The Federal Election Campaign Act  1 (the “Act”) and Commission regulations place various fundraising and spending limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements on state, district, and local political party committees. On June 14, 2016, the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and its Chair, Ken Martin (collectively, “Petitioners”), submitted a Petition for Rulemaking that asked the Commission to amend several regulations applicable to political parties. 2

First, the Petition asked the Commission to narrow the regulatory definition of “Federal election activity,”  3 which includes certain activities that urge, encourage, or assist people to vote or to register to vote. 4 The Act and Commission regulations require a state, district, or local committee of a political party to pay for Federal election activity with either entirely Federal funds or, in other instances, a mix of Federal funds and “Levin funds.”  5

Second, the Petition asked the Commission to amend the regulation requiring political parties to use a Federal account to pay the salary, wages, and fringe benefits of any employee who spends more than 25 percent of that individual's time on “Federal election activities” or on conduct “in connection with a Federal election.”  6 Specifically, the Petition asked the Commission to delete the reference to “Federal election activities,” so that the requirement would cover only employee activities “in connection with a Federal election.”

Finally, the Petition asked the Commission to consider additional regulatory modifications listed in Commission Agenda Document No. 15-54-A, a proposed resolution that recommended amending several rules that would (1) allow political parties to “discuss issue advertisements with candidates,” “republish parts of candidate materials in party materials,” and “distribute volunteer campaign materials without triggering coordination limits,”  7 (2) expand political parties' ability to engage in volunteer activities such as volunteer mail drives, phone banks, and literature distribution, 8 and (3) modify the definition of “Federal election activity” to permit political parties to register voters and urge citizens to vote on behalf of state and local candidates using state funds and to “employ people to engage in state and local get-out-the-vote activities with state funds.”  9

The Commission published a Notification of Availability requesting public comments on the Petition. 10 The Commission received 18 comments in response, including one from Petitioners. Most comments supported the Petition; one comment opposed it.

On June 26, 2024, Petitioners submitted a new petition for rulemaking. The new petition includes a copy of this Petition, incorporates this Petition by reference, and “revokes” this Petition.

The Commission has decided not to initiate a rulemaking in response to this Petition. In deciding whether to initiate a rulemaking in response to a petition, the Commission generally considers five factors: (1) the Commission's statutory authority; (2) policy considerations; (3) the desirability of proceeding on a case-by-case basis; (4) the necessity or desirability of statutory revision; and (5) available agency resources. 11

Here, the Commission has concluded that its available resources would be more efficiently and effectively utilized by focusing on the new petition for rulemaking submitted by Petitioners on June 26, 2024, which addresses the same issues, and disposing of this Petition.

Copies of the Petition, the Notification of Availability, public comments, and related documents are available on the Commission's website, https://www.fec.gov/fosers/ (reference REG 2016-03, Political Party Rules).

On June 26, 2024, the Federal Election Commission received a Petition for Rulemaking (“Petition”) from the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party and its Chair, Ken Martin (collectively, “Petitioners”), asking the Commission to amend various regulations applicable to state, district, and local committees of political parties. 1 The Petition “revokes” a previous petition for rulemaking submitted by the same Petitioners on June 15, 2016, “incorporate[s] . . . by reference” the issues raised in the 2016 petition, and highlights three “priority issues” for consideration by the Commission. 2

First, Petitioners ask the Commission to amend 11 CFR 300.33(d)(3) by omitting the phrase “Federal election activities.” Section 300.33(d)(3) applies to salaries, wages, and fringe benefits paid for employees of state, district, or local party committees or organizations. It provides that “employees who spend none of their compensated time in a given month on Federal election activities or on activities in connection with a Federal election may be paid entirely with funds that comply with State law.”  3

Second, Petitioners ask the Commission to reconsider and revise the definitions of “voter registration activity” and “get-out-the-vote activity” at 11 CFR 100.24(a)(2) and (3). Section 100.24(a)(2) defines “voter registration activity” to include, among other things, “[e]ncouraging or urging potential voters to register to vote,” “[p]reparing and distributing information about registration and voting,” and “[a]ny other activity that assists potential voters to register to vote.” Section 100.24(a)(3) defines “get-out-the-vote activity” to include, among other things, “[e]ncouraging or urging potential voters to vote,” “informing potential voters” about “[t]imes when polling places are open” and the “location of particular polling places,” and “[a]ny other activity that assists potential voters to vote.”

Third, Petitioners ask the Commission to codify a “modernized standard” to determine when volunteer activities related to mailings by state or local parties comply with the Act's “volunteer mailing exemption.”  4 Sections 100.87 and 100.147 of the Commission's regulations provide that the “payment by a state or local committee of a political party of the costs of campaign materials . . . used by such committee in connection with volunteer activities on behalf of any nominee(s) of such party” is not a contribution or expenditure if certain conditions are met. 5

The Petition also incorporates and attaches several documents, including Petitioners' 2016 petition. The 2016 petition asked the Commission to consider additional regulatory changes previously proposed in an agenda document presented at the Commission's Open Meeting on October 29, 2015. 6 These proposed changes included (1) allowing political parties “to discuss issue advertisements with candidates,” “republish parts of candidate materials in party materials,” and “distribute volunteer campaign materials without triggering coordination limits,”  7 (2) “[e]xpand[ing] political party freedom to engage in volunteer activities such as volunteer mail drives, phone banks, and literature distribution,”  8 and (3) modifying the definition of “Federal election activity” to permit “political parties to register voters and urge citizens to vote on behalf of state and local candidates free from FEC regulation” and “to employ people to engage in state and local get-out-the-vote activities with state funds.”  9

The Commission seeks comments on the Petition. The public may inspect the Petition on the Commission's website at https://www.fec.gov/fosers.

The Commission will not consider the Petition's merits until after the comment period closes. The Commission will consider the Petition and any comments that it receives before deciding whether to initiate a rulemaking. The Commission will publish the results of its decision in the Federal Register .

The Commission proposes to amend its regulations by removing the requirement that the principal campaign committee of a candidate with multiple authorized committees must report information on FEC Form 3-Z. The Commission is seeking comment on the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on whether and for what purpose the public obtains information from FEC Form 3-Z or otherwise uses FEC Form 3-Z.

The Federal Election Campaign Act (the “Act”)  1 and Commission regulations require each candidate to register a principal campaign committee within 15 days of becoming a candidate. 2 A candidate may also authorize other political committees to receive contributions or make expenditures on the candidate's behalf by designating the committees in writing and filing the designations with the candidate's principal campaign committee. 3

The Act requires “each designation, statement or report of receipts or disbursements made by an authorized committee” to be filed with the candidate's principal campaign committee. 4 The Act further requires each principal campaign committee, in turn, to “receive” these designations, statements and reports and to “compile and file” them pursuant to the Act. 5

In 1980, the Commission promulgated a regulation (11 CFR 104.3(f)) to implement these requirements: Section 104.3(f) requires each candidate's principal campaign committee to file reports submitted to it by the candidate's other authorized committees, along with its own report. 6 In addition, § 104.3(f) requires the principal campaign committee to file FEC Form 3-Z to report specific consolidated information gleaned from the authorized committees' reports when it submits those reports to the Commission. 7 It is this FEC Form 3-Z that the Commission now proposes to remove.

When the Commission first started requiring FEC Form 3-Z, political committees filed their reports only in paper form and the Commission made the reports publicly available on paper and microfiche in the Commission's Public Records room. By requiring a candidate's principal campaign committee to consolidate information about the financial activity of all of the candidate's authorized committees on FEC Form 3-Z, the Commission made it easier for the public to obtain a comprehensive picture of the candidate's receipts and disbursements during the reporting period.

Public access to political committees' reports has expanded dramatically since 1980, however, due in large part to statutory revisions and technological developments. In 1999, Congress amended the Act to provide for mandatory and discretionary electronic filing;  8 as a result, all political committees that have or reasonably expect to have contributions or expenditures exceeding $50,000 in a calendar year must electronically file their reports directly with the Commission, and other persons may do so if they choose. 9 Further, Congress amended the Act to require the Commission to make all reports filed electronically with the Commission publicly available on the internet within 24 hours of receipt and within 48 hours of receipt for reports not filed electronically. 10

Congress also amended the Act in 2002 to require the Commission to maintain a central website “to make accessible to the public all publicly available election-related reports and information” required to be filed under the Act. 11 The posted reports and related information can be searched, sorted, and downloaded. 12

The Commission proposes to amend § 104.3(f) by eliminating the requirement that principal campaign committees file FEC Form 3-Z. Although FEC Form 3-Z served a useful purpose when it was introduced more than 40 years ago, the information that it provides essentially duplicates information that is now filed directly with the Commission and readily available to the public in a searchable, sortable, and downloadable format. Accordingly, FEC Form 3-Z appears to have been rendered obsolete.

The Commission does not intend or anticipate that its proposal, if adopted, would have a detrimental effect on disclosure. Indeed, only candidates with more than one authorized committee must file FEC Form 3-Z, and the number of candidates with more than one authorized committee who are not also mandatory electronic filers is vanishingly small: Of the nearly 4,000 registered authorized committees that have filed in the 2023-2024 election cycle, not one would trigger the FEC Form 3-Z requirement without also triggering the electronic filing requirement. 13

The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. In particular, would the elimination of FEC Form 3-Z negatively affect disclosure of information about the financial activities of principal campaign committees and their authorized committees? In what manner and for what purpose does the public currently obtain information from FEC Form 3-Z or otherwise use FEC Form 3-Z?

