that the additional information is similar to, but not identical with, the additional information in the listing for R-290 in self-contained commercial ice machines in SNAP Rule 21. EPA is finalizing additional information to that included in the listings for R-290 in self-contained commercial ice machines in SNAP Rule 21.
This final rule lists HFC-32, HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), and the refrigerant blends R-454A, R-454B, R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in new IPR equipment. HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), and the refrigerant blends R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A are being listed for all IPR equipment including both chillers and non-chiller—
Most of the use conditions finalized for the A2L refrigerants when used in IPR are the same as those finalized for other end-uses. Because of this similarity, EPA discusses the use conditions that apply to all five end-uses in section II.H of this preamble. In summary, the common use conditions are: restricting the use of each refrigerant to new equipment that is specifically designed and clearly marked for that refrigerant; use consistent with ASHRAE 15-2022 and
In addition to the common use conditions discussed in section II.H of this preamble, the following use condition also applies to HFC-32 and R-454B in IPR: these refrigerants may only be used in IPR: (1) For chillers or (2) for equipment that is not a chiller withe the refrigerant temperature entering the evaporator is less than or equal to −30 °C.
The following use condition also applies for R-454A in IPR: this substitute may only be used in IPR (1) for chillers, (2) equipment with the refrigerant temperature entering the evaporator less than or equal to −30 °C, (3) equipment with a refrigerant charge capacity less than 200 pounds and with the refrigerant temperature entering the evaporator higher than −30 °C (−22 °F), and (4) in the high-temperature side of a cascade system with the refrigerant temperature entering the evaporator higher than −30 °C.
The regulatory text of the final decisions appears in tables at the end of this document and is being codified in appendix Y to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. The final regulatory text contains listing decisions for the end-use discussed in this section. EPA notes that there may be other legal obligations pertaining to the manufacture, use, handling, and disposal of these refrigerants that are not included in the information listed in the tables (
IPR systems cool process streams in industrial applications, for example, machining of metal products, fermentation of beer, or operation of hydraulic circuits. The choice of refrigerant for specific applications depends on ambient and required operating temperatures and pressures. It is EPA's understanding that this type of equipment may fall under the scope of ASHRAE 15-2022. This type of equipment also typically falls under the scope of UL 60335-2-89, “Requirements for Commercial Refrigerating Appliances and Ice-Makers with an Incorporated or Remote Refrigerant Unit or Motor-Compressor” if it is not used in an industrial occupancy
ASHRAE 34-2022 categorizes the refrigerants listed for IPR in this section as being in the A2L Safety Group. See section II.A.2 of this preamble for further discussion on ASHRAE classifications.
See sections II.A.3 and II.C.3 of this preamble for further discussion on the environmental, flammability, toxicity, and exposure information for these refrigerants.
The redacted submission and supporting documentation for HFC-32, HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-454A, R-454B, R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A is provided in the docket for this rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0043) at
HFO-1234yf and HFO-1234ze(E) both have a GWP of one, comparable to that of R-290 and ammonia with GWPs of three and zero. R-454A, R-454B, R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A have GWPs ranging from 140 to 470, higher than some of the acceptable substitutes for new IPR equipment, including R-290 and ammonia, and lower than those of other substitutes such as R-450A and R-513A with GWPs of about 600 and 630. HFC-32, which EPA is restricting to use in chillers for IPR or in IPR equipment with the refrigerant temperature entering the evaporator is less than or equal to −30 °C, has a GWP of 675, which is higher than some of the acceptable substitutes including R-290, R-450A, and R-513A; however, the GWP of HFC-32 is lower than those of R-410A and R-404A, with GWPs of approximately 2,090 to 3,920, which are refrigerants that have typically been employed in chillers for IPR, but as of January 1, 2026 or January 1, 2028, depending on the temperature range, will be subject to restrictions in new IPR systems under the Technology Transitions Rule. In light of that upcoming restriction, EPA is listing HFC-32 and R-454B to provide additional lower-GWP, low-temperature refrigerants in these end-uses. This upcoming restriction, and the corresponding value of providing additional lower-GWP, low temperature refrigerants in these end-uses, are additional considerations that informed EPA's decision on this listing.
Information regarding the toxicity of other available alternatives is provided
The flammability risks with HFC-32, HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-454A, R-454B, R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A in the IPR end-use, determined by the likelihood of exceeding their respective LFLs, are evaluated in the risk screens referenced in this section. While these refrigerants may pose greater flammability risk than available substitutes in the new IPR end-use that are non-flammable, this risk can be mitigated by use consistent with ASHRAE 15-2022 and, if applicable, UL 60335-2-89, as required by our use conditions, as well as recommendations in the manufacturers' SDS and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and AC industry. We also note that other acceptable refrigerants in the IPR end-use have higher flammability and are classified in the A3 Safety Group, such as R-290, butane (R-600), and propylene (R-1270). EPA is finalizing use conditions to reduce the potential risk associated with the flammability of the alternatives so that they will not pose greater overall risk to human health and the environment than other acceptable substitutes for new equipment in the IPR end-use.
In addition, the listed substitutes have lower GWPs than most other available alternatives for the same uses. The listed refrigerants may provide additional lower-GWP options for situations where other refrigerants with lower GWPs are not viable, such as situations where sparks or flame might occur such that HCs are not suitable for use, or for systems with remote compressors or equipment requiring larger charge sizes, where refrigerant leaks are more likely to create greater flammability risk. Given the wide range of applications for IPR, not all refrigerants listed as acceptable under SNAP will be suitable for the range of equipment in the IPR end-use. To provide additional options to ensure the availability of refrigerants with lower GWPs for the full range of IPR equipment and, therefore, lower overall risk to human health and the environment, EPA is listing HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in IPR.
EPA is also listing the refrigerants HFC-32 and R-454B with a use condition restricting their use to chillers in IPR or in IPR equipment with the refrigerant temperature entering the evaporator is less than or equal to −30 °C. These refrigerants have higher GWPs than the other refrigerants EPA is listing as acceptable, subject to use conditions, but lower GWPs than many refrigerants typically used today in chillers for IPR, such as R-410A and R-404A, with GWPs of 2,090 and 3,290 respectively (but will be restricted as soon as January 1, 2026). These refrigerants also have lower flammability than HC refrigerants currently listed as acceptable in IPR. In light of upcoming restrictions under the Technology Transitions Rule, EPA is listing additional substitutes for use in these end-uses. The Agency expects that these refrigerants may provide additional, lower-GWP options for chillers for IPR, where greater volumetric capacity and higher operating pressures may be required to operate properly than for other types of IPR equipment (
EPA is also listing the refrigerant R-454A with a use condition that this substitute may only be used either in chillers for IPR, in equipment with a refrigerant charge capacity less than 200 pounds, in the high-temperature side of a cascade system, or in IPR equipment with the refrigerant entering the evaporator is less than or equal to −30 °C. This refrigerant may provide additional, lower-GWP options for chillers for IPR, where greater volumetric capacity and higher operating pressures may be required to operate properly than for other types of IPR equipment. R-454A may also address the additional challenges for finding lower-GWP refrigerants with higher capacity for non-chiller IPR equipment with moderate charge sizes and for cascade systems; hence, EPA is listing R-454A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in new non-chiller IPR equipment with a charge size capacity less than 200 pounds or for use in the high-temperature side of a cascade system. In addition, these refrigerants may provide additional, lower-GWP options for IPR equipment where the temperature of the refrigerant needs to attain temperatures less than or equal to −30 °C; fewer refrigerants have boiling points low enough to achieve these lower temperatures, and thus, EPA is also finalizing a listing for R-454A in IPR equipment with the refrigerant temperature entering the evaporator is less than or equal to −30 °C (with a boiling point of −48 °C) to provide additional options.
The final use conditions identified in the listings for all nine refrigerants are explained in the proceeding paragraphs and in section II.H.1 of this preamble.
EPA is finalizing the use conditions for HFC-32 and R-454B restricting their use to chillers for IPR or in IPR equipment with the refrigerant temperature entering the evaporator is less than or equal to −30 °C because these refrigerants have higher GWPs than many of the available substitutes in IPR (
EPA is finalizing the use condition for R-454A, restricting its use to chillers for IPR, equipment with a refrigerant charge capacity less than 200 pounds, the high-temperature side of a cascade system, or IPR equipment with the refrigerant temperature entering the evaporator is less than or equal to −30 °C. EPA is listing R-454A for use in chillers for IPR and in IPR equipment with the refrigerant temperature entering the evaporator is less than or equal to −30 °C for the same reasons as for HFC-32 and R-454B. The Agency is also finalizing this use condition to allow use of R-454A less broadly than for the refrigerants HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A because its GWP is higher than those other listed refrigerants for non-chiller IPR equipment (R-454A has a GWP of about 237, compared to one to 150).