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Federal Election Commission proposes to amend 11 CFR part 104 as follows:

Under the Commission's Administrative Fines Program (“AFP”), 1 the Commission may utilize a streamlined process to assess civil monetary penalties for certain violations of the reporting requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (“FECA”). Currently, the Commission assesses civil penalties through the AFP when a political committee fails to file timely reports as required by 52 U.S.C. 30104(a) (requiring political committee treasurers to report receipts and disbursements within certain time periods).

In 2013, Congress authorized the Commission to expand the scope of the AFP to encompass violations for reports filed under 52 U.S.C. 30104(c) (certain independent expenditures), 52 U.S.C. 30104(e) (certain Federal election activity reports), 52 U.S.C. 30104(f) (notices of electioneering communications), 52 U.S.C. 30104(g) (24- and 48-hour reports of independent expenditures), 52 U.S.C. 30104(i) (bundled contribution reports), and 52 U.S.C. 30105 (certain convention reports). 2

On March 30, 2015, the Commission published a Notice of Availability seeking public comment on a Petition for Rulemaking (the “Petition”) that asked the Commission to expand the scope of the AFP to encompass the additional categories of reporting violations included in the 2013 statutory expansion. 3 The Commission received two substantive comments. One comment agreed with the Petition that the proposed changes “would advance the goals of statutory compliance, enforcement and sound legal administration.” The other comment asked the Commission to be “lenient on small organizations” in administering the AFP. 4

After reviewing these comments and engaging in additional deliberation, the Commission is now proposing the changes described in this document. The Commission seeks comments on these proposals.

Since its implementation, the AFP's streamlined process has aimed to efficiently address applicable reporting violations based on a pre-existing penalty formula, providing transparency to affected persons while conserving Commission resources.

In 2000, the Commission set out the penalty formulas for most violations using four factors to calculate fines: (1) the election sensitivity of the report, (2) whether the report is considered late or not filed, (3) the level of activity (or estimated level of activity) on the report, and (4) the committee's number of prior violations. These factors are incorporated into penalty tables at 11 CFR 111.43.

The Commission uses a different formula to calculate civil penalties when principal campaign committees fail to timely file 48-hour notices of contributions. Unlike other regularly scheduled reports, these notices are required within 48 hours of the date an authorized committee receives a contribution of $1,000 or more received after the 20th day, but more than 48 hours before, any election. 5 The Commission explained that “because of the unique nature and timing of [the 48-hour notice] reporting requirement . . . failure to file these 48-hour notices in a timely manner is tantamount to failing to file them at all. Thus, the proposed schedule of penalties [for 48-hour notices of contributions] does not make a distinction between late filers and non-filers for the violations [of 52 U.S.C. 30104(a)(6)].”  6

Accordingly, under 11 CFR 111.44, the calculation of fines for committees that fail to file timely 48-hour notices is $178 (base amount)  7 for each untimely notice plus 10% of the amount in violation (dollar amount of the contributions not timely reported). The fine increases by 25% for each time a prior fine was assessed under the AFP during the current and previous two-year election cycles.

The Commission intends to expand the AFP so that its procedures can be extended to additional reporting violations. To maintain the AFP's efficiency and further conserve resources, the Commission intends to limit the expansion to violations that can be quickly and objectively identified and do not involve complex legal issues or factual determinations.

Therefore, the Commission is proposing to expand the AFP to include violations resulting from the failure of persons to file, or to timely file, three types of filings: (1) 24-hour reports of independent expenditures, (2) 48-hour reports of independent expenditures, and (3) 24-hour notices of electioneering communications.

24-hour reports of independent expenditures are required when a “person” makes or contracts to make independent expenditures aggregating $1,000 or more after the 20th date, but more than 24 hours, before the date of an election. 8

48-hour reports of independent expenditures are required when a “person” makes or contracts to make independent expenditures aggregating $10,000 or more at any time up to and including the 20th date before the date of an election. 9

24-hour notices of electioneering communications are required when a “person” makes a disbursement for the direct costs of producing and airing electioneering communications in an aggregate amount in excess of $10,000 during any calendar year. 10

The AFP currently applies only to violations committed by political committees. However, by authorizing the Commission to expand the scope of the AFP to cover reports of independent expenditures and notices of electioneering communications, Congress granted the Commission the authority to cover all “persons” required to file such reports and notices. The term “person” includes an individual, partnership, committee, association, corporation, labor organization, and any other organization, or group of persons. 11 Thus, the proposed rules would broaden the AFP's scope beyond violations committed by political committees.

Currently, violations committed by any person resulting from their failure to file, or to timely file, reports of independent expenditures and notices of electioneering communications are adjudicated through the Commission's traditional enforcement process. The proposed rules would allow the Commission to shift the adjudication of applicable reporting violations from its traditional enforcement process to the AFP. This shift would provide filers with a more efficient and predictable resolution while allowing the Commission to ensure consistent enforcement of similar violations.

Current paragraph (d) of § 111.35 provides a list of circumstances that are not considered valid defenses for untimely filing because they are not considered reasonably unforeseen and beyond the control of the respondent. Paragraph (d)(5) provides that a respondent's failure to know the filing dates is not reasonably unforeseeable. The Commission proposes to amend paragraph (d)(5) to include failure to know “reporting periods, deadlines, and reporting instructions” as circumstances that would not serve as valid defenses. The Commission is proposing this change because such circumstances are similarly foreseeable and as within the control of the respondent as “filing dates” in current paragraph (d)(5). The Commission requests comments on the proposed change.

Currently, § 111.44 applies only to violations of 48-hour notices of contributions, which is unclear from the title of this section. Because the Commission proposes to expand the AFP to cover untimely filed 48-hour independent expenditure reports, the Commission proposes to amend the heading to § 111.44 by changing “notices” to “notices of contributions.” This section would continue to apply penalties to untimely filed or non-filed notices of contributions, while new § 111.45, discussed below, would impose new penalties for untimely filed or non-filed 48-hour independent expenditure reports.

The Commission proposes replacing currently reserved § 111.45 with new regulations that would implement administrative fines for untimely filings of 24- and 48-hour reports of independent expenditures and 24-hour notices of electioneering communications.

Paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) propose formulas for calculating civil penalties for violations in timely filing the 24-hour reports of independent expenditures, 48-hour reports of independent expenditures, and 24-hour notices of electioneering communications, respectively, with each paragraph proposing two alternative formulas for calculating penalties for that type of violation. The Commission is not limiting its consideration of formulas to the two alternatives proposed for each of these paragraphs and ultimately may adopt other formulas. Proposed paragraph (d) would add 25% to each civil penalty calculated for each prior violation, where “prior violation” would mean a civil penalty assessed against the respondent under the AFP in the current two-year election cycle or the previous two-year election cycle. This would mirror the provision currently in use for 48-hour notices of contributions under § 111.44(a)(2).

The proposed penalty calculation formulas for violations in timely filing reports of independent expenditures and notices of electioneering communications are similar to the penalty calculation formula for 48-hour notices of contributions violations by principal campaign committees under the current AFP. Because the 48-hour notice reporting requirement must be met within 48 hours of the predicate event (the receipt of a covered contribution), the penalty formulas for 48-hour notices of contributions under the current AFP do not distinguish between late or non-filing or between election-sensitive and non-election sensitive reports, unlike formulas for other types of reporting violations covered under 11 CFR 111.43. Similarly, because 24- and 48-hour reports of independent expenditures and 24-hour notices of electioneering communications requirements must be met within 24 or 48 hours of the predicate event (contracting for or making payment for a covered independent expenditure or distribution of a covered electioneering communication), the proposed penalty formulas for these filings also would not distinguish between late or non-filing or between election-sensitive and non-election sensitive reports.

A. Civil Penalty Formulas for violations in timely filing 24- and 48-hour reports of independent expenditures.

As discussed above, the formula for determining civil penalties for failing to timely file 48-hour notices of contributions received by principal campaign committees is $178 (“base amount”) + (10% × AIV). Proposed Alternatives A under paragraphs (a) and (b) would use the same formula for failing to timely file 24- and 48-hour reports of independent expenditures. Using the same formula that the Commission has applied to similar reporting violations for over 20 years would be consistent with prior Commission administrative fines practice and promote fairness in the application of the law. It would also be easy to administer, minimizing the burden on Commission staff. Are there any reasons that the Commission should not use this formula to calculate civil penalties for violations in timely filing 24- and 48-hour reports of independent expenditures? Are the reports included in the proposed expansion commensurate in amount and election sensitivity?

Proposed Alternative B under paragraphs (a) and (b) would use the same base amount—$178—but lower multipliers. The formula for 24-hour reports of independent expenditures in paragraph (a) would be $178 + (7.5% × AIV), and the formula for 48-hour reports of independent expenditures in paragraph (b) would be $178 + (5% × AIV).

Alternative B formulas would result in fines similar to those the Commission has approved for these types of violations through its traditional enforcement process. Thus, the formulas under Alternative B would also be consistent with prior Commission practice and promote fairness in the application of the law. Specifically, during the last two two-year election cycles, the Commission approved civil penalties for untimely filed 24-hour reports of independent expenditures at approximately 7.61% of AIV. For 48-hour reports of independent expenditures over the same period, the Commission approved penalties at approximately 6.31% of AIV. The proposed civil penalties under Alternative B would apply this recent historical data as the measure of an appropriate penalty amount. Is this percentage approximation appropriate or should the Commission consider using different percentages as approximation? Should the Commission consider data from a longer time period or other additional data in calculating the average penalty amounts used to determine an appropriate penalty formula?

The Commission notes that Alternative B would use a higher multiplier for untimely filed 24-hour reports of independent expenditures than for 48-hour reports of independent expenditures, which would result in higher penalties being assessed for 24-hour reports than 48-hour reports. In the Commission's view, this would be appropriate because 24-hour reports of independent expenditures are due closer to the date of the election and therefore failure to timely file those reports has a more significant electoral impact. This would be consistent with the final civil penalties the Commission has historically approved through its enforcement of similar violations. Should the Commission instead use the same multiplier for both 24- and 48-hour reports of independent expenditures and, if so, why?

Of the two proposed alternative formulas, which one would be most appropriate to determine civil penalties for violations of timely filing these reports of independent expenditures, and why? Should the Commission consider any other formulas? Does the inherently time-sensitive nature of independent expenditure reports warrant a higher penalty formula than the Commission has historically applied in AFP matters?

B. Civil Penalty Formulas for violations in timely filing 24-hour notices of electioneering communications.

Each alternative in proposed paragraph (c) of § 111.45 would provide a formula for calculating civil penalties for violations for failure to timely file 24-hour notices of electioneering communications. The Commission proposes the same two alternative formulas for 24-hour notices of electioneering communications as for 24-hour reports of independent expenditures.

As with both 24- and 48-hour reports of independent expenditures, and for the same reasons, the Commission proposes in Alternative A: $178 + (10% × AIV) to align with the current formula used in 11 CFR 111.44.

Proposed Alternative B for 24-hour notices of electioneering communications is the same as the proposed Alternative B for 24-hour reports of independent expenditures, discussed above: ($178 + (7.5% × AIV)). 12 In the Commission's view, this is appropriate because both reports are due within 24-hours of the predicate event and relatively close to the election date, which makes them similarly election sensitive.

Should the Commission instead apply a different formula for 24-hour notices of electioneering communications than 24-hour reports of independent expenditures? For instance, does the fact that 24-hour notices of electioneering communications and 24-hour reports of independent expenditures have slight differences in time period and more significant differences in amount threshold justify applying a different penalty formula and, if so, what would the appropriate formula be? The Commission notes that the requirement to file 24-hour notices of electioneering communications is triggered on the disclosure date of an electioneering communication, which, by definition, would fall within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election, when the person making the electioneering communication has spent or contracted to spend more than $10,000 within the calendar year on the communication. In contrast, the requirement to file a 24-hour report of independent expenditures is triggered when the person making the independent expenditure has publicly distributed/disseminated or contracted to make an independent expenditure that costs $1,000 or more after the 20th day, but more than 24 hours before an election. Are these differences sufficient to justify using a different formula and, if so, what would be the appropriate formula?

For proposed formulas under Alternative B in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), the Commission would set the multiplier based on the actual civil penalty amounts that the Commission negotiated with respondents for violations of timely filing 24- and 48-hour reports of independent expenditures via the traditional enforcement from July 1, 2020 through December 31, 2023. Would this provide an appropriate base for comparison? If not, how many years' data should the Commission use?

C. Proposed increase in civil penalty for each previous violation.

Proposed paragraph (d) of § 111.45(d) would apply to penalties calculated under paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), and would include a 25% increase in civil penalty for each previous violation, in parity with current 11 CFR 111.44.

The penalty formula for untimely 48-hour notices of contributions under 11 CFR 111.44 adds 25% to each civil penalty for each prior violation. Under § 111.44, “prior violation” means “a final civil money penalty that has been assessed against the respondent under” the same section of the rule “in the current two-year election cycle or the prior two-year election cycle.”  13 The Commission is proposing to include this same requirement in proposed § 111.45(d) regarding the civil penalties for violations in timely filing the reports covered by this proposed expansion. The Commission seeks comments on this proposal.

D. Calculating civil penalties for each report vs. calculating civil penalties for multiple reports as one violation.

In addition to using formulas to calculate civil penalties for violations in proposed 11 CFR 111.45(a), (b), and (c), the Commission is considering whether to treat each report the respondent has failed to timely file as a separate violation, or whether all reports that the respondent has failed to timely file within a certain time period should be treated as a single violation.

For example, under Alternative A (10% multiplier), if Person A makes independent expenditures of $1,000 eighteen days before the election, and $3,000 fifteen days before the election, triggering the 24-hour reporting requirement for each independent expenditure but filing no reports, should the penalties be calculated for each report that was required to be filed: $178 + $178 + (.10 × $4,000) =$756? Or should the Commission instead treat this as one violation: $178 + (.10 × $4,000) = $578?

Treating multiple reports the respondent has failed to timely file as a single violation would be easier to administer, but it may unfairly treat such filers the same as those who failed to timely file one report. For example, it would treat Filer A, who made two independent expenditures in the 18 days before an election, the same as Filer B, who made one independent expenditure 12 days before the election. If the Commission were to take the single violation approach, should it adjust the formula to account for the more significant violation of Filer A vis-à-vis Filer B?

E. Other considerations

Finally, should the Commission consider different enhancements or reductions in the civil penalty formula? For example, should the Commission consider whether the person failing to timely file is a political committee, a small organization, or an individual?

To accommodate the expansion, the Commission is proposing to make a technical and conforming amendment in 11 CFR 111.30, 111.31, 111.32, 111.37, and 111.40 by adding cites to paragraphs (f) and (g) of 52 U.S.C. 30104, as appropriate, to each instance of the cite covering the reports currently included in the Administrative Fines Program.

Under the proposed expansion of AFP, 24- and 48-hour reports of independent expenditures and 24-hour notices of electioneering communications must be filed by any “person” who meets the filing requirements as discussed in section II of this document.

To accommodate the proposed expansion of the AFP from reporting violations committed only by political committees to violations committed by persons filing the reports included in the proposed expansion, the Commission proposes in 11 CFR 111.30 to replace the phrase, “political committees and their treasurers” with “any person.” Additionally, the Commission proposes to replace the word “committee” with “respondent” in 11 CFR 111.35(b)(2) and throughout paragraph (d) of that section.

Current § 111.46 requires that if a respondent has not filed a designation of counsel, all notifications and other communications to a respondent as part of the AFP will be sent to the committee at the address on file with the Commission from the committee's most recent Statement of Organization, or amendment thereto, filed with the Commission in accordance with 11 CFR 102.2.

The Commission proposes to make conforming edits to the second sentence of § 111.46 to state that all notifications and communications will be sent the respondent, and if the respondent is a political committee, communications will be sent to the political committee and its treasurer at the political committee's address as listed in the most recent Statement of Organization, or amendment thereto, filed with the Commission in accordance with 11 CFR 102.2.

The Commission proposes to make two further conforming amending in 11 CFR 111.30 and 111.37, addressed above that do not relate to the proposed AFP expansion.

In 11 CFR 111.30, the Commission proposes two changes to update the regulation by removing outdated information. First, the Commission proposes removing the beginning and statutory end date of the AFP in the first sentence. Further, the Commission proposes removing the last sentence announcing a gap in the applicability of the AFP for reports relating to reporting periods that ended between January 1, and January 21, 2014. 14 This information is now outdated, and the statute of limitations has expired on any violations for that time period.

In 11 CFR 111.37(a), the Commission proposes to add “determines” before “the amount of the civil money penalty” to conform the language of this provision with the language used in § 111.40(a). Each of these sections require a Commission determination as to the amount of the civil penalty before further Commission action, albeit under differing circumstances.

The Commission certifies that the attached proposed rules would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The proposed rules do not create any new recordkeeping, reporting, or financial obligations. Any small entities that would be subject to the proposed rules are already liable for civil penalties if they violate the applicable reporting requirements. These violations are currently adjudicated through the traditional enforcement process. The proposed rules will allow the Commission to shift the adjudication of applicable reporting violations from its traditional enforcement process to the more efficient AFP.

The proposed rules would result in published penalty schedules for the applicable reporting violations, providing clarity and certainty to respondents navigating the compliance process. The AFP's streamlined process and clear penalty schedules make it less likely that a small entity would need to hire additional staff or retain professional services to address and remedy reporting violations.

Moreover, the penalty formulas that the Commission is considering will take into account the amount of the disbursements or expenditures that were not timely reported. Thus, civil penalties will be scaled so that respondents who spend less on disbursements for electioneering communications or independent expenditures will be subject to lower fines.

Therefore, the attached proposed rules, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

For reasons set out in the preamble, the Federal Election Commission proposes to amend 11 CFR part 111 as follows:

Section 2222 of EGRPRA  1 requires that not less frequently than once every 10 years, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC)  2 and the agencies  3 conduct a review of their regulations to identify outdated or otherwise unnecessary regulatory requirements imposed on insured depository institutions. In conducting this review, the FFIEC or the agencies will (a) categorize their regulations by type and (b) at regular intervals, provide notice and solicit public comment on categories of regulations, requesting commenters to identify areas of regulations that are outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome. 4

EGRPRA also requires the FFIEC or the agencies to publish in the Federal Register a summary of the comments received, identifying significant issues raised and commenting on those issues. It also directs the agencies to eliminate unnecessary regulations, as appropriate. Finally, the statute requires the FFIEC to submit to Congress a report that summarizes any significant issues raised in the public comments and the relative merits of those issues. The report also must include an analysis of whether the agencies are able to address the regulatory burdens associated with such issues or whether those burdens must be addressed by legislative action.

The EGRPRA regulatory review provides an opportunity for the public and the agencies to evaluate groups of related regulations and to identify opportunities for burden reduction. 5 For example, the EGRPRA review may facilitate the identification of statutes and regulations that share similar goals or complementary methods where one or more agencies could eliminate the overlapping regulatory requirements. Alternatively, commenters may identify regulations or statutes that impose requirements that are no longer consistent with current business practices and may warrant revision or elimination.

The EGRPRA review also provides the agencies and the public with an opportunity to consider how to reduce the impact on community banks or their holding companies. The agencies are aware of the role that these institutions play in providing consumers and businesses across the nation with essential financial services and access to credit. The agencies are especially concerned about the impact of requirements on these smaller institutions. The agencies understand that when a new regulation is issued or a current regulation amended, smaller institutions may have to devote a significant amount of their resources to determine if and how the regulation will affect them. Through the public comment process, the EGRPRA review can help the agencies identify and target regulatory changes to reduce impacts on those smaller institutions.