EPA's understanding is that, in addition to the technical constraints for refrigerant in chillers for IPR, there are two more situations where use of refrigerants is likely to be more constrained, and thus, additional refrigerant options that reduce overall risk to human health and the environment may be helpful. The first of those situations is where ASHRAE 15-2022 identifies a refrigerating system as having a “high probability” that leaked refrigerant from a failed connection, seal, or component could enter an occupied area. UL 60335-2-89 effectively sets charge limits for A2L refrigerants to 260 times the LFL for applications inside an occupied space where people might be located. This amount is approximately 200 pounds, depending on the LFL of the particular refrigerant. In contrast, larger charge sizes in equipment meeting the requirements of ASHRAE 15 could be used in “low-probability” locations where the general public is unlikely to come in contact with the refrigerant, such as systems used in industrial occupancies, outdoors, or in a machinery room with access restricted to facility employees. Where the general public is unlikely to come into contact with any leaked refrigerant, there would be fewer space constraints and greater flexibility in equipment design, so refrigeration system designers can accommodate a narrower set of refrigerants. Conversely, where people are more likely to come into contact with any leaked refrigerant in an interior space, which are not industrial occupancies, refrigerant charge capacities of a system would be less than 200 pounds. In addition, in such public spaces there would be more space constraints, less flexibility in equipment design, and potentially stricter code requirements. EPA recognizes that these may be situations where R-454A can be used where those other refrigerants cannot, especially where space is constrained. Therefore, R-454A fills a gap in the stated end-uses where lower-GWP refrigerant alternatives are not as available, and R-454A's GWP of approximately 237 and similar toxicity and flammability profiles would pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment than other available refrigerants. Therefore, EPA is listing R-454A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for non-chiller IPR equipment with a refrigerant charge capacity less than 200 pounds (and with the refrigerant temperature entering the evaporator higher than −30 °C).
The second situation where use of refrigerants is likely to be more constrained, and therefore where EPA is listing R-454A, is for use in the high-temperature side of cascade systems used for non-chiller IPR equipment (and with the refrigerant temperature entering the evaporator higher than −30 °C). As discussed in section II.A.1 of this preamble, “Background on retail food refrigeration,” each side of a cascade system uses a different refrigerant that is most suitable for the given temperature range. Higher temperature systems, or the “high-temperature side,” have typically used HFCs as a refrigerant; however, it is technologically achievable and has become more common to use ammonia in the high-temperature side. For lower temperature systems, or the “low temperature side” of the cascade system, refrigerants with low boiling points such as R-744 can be used. Considerations for the choice of refrigerant on the high or low temperature side of cascade systems are influenced by many factors including, but not limited to, a refrigerant's toxicity and flammability, its temperature glide, and its suitability to lower temperature applications. There are a number of substitutes available for the low temperature side of a cascade system with GWPs lower than that of R-454A. However, using flammable or toxic refrigerants, such as ammonia, on the high-temperature side of a cascade system may be limited in certain circumstances (
EPA is providing additional information related to these listings. Since this additional information is not part of the regulatory decision under SNAP, these statements are not binding for use of the substitute under the SNAP program. However, EPA encourages users of substitutes to apply all statements in the “Further Information” column in their use of these refrigerants. See section II.H.2 of this preamble for further discussion on what additional information EPA is including in these listings.
The Agency is not at this time listing R-454B and HFC-32 as acceptable in all other IPR uses. We do not agree that commenters have demonstrated that other lower-risk, lower-GWP options are not available for other non-chiller IPR uses outside of the lower temperature applications described in their comments. We also note that upcoming restrictions under the AIM Act's Technology Transitions Rule will restrict the GWP of refrigerants used for non-chiller IPR to 150 to 700, depending on the temperature of the refrigerant entering the evaporator, the refrigerant charge capacity, and whether the refrigerant is used in the high-temperature side of a cascade system. Thus, regardless of EPA's consideration under the CAA SNAP program, R-454B and HFC-32 could not be used in all IPR applications; their use would be restricted in certain applications under the AIM Act's Technology Transitions Rule (88 FR 73098; October 24, 2023).
As noted, in response to comments, EPA is finalizing R-454B and HFC-32 as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in non-chiller IPR low temperature applications, specifically, equipment with the refrigerant temperature entering the evaporator is less than or equal to −30 °C. These refrigerants have lower boiling points, as discussed previously in the comparison to other substitutes in this end-use, than the other refrigerants listed in this rule. The Agency recognizes that IPR equipment is often highly specialized and designed specifically for cooling a particular industrial process, and that certain specialized applications may require refrigerants operating at evaporator temperatures of −40 °C or lower. Other, lower-GWP refrigerants may not be feasible for use in such lower-temperature applications. EPA further notes that the final Technology Transitions Rule similarly accommodated lower-temperature IPR applications by establishing a higher GWP limit for IPR systems with the refrigerant temperature entering the evaporator less than or equal to −30 °C. 88 FR at 73143.
In response to the comment comparing HFC-32 and R-454B to incumbent refrigerants, EPA notes that there are other acceptable refrigerants that reduce overall risks more than both HFC-32 and R-454B and the incumbent refrigerants in most DX IPR uses, such as ammonia, HCFO-1233zd(E), R-1224yd(Z), R-290, R-471A, and R-744. Thus, EPA does not agree with the commenter's assertion that the use restriction for this listing for R-454B and HFC-32 increases overall risk to human health and the environment. Several of these substitutes are non-flammable or are comparable in flammability to HFC-32 and R-454B, such as ammonia, HCFO-1233zd(E), R-1224yd(Z), R-471A, and R-744. Most of those refrigerants contain compounds that are not VOC or are excluded from EPA's regulatory definition of VOC (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Most have an ozone depletion potential of zero, comparable to HFC-32 and R-454B, with HCFO-1233zd(E) and R-1224yd having ODPs of less than 0.0004, and all have a GWP less than 150, compared to R-454B's GWP of 470 and HFC-32's GWP of 675. However, these lower-GWP refrigerants have boiling points that are too high to use in DX IPR equipment with the refrigerant temperature entering the evaporator less than or equal to −30 °C (−22 °F), as discussed above in this response.
This final rule lists HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), and the refrigerant blends R-454A, R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in new cold storage warehouses.
Several use conditions required for cold storage warehouses are common to those required for the other end-uses in this rule. Because of this similarity, EPA discusses the use conditions that apply to all five end-uses in section II.H of this preamble. In summary, the common use conditions are: restricting the use of each refrigerant to new equipment that is specifically designed and clearly marked for that refrigerant; use consistent with ASHRAE 15-2022 and with UL 60335-2-89 (with certain exceptions), including testing, charge sizes, ventilation, usage space requirements, and certain hazard warnings and markings; and requirements for warning labels and markings on equipment to inform consumers, technicians, and first responders of potential flammability hazards.
In addition to the common use conditions in section II.H of this preamble, the following use condition also applies to R-454A in cold storage warehouses: this substitute may only be used either in equipment with a refrigerant charge capacity less than 200 pounds or in the high-temperature side of a cascade system.
The regulatory text of the final decisions appears in tables at the end of this document and is codified in appendix Y to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. The regulatory text contains listing decisions for the end-use discussed in this section. EPA notes that there may be other legal obligations pertaining to the manufacture, use, handling, and disposal of the refrigerants that are not included in the information listed in the tables (
Cold storage warehouses, an end-use within the SNAP program, are refrigerated warehousing and are used to preserve meat, produce, dairy products, and other perishable goods prior to their distribution and sale.
Refrigerant choices depend on the refrigerant charge, ambient temperatures and the temperature required, system performance, energy efficiency, and health, safety and environmental considerations, among other things. The majority of cold storage warehouses in the United States use ammonia as the refrigerant in a vapor compression cycle, although some rely on other refrigerants. In addition to regulations pursuant to the SNAP program, other Federal or local regulations may also affect refrigerant choice. For instance, regulations from OSHA may restrict or place requirements on the use of some refrigerants, such as ammonia. Building codes from local and State agencies may also incorporate limits on the charge size of particular refrigerants. EPA understands that this type of equipment may fall under the scope of UL 60335-2-89, “Household and Similar Electrical Appliances—Safety—Part 2-89: Requirements for Commercial Refrigerating Appliances and Ice-Makers with an Incorporated or Remote Refrigerant Unit or Motor-Compressor” if it is not used in an industrial occupancy and that it always falls under ASHRAE 15.
EPA is listing HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-454A, R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in new cold storage warehouses.
ASHRAE 34-2022 categorizes the refrigerants for cold storage warehouses in this section as being in the A2L Safety Group. See section II.A.2 of this preamble for further discussion on ASHRAE classifications of these refrigerants.
See section II.A.3 of this preamble for further discussion on the environmental, flammability, toxicity, and exposure information for HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-454A, R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A.
Redacted submissions and supporting documentation for HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), and the refrigerant blends are provided in the docket for this rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0043) at
HFO-1234yf and HFO-1234ze(E) both have a GWP of one, comparable to that of HCFO-1233zd(E), CO
Information regarding the toxicity of other available alternatives is provided in the listing decisions previously made (see
The flammability risks with HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-454A, R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A in this end-use, determined by the likelihood of exceeding their respective LFLs, are evaluated in the risk screens referenced previously. In conclusion, while these refrigerants may pose greater flammability risk than other available, non-flammable substitutes in the same end-use, this risk can be minimized by use consistent with ASHRAE 15-2022 and other industry standards such as UL 60335-2-89-which is required by the use conditions in this rule-as well as recommendations in the manufacturers' SDS and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and AC industry. EPA is requiring use conditions to reduce the potential risk associated with the flammability of these alternatives so that they will not pose greater overall risk to human health and the environment than other acceptable substitutes in this end-use.
The listed refrigerants provide additional lower-GWP options for situations where other refrigerants with lower GWPs are not viable, such as for use of ammonia in systems with remote compressors or in locations where local regulations restrict its use, or where a lower pressure refrigerant like HCFO-1233zd(E) is not technically viable. Not all refrigerants listed as acceptable under SNAP will be suitable for the range of equipment in the cold storage warehouse end-use. To provide additional options to ensure the availability of refrigerants with lower GWPs for the full range of cold storage warehouses and, therefore, lower overall risk to human health and the environment, EPA is listing HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in all types of cold storage warehouses. In addition, to account for the additional challenges for finding lower-GWP refrigerants for cold storage warehouses with moderate charge sizes and for cascade systems, EPA is listing R-454A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in cold storage warehouses with a charge size capacity less than 200 pounds or for use in the high-temperature side of a cascade system.