Burden reduction must be compatible with consumer protection and the safety and soundness of insured depository institutions, their affiliates, and the financial system as a whole. Burden reduction also must be consistent with the agencies' statutory mandates, many of which require the issuance of regulations. EGRPRA recognizes that effective burden reduction may require statutory changes. Accordingly, as part of this review, we specifically ask the public to comment on the relationship among burden reduction, regulatory requirements, policy objectives, and statutory mandates. We also seek quantitative data about the impact of rules.

We note that the agencies must consider regulatory burden each time an agency proposes, adopts, or amends a rule. For example, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995  6 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 7 the agencies assess each rulemaking with respect to the burdens the rule might impose. The agencies also invite the public to comment on proposed rules as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. 8

Taken together for purposes of the EGRPRA review process, the agencies' regulations covering insured depository institutions encompass more than 100 subjects. 9 Consistent with the EGRPRA statute and past practice, the agencies have grouped these regulations into the following 12 categories listed in alphabetical order: Applications and Reporting; Banking Operations; Capital; Community Reinvestment Act; Consumer Protection;  10 Directors, Officers, and Employees; International Operations; Money Laundering; Powers and Activities; Rules of Procedure; Safety and Soundness; and Securities. These categories were used during the prior EGRPRA reviews. The agencies determined the categories by sorting the regulations by type and sought to have no category be too large or broad. These categories remain useful, and the agencies have not modified the categories for purposes of this review.

To carry out the EGRPRA review, the agencies plan to publish four Federal Register documents with each addressing one or more categories of rules. Each Federal Register document will have a 90-day comment period. On February 6, 2024, the agencies published the first document addressing the following categories of regulations: Applications and Reporting; Powers and Activities; and International Operations. 11 This second document addresses Consumer Protection; Directors, Officers, and Employees; and Money Laundering. The agencies invite the public to identify outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulatory requirements imposed on insured depository institutions and their holding companies in these three categories.

To assist the public's understanding of how the agencies have organized the EGRPRA review, the agencies have prepared a chart that lists the categories of regulations for which we are requesting comments. The chart's left column divides the categories into specific subject-matter areas. The headings at the top of the chart identify the types of institutions affected by the regulations.

The agencies will review the comments received and determine whether further action is appropriate with respect to the regulations. The agencies will consult and coordinate with each other and expect generally to make this determination jointly, as appropriate, in the case of rules that have been issued on an interagency basis. Similarly, as appropriate, the agencies will undertake any rulemaking to amend or repeal those rules on an interagency basis. For rules issued by a single agency, the issuing agency will review the comments received and independently determine whether amendments to or repeal of its rules are appropriate.

Further, as part of the EGRPRA review, the agencies are holding a series of public outreach meetings to provide an opportunity for bankers, consumer and community groups, and other interested parties to present their views directly to senior management and staff of the agencies. More information about the outreach meetings can be found on the agencies' EGRPRA website, http://egrpra.ffiec.gov.

The agencies are requesting comment on regulations in the Consumer Protection; Directors, Officers, and Employees; and Money Laundering categories to identify outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome requirements imposed on insured depository institutions and their holding companies. The agencies recognize that there are proposed rules concerning some of these categories open as of the date of this document and will solicit comment on all rules finalized by the agencies before the publication of the last EGRPRA document in the series. In addition to comments on regulations in these categories generally, the agencies are requesting comments on certain specific regulations described below within these categories issued since the last EGRPRA review. Where possible, the agencies ask commenters to cite to specific regulatory language or provisions. The agencies also welcome suggested alternative provisions or language in support of a comment, where appropriate. The agencies will consider comments submitted anonymously.

The agencies specifically invite comment on the following issues as they pertain to the agencies' Consumer Protection; Directors, Officers, and Employees; and Money Laundering rules addressed in this document. The agencies have included two additional questions in the cumulative effects category since the issuance of the first EGRPRA Federal Register document. We will ask these same questions for each subsequent document we issue in connection with the EGRPRA process and invite comments on these additional questions for the categories in the first document.

• Need and purpose of the regulations.

○ Question 1: Have there been changes in the financial services industry, consumer behavior, or other circumstances that cause any regulations in these categories to be outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome? If so, please identify the regulations, provide any available quantitative analyses or data, and indicate how the regulations should be amended.

○ Question 2: Do any of these regulations impose burdens not required by their underlying statutes? If so, please identify the regulations and indicate how they should be amended.

• Overarching approaches/flexibilities.

○ Question 3: With respect to the regulations in these categories, could an agency use a different regulatory approach to lessen the burden imposed by the regulations and achieve statutory intent?

○ Question 4: Do any of these rules impose unnecessarily inflexible requirements? If so, please identify the regulations and indicate how they should be amended.

• Cumulative effects.

○ Question 5: Looking at the regulations in a category as a whole, are there any requirements that are redundant, inconsistent, or overlapping in such a way that taken together, impose an unnecessary burden that could potentially be addressed? If so, please identify those regulations, provide any available quantitative analyses or data, and indicate how the regulations should be amended.

○ Question 6: Have the agencies issued similar regulations in the same area that should be considered together as bodies of regulation, when assessing the cumulative effects on an insured depository institution or holding company? If so, please identify the regulations, why they should be considered together, and any available analyses or data for the agencies' consideration.

○ Question 7: Could any regulations or category of regulation be streamlined or simplified to reduce unduly burdensome or duplicative regulatory requirements?

• Effect on competition.

○ Question 8: Do any of the regulations in these categories create competitive disadvantages for one part of the financial services industry compared to another or for one type of insured depository institution compared to another? If so, please identify the regulations and indicate how they should be amended.

• Reporting, recordkeeping, and disclosure requirements.

○ Question 9: Do any of the regulations in these categories impose outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements on insured depository institutions or their holding companies?

○ Question 10: Could an insured depository institution or its holding company fulfill any of these requirements through new technologies (if they are not already permitted to do so) and experience a burden reduction? If so, please identify the regulations and indicate how they should be amended.

• Unique characteristics of a type of institution.

○ Question 11: Do any of the regulations in these categories impose requirements that are unwarranted by the unique characteristics of a particular type of insured depository institution or holding company? If so, please identify the regulations and indicate how they should be amended.

• Clarity.

○ Question 12: Are the regulations in these categories clear and easy to understand?

○ Question 13: Are there specific regulations for which clarification is needed? If so, please identify the regulations and indicate how they should be amended.

• Impact to community banks and other small, insured depository institutions.

○ Question 14: Are there regulations in these categories that impose outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome requirements on a substantial number of community banks, their holding companies, or other small, insured depository institutions or holding companies?

○ Question 15: Have the agencies issued regulations pursuant to a common statute that, as applied by the agencies, create redundancies or impose inconsistent requirements?

○ Question 16: Should any of these regulations issued pursuant to a common statute be amended or repealed to minimize this impact? If so, please identify the regulations and indicate how they should be amended.

○ Question 17: Have the effects of any regulations in these categories changed over time that now have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small, insured depository institutions or holding companies? If so, please identify the regulations and indicate how they should be amended. The agencies seek information on (1) the continued need for the rule; (2) the complexity of the rule; (3) the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with other Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with State and local governmental rules; and (4) the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule.

• Scope of rules.

○ Question 18: Is the scope of each rule in these categories consistent with the intent of the underlying statute(s)?

○ Questions 19: Could the agencies amend the scope of a rule to clarify its applicability or reduce the burden, while remaining faithful to statutory intent? If so, please identify the regulations and indicate how they should be amended.

• Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards: The OCC, Board, FDIC, Farm Credit Administration, and NCUA amended their regulations regarding loans in areas having special flood hazards to implement the private flood insurance provisions of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (Biggert-Waters Act). 12 Specifically, the final rule requires regulated lending institutions to accept flood insurance policies that meet the statutory definition of “private flood insurance” in the Biggert-Waters Act and permits regulated lending institutions to exercise their discretion to accept flood insurance policies issued by private insurers and plans providing flood coverage issued by mutual aid societies that do not meet the statutory definition of “private flood insurance,” subject to certain restrictions.

• Thresholds Increase for the Major Assets Prohibition of the Depository Institution Management Interlocks Act Rules: The OCC, Board, and FDIC amended their regulations to increase the thresholds in the major assets prohibition for management interlocks for purposes of the Depository Institution Management Interlocks Act (DIMIA). The DIMIA major assets prohibition prohibits a management official of a depository organization with assets above a certain asset threshold (or any affiliate of such an organization) from serving at the same time as a management official of an unaffiliated depository organization with assets above a certain asset threshold (or any affiliate of such an organization). The final rule increased both major assets prohibition thresholds to $10 billion to account for changes in the United States banking market since the current thresholds were established in 1996. 13

• Integration of National Bank and Savings Association Regulations: The OCC integrated certain rules originally issued by the OCC with respect to national banks and by the former Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) with respect to savings associations. 14 The OCC integrated rules relating to consumer protection in insurance sales, management interlocks, appraisals, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). This rulemaking also made technical amendments to the OCC's FCRA rule to conform to provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act.

• Charging Interest by National Banks at Rates Permitted Competing Institutions; Charging Interest to Corporate Borrowers: The OCC issued a rule to clarify and reaffirm that a bank may transfer a loan without affecting the permissible interest term. 15

• Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs). In March 2022, the OCC issued a rule to allow the OCC to issue exemptions from the requirements of the OCC's SAR regulations based on a request from an institution, subject to certain criteria. 16

• FDIC Official Signs and Advertising Requirements, False Advertising, Misrepresentation of Insured Status, and Misuse of the FDIC's Name or Logo: The FDIC amended its regulations governing use of the official FDIC sign and insured depository institutions' advertising statements to reflect how depositors conduct business with insured depository institutions today, including through digital and mobile channels. 17 The final rule also clarified the FDIC's regulations regarding misrepresentations of deposit insurance coverage by addressing specific scenarios where consumers may be misled as to whether they are conducting business with an insured depository institution and whether their funds are protected by Federal deposit insurance.

• False Advertising, Misrepresentation of Insured Status, and Misuse of the FDIC's Name or Logo: The FDIC adopted a final rule to implement section 18(a)(4) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act). 18 The final rule established the process by which the FDIC will identify and investigate conduct that may violate section 18(a)(4) of the FDI Act, the standards under which such conduct will be evaluated, and the procedures that the FDIC will follow when formally and informally enforcing the provisions of section 18(a)(4) of the FDI Act.

• Simplification of Deposit Insurance Rules: The FDIC amended its regulations governing deposit insurance coverage. 19 The amendments simplified the deposit insurance regulations by establishing a “trust accounts” category that governs coverage of deposits of both revocable trusts and irrevocable trusts using a common calculation, and the amendments provided consistent deposit insurance treatment for all mortgage servicing account balances held to satisfy principal and interest obligations to a lender.

• Joint Ownership Deposit Accounts: The FDIC amended its deposit insurance regulations to update one of the requirements that must be satisfied for an account to be separately insured as a joint account. 20 Specifically, the final rule provides an alternative method to satisfy the signature card requirement. Under the final rule, the signature card requirement may be satisfied by information contained in the deposit account records of the insured depository institution establishing co-ownership of the deposit account, such as evidence that the institution has issued a mechanism for accessing the account to each co-owner or evidence of usage of the deposit account by each co-owner.

• Federal Interest Rate Authority: FDIC issued regulations clarifying the law that governs the interest rates State-chartered banks and insured branches of foreign banks (collectively, State banks) may charge. 21 These regulations provided that State banks are authorized to charge interest at the rate permitted by the State in which the State bank is located, or one percent in excess of the 90-day commercial paper rate, whichever is greater. The regulations also provided that whether interest on a loan is permissible under section 27 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act is determined at the time the loan is made, and interest on a loan permissible under section 27 is not affected by a change in State law, a change in the relevant commercial paper rate, or the sale, assignment, or other transfer of the loan.

Consistent with past practice, the agencies will use the EGRPRA review to satisfy their respective obligations under section 610 of the RFA. 22 To that end, for each rule that has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities issued in the last 10 years, the agencies invite comment on (1) the continued need for the rule; (2) the complexity of the rule; (3) the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with other Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with State and local governmental rules; and (4) the length of time since the rule has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule. The purpose of the review will be to determine whether such rules should be continued without change, amended, or rescinded, consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, to minimize any significant economic impact of the rules upon a substantial number of such small entities.

The agencies have not identified any rules pertaining to Consumer Protection; Directors, Officers, and Employees; and Money Laundering that would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The agencies will consider public comments submitted through the EGRPRA review process and agency experience to identify regulations where the agencies can reduce burdens that have a significant impact on a substantial number of small insured depository institutions. 23

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2024-2008; Project Identifier AD-2024-00122-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

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 regulations.gov , including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

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 Joseph Hodgin, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3962; email: joseph.j.hodgin@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA has received a report from Boeing that during manufacture of four drag brace lower lock link assemblies for the MLG, a fluorescent penetrant inspection was not performed. The subsequent investigation determined that the quality escape was caused by human error and has been isolated to a single technician. Undetected cracks could lead to fracture of the drag brace lower lock link assembly. This condition, if not addressed, could lead to MLG collapse, which could result in loss of directional control while the airplane is on the ground, with the potential for off-runway excursion or penetration of the wing box fuel tank.

The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB320048-00 RB, Issue 001, dated November 20, 2023. This material specifies procedures for doing a check of maintenance records or an inspection of the drag brace lower lock link assembly on the right and left MLG for affected serial numbers and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include replacing any affected drag brace lower lock link assembly on the MLG with a serviceable drag brace lower lock link assembly. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the material already described, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Referenced Material,” and except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. This proposed AD would also prohibit the installation of affected parts. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this material at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-2008.

The effectivity of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB320048-00 RB, Issue 001, dated November 20, 2023, is limited to Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 airplanes, line numbers 6 through 1168 inclusive. However, the applicability of this proposed AD includes all The Boeing Company Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 airplanes. Because the affected drag brace lower lock link assemblies are rotable parts, the FAA has determined that these parts could later be installed on airplanes that were initially delivered with acceptable drag brace lower lock link assemblies, thereby subjecting those airplanes to the unsafe condition.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 156 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacement that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

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.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of 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 amends restricted area airspace at Chambersburg, PA, to enhance aviation safety and accommodate essential U.S. Army activities.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

Privacy: 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 www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address, phone number, and hours of operation). An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

The U.S. Army submitted a proposal to the FAA to amend the time of designation for existing restricted area R-5801 to include Saturdays from 0800-1600 local time, and to revoke restricted area R-5803 at U.S. Army, Letterkenny Army Depot (LEAD), Chambersburg, PA. Restricted areas R-5801 and R-5803 are currently used for the open detonation of obsolete ammunition and explosives for the U.S. Army. Restricted area R-5803 is defined as a circular area with a 5,500-foot radius centered at lat. 40°02′29″ N, long. 77°44′19″ W from the surface to 4,000 feet mean sea level (MSL). Restricted area R-5803 has a time of designation from 0800 to 1600 local time, Monday-Friday.

This proposal would consolidate open detonations to R-5801 and return restricted area R-5803 to the NAS which would improve scheduling, activation, and utilization efficiency of restricted area R-5801 while reducing the overall restricted airspace near the Chambersburg, PA area.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 73 to amend restricted area R-5801 and revoke restricted area R-5803 at U.S. Army, Letterkenny Army Depot (LEAD), Chambersburg, PA. The proposed changes are described below.

R-5801: R-5801 time of designation is currently 0800 to 1600 local time, Monday through Friday. The FAA proposes to extend the time of designation to 0800 to 1600 local time, Monday through Saturday. This change would provide additional required time for the U.S. Army to execute open detonation of obsolete ammunition and explosives. This amendment does not propose to alter the boundaries or altitudes associated with R-5801.

R-5803: R-5803 serves as a secondary site for detonation of munitions and has been determined that it is no longer needed to meet the U.S. Army's weapons and munition disposal requirements. R-5803 would be revoked and the airspace would be returned to the NAS.

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

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

On April 2, 2024, Skanska Traylor Portal North Bridge (PNB) Joint Venture notified the Coast Guard that it is requesting three 14-day windows of waterway closures on the Hackensack River to install three new bridge spans at the PNB. The purpose of the requested 14-day windows is to deliver a 400-foot-long bridge span on a transportation barge that is 80 feet wide. The bridge span will be set on temporary shoring north of the existing bridge and a 100-foot-wide crane barge will then lift the bridge span from the temporary shoring using anchor lines and tugboats. The crane barge will move into the new bridge alignment position using anchor lines and tugboats, jack the new bridge span, set onto the temporary supports, and slide the bridge into the final location. Once the bridge is set, the crane barge, support barges, and anchor lines will be removed out of the channel to prepare for the subsequent bridge span erection. This procedure will occur three times.

An additional fourth 14-day window is being considered to accommodate potential weather issues or schedule delays because of unforeseen circumstances. After setting the first bridge span, each 14-day window will be re-evaluated and may be narrowed so that marine traffic may be able to resume before the 14-day window is over.

The Captain of the Port New York (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the bridge construction would be a safety concern for anyone within the construction area and adjacent navigable waters.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the PNB construction activities between the New Jersey Turnpike/I-95 Fixed Bridge (River Mile 5.3) and 150 feet south of the existing Portal Bridge (River Mile 5.0) on the Hackensack River. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034.

The COTP is proposing to establish a safety zone from November 15, 2024, through December 31, 2025. The safety zone would only be enforced during periods when heavy lift operations at the new bridge are in progress.

The anticipated dates for the first three 14-day windows of full channel closures are from 12:01 a.m. on November 15, 2024, through 11:59 p.m. on November 28, 2024; from 12:01 a.m. on December 10, 2024, through 11:59 p.m. on December 23, 2024; and from 12:01 a.m. on January 13, 2025, through 11:59 p.m. on January 27, 2025. Additionally, the fourth schedule from 12:01 a.m. on February 2, 2025, through 11:59 p.m. on February 15, 2025, is being considered. All these dates are tentative and subject to change due to weather, supply chain delays, or other unforeseen circumstances.

The Coast Guard is proposing this rule remain effective through December 31, 2025, in case the project is delayed due to unforeseen circumstances. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters of the Hackensack River between the New Jersey Turnpike/I-95 Fixed Bridge (River Mile 5.3) and 150 feet south of the existing Portal Bridge (River Mile 5.0). The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of personnel, vessels, and these navigable waters during the bridge construction.

No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

We developed this proposed 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 NPRM 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, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time of year of the safety zone. The bridge owner and contractor are coordinating the full waterway closures with the upstream Bergen County Utilities Authority who may transport treated sewage sludge via tug and barge or overland trucks. The safety zone is only in effect on the navigable waters of the Hackensack River between the New Jersey Turnpike/I-95 Fixed Bridge (River Mile 5.3) and 150 feet south of the existing Portal Bridge (River Mile 5.0). The Coast Guard will notify the public of the enforcement of this rule through appropriate means, which may include, but are not limited to, publication in the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16.