The use conditions in the listings are explained in the preceding paragraphs and in section II.H.1 of this preamble.
This final rule applies to end-uses covered by UL 60335-2-89, including some applications in the SNAP cold storage warehouses end-use,
UL 60335-2-89 discussed in section II.H of this preamble indicates that refrigerant charges greater than a specific amount (called “m
EPA is incorporating by reference ASHRAE 15-2022, including all addenda published by the date of the proposed rule (May 24, 2023), in use conditions that apply to use of the listed A2L refrigerants in new cold storage warehouses. Where the requirements specified in this final rule and ASHRAE 15-2022 differ, the requirements of this final rule apply.
ASHRAE 15-2022 is undergoing continuous maintenance with publication of periodic addenda and is typically updated and republished every three years. Although there were additional changes to ASHRAE 15-2022 between issuance of the proposed rule and now, EPA was not able to review and seek comment on use conditions based on those more recent changes after publication of the proposal. EPA is therefore not including addenda or other changes made to ASHRAE 15-2022 after the date of the proposed rule.
EPA is finalizing as a use condition for the listing of R-454A in cold storage warehouses that this substitute may only be used either in equipment with a refrigerant charge capacity less than 200 pounds or in the high-temperature side of a cascade system. The Agency is finalizing this use condition to allow use of R-454A less broadly than for the other refrigerants being listed for use in cold storage warehouses because its GWP is higher than those of the other refrigerants (about 237, compared to one to 150). EPA's understanding is that there are two particular situations where use of refrigerants could be more constrained, and thus, additional refrigerant options that mitigate overall risk to human health and the environment may be helpful. The first of those situations is in what the industry standard ASHRAE 15-2022 identifies as a refrigerating system having a “high probability” that leaked refrigerant from a failed connection, seal, or component could enter an occupied area. An example of such a constraint is that ASHRAE 15-2022 and UL 60335-2-89 effectively set charge limits for A2L refrigerants to less than 260 times the LFL (approximately 200 pounds for A2L refrigerants and ranging from roughly 120 to 250 pounds for the refrigerants listed in this rule) for applications inside occupied areas. In contrast, larger charge sizes could be used in “low-probability” locations where people are unlikely to come in contact with the
The second situation where use of refrigerants is likely to be more constrained is for use in the high-temperature side of cascade systems used for cold storage warehouses. As discussed in section II.A.1 of this preamble, “Background on retail food refrigeration,” each side of a cascade system uses a different refrigerant that is most suitable for the given temperature range. Higher temperature systems, or the “high-temperature side,” have typically used HFCs as a refrigerant; however, it is technologically achievable and has become more common to use ammonia in the high-temperature side. For lower temperature systems, or the “low temperature side” of the cascade system, refrigerants with low boiling points such as R-744 can be used. Considerations for the choice of refrigerant on the high or low temperature side of cascade systems are influenced by many factors including, but not limited to, a refrigerant's toxicity and flammability, its temperature glide, and its suitability to lower temperature applications. EPA understands that use of flammable or toxic refrigerants, such as ammonia, on the high-temperature side of a cascade may be limited in certain circumstances (
EPA is providing additional information related to these listings. Since this additional information is not part of the regulatory decision under SNAP, these statements are not binding for use of the substitute under the SNAP program. EPA encourages users of substitutes to apply all statements in the “Further Information” column in their use of these refrigerants. See section II.H.2 of this preamble for further discussion on what additional information EPA is including in these listings.
EPA agrees with the commenter that CAA section 612(c) involves considering the overall risk to human health and the environment of a substitute compared to the overall risk of other available or potentially available alternatives. In the case of R-454A, the Agency considered that there are a number of refrigerants also being listed for the same end-uses, such as HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A, and that there are other acceptable refrigerants already listed in the same end-uses, such as R-717 and R-744, that pose comparable risk to overall human health and the environment, including similar ODP, low photochemical and insignificant smog impacts in the lower atmosphere, similar or lower flammability, and exposure levels evaluated to be below relevant toxicity thresholds, when compared to R-454A. R-454A has a slightly higher GWP than the other refrigerants listed above. EPA recognizes that there may be situations where R-454A can be used where those other refrigerants cannot, especially where space is constrained. Therefore, R-454A fills a gap in the stated end-uses where lower-GWP refrigerant alternatives posing less of a risk to human health and the environment are not as available. The situations mentioned by the commenter where the charge limits of UL 60335-2-89 do not apply are situations where space is not constrained, such as outdoors or in a machinery room, and therefore, where it is less critical to use a refrigerant with higher volumetric capacity, such as R-454A. Therefore, taking into account our overall evaluation of comparative risks, it is appropriate to list R-454A for certain equipment, where it is of comparable or lower risk compared to the currently or potentially available substitutes for that particular equipment
This final rule lists HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), and the refrigerant blends R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in new ice skating rinks with a remote compressor.
Several use conditions being finalized for ice skating rinks with a remote compressor in this rule are common to those finalized for other end-uses in this rule. Because of this similarity, EPA discusses the use conditions that apply to all five end-uses in section II.H of this preamble. For ice skating rinks with remote compressors, those are the only use conditions EPA is requiring. In summary, the common use conditions are: restricting the use of each refrigerant to new equipment that is specifically designed and clearly marked for that refrigerant; use consistent with ASHRAE 15-2022 and with UL 60335-2-89 (with certain exceptions), including testing, charge sizes, ventilation, usage space requirements, and certain hazard warnings and markings; and requirements for warning labels and markings on equipment to inform consumers, technicians, and first responders of potential flammability hazards.
The regulatory text of the decisions appears in tables at the end of this document and is being codified in appendix Y to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. The regulatory text contains listing decisions for the end-use discussed in this section. EPA notes that there may be other legal obligations pertaining to the manufacture, use, handling, and disposal of the refrigerants that are not included in the information listed in the tables (
Ice skating rinks, an end-use within the SNAP program, include those used by the general public for recreational purposes and also those for amateur and professional use (
For ice skating rinks, refrigerant choice depends on the refrigerant charge; ambient temperatures and the temperature required; system performance; energy efficiency; and health, safety, and environmental considerations, among other things. In addition to regulations pursuant to the SNAP program, other Federal or local regulations may also affect refrigerant choice. For instance, regulations from OSHA may restrict or place requirements on the use of some refrigerants, such as ammonia. Building codes from local and State agencies may also incorporate limits on the amount of particular refrigerants used. Acceptable substitutes in use today for new ice skating rinks include ammonia, CO
ASHRAE 34-2022 categorizes the refrigerants listed for ice skating rinks in this section as being in the A2L Safety Group. See section II.A.2 of this preamble for further discussion on ASHRAE classifications of these refrigerants.
See section II.A.3 of this preamble for further discussion on the environmental, flammability, toxicity, and exposure information for these refrigerants.
Redacted submissions and supporting documentation for HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E) and the blends R-454C, R-455A, R-457A and R-516A are provided in the docket for this rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0043) at
HFO-1234yf and HFO-1234ze(E) both have a GWP of one, comparable to or lower than that of other acceptable substitutes for new ice skating rinks, such as ammonia, CO
R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A have GWPs ranging from about 140 to 150 which are higher than that of other acceptable substitutes for ice skating rinks, including ammonia, CO
Information regarding the toxicity of other available alternatives is provided
The potential flammability risks of HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A in this end-use, determined by the likelihood of exceeding their respective LFLs, are evaluated in the risk screens referenced previously. These risk screens determined that because ice skating rink systems would be installed in locations with adequate space and/or ventilation in accordance with EPA recommendations and requirements, industry standards, and the installation and maintenance manuals for equipment using these refrigerants, significant flammability risk to end-users, personnel, or the general population is unlikely. In conclusion, while these refrigerants may pose greater flammability risk than other available substitutes in the same end-use, this risk can be minimized by use consistent with ASHRAE 15-2022 and other industry standards such as UL 60335-2-89-which is required by our use conditions-as well as recommendations in the manufacturers' SDS and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and AC industry. EPA is requiring use conditions to reduce the risk associated with the flammability of these alternatives so that they will not pose greater overall risk to human health and the environment than other acceptable substitutes in this end-use. In addition, EPA is limiting these listings to equipment with a remote compressor. Such equipment reduces the chances of fire and of exposure to the general public compared to refrigerants that are piped directly under an ice skating rink.
In addition, the listed substitutes have lower GWPs than most other available alternatives for the same end-use. The listed refrigerants may provide additional lower-GWP options for situations where other refrigerants with lower GWPs are not viable, such as in locations where local regulations restrict use of ammonia. Not all refrigerants listed as acceptable under SNAP will be suitable for the range of equipment in the ice skating rinks end-use. To provide additional options to ensure the availability of refrigerants with lower GWPs for ice skating rinks and, therefore, lower overall risk to human health and the environment, EPA is listing HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in new ice skating rinks.
The final use conditions identified in the listings are explained in section II.H.1 of this preamble.
This final rule applies to end-uses covered by UL 60335-2-89, including some applications in the SNAP ice skating rink end-use,
EPA is incorporating by reference UL 60335-2-89. This standard, as discussed in section II.H of this preamble, states that refrigerant charges greater than a specific amount (called “m
EPA is incorporating by reference UL 60335-2-89 and ASHRAE 15-2022 in use conditions that apply to use of the listed A2L refrigerants in new ice skating rinks. Where the requirements specified in this final rule and ASHRAE 15-2022 differ, the requirements of this final rule apply.
ASHRAE 15-2022 is undergoing continuous maintenance with publication of periodic addenda and is typically updated and republished every three years. Although there were additional changes to ASHRAE 15-2022 between issuance of the proposed rule and now, EPA was not able to review and seek comment on use conditions based on those more recent changes after publication of the proposal. EPA is therefore not including addenda or other changes made to ASHRAE 15-2022 after the date of the proposed rule.
EPA is finalizing a use condition that the six A2L refrigerants included in this listing may only be used in new equipment that includes a remote compressor. This is intended to ensure that these flammable refrigerants are only used away from the presence of ice skaters and other members of the general public. This would reduce the likelihood of exposure or leaks of the refrigerant near the general public and instead allow facility employees and trained technicians to control access to the refrigerant.
EPA is providing additional information related to these listings. Since this additional information is not part of the regulatory decision under SNAP, these statements are not binding for use of the substitute under the SNAP program. While the items listed are not legally binding under the SNAP program, EPA encourages users of substitutes to apply all statements in the “Further Information” column in their use of these refrigerants. See section II.H.2 of this preamble for further discussion on what additional information EPA is including in these listings.
As previously described, EPA is listing:
• HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in new equipment in stand-alone units, retail food remote condensing units, supermarket systems, and refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment;
• R-454A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in new equipment in retail food remote condensing units and supermarket systems;
• R-290 as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in new refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment;
• HFC-32, HFO-1234yf, R-454A, R-454B, R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in new commercial ice machines;
• HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-454A, R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for used in new IPR equipment and HFC-32 and R-454B, as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in new chillers for IPR and in IPR equipment with the refrigerant temperature entering the evaporator or the temperature of the exiting fluid less than or equal to −30° C;
• HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-454A, R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in new cold storage warehouses; and
• HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in new ice skating rinks with remote compressors.
In addition, EPA is revising the use conditions that apply to the existing listings of:
• R-290 as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in new retail food refrigeration stand-alone units; and
• R-290 as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in new self-contained commercial ice machines.
The use conditions (either as new listings or revisions to an existing listing) common to all listing decisions in this rule are: restricting the use of each refrigerant to new equipment that is specifically designed and clearly marked for the refrigerant; use consistent with ASHRAE 15-2022 and with UL 60335-2-89 (with certain exceptions), including testing, charge sizes, ventilation, usage space requirements, and certain hazard warnings and markings; and requirements for warning labels and markings on equipment to inform consumers, technicians, and first responders of potential flammability hazards. Additional specific use conditions are intended to allow for the use of these flammable refrigerants in a manner that will ensure they do not pose a greater overall risk to human health and the environment than other substitutes in these end-uses.
EPA is requiring that these refrigerants be used only in new equipment which has been designed to address concerns unique to flammable refrigerants. In other words, none of these refrigerants are being listed as acceptable to be used as a conversion or “retrofit” refrigerant for existing equipment. EPA is unaware of information on how to address hazards if these flammable refrigerants were to be used in equipment that was designed for non-flammable refrigerants. Given the flammable nature of these refrigerants, the fact that EPA is unaware of information to assess the risk if such retrofits were allowed, and because the refrigerants were not submitted to the SNAP program for retrofits, EPA has not reviewed them for retrofit applications and is requiring that they be used only in new equipment which has been properly designed for their use. This use condition does not affect the ability to service a system using one of these refrigerants once installed, including the adding of refrigerant or replacing components.
To ensure safe use of the listed refrigerants, EPA is incorporating by reference certain industry consensus safety standards in a use condition. Specifically, the Agency is requiring that the flammable refrigerants may be used only in equipment that meets requirements in ASHRAE 15-2022 and in UL 60335-2-89, 2nd edition (with certain exceptions). Exceptions include equipment that is outside the scope of UL 60335-2-89;
Section 1 of UL 60335-2-89 defines the scope of that standard. It lists both specific types of equipment that fall under the standard and equipment that falls outside the scope of the standard. Examples of equipment that are included within the scope of UL 60335-2-89 include refrigerated display and storage cabinets, refrigerated trolley cabinets, service counters, factory-assembled walk-in coolers and freezers, refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment, commercial refrigeration products with rated voltage up to 15,000 V, and commercial ice machines. Examples of equipment that fall outside the scope of UL 60335-2-89 include appliances using flammable refrigerant in transcritical refrigeration systems, commercial refrigeration products with rated voltage of 15,000 V or greater, motor compressors, household refrigerating appliances that fall under the scope of UL 60335-2-24, vending machines, and professional or commercial ice-cream machines. This final rule does not apply to these types of commercial refrigeration equipment that fall outside the scope of UL 60335-2-89. Commercial refrigeration equipment that falls outside the scope of
Under the existing SNAP listings, new stand-alone units using R-290 have been subject to a use condition to meet the requirements of Appendix SB of the 10th edition of UL 471. In this final action, stand-alone units using R-290 manufactured before the effective date may continue to be used under SNAP and will remain in compliance with the existing SNAP use conditions as long as they meet the applicable use conditions when they were manufactured. New stand-alone units using R-290 manufactured from the effective date of this final rule through September 29, 2024, must meet the requirements of either Appendix SB of the 10th edition of UL 471 or UL 60335-2-89, dependent upon which standard they were certified, to comply with the use conditions established in this final action. Similarly, new stand-alone units using R-290 that are manufactured on or after September 30, 2024, must meet the requirements of UL 60335-2-89, rather than the earlier UL standards, unless the new stand-alone units remain essentially unchanged from an earlier model or design that was already UL-listed to the earlier UL 471 standard.
Similarly, under the use conditions in the existing SNAP listings, new self-contained commercial ice machines using R-290 have been subject to the requirements of Appendix SA of the 8th edition of UL 563. In this final action, commercial ice machines using R-290 manufactured before the effective date of this final rule may continue to be used under SNAP and will remain in compliance with the SNAP use conditions as long as they met the applicable use conditions when they were manufactured. New self-contained commercial ice machines using R-290 that are manufactured from the effective date of this final rule through September 29, 2024, must meet the requirements of either Appendix SA of the 8th edition of UL 563 or UL 60335-2-89, contingent upon which standard the equipment was designed, to comply with the use conditions established in this final action. Similarly, new self-contained commercial ice machines using R-290 that are manufactured on or after September 30, 2024, must meet the requirements of UL 60335-2-89, rather than the earlier UL standards, unless the new stand-alone units remain essentially unchanged from an earlier model or design that was already UL-listed to the earlier UL 563 standard.
UL 60335-2-89 includes requirements for construction and system design, for markings, and for performance tests concerning refrigerant leakage, ignition of switching components, surface temperature of parts, and component strength after being scratched. UL 60335-2-89 was developed through an open and consensus-based approach, with the assistance of experts in the AC and refrigeration industry as well as experts involved in assessing the safety of products. Those participating in the UL 60335-2-89 consensus standards process have tested equipment for flammability risk and evaluated the relevant scientific studies. While similar standards exist from other bodies such as the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), we are relying on specific UL standards that are most applicable and recognized by the U.S. market. This approach is the same as that in our previous listing determinations for flammable refrigerants (
A summary of the requirements of the 2nd edition of UL 60335-2-89 as they affect the listed refrigerants and end-uses is offered here for information only and does not provide a complete review of the requirements in this standard. Please consult the standard itself for additional information.
The requirements in UL 60335-2-89 reduce the risk to workers and consumers posed by flammable refrigerants. UL 60335-2-89 limits the amount of refrigerant allowed in each type of appliance based on several factors explained in that standard. The standard specifies requirements for installation space of an appliance (
In addition to Annex 101.DVU, UL 60335-2-89 has a requirement for the maximum charge for an appliance using a flammable refrigerant, including A2L, A2, and A3 refrigerants. Additional requirements exist for charge sizes exceeding three times the LFL.
Systems with refrigerant charges exceeding certain amounts are outside the scope of UL 60335-2-89; however, national standards apply instead, namely, ASHRAE 15-2022. Specifically, for a field-charged system, if the refrigerant circuit with the greatest mass of an A2L refrigerant contains more than 260 times the LFL (in kg/m
Under the existing SNAP listings, new stand-alone units using R-290 have been subject to a use condition to meet the requirements of Appendix SB of the 10th edition of UL 471. In this final action, stand-alone units using R-290 manufactured before the effective date may continue to be used under SNAP and will remain in compliance with the existing SNAP use conditions as long as they meet the applicable use conditions when they were manufactured. New stand-alone units using R-290 manufactured from the effective date of this final rule through September 29, 2024, must meet the requirements of either Appendix SB of the 10th edition of UL 471 or UL 60335-2-89 to comply with the use conditions established in this final action. Similarly, new stand-alone units using R-290 that are manufactured on or after September 30, 2024, must meet the requirements of UL 60335-2-89, rather than the earlier UL standards, unless the new stand-alone units remain essentially unchanged from an earlier model or design that was already UL-listed to the earlier UL 471 standard.