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 proposed rule would 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 IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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 proposed rule. If the proposed 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 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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 proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the potential effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this proposed 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 made a preliminary determination 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 proposed rule involves a safety zone from the New Jersey Turnpike/I-95 Fixed Bridge (River Mile 5.3) and 150 feet south of the existing Portal Bridge (River Mile 5.0) on the Hackensack River. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60 (a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision-Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2024-0404 in the search box and click “Search.” Next, look for this document in the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate instructions.

Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as described in the previous paragraph, and then select “Supporting & Related Material” in the Document Type column. Public comments will also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page. Also, if you click on the Dockets tab and then the proposed rule, you should see a “Subscribe” option for email alerts. The option will notify you when comments are posted, or a final rule is published.

We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.

Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to the EPA.

Virtual public hearing: The EPA is holding a virtual public hearing to provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning the proposal. The virtual public hearing will be on September 3, 2024 at 1:00 p.m. Central Time (CT) and will conclude at 5:00 p.m. CT or 15 minutes after the last pre-registered presenter in attendance has presented if there are no additional presenters.

The EPA will begin pre-registering speakers and attendees for the hearing upon publication of this document in the Federal Register . To pre-register to attend or speak at the virtual public hearing, please use the online registration form available at https://www.epa.gov/ne/state-nebraska or contact us via email at wolkins.jed@epa.gov. The last day to preregister to speak at the hearing will be August 26, 2024. The EPA will post a general agenda for the hearing that will list pre-registered speakers in approximate order at https://www.epa.gov/ne/state-nebraska. Additionally, requests to speak will be taken on the day of the hearing as time allows.

The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the hearing to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule. Each commenter will have approximately 3 to 5 minutes to provide oral testimony. The EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a written copy of their oral testimony electronically by emailing it to wolkins.jed@epa.gov. The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting information presented at the virtual public hearing. A transcript of the virtual public hearing, as well as written copies of oral presentations submitted to the EPA, will be included in the docket for this action.

The EPA is asking all hearing attendees to pre-register, even those who do not intend to speak. The EPA will send information on how to join the public hearing to pre-registered attendees and speakers. Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will be posted online at https://www.epa.gov/ne/state-nebraska. While the EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set forth above, please monitor our website or contact us via email at wolkins.jed@epa.gov to determine if there are any updates. The EPA does not intend to publish a document in the Federal Register announcing updates.

If you require the services of a translator or a special accommodation such as audio description/closed captioning, please pre-register for the hearing and describe your needs by August 8, 2024. The EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without advance notice.

The CAA's visibility protection program was created in the 1977 CAA Amendments. In CAA section 169A, Congress declared a national goal to remedy any existing and prevent any future visibility impairment in certain national parks, such as Badlands in South Dakota and Rocky Mountain in Colorado, and national wilderness areas, such as the Wichita Mountains Wilderness in Oklahoma. Vistas in these areas (referred to as Class I areas) are often obscured by visibility impairment such as regional haze, which is caused by emissions from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area.

In response to a Congressional directive to provide regulations to the states, the EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in 1999. These regulations, which are commonly referred to as the Regional Haze Rule, established an iterative process for achieving Congress's national goal by providing for multiple, approximately 10-year “planning periods” in which state air agencies must submit to the EPA plans that address sources of visibility-impairing pollution in their states. The first state plans were due in 2007 for the planning period that ended in 2018. The second state plans were due in 2021 for the period that ends in 2028. This proposal focuses on remaining obligations from the first planning period of the regional haze program.

The CAA and Regional Haze Rule require states to submit a long-term strategy (LTS) that includes such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal for each Class I area. A central element of the LTS for the first planning period state plans was the requirement for certain older stationary sources to install the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment within our nation's most treasured lands. The other central element of a state's LTS is the requirement to include any additional control measures that are necessary to make “reasonable progress” towards the national goal. To determine what control measures are necessary to make reasonable progress and therefore must be included in the LTS, the four statutory factors must be considered: (1) the costs of compliance, (2) the time necessary for compliance, (3) the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, and (4) the remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such requirements. This statutory requirement is often referred to as a “four-factor analysis.” Additionally, when visibility-impairing emissions from multiple states impact the same national park or wilderness area, the Regional Haze Rule requires those states to coordinate and consult with one another to ensure that each state is making reasonable progress toward the national goal.

Gerald Gentleman Station, located in western Nebraska, is one of the highest emitters of visibility-impairing pollutants, specifically SO 2 , in the nation. These emissions cause or contribute to visibility impairment in such iconic places as Wind Cave and Badlands National Parks in South Dakota and Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado. To address this visibility impairment, Nebraska submitted its first regional haze state implementation plan (SIP) on July 13, 2011. Nebraska included a BART determination for SO 2 emissions from the Gerald Gentleman Station. In July 2012, the EPA disapproved portions of the state's SIP, including the BART determination for Gerald Gentleman Station, finding significant flaws in several aspects of the state's analysis of potential emission control technologies. The EPA also disapproved the state's LTS for SO 2 at Gerald Gentleman Station to the extent that it relied on the flawed BART determination. The EPA promulgated a FIP in place of the elements of the SIP that it disapproved. The EPA determined that BART for Gerald Gentleman Station was satisfied by the facility's participation in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) national trading program. The EPA further found that the gap left in the state's LTS by the EPA's partial disapproval were also satisfied by the CSAPR.

The NPPD, who owns and operates the Gerald Gentlemen Station, and several environmental groups filed petitions for review of various aspects of the EPA's 2012 final action. The EPA sought and received a voluntary remand without vacatur to reconsider the portion of the final action relating to the LTS for SO 2 at the Gerald Gentleman Station. 1 After considering relevant facts, the EPA is proposing to amend its FIP.

Nebraska remains one of the few states in the nation that does not have a complete first planning period regional haze plan in place to protect the national parks and wilderness areas impacted by its sources. With this action, the EPA is proposing a new FIP that will satisfy the regional haze statutory and regulatory requirements for the first planning period.

Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad geographic area. These sources and activities emit fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) ( e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust) and its precursors ( e.g., SO 2, nitrogen oxides (NO X ), and, in some cases, ammonia (NH 3 ) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form PM 2.5 , which, in addition to direct sources of PM 2.5 , impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment ( i.e., light scattering) reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see.

In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, anthropogenic (manmade) impairment of visibility in 156 national parks and wilderness areas designated as mandatory Class I areas. 2 Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional haze issues, and the EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule, codified at 40 CFR 51.308, 3 on July 1, 1999. 4 The Regional Haze Rule established a requirement for all states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands to submit a regional haze SIP. 5 The primary purpose of the Regional Haze Rule is to outline the requirements for states to develop programs that assure reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution. 6

To address regional haze visibility impairment, the Regional Haze Rule established an iterative planning process that requires states to periodically submit SIP revisions (each periodic revision referred to as a “planning period”) to address regional haze visibility impairment at Class I areas. 7 Under the CAA, each SIP submission must contain “a long-term (ten to fifteen years) strategy for making reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal,” and the initial round of SIP submissions also had to address the statutory requirement that certain older, larger sources of visibility-impairing pollutants install and operate BART. 8 States' first regional haze SIPs were due by December 17, 2007, with subsequent SIP submissions containing revised long-term strategies originally due July 31, 2018, and every ten years thereafter. 9

The Regional Haze Rule establishes the deciview (dv) as the principal metric for measuring visibility. 10 This visibility metric expresses uniform changes in the degree of haze in terms of common increments across the entire range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions. Visibility is also sometimes expressed in terms of the visual range or light extinction. Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can just be distinguished against the sky. Light extinction, expressed in units of inverse megameters (Mm −1 ), is the amount of light lost as it travels over distance. The haze index, in units of dv, is calculated directly from the total light extinction. The dv is a useful measure for tracking progress in improving visibility because each dv change is approximately an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility of one dv. 11

The dv is used in expressing Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) (which are interim visibility goals towards meeting the national visibility goal), defining baseline, current, and natural conditions and tracking changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain measures that ensure “reasonable progress” toward the national goal of preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused by manmade air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that cause regional haze.

To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states with Class I areas, must calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically review progress every five years midway through each 10-year implementation period. To do this, the Regional Haze Rule requirements for the first planning period  12 provide that states must determine the degree of impairment (in dv) for the average of the 20 percent least impaired (“best”) and 20 percent most impaired (“worst”) visibility days over a specified time period at each of their Class I areas. In addition, states must also develop an estimate of natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based on those estimates. The EPA provided guidance to states regarding how to calculate baseline, natural, and current visibility conditions in the first planning period. 13

For the regional haze SIPs for the first planning period, “baseline visibility conditions” were the starting points for assessing “current” visibility impairment. Baseline visibility conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20 percent least impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days for each calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through 2004, states are required to calculate the average degree of visibility impairment for each Class I area on the 20 percent least and most impaired days, based on the average of annual values over the five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the amount of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the future comparison of baseline conditions to the then current conditions will indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the 2000-2004 baseline period is considered the starting point from which improvement in visibility is measured in the first planning period.