Similarly, under the existing SNAP listings, new self-contained commercial ice machines using R-290 have been subject to the requirements of Appendix SA of the 8th edition of UL 563. In this final action, commercial ice machines using R-290 manufactured before the effective date of this final rule may continue to be used under SNAP and will remain in compliance with the SNAP use conditions as long as they met the applicable use conditions when they were manufactured. New self-contained commercial ice machines using R-290 that are manufactured from the effective date of this final rule through September 29, 2024, must meet the requirements of either Appendix SA of the 8th edition of UL 563 or UL 60335-2-89 to comply with the use conditions established in this final action. Similarly, new self-contained commercial ice machines using R-290 that are manufactured on or after September 30, 2024, must meet the requirements of UL 60335-2-89, rather than the earlier UL standards, unless the new stand-alone units remain essentially unchanged from an earlier model or design that was already UL-listed to the earlier UL 471 standard.
EPA is requiring labeling of refrigerating systems used in retail food refrigeration equipment, commercial ice machines, IPR equipment, cold storage warehouses, and ice skating rinks (“equipment”) containing the listed lower flammability (A2L) refrigerants. The text of these labels can also be found in Annex 101.DVV of UL 60335-2-89. References to “the UL standard” below are to UL 60335-2-89, 2nd edition. The following labels, or the equivalent, must be provided in letters no less than 6.4 mm (
1. On the outside of the unit: “WARNING—Risk Of Fire. Flammable Refrigerant Used. To Be Repaired Only By Trained Service Personnel. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant Tubing.”
2. On the outside of the equipment: “WARNING—Risk of Fire. Dispose of Properly In Accordance With Federal Or Local Regulations. Flammable Refrigerant Used.”
3. On the inside of the equipment near the compressor: “WARNING—Risk of Fire. Flammable Refrigerant Used. Consult Repair Manual/Owner's Guide Before Attempting to Service This Product. All Safety Precautions Must Be Followed.”
4. For any equipment pre-charged at the factory, on the equipment packaging or on the outside of the equipment: “WARNING—Risk of Fire due to Flammable Refrigerant Used. Follow Handling Instructions Carefully in Compliance with National Regulations.”
a. If the equipment is delivered packaged, this label shall be applied on the packaging.
b. If the equipment is not delivered packaged, this label shall be applied on the outside of the appliance.
EPA expects that all stand-alone units, self-contained commercial ice machines, and self-contained refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment would be packaged, and hence this label would be placed as stipulated in item a above. EPA expects that other types of commercial refrigeration equipment could be provided packaged or not, and this label would be placed as stipulated in item a or b, respectively.
5. On indoor unit near the nameplate:
a. At the top of the marking: “Minimum installation height, X m (W ft)”. This marking is only required if the similar marking is required by UL 60335-2-89. The terms “X” and “W” shall be replaced by the numeric height as calculated per the UL Standard. Note that the formatting here is slightly different than the UL Standard; specifically, the height in Inch-Pound units is placed in parentheses and the word “and” has been replaced by the opening parenthesis.
b. Immediately below 5.a or at the top of the marking if 5.a is not required: “Minimum room area (operating or storage), Y m
6. For non-fixed equipment, including on the outside of the appliance: “WARNING—Risk of Fire or Explosion—Store in a well-ventilated room without continuously operating flames or other potential ignition.”
7. For fixed equipment that is ducted, near the nameplate: “WARNING—Risk of Fire—Auxiliary devices which may be ignition sources shall not be installed in the ductwork, other than auxiliary devices listed for use with the specific appliance. See instructions.”
Labeling requirements 1, 2, and 3 apply to all refrigeration equipment; labeling requirement 4 applies only to self-contained equipment that is pre-charged by the manufacturer (
EPA notes that Annex 101.DVV of UL 60335-2-89 specifies that the labels must include text with a font size that is no less than 3.2 mm (
As a final use condition for refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment and a revision to existing use conditions for stand-alone units and commercial ice machines, EPA is requiring labeling of such equipment containing R-290. The text of these labels can also be found in Annex 101.DVV of UL 60335-2-89. References to “the UL standard” below are to UL 60335-2-89. The following markings, or the equivalent, must be provided in letters no less than 6.4 mm (
1. On the outside of the unit: “DANGER”—Risk Of Fire Or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. To Be Repaired Only By Trained Service Personnel. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant Tubing.”
2. On the outside of the equipment: “WARNING—Risk of Fire or Explosion. Dispose of Properly In Accordance With Federal Or Local Regulations. Flammable Refrigerant Used.”
3. On the inside of the equipment near the compressor: “DANGER—Risk Of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. Consult Repair Manual/Owner's Guide Before Attempting to Service This Product. All Safety Precautions Must Be Followed.”
4. For any equipment pre-charged at the factory, on the equipment packaging or on the outside of the equipment: “DANGER—Risk of Fire or Explosion due to Flammable Refrigerant Used. Follow Handling Instructions Carefully in Compliance with National Regulations.”
a. If the equipment is delivered packaged, this label shall be applied on the packaging.
b. If the equipment is not delivered packaged, this label shall be applied on the outside of the appliance.
EPA expects that all stand-alone units and self-contained commercial ice machines and self-contained refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment would be packaged, and hence this label would be placed as stipulated in item a above. EPA expects that other types of commercial refrigeration equipment could be provided packaged or not, and this label would be placed as stipulated in item a or b, respectively.
5. On indoor unit near the nameplate:
a. At the top of the marking: “Minimum installation height, X m (W ft)”. This marking is only required if the similar marking is required by UL 60335-2-89. The terms “X” and “W” shall be replaced by the numeric height as calculated per the UL Standard. Note that the formatting here is slightly different than the UL Standard; specifically, the height in Inch-Pound units is placed in parentheses and the word “and” has been replaced by the opening parenthesis.
b. Immediately below 5.a or at the top of the marking if 5.a is not required: “Minimum room area (operating or storage), Y m
6. For non-fixed equipment, including on the outside of the appliance: “WARNING—Risk of Fire or Explosion—Store in a well-ventilated room without continuously operating flames or other potential ignition.”
7. For fixed equipment that is ducted, near the nameplate: “WARNING—Risk of Fire or Explosion—Auxiliary devices which may be ignition sources shall not be installed in the ductwork, other than auxiliary devices listed for use with the specific appliance. See instructions.”
The text of the warning labels is exactly the same as that required in UL 60335-2-89, with the exception of the label identified in 5, which is similar to but slightly different from that in UL 60335-2-89. The text for A3 refrigerants differs slightly from that for A2L refrigerants, sometimes using the word “DANGER” instead of “WARNING,” and sometimes referring to “Risk of Fire or Explosion” instead of “Risk of Fire.” For R-290 and other A3 refrigerants, UL 60335-2-89 requires the labels to be no less than 6.4 mm (
EPA is requiring as a use condition that the refrigerants must be used in refrigerating equipment that has red, Pantone® Matching System (PMS) #185 or RAL 3020 marked pipes, hoses, and other devices through which the refrigerant is serviced, typically known as the service port, to indicate the use of a flammable refrigerant. This color must be present at all service ports and where service puncturing or otherwise creating an opening from the refrigerant circuit to the atmosphere might be expected (
These red markings allow technicians to immediately identify the use of a flammable refrigerant, thereby reducing the risk of using sparking equipment or otherwise having an ignition source nearby. It also provides adequate notification of the presence of flammable refrigerants for personnel disposing of appliances containing flammable refrigerants. The AC and refrigeration industry currently uses red-colored hoses and piping as means for identifying the use of a flammable refrigerant based on previous SNAP listings and some industry standards. Likewise, distinguishing coloring has been used elsewhere to indicate an unusual and potentially dangerous situation, for example in the use of orange-insulated wires in hybrid and electric vehicles. Currently in SNAP listings, color-coded hoses or pipes must be used for ethane, HFC-32, R-452B, R-454A, R-454B, R-454C, R-457A, R-600a, R-290, and R-441A in equipment wherever these are listed acceptable, subject to use conditions.
EPA is requiring the use of color-coded hoses or piping in addition to requiring the use of warning labels discussed previously. Having two warning methods is reasonable and consistent with other general industry practices. This approach is the same as that adopted in our previous rules on flammable refrigerants (
EPA proposed a diamond symbol for “Caution, risk of fire” that would be used in addition to the red triangle in Clause 7.6DV D1 of UL 60335-2-89. After considering public comments, EPA is not finalizing a requirement for the diamond symbol in this rule (see section II.H.3 of this preamble). However, manufacturers will be required to place either the red triangle symbol described in UL 60335-2-89, 2nd edition, or the red diamond symbol that was proposed (for more information, see section II.H.3 of this preamble), or both.
For those that choose to comply with fire hazard marking in this rule by using the red-bordered diamond, refer to the symbol which has been finalized for hazard category 1 flammable gases in the docket for this rulemaking under the title, “Final Flammability Hazard Symbol.” This symbol is included as the warning symbol for hazard category 1 flammable gases in the 9th edition of the GHS for communicating risks of chemicals. This symbol for hazard category 1 flammable gases is included in the 4th edition of UL 60335-2-40 (December 2022), UL's most recent safety standard for air conditioning equipment, heat pumps, and humidifiers, and is being considered for adoption in the future 3rd edition of UL 60335-2-89. It is found in section 1.2 of Annex 1 of the 9th edition of the GHS.
For those that choose to comply with fire hazard markings in this rule by using the red-bordered diamond, this marking shall be placed near the service port or other location where charging occurs; on the label on the outside of the unit; and either on the appliance packaging, if the refrigeration equipment is charged at the factory or on the nameplate or control panel for the refrigeration equipment that is charged in place. These locations correspond with the locations for red markings and for labels 1 and 4 mentioned above on the outside of the refrigerating unit, and either on the packaging or on the nameplate or control panel. If used, the diamond symbol for hazard category 1 flammable gases needs to be at least 15 mm (9/16 inches high). The Agency notes that it may propose to require the adoption of this symbol in a future rulemaking when a new edition of UL 2-89 is released.