The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze SIPs, including a LTS, from the states that have emissions expected to impact visibility in any Class I area. Additionally, states with Class I areas must establish two reasonable progress goals (RPGs) ( i.e., one for the “best” and one for the “worst” days) for each Class I area within the state for each (approximately) 10-year planning period. 14 The Regional Haze Rule does not mandate specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead calls for states to establish goals that provide for “reasonable progress” toward achieving natural visibility conditions. In establishing RPGs, states must provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days over the (approximately) 10-year period of the SIP and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same period. 15

Further, CAA section 169A(b)(2)(B) requires all states to include in their regional haze SIP a long-term (10-to-15-year) strategy for making reasonable progress towards the national goal. Consistent with this statutory obligation, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) requires all states (both downwind and upwind) to “submit a long-term strategy that addresses regional haze visibility impairment for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the state and each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the state which may be affected by emissions from the state.”  16 A state's LTS is therefore inextricably linked to the RPGs  17 because it “must include enforceable emission limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the RPGs established by states having mandatory Class I Federal areas. 18

In establishing its LTS, a state must meet a number of requirements. First, as a corollary to § 51.308(d)(1)(iv), when a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in another state, the Regional Haze Rule requires the downwind state to coordinate with the upwind states in order to develop coordinated emissions management strategies. 19 The purpose of the consultation requirement is to ensure that the upwind states adopt control measures sufficient to address their apportionment of emission reductions necessary to achieve reasonable progress and that the downwind state's RPGs properly account for the visibility improvement that will result from the reasonable control measures identified and included in the upwind state's LTS.

Second, where multiple states contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area, each state “must demonstrate that it has included in its implementation plan all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet the progress goal for the area.”  20 This requirement addresses situations where an upwind state agrees to achieve certain emission reductions during the consultation process, and downwind states rely upon those reductions when setting their RPGs, but the upwind state ultimately fails to include sufficient control measures in its LTS to ensure that the emission reductions will be achieved. In such a situation, the upwind state's LTS would not meet the statutory or regulatory requirements.

Finally, each state “must document the technical basis, including modeling, monitoring and emissions information on which the state is relying to determine its apportionment of emission reduction obligations necessary for achieving reasonable progress in each mandatory Class I area it affects.”  21 Section 169(A)(g)(1) of the CAA requires states to determine “reasonable progress” by considering the four statutory factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. 22 Therefore, this provision requires states to consider downwind Class I areas when they develop the technical basis underlying their four-factor analysis to determine which control measures are necessary to make reasonable progress, and thus need to be a part of their LTS. The regulations further provide that, “States may meet this requirement by relying on technical analyses developed by the regional planning organization and approved by all State participants.”  23 Thus, states have the option of meeting this requirement by relying on four-factor analyses and associated technical documentation prepared by a regional planning organization on behalf of its member states, 24 to the extent that such analyses and documentation were conducted. In situations where a regional planning organization's analyses are limited, incomplete or do not adequately assess the four factors, however, then states must fill in any remaining gaps to meet this requirement. States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary, minor, mobile, and area sources. 25 At a minimum, states must describe how each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account in developing their LTS: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to address “reasonably attributable visibility impairment” (RAVI); (2) measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3) emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including plans as currently exist within the state for these purposes; (6) enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; (7) the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the LTS. 26

The Regional Haze Rule requires that a state, or the EPA if promulgating a FIP, consult with FLMs before adopting and submitting a required SIP or SIP revision or a required FIP or FIP revision. Under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2), a state, or the EPA if promulgating a FIP, must provide an opportunity for consultation no less than 60 days prior to holding any public hearing or other public comment opportunity on a SIP or SIP revision, or FIP or FIP revision, for regional haze. The EPA must include a description of how it addressed comments provided by the FLMs when considering a FIP or FIP revision.

On July 6, 2012, the EPA took final action on Nebraska's Regional Haze SIP for the first planning period. 27 In that final action, the EPA partially approved and partially disapproved the state's SIP. The EPA disapproved the state's SO 2 BART determinations for Gerald Gentleman Station Units 1 and 2 and the state's LTS, which had relied on the state's flawed BART determinations. 28 The reasons for the EPA's disapproval are outlined in both the proposed rule and the final rule. 29 In the same action, the EPA also promulgated a FIP to address the deficiencies in Nebraska's Regional Haze Plan. For those deficiencies associated with the state's SO 2 control decisions for Gerald Gentleman Station Units 1 and 2, the EPA relied on the CSAPR to meet both the BART requirement and the LTS requirement to make reasonable progress. 30 Specifically, the EPA relied on its finding in a separate national rulemaking that CSAPR provides for greater reasonable progress on average across all affected Class I areas than source-specific BART in those states covered by the CSAPR (the “Better than BART Rule”). 31 In that separate national rulemaking, the EPA revised the Regional Haze Rule to provide that states could choose to rely on the CSAPR as an alternative to BART. Consistent with this regulatory provision, the EPA relied on the CSAPR as an alternative to BART for SO 2 emissions from the Gerald Gentleman Station. In addition, the EPA concluded in the FIP that reliance on the CSAPR would remedy the deficiency in Nebraska's LTS for SO 2 at the Gerald Gentlemen Station.

Sierra Club, the NPCA, the State of Nebraska, and NPPD filed petitions for review challenging EPA's final action in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. 32 In response to arguments raised by the Sierra Club and NPCA during briefing on the petitions, the EPA moved for a voluntary remand without vacatur of the LTS portion of the FIP for Nebraska as it related to SO 2 emissions from the Gerald Gentleman Station. 33 The EPA explained in its motion that the Agency's rationale for declining to require additional SO 2 controls at the Gerald Gentleman Station as part of the LTS in its FIP was not fully or clearly explained. The EPA also stated that the explanation in the record could potentially be construed in a manner that was inconsistent with the EPA's interpretation of the relevant statutory requirements. As a result, the EPA determined that a remand was appropriate to afford the Agency an opportunity to amend or further explain its rationale for declining to require additional SO 2 controls beyond the CSAPR in the LTS, more fully respond to comments submitted by the public, or to take further action if necessary. The Court granted the remand on March 19, 2015. On January 19, 2017, the EPA Region 7 Administrator signed a proposed FIP that would have addressed the remanded portion of the Nebraska FIP for the first planning period. However, subsequent to the Administration change, the Office of Management and Budget published a memorandum requesting that any action that had been sent to the Federal Register , but had not yet published, be immediately withdrawn for review and approval by the new administration. 34 After being withdrawn, no action was taken on the FIP. Therefore, the EPA now is proposing a similar, updated action to address the remanded portion of the Nebraska FIP for the first planning period.

To address the voluntary remand, we are proposing to revise our FIP so that the LTS adequately addresses SO 2 emissions from Gerald Gentlemen Station. Specifically, the EPA is proposing an SO 2 emission limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average basis for the Gerald Gentleman Station Unit 1 and Unit 2 to ensure that multiple Class I areas impacted by the Station's emissions can make reasonable progress toward Congress's natural-visibility goal. The EPA is also taking comment on the control options and limits analyzed in this action.

The EPA has the authority to revisit its prior FIP actions on remand. As previously stated, the EPA moved for a partial voluntary remand of the FIP without admitting error. The Eighth Circuit granted the motion and remanded the action to the EPA on Marth 19, 2015. Thus, the EPA has an obligation to complete its action on remand.

On remand, the EPA is taking this action pursuant to CAA sections 110(c)(1), 110(k)(3), and 169A(b)(2). CAA section 169A(b)(2) requires states to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal. Additionally, CAA section 110(k)(3) authorizes the EPA to approve, disapprove, or partially approve and partially disapprove a SIP or SIP revision, and CAA section 110(c)(1) authorizes the EPA to promulgate a FIP where “the Administrator . . . disapproves a state implementation plan submission in whole or in part.” The EPA's authority to take such actions under the CAA necessarily provides it the inherent authority to revisit and amend such actions as necessary. See Trujillo v. Gen Elec. Co., 621 F.2d 1084, 1086 (10th Cir. 1980). It is well established that agencies have inherent authority to revisit past decisions and to revise, replace, or repeal a decision to the extent permitted by law and supported by a reasoned explanation. FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009); Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983); see also Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211, 221-22 (2016). Further, the Eighth Circuit granted the EPA's request for a voluntary remand, and this action responds to that remand.

In this action, the EPA is proposing to act on the remanded portion of our FIP as it relates to LTS requirements for SO 2 for the Gerald Gentleman Station. Specifically, the EPA is supplementing the record with a four-factor analysis for SO 2 at Gerald Gentleman Station. As a result of this analysis, the EPA is proposing a new FIP with a 0.06 lb/MMBtu emissions limit for SO 2 as a part of Nebraska's LTS. In EPA's final 2012 action, the EPA relied on the implementation of the previously adopted CSAPR FIP for all Nebraska Electric Generating Units (EGUs) to satisfy the LTS requirements of the Regional Haze Rule for SO 2 , including for the Gerald Gentleman Station. At the time of the final action, the EPA did not further evaluate whether, with respect to the Gerald Gentleman Station, the CSAPR was an appropriate and sufficient measure needed in its LTS for making reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions at the Class I areas it impacts; that is, the Badlands, Wind Cave, and Rocky Mountain National Parks. The environmental petitioners pointed out this deficiency in their challenge of EPA's final action. The EPA agreed, and thus requested and was granted a remand.

For the first planning period, Nebraska participated in the Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP) and incorporated the CENRAP-developed visibility modeling into their regional haze SIP. The SIP relied on the CENRAP modeling, which assumed SO 2 controls at a rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu at Gerald Gentleman Station. 35 As explained in our 2012 final action on the Nebraska regional haze SIP, source-specific CALPUFF modeling shows a significant visibility impact from Gerald Gentleman Station on South Dakota's Class I areas, Wind Cave and Badlands National Parks. 36 The Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment also commented on Nebraska's regional haze SIP, requesting that the state reconsider the question of whether the Gerald Gentleman Station should install SO 2 controls, given Gerald Gentleman Station's CALPUFF modeled impacts on Rocky Mountain National Park. 37 38 Nebraska consulted with both South Dakota and Colorado during the first planning period. Based on their BART determination, Nebraska did not require source-specific BART controls at Gerald Gentleman Station as part of their LTS in their regional haze SIP. As explained in our partial disapproval of the state's regional haze SIP, Nebraska did not include an adequate justification explaining why controls at the Gerald Gentleman Station were not included as part of the LTS, nor did Nebraska provide an adequate explanation or documentation of why their conclusions otherwise satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii) to “determine its apportionment of emission reduction obligations necessary for achieving reasonable progress.”