For retail food refrigeration, commercial ice machines, IPR, cold storage warehouses, and ice skating rinks with remote compressors, EPA is including recommendations, found in the “Further Information” column of the regulatory text, to protect personnel from the risks of using flammable refrigerants. Similar to our previous listings of flammable refrigerants, EPA is including information on the OSHA requirements at 29 CFR part 1910, proper ventilation, personal protective equipment, fire extinguishers, use of spark-proof tools and equipment designed for flammable refrigerants, and training. Since this additional information is not part of the regulatory decision under SNAP, these statements are not binding for use of the substitute under the SNAP program. While the items listed are not legally binding under the SNAP program, EPA encourages users of substitutes to apply all statements in the “Further Information” column in their use of these refrigerants.
Several commenters stated there was misalignment in standards and the proposal for specific end-uses. Three commenters noted that for systems located in industrial occupancies, ASHRAE 15 states these locations do not have to be listed to UL 60335-2-89 and charge limits do not apply. These commenters stated that some IPR, IPR chiller, cold storage warehouse, and ice skating rink applications located in industrial occupancies would fall outside the scope of UL 60335-2-89. For IPR chillers, a different commenter stated that the application of UL 60335-2-89 is sufficient to mitigate the risks posed by the use of A2L refrigerants because of the requirements for preventing ignition of A2L refrigerants from electrical parts/devices and hot surfaces, the detection system for A2L refrigerants, the manual of operation, service, and installation, the warning labels and markings, and the competence of personnel. Four commenters noted that professional ice cream appliances are specifically excluded from the scope of UL 60335-2-89, and that this equipment follows UL 621, which has not been updated to allow for use of flammable refrigerants.
Determining the coverage of UL standards to applications not covered in this rule is outside the scope of this rulemaking. New equipment covered by the end-uses in this rule must comply with ASHRAE 15 in all instances, and with UL 60335-2-89 where applicable. Further, EPA is allowing for exceptions from the requirement to meet UL 60335-2-89 for equipment that falls outside that standard's scope, which means that commercial or professional ice cream makers are not required to meet that standard. As described in NOTE 103 in UL 60335-2-89, “This standard does not apply to . . .
Regarding the comment on the definition of “independent circuit,” EPA used the term “refrigerant circuit” in the proposed rule and did not use the term “independent circuit.” The Agency has used the term “refrigerant circuit” in previous SNAP regulations concerning flammable refrigerants, as well. ASHRAE's definition of “independent circuit” is “a closed refrigeration circuit that is arranged in such a manner that, in the event of a single point of failure, the release of
In response to the comment regarding the incorrect LFL value from the standard's 2ndd edition for R-455A, EPA agrees that this value could result in a reduction of allowable charge sizes for R-455A. In this final rule and in EPA's finalized risk screens, EPA used 0.432 kg/m
In this final rule, EPA is modifying use conditions for R-290 to allow larger charge sizes for retail food refrigeration—stand-alone units, self-contained retail food refrigeration—refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment, and self-contained commercial ice machines, consistent with UL 60335-2-89. EPA acknowledges the commenters' support for these listings.
In response to comments related to listing additional refrigerants that were not in the proposal to enable technology transitions in regulations under the AIM Act, EPA notes that the requested additional listings are outside the scope of this rulemaking. EPA intends to continue reviewing substitutes under the SNAP program, including refrigerants that may provide more options to comply with regulations issued under the Technology Transitions program, as suggested by the commenters, and consider whether listing of such substitutes is appropriate under SNAP.
A different commenter questioned whether the proposal should be consistent with the SNAP Rule 25 where Red Pantone® #185 was used to indicate the presence of a flammable refrigerant.
Consistent with other rules promulgated under CAA section 612, EPA's requirements of red markings add an extra layer of safety on top of the labels required under the UL standards, and EPA concludes this extra protection is appropriate for this listing under SNAP. As previously noted, these types of red markings would signal to the technician that the refrigerant circuit that she/he was about to access contained a flammable refrigerant, even if all warning labels were somehow removed or were illegible or not understood (
Concerning the comment that to meet the proposed use condition, all piping would need to be red, EPA does not intend such a broad interpretation of the use condition for red markings. The requirement is intended to mandate red markings of at least one inch in each direction to go on locations such as a servicing port or processing tube. For self-contained equipment that does not have a servicing port or processing tube, a red marking, ring, or sleeve that extends at least one inch in each direction from a location on tubing that is likely or recommended for servicing or recovering refrigerant is sufficient.
EPA is finalizing that such markings apply to these A2L refrigerants as well, to establish a common, familiar, and standard means of identifying the use of a flammable refrigerant. After considering all the public comments on this proposal, we are finalizing this use condition as proposed.
Therefore, rather than requiring both symbols at this time, EPA is finalizing to incorporate by reference UL 60335-2-89, with the exception that manufacturers may choose which of the two proposed flammability symbols to use. Manufacturers may choose to include either the red triangle warning symbol required in UL 60335-2-89, 2nd edition, or manufacturers may choose to include the red diamond proposed. At least one of these two symbols must be placed on refrigeration equipment covered by this rule that uses flammable (
EPA intends in this rule to differentiate between smaller systems that are used in occupied spaces with public access, where the greater volumetric capacity of R-454A is needed to fit into more constrained spaces, versus less constrained (or unconstrained) spaces, such as outdoors or in machinery rooms. R-454A has a higher GWP than most of the other refrigerants that EPA is listing in this rule-237 compared to 150 or less-and has a greater volumetric capacity, as pointed out by the commenters. Thus, it is best used in those situations where it may be more difficult to use other alternatives with even lower GWPs because size constraints are greater—namely, where charge sizes would be less than 200 pounds. In highly constrained spaces, however, refrigerants with lower volumetric capacity and lower GWP may not technologically provide sufficient performance, only allowing the use of a higher-GWP refrigerant, like R-454A. In situations that are less space constrained and where only the ASHRAE 15 standard governs, such as in machinery rooms or outdoors, other refrigerants with lower GWP and lower volumetric capacity may be used and would reduce overall risk to human health and the environment more than R-454A. Therefore, EPA disagrees with commenters' requests to allow charge sizes greater than 200 pounds of R-454A in IPR and cold storage warehouses. EPA elaborates that although the charge limits for some systems in these sectors are not
For the ice skating rinks end-use, EPA notes that the Agency did not propose to list R-454A as acceptable, either with or without a charge size limit. See section II.G.6 of this preamble concerning comments on listing R-454A as acceptable in ice skating rinks.
Under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, it is unlawful for any person, in the course of maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance or IPR, to knowingly vent or otherwise knowingly release or dispose of any substitute substance for a class I or class II substance used as a refrigerant in such appliance (or IPR) in a manner which permits such substance to enter the environment. Under section 608(c)(2), this prohibition applies to any substitute refrigerant unless the Administrator determines that such venting, releasing, or disposing does not pose a threat to the environment. As discussed in section II.B of this preamble, EPA is listing the refrigerant substitute R-290 under the SNAP program as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in newly manufactured refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment. EPA is also exempting R-290 in this end-use from the venting prohibition under CAA section 608(c)(2), on the basis of existing evidence that the venting, release, or disposal of this substance in this end-use and subject to the use conditions in this final action does not pose a threat to the environment. Further, as discussed in greater detail below, this exemption is consistent with decisions in past rulemakings to exempt R-290 in other specific end-uses from the venting prohibition under CAA section 608(c)(2), and it reflects EPA's concern that there is not yet sufficient recovery equipment suitable for use with highly flammable (A3) refrigerants.
For purposes of CAA section 608(c)(2), EPA considers two factors in determining whether or not venting, release, or disposal of a substitute refrigerant during the maintenance, servicing, repairing, or disposing of appliances poses a threat to the environment (69 FR 11948, March 12, 2004; 79 FR 29682, May 23, 2014; 80 FR 19453, April 10, 2015; and 81 FR 86778, December 1, 2016). First, EPA analyzes the threat to the environment due to inherent characteristics of the refrigerant substitute, such as GWP or photochemical reactivity. Second, EPA determines whether and to what extent such venting, release, or disposal actually takes place during the maintenance, servicing, repairing, or disposing of appliances, and to what extent such actions are controlled by other authorities, regulations, or practices. To the extent that such releases are adequately controlled by other authorities, EPA defers to those authorities.
EPA has evaluated the potential environmental impacts of releasing into the environment R-290, a substitute refrigerant that we are listing in this rule as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment. We assessed the potential impact of the release of R-290 on local air quality and its ability to decompose in the atmosphere to form ground-level ozone, its ODP, its GWP, and its potential impacts on ecosystems. We found that the magnitudes of these impacts were not large enough to pose a threat to the environment. R-290's ODP is zero, and its GWP is approximately three. R-290 is highly volatile and typically evaporates or partitions to air, rather than contaminating surface waters. Thus, R-290's effects on aquatic life are expected to be small.
As to potential effects on local air quality, R-290 meets the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (40 CFR 51.100(s)) and is not excluded from that definition for the purpose of developing SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. R-290's maximum incremental reactivity (MIR) of 0.56 g O
In addition, EPA examined all HC substitute refrigerants in those uses for which UL currently has standards in place for flammable refrigerants, for which the SNAP program has already listed the uses as acceptable, subject to use conditions, and for which the SNAP program is reviewing a submission, including the one in this action. We found that even if all the HC refrigerant substitutes in appliances in end-uses
EPA also has performed more recent air quality analysis before the publication of this rule, considering additional end-uses and refrigerants that have been listed acceptable more recently (
Considering our evaluation of these potential environmental impacts, EPA concludes that R-290 in the refrigerated food processing and dispensing end-use is not expected to pose a threat to the environment on the basis of the inherent characteristics of this substance and the limited quantities used in the relevant end-use.