In addition to the CALPUFF modeling used in its BART determination, Nebraska also used CENRAP CAMx photochemical source apportionment modeling to identify the pollutants ( e.g., sulfates, nitrates) and source categories ( e.g., elevated point EGUs) that most impact visibility at Class I areas located in surrounding states. A summary of the annual emissions used for Nebraska elevated point sources and Gerald Gentleman Station in the 2002 base year and 2018 future year CENRAP modeling is shown in table 1 of the Analysis and Modeling Technical Support Document (Analysis and Modeling TSD) for this action.

The EPA reviewed both the 2018 CENRAP CAM x source apportionment modeling used by Nebraska and the Western Resources Air Partnership (WRAP) 2018 CAM x source apportionment used by South Dakota and Colorado to establish RPGs at their respective Class I areas. In setting their RPGs, both South Dakota and Colorado used the WRAP 2018 PRP18b modeling platform, which assumed an SO 2 control rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu at Gerald Gentleman, which is similar to the 2018 CENRAP modeling. The modeled combined emissions at Gerald Gentleman Station Units 1 and 2 showed SO 2 emissions decreasing from 32,152 ton per year (tpy) in 2002 to 8,732 tpy in 2018 (with controls to achieve the 0.15 lb/MMBtu SO 2 emission limit assumed to be in operation in 2018). 39 This reduction of the CAM x modeled SO 2 emissions at Gerald Gentleman Station helps lower the projected SO 2 -caused light extinction at Badlands National Park contributed by Nebraska elevated point sources from 0.98 Mm −1 in 2002 to 0.47 Mm −1 in 2018. The decrease in the SO 2 extinction at Badlands National Park from Nebraska elevated point sources is due to the decrease in modeled emissions from 2002 to 2018, and in particular the decrease in modeled SO 2 emissions at Gerald Gentleman Station due to the assumption of the achievement of a 0.15 lb/MMBtu emission rate in 2018. The EPA therefore finds that the CAMx modeling performed by both CENRAP and WRAP shows that emissions from Gerald Gentleman Station contribute to visibility impairment at the Badlands Class I area in South Dakota.

In 2012, the EPA evaluated Nebraska's SIP and determined it did not appropriately address the LTS requirements of the Regional Haze Rule related to Gerald Gentleman Station. Although there were modeled visibility impacts and improvements from the installation of cost-effective controls at Gerald Gentleman Station at Class I areas, Nebraska did not require any reduction in SO 2 emissions from Gerald Gentleman Station. The EPA partially disapproved Nebraska's LTS based on the state's reliance on the deficient SO 2 control determination for Gerald Gentleman Station. The EPA also promulgated a FIP in which we relied on the CSAPR to address this deficiency in Nebraska's SIP, but the EPA did not conduct a four factor analysis to evaluate whether additional controls beyond the CSAPR at Gerald Gentleman Station were required to ensure the SIP included all measures necessary to obtain Nebraska's share of the emission reductions needed to make reasonable progress towards the national goal at the Class I areas its emissions impact. Therefore, in order to provide a more thorough rationale on its LTS determination, the EPA requested and was granted a remand in order to provide a more robust explanation.

To properly evaluate whether the CSAPR was sufficient to satisfy Nebraska's obligation to address the visibility impacts of their emissions at the Class I areas it affects, the EPA has reviewed the record from the proposed and final actions. The EPA has found that the reductions expected (and now observed) from the implementation of the CSAPR do not equate to the reductions presumed by the CENRAP and WRAP modeling that were found to be achievable at a reasonable cost by both Nebraska and the EPA. We are therefore proposing to conclude that the CSAPR budgets for Nebraska are inadequate to ensure reasonable progress at neighboring Class I areas.

On August 22, 2023, we published a proposed rule (88 FR 57046) to list the toothless blindcat and the widemouth blindcat as endangered species under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). On October 12, 2023, we received a request to extend the proposed rule's public comment period; thus, on December 7, 2023, we published a document (88 FR 85177) reopening the proposed rule's public comment period for an additional 30 days.

Section 4(b)(6) of the Act and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.17(a) require that we take one of three actions within 1 year of publication of a proposed listing: (1) Finalize the proposed rule; (2) withdraw the proposed rule; or (3) extend the final determination by not more than 6 months, if there is substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the available data relevant to the determination.

Since the August 22, 2023, publication of the proposed rule, there has been ongoing disagreement regarding the interpretation and accuracy of the best available information pertaining to the status of toothless blindcat and widemouth blindcat populations, the species' respective life histories, application of surrogate species, potential extent and use of available habitat, and impact of groundwater well mortality on these species. The substantial nature of this disagreement on the current status of these species became evident during the recently reopened comment period (see 88 FR 85177; December 7, 2023), when differing interpretations of existing information on the two species' biology and habitat use, aquifer dynamics, and specifications and operation of groundwater wells in the City of San Antonio, Texas, were discussed by commenters. There is substantial disagreement regarding the application of mortality estimates applied to groundwater wells to assess fish mortality with alternative modeling approaches recommended. Information was also submitted related to flow dynamics of the Edwards Aquifer and the operational history and engineering specifications of some groundwater wells known to produce toothless blindcats and widemouth blindcats that would reduce probability of well entrainment and expulsion of fish, and thus reduce the probability of mortality of the species.

We find that there is substantial scientific disagreement about certain data relevant to our listing determinations. Therefore, in consideration of this disagreement, we have determined that a 6-month extension of the final determinations for this rulemaking is necessary. We are hereby extending the final determinations for 6 months in order to solicit additional information that will help us clarify these issues and to fully analyze any new data we receive that are relevant to our final listing determinations. With this 6-month extension, the final determinations on the proposed listings of the toothless blindcat and the widemouth blindcat must publish in the Federal Register no later than February 22, 2025.

With this document, we reopen the public comment period on the August 22, 2023, proposed rule (88 FR 57046) for an additional 30 days, as specified above in DATES .

For a description of previous Federal actions concerning the toothless blindcat and the widemouth blindcat and information on the types of comments that would be helpful to us in making final determinations on our proposal, please refer to the August 22, 2023, proposed rule (88 FR 57046 at 57046-57047).

We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our August 22, 2023, proposed rule to list the toothless blindcat and widemouth blindcat as endangered species under the Act (88 FR 57046). We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We intend that any final actions resulting from the proposal will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Our final determinations will take into consideration all comments and any additional information we receive during all comment periods on the proposed rule.

Due to the scientific disagreements described above, we are particularly interested in new information and evidence regarding:

(1) Data on the current status, trends, habitat preferences, and life history of toothless blindcat and widemouth blindcat populations.

(2) Modeled quantitative analyses of blindcat population responses to additive mortality in the form of groundwater well expulsion and in relation to aquifer dynamics, groundwater well density, distribution, and operational history, including length-frequency analyses of both species to inform understanding of population dynamics.

(3) Documented life histories of other subterranean catfishes that could better inform understanding of the toothless blindcat's and widemouth blindcat's biology, including population responses to additive mortality.

(4) Potential for the existence of reduced predatory pressure on the toothless blindcat, resulting in increased abundance for that species, as a result of reduced widemouth blindcat numbers. (The widemouth blindcat is hypothesized to be a potential predator that feeds on suitably sized toothless blindcat individuals).

(5) Information on fish behavioral avoidance of increased water velocities.

(6) For groundwater wells known to produce both blindcats across their ranges, installation and modification history from well establishment to present ( e.g., history of artesian versus pumped flow, changes in pump depth, water velocity, designated use(s) over time, and frequency of operation), vertical hydrogeologic conditions, prevalence of groundwater conduits in well capture zone, and related engineering and geological specifications.

(7) Information on current status ( i.e., active or inactive), designated use, drill depth, and associated information ( e.g., borehole diameters, yields, and vertical hydrogeologic conditions) of other groundwater wells within the immediate area analysis units and the potential area of occurrence, as defined in the species status assessment (Service 2023, pp. 66-67).

(8) Specific documentation for municipal groundwater wells regarding total dynamic head and 50 feet water draw depth, and potential lack of capacity for wells to draw past 50 feet depth.

(9) Genetic analyses of museum specimen tissues and additionally acquired tissue samples to ascertain the toothless blindcat's and widemouth blindcat's current and historical population size and structure, as well as potential for past genetic bottlenecks.

(10) Documentation of the continued presence of either species at known groundwater wells or discovery of the species at additional locations across the San Antonio segment of the Edwards Aquifer.

Because we will consider all comments and information we receive during all open comment periods, our final determinations may differ from our August 22, 2023, proposed rule (88 FR 57046). Based on the new information we receive (and, if relevant, any comments on that new information), we may conclude that one or both of the species is threatened instead of endangered, or we may conclude that one or both of the species does not warrant listing as either an endangered species or a threatened species. In our final rule, we will clearly explain our rationale and the basis for our final decisions, including why we made changes, if any, that differ from the August 22, 2023, proposal.

If you already submitted comments or information on the August 22, 2023, proposed rule during either of the previous two comment periods, please do not resubmit them. Any such comments are already incorporated as part of the public record of the rulemaking proceeding, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determinations. Our final determinations concerning the proposed listings will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive.

Comments should be as specific as possible. Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include. Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or opposition to, the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species must be made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.

You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES . We request that you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES . If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including your personal identifying information—will be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov. Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov at FWS-R2-ES-2023-0069.

The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Austin Ecological Services Field Office.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), is the authority for this action.