The determination of whether venting, release, or disposal of a substitute refrigerant poses a threat to the environment includes considering whether such venting, release, or disposal is adequately controlled by other authorities, regulations, or practices. EPA expects that existing authorities, controls, and/or practices will mitigate environmental risk from the release of R-290. Analyses performed for both this rule and the SNAP rules issued in 1994, 2011, 2015, and 2016 (59 FR 13044, March 17, 1994; 76 FR 38832, December 20, 2011; 80 FR 19453, April 10, 2015; and 81 FR 86778, December 1, 2016, respectively) indicate that existing regulatory requirements and industry practices limit and control the emission of R-290. For reasons discussed in proceeding paragraphs, EPA concludes that the limits and controls under other authorities, regulations, or practices adequately control the release of and exposure to R-290 and mitigate risks from any possible release.
Industry service practices and OSHA standards and guidelines that address HC refrigeration equipment include monitoring efforts, engineering controls, and operating procedures. OSHA requirements that apply during servicing include continuous monitoring of explosive gas concentrations and oxygen levels. In general, HC emissions from refrigeration systems are likely to be significantly smaller than those emanating from the industrial process and storage systems, which are controlled for safety reasons. In Sections II.B.7, “What updates to existing use conditions for stand-alone units is EPA finalizing?” and II.D.5, “What updates to existing use conditions for commercial ice machines is EPA finalizing?” we note that the amount of R-290 from a refrigerant loop is effectively limited to roughly 500 g or 300 g in the end-uses listed in this rule. This indicates that HC emissions from such uses are likely to be relatively small.
As discussed in Section II.B.3, “What is R-290 and how does it compare to other refrigerants in the refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment end-use category? ”, EPA's SNAP program evaluated the flammability and toxicity risks from R-290 in the new end-use in this final rule. EPA is providing some of that information in this section as well, to provide information on the potential for leaks and exposure due to R-290.
R-290 is classified as an A3 refrigerant by ASHRAE 34-2022 and
Like most refrigerants, at high concentrations HCs can displace oxygen and cause asphyxiation. Various industry and regulatory standards exist to address asphyxiation and toxicity risks. The SNAP program's analysis of asphyxiation and toxicity risks suggests that the use conditions in this final rule will mitigate asphyxiation and toxicity risks. Furthermore, it is the Agency's understanding that flammability risks and occupational exposures to HCs are adequately regulated by OSHA and building and fire codes at a local and national level.
The release and/or disposal of many refrigerant substitutes, including R-290, are controlled by other authorities including various standards and State and local building codes. The industry consensus safety standard UL 60335-2-89, which EPA is incorporating by reference in use conditions in the SNAP listing for R-290 in refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment, is one of these standards, and industry also applies the standard ASHRAE 15. Code-making organizations, such as the International Code Council (ICC), are in the process of updating references to the most recent industry standards that address use of R-290 and other flammable refrigerants in the International Building Code (IBC). The specific editions of UL 60335-2-89 and ASHRAE 15 that are incorporated in this rulemaking as use conditions are in the process of being adopted in the next version of the IBC; once the IBC adopts those standards, State and localities may adopt those revisions into their State or local building codes. To the extent that release during maintaining, repairing, servicing, or disposing of appliances is controlled by regulations and standards of other authorities, these practices and controls for the use of R-290 are sufficiently protective. These practices and controls mitigate the risk to the environment that may be posed by the venting, release, or disposal of R-290 during the maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of appliances.
EPA is aware of equipment that can be used to recover HC refrigerants. While there are no relevant U.S. standards for such recovery equipment currently, to the extent that R-290 is recovered rather than vented in specific end-uses and equipment, EPA recommends the use of recovery equipment designed specifically for flammable refrigerants in accordance with applicable safe handling practices.
Consistent with the listing under SNAP in this action, EPA determines that venting, releasing, or disposing of R-290 in refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment is not expected to pose a threat to the environment during the maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of appliances. As discussed in section II.A.1 of this preamble, EPA is making this determination on the basis of the inherent characteristics of this substance, the limited quantities used in the relevant end-use, and the limits and controls under other authorities, regulations, or practices that adequately control the release of and exposure to R-290 and mitigate risks from any possible release. Accordingly, EPA is revising the regulations at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1) to add R-290 in this end-use to the list of substitute refrigerants that are exempt from the venting prohibition under CAA section 608(c)(2).
This exemption for R-290 in refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment applies 30 days after the publication of this final rule in the
This final exemption from the CAA section 608(c)(2) venting prohibition does not mean that R-290 used in refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment can be vented in all situations. R-290 released or otherwise disposed of from commercial and industrial appliances is likely to be hazardous waste under RCRA (see 40 CFR parts 260 through 270). As discussed in the final rules addressing the venting of ethane (R-170), R-600a, R-290, and R-441A as refrigerant substitutes in certain end-uses, incidental releases may occur during the maintenance, service, and repair of appliances subject to CAA section 608 (79 FR 29682, May 23, 2014; 80 FR 19454, April 10, 2015; 81 FR 86778, December 1, 2016). Such incidental releases would not be subject to RCRA requirements for the disposal of hazardous waste, as such releases would not constitute disposal of the refrigerant charge as a solid waste,
In addition, EPA's exemption from the CAA venting prohibition of these substances in these end-uses is consistent with how other countries, including Australia, Japan, and those in the European Union, regulate the venting of hydrocarbons.
Concerning the comment suggesting that EPA should also exempt HFOs, EPA did not propose and is not finalizing an exemption for HFOs from the CAA prohibition to knowingly vent or otherwise knowingly release refrigerants. EPA disagrees with the comment that R-290's low GWP is the sole reason EPA is exempting R-290 from the venting prohibition. EPA has discussed in this section the multiple factors that it considers, and the fact that HFOs are subject to the venting prohibition is irrelevant to the R-290 analysis. Further, if EPA were to evaluate exempting one or more HFOs in a particular end-use from the venting prohibition, that analysis would appropriately focus on the inherent characteristics and other authorities, practices and controls that are relevant to HFOs in that end-use, not on the analysis for R-290, which differs from HFOs in some respects, such as with respect to flammability risks and availability of appropriate recovery equipment. In response to the comment that there is a climate impact from formation of ground-level ozone, EPA acknowledges that ground-level ozone is a greenhouse gas; however, given the small additional amounts of ground-level ozone that EPA has calculated would be generated, even in the worst case, the additional climate impact is negligible. Concerning the comment regarding indirect climate impacts from emissions along the supply chain, EPA acknowledges that there are also other climate impacts in addition to direct GWP of emissions of a substitute. However, there would also be the same indirect climate impacts from emissions along the supply chain, whether EPA exempts R-290 in refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment from the CAA 608(c)(2) venting prohibition or not. The Agency has addressed the possibility of greater use of HC refrigerants by conservatively assuming complete market penetration (
EPA's regulations under 40 CFR part 82, subpart F prohibit individuals from knowingly venting or otherwise releasing into the environment ozone-depleting substances or their substitutes used as a refrigerant while maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of appliances or industrial process refrigeration.
Regarding both commenters' concerns with propane's status as a VOC and the first commenter's concerns regarding the potential for local air quality impacts, the Agency clarifies that even if a substance is defined as a VOC under 40 CFR 51.100(s), it can still be exempted from the venting prohibition under CAA section 608 and 40 CFR 82.154, if the appropriate determination under CAA section 608(c)(2) is made. While EPA may consider a substance's status as a VOC under CAA regulations (40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS in making that determination, that may not be the sole or determinative factor in making a determination under section 608(c)(2), as other factors may also affect whether such venting poses a threat to the environment. EPA's prior decisions to provide a limited exemption to the venting prohibition for R-290, and other refrigerants that are VOC under the Agency's regulatory definition under CAA regulations (40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS, in particular end uses are examples of this result. In those situations, EPA also evaluated potential local air quality impacts using conservative assumptions and has provided a limited exemption from the venting prohibition for these substitutes in these end-uses under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA because the Agency concluded that it was appropriate to make the statutory determination that supports the exemption from the venting prohibition. EPA is taking a similar approach here, as described above in section II.I.1 of this preamble, and is reaching the same conclusion.
The formation in the atmosphere of trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) is expected to increase in the coming decades due to increased use of HFOs and HCFOs. TFA, a breakdown product of some HFCs, HCFCs, HFOs and HCFOs, is a persistent chemical with potential harmful effects on animals, plants, and humans. The concentration of TFA in rainwater and ocean water is, in general, significantly below known toxicity limits at present. Potential environmental impacts of TFA require future evaluation due to its persistence. (p. 14)
Most TFA currently found in the environment resulting from decomposition of refrigerants likely
There are ongoing evaluations of the potential risks of TFA exposure. In 2020, the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP) to the Montreal Protocol released an update
In its 2021 Summary Update for Policymakers,
TFA likely has natural geochemical sources, is widely used in industry and research laboratories, and is a by-product of the synthesis and degradation of fluorinated and perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) . . . . TFA has recently been found in precipitation, surface waters, and indoor dust in China . . . , although concentrations are below those considered toxic. No additional studies on the toxicity of TFA to organisms have been reported, but prior research has shown that this compound is not highly toxic to mammals and aquatic organisms, although some plants and algae may be sensitive . . . . At present, it is not possible to quantify the proportion of anthropogenic sources of TFA resulting from substances not falling under the purview of the Montreal Protocol, but available evidence indicates that this breakdown product is of minimal risk to human health. (p. 10; references in the text omitted here)
Most recently, in its 2022 Assessment Report,
TFA has a long environmental lifetime, accumulates in surface and ground waters, and has been found in blood, drinking water, beverages, dust, plants, and agricultural soils. However, it does not interact with biological molecules and, due to its high solubility in water, it does not bioaccumulate. It is unlikely to cause adverse effects in terrestrial and aquatic organisms. Continued monitoring and assessment are nevertheless advised due to uncertainties in the deposition of TFA and its potential effects on marine organisms . . . . (p.5)
The Montreal Protocol has led to the replacement of ODSs with fluorinated chemicals, some of which can undergo degradation in the atmosphere to give TFA in various yields. TFA is known to have a long environmental lifetime and accumulates in surface and ground waters. At present, there are large uncertainties associated with the concentrations of TFA in various environmental compartments in some regions, as well as the relative proportion of anthropogenic sources related to the Montreal Protocol, compared to the other anthropogenic and natural sources. There is some uncertainty in toxicity values because of the limited number of marine species tested. Current and predicted concentrations (to year 2100) of TFA in the oceans provide a large margin of exposure (thousand-fold) when compared to thresholds of toxicity. (p. 294)
EPA considers ecotoxicity as a criterion when evaluating alternatives under SNAP's comparative risk framework, and the Agency has considered the potential impacts of TFA for the listings in this rule and in past actions that found HFO-1234yf acceptable in certain end-uses. For example, EPA studied the potential generation of TFA when first listing neat (
With regard to the commenter's stance that safer low-GWP substitutes than HFO-1234yf currently exist for these end-uses, EPA disagrees. A number of alternatives can meet low-GWP and safety goals and EPA evaluates these potential alternatives through a holistic risk screen analysis with overall impact to human health and the environment in mind. The SNAP program's aim is to expand the list of available substitutes that successfully meet conservative risk screen analysis thresholds so that industry may pull from a number of substances that can be used in equipment and that suit their functionality and needs. Risk screens, which can be viewed under this rule's docket, were performed for industrial process refrigeration, cold storage warehouses, ice skating rinks, commercial ice machines, and retail food refrigeration. The findings of these risk screens conclude that HFO-1234yf does not pose a safety risk if used according to the safety standards required in this rule's use conditions, such as UL 60335-2-89. HFO-1234yf has a GWP less than one, is excluded from the regulatory definition of VOC for the purpose of addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS and can be used without exceeding health-based exposure limits in the end-uses where it is being listed. Therefore, EPA does not consider the overall risk to human health and the environment due to HFO-1234yf in this final rule to be greater than for other available or potentially available substitutes for the same uses.
One commenter noted that they particularly support certain charge size limits in some of the approvals, which will help EPA meet its goals under the proposed Technology Transition rule.
One commenter encouraged EPA to approve refrigerants on a priority basis for end-uses capable of complying with the HFC restrictions in the Technology Transitions Rule. The commenter stated that this will bring about a practical phase down of HFCs in these applications that are critical to health and human comfort.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be
This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0226. The approved Information Collection Request includes five types of respondent reporting and recordkeeping activities pursuant to SNAP regulations: submission of a SNAP petition, filing a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)/SNAP Addendum, notification for test marketing activity, recordkeeping for substitutes acceptable, subject to use restrictions, and recordkeeping for small volume uses. This rule contains no new requirements for reporting or recordkeeping.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, EPA concludes that the impact of concern for this rule is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities and that the agency is certifying that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule has no net burden on the small entities subject to the rule. This action lists additional options under SNAP for using HFC-32, HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-290, R-454A, R-454B, R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A in the specified end-uses, but does not mandate such use. Because equipment for HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-454A, R-454B, R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A is not manufactured yet in the U.S. for retail food refrigeration equipment, commercial ice machines, IPR, cold storage warehouses, and ice skating rinks, no change in business practice is required to meet the use conditions, resulting in no adverse impact compared with the absence of this rule. The new use conditions for R-290 in stand-alone units and self-contained commercial ice machines were requested by industry and are consistent with the most recent, updated industry standard. These allow for greater consistency in business practices for different types of equipment using the same refrigerant, as well as provide greater flexibility in designing and manufacturing equipment. Equipment for R-290 already manufactured prior to the effective date of this rule will not be required to be changed. Stand-alone units and self-contained commercial ice machines using R-290 have been subject to similar use conditions, and thus the updated requirements result in no adverse impact compared with the absence of this rule. Thus, the rule does not impose new costs on small entities. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) or more (in 1995 dollars) as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. EPA periodically updates Tribal officials on air regulations through the monthly meetings of the National Tribal Air Association and will share information on this rulemaking through this and other fora.
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) directs Federal agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation on children in Federal health and safety standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. While EPA has not conducted a separate analysis of risks to infants and children associated with this rule, the rule contains use conditions that reduce exposure risks to the general population, with the reduction of exposure being most important to the most sensitive individuals. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in the comparisons of toxicity for the various substitutes, as well as in the risk screens for the substitutes that are listed in this rule. The risk screens are in the docket for this rulemaking. However, EPA's
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This action involves technical standards. EPA has decided to use and incorporates by reference UL 60335-2-89, which establishes requirements for the evaluation of commercial refrigeration equipment and commercial ice machines and safe use of flammable refrigerants, among other things. This standard is discussed in greater detail in section II.H.1 of this preamble.
UL 60335-2-89, “Standard for Safety for Household And Similar Electrical Appliances—Safety—Part 2-89: Particular Requirements for Commercial Refrigerating Appliances and Ice-Makers with an Incorporated or Remote Refrigerant Unit or Motor Compressor,” 2nd edition, October 27, 2021, is available at:
EPA is also incorporating by reference Chapter 2.2, Flammable Gasses, and Annex 1, Classification and Labelling Summary Tables, of ST/SG/AC.10/30/Rev.9, Global Harmonized System (GHS) of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals, Ninth revised edition, copyright 2021, which define the GHS diamond symbol (pictogram) for hazard category 1 flammable gasses, in the use conditions for hazard labeling of commercial and industrial refrigeration equipment. Printed versions and electronic editable versions are available for sale at the United Nations Publications section at:
EPA is also incorporating by reference ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15-2022, Safety Standard for Refrigeration Systems, copyright 2022, in the use conditions for refrigerants listed for use in larger refrigeration equipment (see summary in Section II.A.4 of the preamble) and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2022, Designation and Safety Classification of Refrigerants, copyright 2022, in the use conditions for labeling refrigeration equipment with the safety classification of the refrigerant used (see summary in Section II.A.2 of the preamble). These standards are available at
EPA is also incorporating by reference ANSI/ASHRAE Addendum a to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2022, Designation and Safety Classification of Refrigerants, ANSI-/ASHRAE-approved December 20, 2022. This standard is available at
The following standards are already approved for incorporation by reference at the locations where they appear in the amendatory text: UL 471, UL 541, UL 484, UL 60335-2-24, and UL 60335-2-40.
The EPA believes that the human health or environmental conditions that exist prior to this action result in or have the potential to result in disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental effects on communities with environmental justice concerns. EPA's analysis indicates that other environmental impacts and human health impacts of listing HFC-32, HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-290, R-454A, R-454B, R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A in the end-uses addressed in this action are comparable to or less than those of other substitutes that are listed as acceptable for the same end-use. For example, these alternative refrigerants would likely have lower climate impacts because of their lower GWPs compared to other available substitutes for the same uses.
The EPA believes that it is not practicable to assess whether this action is likely to result in new disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental justice concerns. Because adoption of the new substitutes listed in this rule is voluntary, the Agency is unable to quantify when, where, and how much of the listed substitutes will be produced and used. Thus, EPA cannot determine the extent to which this rule will exacerbate or reduce existing disproportionate adverse effects on communities of color and low-income people as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
However, the listings for HFC-32, HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-290, R-454A, R-454B, R-454C, R-455A, R-457A, and R-516A in the end-uses addressed in this action provide additional lower-GWP or comparable alternatives in their respective end-uses. By providing lower-GWP or comparable alternatives for these end-uses, this rule is anticipated to reduce the use and eventual emissions of potent greenhouse gases in these end-uses, which could help to reduce the effects of climate change, including the existing disproportionate public health and welfare effects on communities with environmental justice concerns. The Agency will continue to evaluate the impacts of this program on communities with environmental justice concerns and consider further action, as appropriate.
The EPA additionally identified and addressed environmental justice concerns by conducting and sharing risk screens and air quality modeling to provide information to the public about the listed refrigerants contained in this rulemaking. The information supporting this Executive Order review is contained in the comparison of health and environmental risks for HFC-32, HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), R-290, R-454A, R-454B, R-454C, R-455A, R-
This action is subject to the CRA, and the 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).
Unless specified otherwise, all documents are available electronically at
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Stratospheric ozone layer.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 82 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(viii) Propane (R-290) in retail food refrigerators and freezers—stand-alone units; household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers; self-contained room air conditioners for residential and light commercial air-conditioning and heat pumps; vending machines; self-contained commercial ice machines, very low temperature refrigeration equipment, and water coolers; and effective July 15, 2024, retail food refrigeration—refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment;
The revisions read as follows:
The revisions read as follows: